I might not have time to read all of this and the comments line by line, but I skimmed closely (LOL, is that possible?) and I think I agree with what you're saying.
Science fiction is THE most intellectually provocative fiction genre. Has been since its conception. (That's why I love it above all other fiction genres.) Anyone who believes otherwise clearly hasn't read enough sci-fi, and certainly not enough GOOD sci-fi. That says nothing about them as a person, but it IS a real shame they're missing out.
People need to read Bradbury, Heinlein, Asimov, etc. before they can say that sci-fi has no intellectual merit. That's some of the smartest, most inspiring work of our time! (And if they DO read it and say the same, well, then...I just don't know what to say to that.)
It's unfortunate that the bias regarding speculative fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, horror) in general continues to linger, because it means that even authors whose bodies of work have speculative elements to them may refuse to acknowledge it.
(I'm thinking in particular at this moment of Margaret Atwood: a well-respected feminist author who has won at least one science fiction award and yet has sneeringly referred to sci-fi as being "just stories about spaceships and lasers." [That's a bit of a paraphrase because I don't have the interview in front of me now. And no, I don't like Atwood!])
And plenty of highly influential works have speculative elements to them. (1984, anyone? At the time it was written, it was set in a possible future. That's sci-fi.)
I agree that sci-fi asks - relentlessly! - the Big Questions. Who are we, why are we here, what makes us us, what else could be, what else will be, what do we love or fear, and why?
There's a reason science fiction is referred to as, "a literature of ideas."
/climbs down the ladder from his soapbox
P.S. I'm sad you don't like Adams's cheeky narrative style; but I suppose it's definitely not everyone's cuppa. It CAN get wearisome in large doses, anyway.
Oh, and it occurs to me that I ignored that you've mostly discussed television here. I sort of went off on my own little lit tangent, because while I do think sci-fi translates wonderfully well to the screen, I also think it has more impact as written word.
Hah, I was thinking of 1984 as well! Even Frankenstein is considered science fiction - actually, it's considered the first sci-fi novel ever.
I agree. It's really annoying that science fiction is only considered literature worth reading when the author has been dead for at least ten years - and even then it usually doesn't get the respect it deserves. I'm thinking of Stephen King here, too. He's the best author I have ever read, and yet his books are still considered junk literature by far too many people.
Yay for the Big Questions, though. I must say, ever since I discovered this genre, anything else mostly bores me to death. Why should I think about the small stuff if there's the universe to consider? Lol xD.
No, I didn't like Adam's style. I thought it was sloppy. I can deal with a fast narration, but I can't deal with it if an author writes a plot summary with half the information missing and then sells it as a book.
YAYs, you brought the literary side into this! Fantastic!
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with you, even though I've as yet to manage to read Asimov. It is pretty high on my list, though. :-)
And I've always tried to find out why a lot of people don't like D. Adams, and I think (that's just my theory) that the biggest problem is that he seems to use a different theory to explain the universe in each part of his book(s). I've read them all and I had to take a long time to do so, because otherwise it would have blown my brain to try and wrap it all together. It's the sort of book that needs to stew a little in your head.
Science fiction is THE most intellectually provocative fiction genre. Has been since its conception. (That's why I love it above all other fiction genres.) Anyone who believes otherwise clearly hasn't read enough sci-fi, and certainly not enough GOOD sci-fi. That says nothing about them as a person, but it IS a real shame they're missing out.
People need to read Bradbury, Heinlein, Asimov, etc. before they can say that sci-fi has no intellectual merit. That's some of the smartest, most inspiring work of our time! (And if they DO read it and say the same, well, then...I just don't know what to say to that.)
It's unfortunate that the bias regarding speculative fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, horror) in general continues to linger, because it means that even authors whose bodies of work have speculative elements to them may refuse to acknowledge it.
(I'm thinking in particular at this moment of Margaret Atwood: a well-respected feminist author who has won at least one science fiction award and yet has sneeringly referred to sci-fi as being "just stories about spaceships and lasers." [That's a bit of a paraphrase because I don't have the interview in front of me now. And no, I don't like Atwood!])
And plenty of highly influential works have speculative elements to them. (1984, anyone? At the time it was written, it was set in a possible future. That's sci-fi.)
I agree that sci-fi asks - relentlessly! - the Big Questions. Who are we, why are we here, what makes us us, what else could be, what else will be, what do we love or fear, and why?
There's a reason science fiction is referred to as, "a literature of ideas."
/climbs down the ladder from his soapbox
P.S. I'm sad you don't like Adams's cheeky narrative style; but I suppose it's definitely not everyone's cuppa. It CAN get wearisome in large doses, anyway.
Reply
Reply
I agree. It's really annoying that science fiction is only considered literature worth reading when the author has been dead for at least ten years - and even then it usually doesn't get the respect it deserves. I'm thinking of Stephen King here, too. He's the best author I have ever read, and yet his books are still considered junk literature by far too many people.
Yay for the Big Questions, though. I must say, ever since I discovered this genre, anything else mostly bores me to death. Why should I think about the small stuff if there's the universe to consider? Lol xD.
No, I didn't like Adam's style. I thought it was sloppy. I can deal with a fast narration, but I can't deal with it if an author writes a plot summary with half the information missing and then sells it as a book.
I love his ideas, though :).
Reply
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with you, even though I've as yet to manage to read Asimov. It is pretty high on my list, though. :-)
And I've always tried to find out why a lot of people don't like D. Adams, and I think (that's just my theory) that the biggest problem is that he seems to use a different theory to explain the universe in each part of his book(s). I've read them all and I had to take a long time to do so, because otherwise it would have blown my brain to try and wrap it all together. It's the sort of book that needs to stew a little in your head.
Reply
Leave a comment