What is 'literature' and what SF qualifies?

[Astro Pen]

I think Ballard's early work is literature in anyone's book. His command of language and the "psychological geography" direction of his work was quite unique. Later he seemed to move out of SF in a 'Will Self' direction more sociological, but always with that "inner space" perspective, albeit less magical that the early works.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I consider much of Silverberg's work to be literary science fiction. In his case the situation is complicated by the masses of 'pulp fiction' he produced, both early and late in his career. But there was that perfect period in the late 60s and early 70s where he wrote about a dozen sublime novels.

 

[J-Sun]

For some reason this makes me think of the Edsger Dijkstra quote that goes something like, "The question of whether computers can think is just like the question of whether submarines can swim." There's some debate about what he meant specifically by this but, regardless, I'm put in mind of early attempts at human flight in which we tried to copy birds' flapping wings and whatnot and it failed. It was only when we stopped trying to mimic previous methods too literally and simply tried to use the best methods for what we wanted to accomplish that we succeeded in flying. All the way to the moon and beyond.

Perhaps most SF isn't "literature" in whatever sense people are using that word and perhaps it shouldn't be. It reads significantly. Most 'literary SF' strikes me the same way contraptions in that video do. And then there's efficient, proud, pure science fiction:

 

[Dave]

the situation is complicated by the masses of 'pulp fiction' he produced, both early and late in his career.

That's an interesting distinction made.

I'm personally still with the camp here that thinks "literature" is broadly anything that is a collection of written material, however, let's consider that the other camp that are correct in saying that there is also "Literature" with a capital "L" that is somehow more "worthy" than other literature. So, for an author to be worthy of inclusion into this club, you are saying that their whole body of work must be consistently "worthy"?

I'm thinking here of why the same doesn't apply to actors or directors. Take Michael Caine, for instance. He is acclaimed as one of our best actors, and knighted, and has appeared in hundreds of films. However, he has famously said that he treated acting as just a job and took almost any role offered, and while many of his roles are critically acclaimed and in iconic films, many of his performances are in films that are frankly unwatchable.

So, what would happen if it were discovered that before she was famous, Margaret Attwood had penned a series of racy, action-based stories published in cheaply printed magazines under a pseudonym?

 

[Swank]

So, what would happen if it were discovered that before she was famous, Margaret Attwood had penned a series of racy, action-based stories published in cheaply printed magazines under a pseudonym?

She still wouldn't be a celebrated actor like Michael Caine.

 

[Dave]

She still wouldn't be a celebrated actor like Michael Caine.

But she would still be a celebrated literary author because membership of that club is all about perceptions.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

That's an interesting distinction made.

I'm personally still with the camp here that thinks "literature" is broadly anything that is a collection of written material, however, let's consider that the other camp that are correct in saying that there is also "Literature" with a capital "L" that is somehow more "worthy" than other literature. So, for an author to be worthy of inclusion into this club, you are saying that their whole body of work must be consistently "worthy"?

I'm thinking here of why the same doesn't apply to actors or directors. Take Michael Caine, for instance. He is acclaimed as one of our best actors, and knighted, and has appeared in hundreds of films. However, he has famously said that he treated acting as just a job and took almost any role offered, and while many of his roles are critically acclaimed and in iconic films, many of his performances are in films that are frankly unwatchable.

So, what would happen if it were discovered that before she was famous, Margaret Attwood had penned a series of racy, action-based stories published in cheaply printed magazines under a pseudonym?

You're right! Silverberg is the Michael Caine of Science Fiction!

I think there are at least three definitions of literature that we are stumbling over here. In addition to the two that you describe (everything, and novels that are somehow more worthy) there is the idea that writing can be done in a literary style. This explains it better than I can:

What is Literary Fiction? | Annie Neugebauer

What is literary fiction? Three separate things: a style of writing, a genre of book, and a qualifier.

annieneugebauer.com

Also, I believe all the best writers have produced racy erotica under a pseudonym before, or even after, becoming famous. I've already got that stuff out of the way and am now focused on the fame part

 

[Astro Pen]

You're right! Silverberg is the Michael Caine of Science Fiction!

I think there are at least three definitions of literature that we are stumbling over here. In addition to the two that you describe (everything, and novels that are somehow more worthy) there is the idea that writing can be done in a literary style. This explains it better than I can:

What is Literary Fiction? | Annie Neugebauer

What is literary fiction? Three separate things: a style of writing, a genre of book, and a qualifier.

annieneugebauer.com

Also, I believe all the best writers have produced racy erotica under a pseudonym before, or even after, becoming famous. I've already got that stuff out of the way and am now focused on the fame part

I have only read one Silverberg, Those Who Watch. I thought it felt like 1950s potboiler. Unfortunately it put me off.
Oh and Hot Sky at Midnight which I dropped because, if I recall, it was one of those infuriating 'multiple start' stories.
What books of his should I have read?

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I have only read one Silverberg, Those Who Watch. I thought it felt like 1950s potboiler. Unfortunately it put me off.
Oh and Hot Sky at Midnight which I dropped because, if I recall, it was one of those infuriating 'multiple start' stories.
What books of his should I have read?

Try Dying Inside, Downward to the Earth, A Time of Changes

 

[The Big Peat]

I consider much of Silverberg's work to be literary science fiction. In his case the situation is complicated by the masses of 'pulp fiction' he produced, both early and late in his career. But there was that perfect period in the late 60s and early 70s where he wrote about a dozen sublime novels.

I'm personally still with the camp here that thinks "literature" is broadly anything that is a collection of written material, however, let's consider that the other camp that are correct in saying that there is also "Literature" with a capital "L" that is somehow more "worthy" than other literature. So, for an author to be worthy of inclusion into this club, you are saying that their whole body of work must be consistently "worthy"?

Beyond the difference between literary prose and genre prose, there is also a degree of difference between literature as a genre and all other genres in terms of philosophy - one which often contains a degree of snobbishness - and I think the idea that there is often problems with an author's placement in the literature genre for some of their works when others are solidly genre probably holds at least some truth.

That said, I don't think it's an insurmountable barrier either. Gloriana is referred to as literary fantasy on wiki despite Moorcock's long history as a genre writer.

Besides, surely pointing out cases where the shoe fits even if many would deny it is a perfect use of this thread!


edit: I think Philip K. Dick has probably written books that deserve to qualify.

 

[Swank]

"Literature" could also simply be viewed as another genre. It has a particular feel, uses prose in a particular way, has a point which feels important without hitting the reader over the head, etc.

One thing that kind of is missed about genres is that a great deal of what makes something qualify as SF or mystery or whatever is just the way it is written, not the context or events. I think this applies as much or more so to the question of Literature.

 

[Serendipity]

The reason why we have genres is for sales purposes - it allowed shops to lump similar types of novels together so the would-be buyers did not have to go through reams of books to one of the type they wanted. This is true science fiction, mystery, romance etc.
When it comes to literature we're talking about writing style that reflects the the theme or topic being written about.

 

[Swank]

The reason why we have genres is for sales purposes - it allowed shops to lump similar types of novels together so the would-be buyers did not have to go through reams of books to one of the type they wanted. This is true science fiction, mystery, romance etc.
When it comes to literature we're talking about writing style that reflects the the theme or topic being written about.

We have genres because readers like reading stuff of the same type. Same reason rock and country are in different sections of a record store.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This is to a large extent a Cultural Issue.

An Update on C. P. Snow's "Two Cultures"

A new column that examines the intersection between science and society provides an update on the historic essay

www.scientificamerican.com

I think of 1800 as a techno-cultural dividing line. What we usually call culture evolved largely without technology and the Laws of Physics do not care about humanity or culture. But we are stuck with having to figure out how to deal with the tech.

There is no question that some science fiction has higher quality writing than some other. I consider Lois McMaster Bujold's to be among the best but it is not the most scientifically interesting.

I admit to being biased since I don't really care about what is "literary" and tend to have a lower opinion of SF that ends up being called literary.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ursala K Le Guin's The Dispossessed is a story of economic dichotomies.

I compare it to Voyage from Yesteryear by James P Hogan.

I think Hogan knew more about economics and technology than Le Guin though she is the better writer. So the question is: "What do you want from what you call Science Fiction?"

 

[paranoid marvin]

Literature obviously can mean the written word, but the 'literature' section in a bookstore or library usually has in it books that are widely regarded as having 'artistic merit'. I don't think that would necessarily include genre defining books.

There's no doubting the 'worth' of some books, but I don't think that the enjoyability to read of a book necessarily comes into the equation. Which is why some critic's lists of the greatest movies of all time will include stuff I've not heard of, or will likely ever watch, but won't include some of cinema's blockbusters like (for example) Star Wars or Carpenter's The Thing. Citizen Kane is a good movie, but I'd much rather be watching Aliens.

 

[psikeyhackr]

On still another level there is the matter that I am not of European descent. What do I care about European culture?

 

[paranoid marvin]

It will be interesting to see in 100 years what modern books will be seen as 'classics'. Will Stephen King, Terry Pratchett, JK Rowling or GRR Martin, authors who have all sold millions of books get a look in? Will kids be studying 'The Colour of Magic' at school? I doubt it!

 

[BAYLOR]

It will be interesting to see in 100 years what modern books will be seen as 'classics'. Will Stephen King, Terry Pratchett, JK Rowling or GRR Martin, authors who have all sold millions of books get a look in? Will kids be studying 'The Colour of Magic' at school? I doubt it!

The Bus scene in Star Trek the Voyage Home, Spock is asking kIrk where he came up with the colorful us of language. and Kirk says to Spock from the the The Novels of Harod Robbin and the Collected world of Jacquline Suzanne. . And Spock's reply was " Ah, the Giants"

Yes , I know this is fiction but, it's something to ponder with regard to what the perception of literature might conceivably be like in the future.

 

[Rodders]

Is there a snob factor in literature?