Pet Peeve
POD-dy Mouth has irked me this morning, after remarking that she almost discarded a book because she thought it was science fiction.
Now, if you happen to be one of those people who turns up their nose at anything that's not literary fiction, that's fine. It still pisses me off because I think they're wrong in asserting that genre fiction has absolutely no literary value. My reading habits are split about 50/50 between literary fiction and science fiction and I can honestly say that I find a good deal of literary value in both. This, of course, is probably dependent on reading a certain type of science fiction - ie. not Star Trek or Star Wars books or anything with a guy holding a raygun in one hand and a buxomy girl in the other (although I won't go so far as to say that none of those have literary value, I just think it's a lesser percentage than, say, LeGuin, Gibson, and Dick, among others).
Anyhow, here's the issue that really bothers me: POD-dy Mouth has, from time to time, reviewed mysteries and thrillers on her blog. Now, what is it that makes these genres better than science fiction? No, really, I'm asking, because it seems to be a commonly-held belief these days. Is it because people are associating SF with the pulp magazines and Flash Gordon-type shows of the 40s and 50s? Is it because no one wants to be seen reading a science fiction novel because they think it'll instantly make them social outcasts?
Personally, I doubt that the best thrillers out there could even come close to equalling the literary value of the best SF out there (and feel free to tell me if I'm horribly wrong, I only need two hands to count the number of thrillers I've read). The reason for this is that the entire thriller genre is the equivalent of a blockbuster movie; it's tons of fun, but it probably won't stay with you for very long after you've finished it. The best SF, on the other hand, is really all about thought experiments and social commentary (anyone who disagrees with me can go read a copy of LeGuin's The Dispossessed and then maybe we'll talk). As a result, the very nature of the genre (keeping the "rocketship and rayguns" subgenre out of things) is intellectual.
So, fill me in....what's your beef with SF?
Now, if you happen to be one of those people who turns up their nose at anything that's not literary fiction, that's fine. It still pisses me off because I think they're wrong in asserting that genre fiction has absolutely no literary value. My reading habits are split about 50/50 between literary fiction and science fiction and I can honestly say that I find a good deal of literary value in both. This, of course, is probably dependent on reading a certain type of science fiction - ie. not Star Trek or Star Wars books or anything with a guy holding a raygun in one hand and a buxomy girl in the other (although I won't go so far as to say that none of those have literary value, I just think it's a lesser percentage than, say, LeGuin, Gibson, and Dick, among others).
Anyhow, here's the issue that really bothers me: POD-dy Mouth has, from time to time, reviewed mysteries and thrillers on her blog. Now, what is it that makes these genres better than science fiction? No, really, I'm asking, because it seems to be a commonly-held belief these days. Is it because people are associating SF with the pulp magazines and Flash Gordon-type shows of the 40s and 50s? Is it because no one wants to be seen reading a science fiction novel because they think it'll instantly make them social outcasts?
Personally, I doubt that the best thrillers out there could even come close to equalling the literary value of the best SF out there (and feel free to tell me if I'm horribly wrong, I only need two hands to count the number of thrillers I've read). The reason for this is that the entire thriller genre is the equivalent of a blockbuster movie; it's tons of fun, but it probably won't stay with you for very long after you've finished it. The best SF, on the other hand, is really all about thought experiments and social commentary (anyone who disagrees with me can go read a copy of LeGuin's The Dispossessed and then maybe we'll talk). As a result, the very nature of the genre (keeping the "rocketship and rayguns" subgenre out of things) is intellectual.
So, fill me in....what's your beef with SF?
7 Comments:
You tell her!
I honestly don't bip to the SF section of my library. That DOES NOT mean I haven't read some SF. I've read Anthony,Asimov, and others. It simply means it's not my first choice of reading material.
Having said that, I'm constantly surprised when people bash commercial fiction in general. And you're right Cavan, I think some people equate SF with rayguns and Star Trek.
Personally, I don't read SF because my tongue twists over names and items that have been word-built. It irks me when I don't know when I'm pronouncing something correctly. It's an idiosyncracy. *shrug*
BUT...I have read your excerpts and enjoyed them. I have to believe it's all in the story.
Maybe she got a hold of one or two SF that put her off the genre for awhile. But you can't let that stop you.
Grins*
I am a "literary-type" reader and writer. Ender's Game, by Andrew Scott Card, is one of my all-time favorite books, for both literary value and entertainment value. So is 1984. Downbelow Station is another wonderful novel. A good book is a good book. Why would anyone want to deprive him or herself of a wonderful reading experience by stigmatizing an entire genre?
I feel for you Cavan.
What you said here is also the case with comic books. As a matter of fact I just read an article associating comics with busty fantastic gilrs and geeky/nerd heroes! Anyone who did not read Neil Gaiman's the Sandman has no idea what literary means.
The point is, it's a personal preference. Nothing more, nothing less. Dismissing any other genre for its value on tha basis is not acurate.
Science fiction and fantasy are two genres that have offered a whole lot more than many of the more commercial/popular ones.
i am a SF freak. kinda partial to cyberpunk fiction. it is all about using your imagination. nueromancer and snow crash are my favs.
Quick question:
Are Clive Barker's "Imajica" books considered SF? Because I loved them.
Grins*
Chrys - I haven't read them, but from what I've heard it sounds a little closer to fantasy.
Post a Comment
<< Home