What is 'literature' and what SF qualifies?

[psikeyhackr]

Is there a snob factor in literature?

The Literary Pseudo-intellectuals need to position themselves to look down their noses at the STEM people.

But how did literature make your smartphone possible?

 

[Dave]

The Bus scene in Star Trek the Voyage Home,

Is that an echo I hear?

 

[Swank]

Is there a snob factor in literature?

If there is, it is a pretty small number of people that can appreciate how high-brow you are.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What did the contemporary literary critics say about Charles Dickens?

Moby Dick was not well regarded originally.

And critics bad mouthed 2001: A Space Odyssey when it first came out.

 

[Dave]

I'll certainly agree that there is a "time" aspect to the appreciation of literature; that some ages better than others, and that over time, some is forgotten, while some is seen in a new and quite different light.

 

[hitmouse]

Is there a snob factor in literature?

Surely not!

If we exclude "literary fiction" which is a fairly specific genre, then we are left with fiction and non-fiction. All of it is literature. Some of it is good, some not good. I am going to have my own opinions, and I am going to enjoy reading and discussing it, but otherwise not going to get worried about it.

 

[Swank]

Surely not!

If we exclude "literary fiction" which is a fairly specific genre, then we are left with fiction and non-fiction. All of it is literature. Some of it is good, some not good. I am going to have my own opinions, and I am going to enjoy reading and discussing it, but otherwise not going to get worried about it.

Yeah, there is a real question as to why it matters. Are we worried there is snobbishness going on? Are we attempting to achieve Literature levels of style or quality? Or are we just poo-pooing it?

 

[Randy M.]

I have a feeling I'm rambling a bit, but what the heck ...

Is there a snob factor in literature?

Yup, if you mean the attitude of those groups who go about trying to define as Literature the fiction they value while disparaging what others value. I recall an article many years ago in which a poet (whose name escapes me, and who I hadn't heard of before the article) ranted about how money was being wasted on bad fiction like The Demolished Man rather than on "good" works. Still, there's also a snob factor in sf/f/h, as in,

The Literary Pseudo-intellectuals need to position themselves to look down their noses at the STEM people.

or,

Pessimist definition: When the primary object is navel gazing about the "human condition", that's Literature.

Sorry, Psikey and Swank, but ever since I became acquainted with fandom, there's been an obvious (sometimes in written tantrums equivalent to jumping up and down while shouting) look-down-your-nose attitude to non-science fiction, even though many sf/f/h readers read voraciously in other genres. (And believe me, I'm not saying that attitude is never earned. Bad "literary" fiction is as bad as any other kind of bad fiction because it's bad.)

The intent and execution thereof behind much of "literature" and much of sf/f/h probably doesn't qualify any of it as Literature -- which is constituted of works that continue to have resonance with generation after generation of readers. Up until late in the 20th century it was a rare genre writer recognized in her/his own lifetime as good and worth reading by a wider audience -- I'm thinking Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Elmore Leonard, Ray Bradbury, Ursula K. Le Guin, Samuel Delany, Stephen King (who is probably the ultimate example of fame in the writer's lifetime). Beyond them, I think is a finite list. For the rest, unfortunately, their work is often judged by critical views of genre writing as a whole. ("Critical" is not used to indicate professional critics, at least some of whom value good genre writing -- I'm thinking critics like John Leonard, Michael Dirda and even Harold Bloom, who had good things to say about Le Guin and John Crowley among others, regardless that he's famous in genre circles for his disdain for King.) That's not how we judge "literary" writers; no one measures the work of Hemingway or Joyce Carol Oates by the standards set by Nora Roberts, Danielle Steele or James Patterson ("Oh the collected works of Jacqueline Susann. The novels of Harold Robbins..." "Ah, the "Giants".)

At least some of the work of the s.f./f/h writers I mentioned above seem likely to earn or retain some degree of renown as literature -- I'd toss in Peter Straub, Ramsey Campbell, Tananarive Due and Joanna Russ as possible contenders for that status, as well. If they maintain their recent standard of achievement, Silvia Moreno-Garcia and Stephen Graham Jones might make it, too. Of one I feel pretty sure, and that's H. G. Wells, who has already attained that stature. His early adventure/satires from The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds through The Island of Dr. Moreau and The Invisible Man already appear to be indelible entries in our conception of Literature, their fame enhanced by attempts to film them, thus keeping the titles in public view.

 

[Vertigo]

I avoid thinking of 'Literature' as I somehow find that rather ambiguous as I see all written work as literature. I tend to think rather of 'Literary' books of which I have found some brilliant and some rather more tedious. As for what it is I'm sure everyone will have their own definition, rather like the enormous extended discussions we have had here on what constitutes Space Opera. For me It has to have several qualities: the writing/prose should be of a very high quality, there are a lot of great books out there whose prose, whilst very accessible and enjoyable to read, simply cannot be described as 'great.' It should do more than just tell a story; it should leave the reader thinking about the meaning of what they have read. Or even have had their own views on the subject matter swayed or even changed by it. There are a number of other things that for me might flag a literary work but not be essential components of such work. These might include clever literary devices, not for just the sake of them (I abhor books that leave out grammatical assists like quotation marks; the only thing they achieve is to make the book harder to read); such devices must achieve something, like Banks's incredibly clever use of first and second person in Complicity. Or hidden messages, again not essential, but things like allegory (such as Animal Farm) suggest to me literary cleverness at work. There are many other things which might similarly flag literary to me but I'm not going to try and list them all. Ultimately, for me, they are things which somehow lift a book up from being 'just' a story.

As for SF literary works/authors:

Maybe I blinked when reading this thread and missed them but the obvious ones that spring to my mind are Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984.

I consider much of Iain M Banks work to be literary as well as, rather more obviously, his Iain Banks stuff. It is interesting how the 'literary community' was always very willing to praise most of Iain Banks' 'mainstream' works whilst dismissing ALL of his SF work simply because it was SF.

I think some of Emily St John Mandel's work is at least close to literary.

Lavie Tidhar's Central Station and Michel Faber's The Book of Strange New Things both get acclaimed as literary - I thought both were terrible!

I'm sure there are others but those are one or two that spring to my mind.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I have a feeling I'm rambling a bit, but what the heck ...

Sorry, Psikey and Swank, but ever since I became acquainted with fandom, there's been an obvious (sometimes in written tantrums equivalent to jumping up and down while shouting) look-down-your-nose attitude to non-science fiction, even though many sf/f/h readers read voraciously in other genres. (And believe me, I'm not saying that attitude is never earned. Bad "literary" fiction is as bad as any other kind of bad fiction because it's bad.)

Did you check out C. P. Snow? This conflict is from before I started reading SF.

Leavis v Snow: the two-cultures bust-up 50 years on

A blistering row between the novelist CP Snow and the literary critic FR Leavis was big news in the 1960s. Stefan Collini revisits the Two Cultures controversy, and considers its lasting significance

www.theguardian.com

One problem is I have read one science fiction book that says it takes 240,000,000 years for the galaxy to rotate and something that is classified as science fiction that claimed it takes 26,000 years. Some stuff called science fiction is not worth the effort is takes to piss on regardless of whether or not it is "literary".

You know how we SF snobs are. LOL

How many of the people inclined to judge the literariness of literature would not be caught dead reading science fiction?

 

[Swank]

I have a feeling I'm rambling a bit, but what the heck ...

Yup, if you mean the attitude of those groups who go about trying to define as Literature the fiction they value while disparaging what others value. I recall an article many years ago in which a poet (whose name escapes me, and who I hadn't heard of before the article) ranted about how money was being wasted on bad fiction like The Demolished Man rather than on "good" works. Still, there's also a snob factor in sf/f/h, as in,

or,

Sorry, Psikey and Swank, but ever since I became acquainted with fandom, there's been an obvious (sometimes in written tantrums equivalent to jumping up and down while shouting) look-down-your-nose attitude to non-science fiction, even though many sf/f/h readers read voraciously in other genres. (And believe me, I'm not saying that attitude is never earned. Bad "literary" fiction is as bad as any other kind of bad fiction because it's bad.)

The intent and execution thereof behind much of "literature" and much of sf/f/h probably doesn't qualify any of it as Literature -- which is constituted of works that continue to have resonance with generation after generation of readers. Up until late in the 20th century it was a rare genre writer recognized in her/his own lifetime as good and worth reading by a wider audience -- I'm thinking Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Elmore Leonard, Ray Bradbury, Ursula K. Le Guin, Samuel Delany, Stephen King (who is probably the ultimate example of fame in the writer's lifetime). Beyond them, I think is a finite list. For the rest, unfortunately, their work is often judged by critical views of genre writing as a whole. ("Critical" is not used to indicate professional critics, at least some of whom value good genre writing -- I'm thinking critics like John Leonard, Michael Dirda and even Harold Bloom, who had good things to say about Le Guin and John Crowley among others, regardless that he's famous in genre circles for his disdain for King.) That's not how we judge "literary" writers; no one measures the work of Hemingway or Joyce Carol Oates by the standards set by Nora Roberts, Danielle Steele or James Patterson ("Oh the collected works of Jacqueline Susann. The novels of Harold Robbins..." "Ah, the "Giants".)

At least some of the work of the s.f./f/h writers I mentioned above seem likely to earn or retain some degree of renown as literature -- I'd toss in Peter Straub, Ramsey Campbell, Tananarive Due and Joanna Russ as possible contenders for that status, as well. If they maintain their recent standard of achievement, Silvia Moreno-Garcia and Stephen Graham Jones might make it, too. Of one I feel pretty sure, and that's H. G. Wells, who has already attained that stature. His early adventure/satires from The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds through The Island of Dr. Moreau and The Invisible Man already appear to be indelible entries in our conception of Literature, their fame enhanced by attempts to film them, thus keeping the titles in public view.

I wasn't speaking through the lens of "fandom". There are a lot of things to read that are neither Literature or necessarily genre, and my somewhat joking attempt to distill Literature down to its basest parts isn't so terribly off. Literature largely consists of works that have a timeless quality in that the truths they depict could resonate with a person of any era.

I think you're extending the definition somewhat into a catch-all of "great historical works". I don't know why Wells' story of an alien invasion would be considered Literature outside the fact that it is well done and a historical first. Same with Dashiell Hammett - whom I adore. These stories are structurally brilliant with a fresh new form of writing at the time, and are lauded for that, but they are still just detective of SF stories with only a little bit to say about life in general.

So we can call that kind of stuff Literature, but then we would end up calling any sort of newly original writing "Literature" if it had a lasting impact and its been long enough. Meanwhile, other writing that everyone would agree qualifies as Literature is being freshly minted by contemporary authors without the requirement that they be wildly original or having made any track record.

And maybe both ways of casting literature are legit, it just doesn't feel like dumping everything that might be considered "the good stuff" into the Literature basket is accurate - especially since certain types of writing, like humor, are unlikely to ever qualify. The 1925 Carry On, Jeeves is a classic, but it is unlikely to ever be called Literature because it is humor, and I think banner SF like Diamond Age, Player of Games, Blindsight or Miocene Arrow will ultimately fail to be classed this way either. They are simply too good at being SF to have the sort of universality and therefore "seriousness" that is required of things classed "Literature". (I'll leave it to others if Dune or Neuromancer have actually gotten into the blood enough to qualify, despite having no applicable commentary like Hand Maid's Tale.)

 

[Swank]

I consider much of Iain M Banks work to be literary as well as, rather more obviously, his Iain Banks stuff. It is interesting how the 'literary community' was always very willing to praise most of Iain Banks' 'mainstream' works whilst dismissing ALL of his SF work simply because it was SF.

I wonder if it is because "Literature" is the great writing of the ordinary, whilst SF and other genre work is by its nature extraordinary? Banks creates really exotic SF, but also turns a very original lens on contemporary life. I think it nearly impossible to do both at the same time - one disqualifies the other.

 

[hitmouse]

I wonder if it is because "Literature" is the great writing of the ordinary, whilst SF and other genre work is by its nature extraordinary? Banks creates really exotic SF, but also turns a very original lens on contemporary life. I think it nearly impossible to do both at the same time - one disqualifies the other.

It is a neat idea but I don’t think it stands up to any scrutiny at all. The ordinary and the extraordinary are not exclusive by any means in good writing.

Lots of mainstream “Literature” is full of the extraordinary. Off the top of my head:
Borges
Marques
Kafka
Shakespeare
Salman Rushdie
JG Ballard
Cormac McCarthy
Mervyn Peake
Michel Houellebecq
Haruki Murakami
Catch 22
Confederation of Dunces
James Ellroy

Etc

 

[Swank]

It is a neat idea but I don’t think it stands up to any scrutiny at all. The ordinary and the extraordinary are not exclusive by any means in good writing.

Lots of mainstream “Literature” is full of the extraordinary. Off the top of my head:
Borges
Marques
Kafka
Shakespeare
Salman Rushdie
JG Ballard
Cormac McCarthy
Mervyn Peake
Michel Houellebecq
Haruki Murakami
Catch 22
Confederation of Dunces
James Ellroy

Etc

You are entirely correct. And certainly some of Banks weird stuff, like Walking On Glass, might qualify.

I was trying to get at the notion that if your world is so exotic that it no longer resembles ours, it becomes hard to make an experience that commentary about life can be drawn from. And there is probably still something to that, even with the likes of Kafka or Borges. But not something I could extract as a rule.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I'm not sure this is about the books themselves as about the attitude to the books. It's all very well saying this Sf classic or that Sf classic is literature, but if more people in better positions in swankier locations say not, then they ain't. 'Twas ever thus. We Sf types say different of course...

 

[Swank]

I'm not sure this is about the books themselves as about the attitude to the books. It's all very well saying this Sf classic or that Sf classic is literature, but if more people in better positions in swankier locations say not, then they ain't. 'Twas ever thus. We Sf types say different of course...

Sure. But one swankier guy has a completely different opinion from another swankier guy.

But they both like Updike.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Agreed, but unfortunately the "SF is not literature" types have everything sewn up. :/

 

[Swank]

Agreed, but unfortunately the "SF is not literature" types have everything sewn up. :/

We'll always have Gravity's Rainbow...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

It's always been about snobbery and exclusion in Britain and people who live in London. SF can be literature, but too many people can't understand that because of the social milieu they live in.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And there I was thinking that all writing is "literature" but that the title is usually reserved for those works of writing that stand the test of time.