7 ms·

Arts Council England: "we are saying that there is something so unique and important and necessary and fundamental about literary fiction in particular, that we

Arts Council England: "we are saying that there is something so unique and important and necessary and fundamental about literary fiction in particular, that we need to focus on it and support it." Yeah, right. Because navel-gazing is the only thing in literature worth supporting. We'd have fewer problems in the world if more people read (and appreciated) science fiction. ACE, I make a gesture of contempt in your direction.

icebraining 9y ago
Why do you consider literary fiction "navel-gazing" and why is SF that important? As a side note, one of the books they give as an example is The Time Traveller's Wife, which involves "a man with a genetic disorder that causes him to time travel unpredictably", which certainly sounds like an SF-y premise.
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  There's a strong status separation between SF and literary fiction. If you get someone to read SF that has literary merit, they'll try to tell you afterwards that it wasn't SF.
  - galeforcewinds 9y ago
    The lack of vehicles for SF delivery have at times impeded literary acceptance and broader adoption -- take H.P. Lovecraft for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Literary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Literary Format adaptations have catapulted some great SF into the pop culture stardom: The War of the Worlds was published in 1898, and though looked upon favorably, it is rarely mentioned today without also mentioning the 1938 radio broadcast. The Wizard of Oz (Baum 1900) is more famous for its 1939 film. In more modern times, Johnny Mnemonic (1995 film from "Burning Chrome", Gibson 1986), Snowpiercer (2013 film from "Le Transperceneige", Lob and Rochette 1982), and The Martian (2015 film from "The Martian", Weir 2011) have all increased SF visibility through film adaptations. Without format shift, would general SF readers have pursued these works independent from the film? Probably. Would these works have entered pop culture and have been sought by the everyman, even the ones who don't routinely buy books or enjoy reading? Less likely.
    - kybernetikos 9y ago
      Many of the works that have received the most cultural success have been science fiction. Of the five top grossing films, Avatar and Jurassic World are very clearly science fiction, Star Wars and The Avengers are arguably science fiction. It's only Titanic that couldn't be claimed to be science fiction. The situation is probably similar for TV Series too. The status problems of science fiction are arguably related to its extreme popularity.
  - elorant 9y ago
    That's not entirely true. The "The Three Body Problem" trilogy had a lot of literature tone and it's considered one of the best SF works ever. Obviously not for that reason alone but what I'm saying is that nobody seemed to bother by the prose as long as the science part was solid and the fiction original.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      That's usually not considered in the top 1000 best sci-fi books ever and it was written in Chinese, so it doesn't really fit into the english literature categorisation.
      - pebers 9y ago
        It won the Hugo award in 2015, which makes a pretty strong case that in fact it is in the top 1000.
        akvadrako 9y ago
        How do you figure? I would guess winning a Hugo means the book has a 50% chance of being in the top 10 for that year, but you would expect the yearly contribution to "top 1000 ever" lists to vary wildly. 2015 is too soon to really judge it's staying power and it's hard to judge how much of the praise is because it's non-Western.
        pebers 9y ago
        I figure that "top 1000" is a lot of books, and there've only been 60 or so Hugo awards, so it seems not unlikely it's in there. I'd also rate winning the Hugo as likely to be better than half a chance of being in the top 10 for that year, I guess that depends how much your personal tastes align with theirs though.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    That's quite true. My favorite SF author, Gene Wolfe, is sometimes found in the Literature section in bookstores. On the other hand, 99% of SF does not have much literary merit, even the well regarded stuff, so if you're interested in the cross-section, Literature might be the more reasonable department to file it under.
    - hardlianotion 9y ago
      We can quarrel about the merit of most fiction, literary fiction included.
      - akvadrako 9y ago
        I said "literary merit", not merit in general. Sci-fi is very much not about the words used and how they're put together. The authors that can combine the two are very rare - Wolfe, Douglas Adams, Ursula K. Le Guin, and often Russian authors, though that might be from the translation too.
  - malloryerik 9y ago
    I believe that some of the best "literary" fiction is also science fiction. For example much of George Orwell and Ray Bradbury, also Kurt Vonnegut, Ursula LeGuin. If you allow for the term "speculative fiction," you really start netting a huge catch. And more and more books once dismissed as "mere" genre titles will be considered to have "literary merit", however vague and dissatisfying that term may be. Isaac Asimov might be an example, also Tolkein.
buttcoinslol 9y ago
> We'd have fewer problems in the world if more people read (and appreciated) science fiction. You misspelled history.

icebraining 9y ago

Why do you consider literary fiction "navel-gazing" and why is SF that important? As a side note, one of the books they give as an example is The Time Traveller's Wife, which involves "a man with a genetic disorder that causes him to time travel unpredictably", which certainly sounds like an SF-y premise.

kybernetikos 9y ago
There's a strong status separation between SF and literary fiction. If you get someone to read SF that has literary merit, they'll try to tell you afterwards that it wasn't SF.
- galeforcewinds 9y ago
  The lack of vehicles for SF delivery have at times impeded literary acceptance and broader adoption -- take H.P. Lovecraft for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Literary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Literary Format adaptations have catapulted some great SF into the pop culture stardom: The War of the Worlds was published in 1898, and though looked upon favorably, it is rarely mentioned today without also mentioning the 1938 radio broadcast. The Wizard of Oz (Baum 1900) is more famous for its 1939 film. In more modern times, Johnny Mnemonic (1995 film from "Burning Chrome", Gibson 1986), Snowpiercer (2013 film from "Le Transperceneige", Lob and Rochette 1982), and The Martian (2015 film from "The Martian", Weir 2011) have all increased SF visibility through film adaptations. Without format shift, would general SF readers have pursued these works independent from the film? Probably. Would these works have entered pop culture and have been sought by the everyman, even the ones who don't routinely buy books or enjoy reading? Less likely.
  - kybernetikos 9y ago
    Many of the works that have received the most cultural success have been science fiction. Of the five top grossing films, Avatar and Jurassic World are very clearly science fiction, Star Wars and The Avengers are arguably science fiction. It's only Titanic that couldn't be claimed to be science fiction. The situation is probably similar for TV Series too. The status problems of science fiction are arguably related to its extreme popularity.
- elorant 9y ago
  That's not entirely true. The "The Three Body Problem" trilogy had a lot of literature tone and it's considered one of the best SF works ever. Obviously not for that reason alone but what I'm saying is that nobody seemed to bother by the prose as long as the science part was solid and the fiction original.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    That's usually not considered in the top 1000 best sci-fi books ever and it was written in Chinese, so it doesn't really fit into the english literature categorisation.
    - pebers 9y ago
      It won the Hugo award in 2015, which makes a pretty strong case that in fact it is in the top 1000.
      - akvadrako 9y ago
        How do you figure? I would guess winning a Hugo means the book has a 50% chance of being in the top 10 for that year, but you would expect the yearly contribution to "top 1000 ever" lists to vary wildly. 2015 is too soon to really judge it's staying power and it's hard to judge how much of the praise is because it's non-Western.
        pebers 9y ago
        I figure that "top 1000" is a lot of books, and there've only been 60 or so Hugo awards, so it seems not unlikely it's in there. I'd also rate winning the Hugo as likely to be better than half a chance of being in the top 10 for that year, I guess that depends how much your personal tastes align with theirs though.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  That's quite true. My favorite SF author, Gene Wolfe, is sometimes found in the Literature section in bookstores. On the other hand, 99% of SF does not have much literary merit, even the well regarded stuff, so if you're interested in the cross-section, Literature might be the more reasonable department to file it under.
  - hardlianotion 9y ago
    We can quarrel about the merit of most fiction, literary fiction included.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      I said "literary merit", not merit in general. Sci-fi is very much not about the words used and how they're put together. The authors that can combine the two are very rare - Wolfe, Douglas Adams, Ursula K. Le Guin, and often Russian authors, though that might be from the translation too.
- malloryerik 9y ago
  I believe that some of the best "literary" fiction is also science fiction. For example much of George Orwell and Ray Bradbury, also Kurt Vonnegut, Ursula LeGuin. If you allow for the term "speculative fiction," you really start netting a huge catch. And more and more books once dismissed as "mere" genre titles will be considered to have "literary merit", however vague and dissatisfying that term may be. Isaac Asimov might be an example, also Tolkein.

buttcoinslol 9y ago

> We'd have fewer problems in the world if more people read (and appreciated) science fiction. You misspelled history.