What is 'literature' and what SF qualifies?

[Le Panda du Mal]

Literature is stuff that's written down. That's it. Some of it is great, a lot of it is terrible, and that's irrespective of genre.

 

[Randy M.]

Like so many words, "literature" does a lot of work. Per the O.E.D.

1. Familiarity with letters or books; knowledge acquired from reading or studying books, esp. the principal classical texts associated with humane learning ...; literary culture; learning, scholarship. Also: this as a branch of study. Now historical.

2. The action or process of writing a book or literary work; literary ability or output; the activity or profession of an author or scholar; the realm of letters or books.

3.
a. The result or product of literary activity; written works considered collectively; a body of literary works produced in a particular country or period, or of a particular genre. Also: such a body of works as a subject of study or examination (frequently with modifying word specifying the language, period, etc., of literature studied).
b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.

4. (A body of) non-fictional books and writings published on a particular subject.

5. Printed matter of any kind; esp. leaflets, brochures, etc., used to advertise products or provide information and advice.

 

[AllanR]

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

I tried. Couldn't get past the bananas.

 

[Extollager]

For discussion -- Does someone need any qualifications, for having a worthwhile opinion on the topic of literature, beyond the ability to read?

 

[Randy M.]

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 tend to think that if you're at this site discussing sf/f/h, you're a fan. I am, though I read outside the genre and haven't been to a convention in about 40 years.

(Huh. 40 years ago I wouldn't have thought I'd be saying I'd done something 40 years ago. Brrrr ...)

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.

We consider many novels "Literature". The novel as a form is only maybe ~400 years old (assuming that Don Quixote stands pretty much as the first such, at least in Western literature). The short story in its contemporary form is even newer, not really showing up until the early to mid-19th century. Plays as a form are much older and poetry just as old or older than plays. I'm really not sure how much time factors into something being generally considered Literature, since we can come up with examples of things that were greatly valued for a time then dismissed by later generations, and examples of works dismissed on publication and later resurrected and lauded.

Tangentially: Wells and Hammett have works assigned in grade schools and colleges, which to me suggests they are generally considered as Literature by those who study literature (or at least want to get youngsters reading). Wells has something to say about both science and religious faith and makes strong arguments in both The War of the Worlds and The Island of Dr. Moreau. Hammett's Red Harvest is brutal in its simple evocation of how to pit power against power and the results thereof. Even better, at least for me, is how Hammett wrote a great adventure story in The Maltese Falcon and then, in the last chapter, in a brief exchange between Spade and Effie, masterfully shifted the reader's perspective of what had come before to make the adventure/mystery into a core novel of the 1920s.

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.

Even as harsh a 20th century critic as Edmund Wilson was willing to declare the Sherlock Holmes stories Literature, though not the very top of the heap. ("My contention," Wilson said, "is that Sherlock. Holmes is literature on a humble but not ignoble level, whereas the mystery writers most in vogue now are not." He then went on to praise Holmes and Conan Doyle while reiterating to an extent his previous excoriation ["Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?"] of then current mystery novels and novelists.)

The qualities that make something Literature are subject to interpretation. Someone like Harold Bloom, who studied fiction for decades and thought about it, I would guess, constantly, had his standards and applied them more or less convincingly. They were not inarguable, though, as many others have disagreed with him also convincingly. Ditto Edmund Wilson before him, and whoever might come after. Part of literature is the discussion of literature, what it is, what it does and what its value is. Basically, what we're doing now on a humble but not ignoble level. (*cough*)

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.)

And yet humor isn't unrepresented. As I Lay Dying by Faulkner and Catch-22 by Heller, along with Don Quixote and works by Chaucer, Aristophanes and Fielding and Wilde and G. B. Shaw are all part of college curriculum. Not to mention something like A Confederacy of Dunces which seems to have continuing life among readers and is also taught in schools.

As for sf/f/h, I think there's been a shift over the last 40 to 50 years. Besides historically important books like Frankenstein, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and the works of Poe, Wells and Verne, works by "mainstream" writers like Vonnegut, Atwood, Pynchon, Morrison, Chabon and Lessing, along with works either in genre or which helped define a genre by Bradbury, Le Guin, Delany, Jonathan Lethem, Ian Banks, Neal Stephenson, Octavia Butler, Tananarive Due, Peter Straub, Stephen King, and, of course, Tolkein (among others), drew in such numbers of readers and so influenced current culture, that these genres can no longer be ignored.

Current sf/f/h isn't going to replace Shakespeare at the head of the table, but that doesn't mean it won't sit at the table or at least the kiddie table.

 

[Swank]

I tend to think that if you're at this site discussing sf/f/h, you're a fan. I am, though I read outside the genre and haven't been to a convention in about 40 years.

(Huh. 40 years ago I wouldn't have thought I'd be saying I'd done something 40 years ago. Brrrr ...)

We consider many novels "Literature". The novel as a form is only maybe ~400 years old (assuming that Don Quixote stands pretty much as the first such, at least in Western literature). The short story in its contemporary form is even newer, not really showing up until the early to mid-19th century. Plays as a form are much older and poetry just as old or older than plays. I'm really not sure how much time factors into something being generally considered Literature, since we can come up with examples of things that were greatly valued for a time then dismissed by later generations, and examples of works dismissed on publication and later resurrected and lauded.

Tangentially: Wells and Hammett have works assigned in grade schools and colleges, which to me suggests they are generally considered as Literature by those who study literature (or at least want to get youngsters reading). Wells has something to say about both science and religious faith and makes strong arguments in both The War of the Worlds and The Island of Dr. Moreau. Hammett's Red Harvest is brutal in its simple evocation of how to pit power against power and the results thereof. Even better, at least for me, is how Hammett wrote a great adventure story in The Maltese Falcon and then, in the last chapter, in a brief exchange between Spade and Effie, masterfully shifted the reader's perspective of what had come before to make the adventure/mystery into a core novel of the 1920s.

Even as harsh a 20th century critic as Edmund Wilson was willing to declare the Sherlock Holmes stories Literature, though not the very top of the heap. ("My contention," Wilson said, "is that Sherlock. Holmes is literature on a humble but not ignoble level, whereas the mystery writers most in vogue now are not." He then went on to praise Holmes and Conan Doyle while reiterating to an extent his previous excoriation ["Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?"] of then current mystery novels and novelists.)

The qualities that make something Literature are subject to interpretation. Someone like Harold Bloom, who studied fiction for decades and thought about it, I would guess, constantly, had his standards and applied them more or less convincingly. They were not inarguable, though, as many others have disagreed with him also convincingly. Ditto Edmund Wilson before him, and whoever might come after. Part of literature is the discussion of literature, what it is, what it does and what its value is. Basically, what we're doing now on a humble but not ignoble level. (*cough*)


And yet humor isn't unrepresented. As I Lay Dying by Faulkner and Catch-22 by Heller, along with Don Quixote and works by Chaucer, Aristophanes and Fielding and Wilde and G. B. Shaw are all part of college curriculum. Not to mention something like A Confederacy of Dunces which seems to have continuing life among readers and is also taught in schools.

As for sf/f/h, I think there's been a shift over the last 40 to 50 years. Besides historically important books like Frankenstein, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and the works of Poe, Wells and Verne, works by "mainstream" writers like Vonnegut, Atwood, Pynchon, Morrison, Chabon and Lessing, along with works either in genre or which helped define a genre by Bradbury, Le Guin, Delany, Jonathan Lethem, Ian Banks, Neal Stephenson, Octavia Butler, Tananarive Due, Peter Straub, Stephen King, and, of course, Tolkein (among others), drew in such numbers of readers and so influenced current culture, that these genres can no longer be ignored.

Current sf/f/h isn't going to replace Shakespeare at the head of the table, but that doesn't mean it won't sit at the table or at least the kiddie table.

I stand corrected.

 

[Vertigo]

For discussion -- Does someone need any qualifications, for having a worthwhile opinion on the topic of literature, beyond the ability to read?

I think that's a really interesting question. It's like any art; if you don't fully understand the techniques, symbology etc then you will only appreciate the surface picture and maybe miss any other messages that might be in there. And in fairness there's nothing wrong with just appreciating the surface if that's all you are looking for, and when I pick up, for example, a David Weber or Jack Campbell that is really all I'm looking for and all I'm likely to find.

I'm not sure you need qualifications to go further but certainly some education will help, which might be self education. When I read a book that I think probably comes under the literary banner I will generally initially read it blind and then once I've finished it I'll go googling to see what others have said about it. Then, sometimes, if I've enjoyed reading it first time around and have been inspired by what else I've read about it, I might immediately or shortly go back and reread it. I don't often go straight back to a reread but I have done so with the likes of Roberto Bolano and one or two others. I am certain that this approach has increased my appreciation of both literary works and in fact everything I read. Or maybe it would be more correct to say that this has made me read much more critically which increases my appreciation of a good book and can do the opposite for what I might perceive as a poorly written one.

 

[Rodders]

I'm not a bright guy, so I would rarely deep dive into the book or pick up on the subtext.

As Vertigo says, literature is art and art is subject to taste. I'm of the opinion that most consideration of "what is Literature" is generally snobbish in nature and that Science Fiction is looked down on as it is seen by some as childish. I feel that many opinions on literature can be inherited from others and that there are elements of literature that is actually a bit crap. (I'd suggest that Jack Kerouac's On The Road and other counter culture writing is nonsense.)

I also think literature should generally have something to say. Not necessarily something about the human condition.

Personal choices for literature within Science Fiction is Iain M. Banks as I think his stories generally have a lot of subtext. I also love his use of language which made his books an absolute joy to read. I'm not sure if I've experienced writing that is so exquisite.

David Williams's "When The English Fall" and Adrian Tchaikovsky's "Dogs of War" were quite powerful and i think they could be considered as literary.

 

[Vertigo]

Personal choices for literature within Science Fiction is Iain M. Banks as I think his stories generally have a lot of subtext. I also love his use of language which made his books an absolute joy to read. I'm not sure if I've experienced writing that is so exquisite.

I absolutely agree with this and it has only been strengthened by my recent reread of all his Culture books (which now makes him my most reread author!!). I'm now going to continue with rereads of his non Culture books followed by some of his non SF work, but not all; some are just a bit too grim for rereading!

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I absolutely agree with this and it has only been strengthened by my recent reread of all his Culture books (which now makes him my most reread author!!). I'm now going to continue with rereads of his non Culture books followed by some of his non SF work, but not all; some are just a bit too grim for rereading!

Having just finished A Song of Stone, I know what you mean. Fantastic book; thought provoking but not uplifting.

 

[Vertigo]

Having just finished A Song of Stone, I know what you mean. Fantastic book; thought provoking but not uplifting.

That is exactly the one I was thinking of and I agree with your feelings completely!

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think that's a really interesting question. It's like any art; if you don't fully understand the techniques, symbology etc then you will only appreciate the surface picture and maybe miss any other messages that might be in there. And in fairness there's nothing wrong with just appreciating the surface if that's all you are looking for, and when I pick up, for example, a David Weber or Jack Campbell that is really all I'm looking for and all I'm likely to find.

I think this presents a problem in relation to science fiction. It is both personal and cultural.

I started reading SF in 4th grade, at age 9. Then I got an English literature course in 9th grade at 14.

Is this story written in the 1st person or the 3rd person?

The who, what? Who cares it is BORING!!!

Needless to say I never got an A in English literature. Straight A's in math and sciences. I wonder if there has ever been a study of how many English teachers took 4 years of math.

Culturally literary criticism goes back to the ancient Greeks but science fiction does not show up until Frankenstein and not really named for another 100 years.

A lot of SF writers either couldn't do, or didn't care about, "good writing". I had someone tell me that Isaac Asimov couldn't write. Maybe he didn't care or would rather write another story involving an interesting new idea than spend time polishing the writing of an old idea.

For me, the better the SF the less important the writing. Fahrenheit 451 probably qualifies as "literary science fiction" but would not get into my top 50 of SF books.

 

[paeng]

"Literature" generally means written works, which is why one older meaning of the word is still used today, e.g., the folded documents that come with medicine. In which case, written science fiction is literature.

Given that, how does one differentiate that with what's worth reading? One English teacher came up with a very simple set of questions that can help, except that the first question is easy to answer but the second isn't.

First question: Does the written work fulfill its purpose?

For example, if a work is meant to entertain and it entertained you, then it succeeded. In which case, you can argue that it's a great work. But there's a second question:

Is that purpose significant?

That's hard to answer. If, for example, you're bored, then an entertaining work becomes significant because it no longer made you feel bored. But what if you're not bored?

Significance, then, refers to something that's important for you throughout your life and in any circumstance. And given the latter, it will likely be significant for many other people for similar reasons.

Finally, that also implies that such works will be relevant across multiple generations, and probably across decades, if not centuries. With that, you'll have to wait a long time before finding out which of your favorite current authors wil remain relevant; which, of course, isn't possible. But you can see still see works that are very old still read today.

That's probably the literature with a big "L".

 

[Extollager]

Rodders wrote, "As Vertigo says, literature is art and art is subject to taste. I'm of the opinion that most consideration of 'what is Literature' is generally snobbish in nature."

I'm not sure what "art is subject to taste" means if it means something other than "statements about art reflect the tastes of the people who make those statements." Did I get that right?

I especially wondered about the "snobbish" comment. Snobbery is often attributed to unspecified "others" when discussions like this one go on. Maybe what "snobbery" means, and who the snobs are, are things that are well known to others. But I'd appreciate it if these things could be unpacked for me/us.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

For discussion -- Does someone need any qualifications, for having a worthwhile opinion on the topic of literature, beyond the ability to read?

I think, yes, but not in the sense of a formal qualification from a recognised institution, but more in respect of exposure and training.

To use music as an analogy, there are studies within musicology that have found that trained musicians have a greater tolerance for dissonance and complexity. The greater your exposure to all kinds of music, the greater you can appreciate what quality is, in respect of music - and the wider appreciation you have for the core skills of playing or manufacturing music. Musicians have greater co-ordination between the sense making portions of the brain active in listening to music than non trained musicians.

It's difficult to explain in words what quality means here as it's somewhat like grokking the numinous. I don't mean it in the sense of a cultural hierarchy - separating high and low brow art according to elite tastemakers* - but more in a sense that transcends regional culture's aesthetic peccadillos. Being able to appreciate the musical forces at work in mozart or stravinsky or penderecki or the beatles or gamelan or chinese opera or freejazz on their own merits and differentiating between good and bad according to their own internalised structures and forms.

Seeing, maybe, how culturally constructed symbols relate to culture as a product of history - changing views on harmony, melody, orchestration, technical proficiency and so on.

* although that might be an unfortunate by-product

To see this in practice, consider this analysis of one of the most difficult pieces of recorded music, Frownland by Captain Beefheart, widely regarded as unlistenable but which, through exposure moves from incomprehensible to comprehensible and shows staggering musical complexity.

There is another great analysis video on one of Schoenberg's operas, but I'm unable to find it now.

This video, where Quentin Tarantino breaks down every film he saw in 1979 is an incredible demonstration of the value of being literate in your chosen artform. The sheer joy and enthusiasm he has for cinema is infectious. I think it's fair to say, his in depth knowledge makes him qualified in a way a casual film goer is not.

I daresay, something similar is at work amongst readers and writers, and this exposure forms some aspects of the basis of taste, when it comes to "good faith" literary criticism (as opposed to bad faith - i.e. the desire to impress with pithy put downs or impose your own subjective likes / dislikes on the public at large).

 

[psikeyhackr]

Rodders wrote, "As Vertigo says, literature is art and art is subject to taste. I'm of the opinion that most consideration of 'what is Literature' is generally snobbish in nature."

But is science subject to taste?

Does this mean that hard SF is tasteless?

 

[Rodders]

All SF is literature, but taste determines whether it is good, or not.

 

[Randy M.]

But is science subject to taste?

Does this mean that hard SF is tasteless?

For the first, yes, if it's in fiction because most of us read fiction for reasons other than science, which is usually a component of the literary meal, not the meal itself.

For the second, I recall reading a novel by Walt and Leigh Richmond and I can vouch that hard sf certainly can be tasteless in the sense of flavorless, also odorless, soundless, without tactile signifiers, emotionless, and darn near fictionless.

 

[The Big Peat]

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.

There is that definition of literature, which is closely linked to the definition of literature as a genre in its own right, but even then, there is some ingrained thinking involved. There's a set list of people with power to decide which writing has stood the test of time (mainly a few publishers, booksellers, and educators) and they all mainly come from the same social backgrounds and have had a similar literary education. Meets the test of time will be decided by that particular set taste.

Current sf/f/h isn't going to replace Shakespeare at the head of the table, but that doesn't mean it won't sit at the table or at least the kiddie table.

Complete tangent, but I've taken to wondering to what extent our view of literature (in every sense) is distorted by having a playwright at the head of the table with the result a great many literary critics (again, in every sense) having their views of what a book should do partly dictated by what a play can do. I forget who I first saw say it, but it settled right into my brain as a thought.

 

[Extollager]

All SF is literature, but taste determines whether it is good, or not.

Could you expound this. Rodders? "Taste determines" -- what is taste, and how, and for whom, does it determine whether something is good or bad? That would be helpful.