[jamisi]

Originally posted by Elok
That's a rhetorical question, of course. I can think of several answers off the top of my head: lit professors aren't technically oriented, and it can be intimidating when someone mentions relativistic effects offhand; they tend to be chicks, who on average are less technically oriented than men; the genre didn't take off in academic circles for the most part; the books are usually promoted by atrociously silly back-cover copy and tacky artwork; even the best of its authors (that I have encountered so far) show more familiarity and comfort with technical matters than with The Human Condition, which is the chief deity of the Liberal Arts wonk. All your reasons are wrong.

The real reason is that no genre fiction is considered literature. The prejuidice against scifi extends to mysteries, romances, horror novels, etc. The chief reason is that genre fiction, by its very nature, is strongly bound by convention and therefore considered to be incapable of exhibiting the originality that is expected of capital-L Literature. A secondary reason is that genre fiction is considered to exist primarily for commercial purposes and only incidently as creative expression, while the opposite is is considered to be true of capital-L lit.

You can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but that's the reasoning.

[Ferkilort]

Welcome to the 8th grade Elok.

[Dodoerabe]

The Forever War

[Seiblybiozy]

"A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter Miller has always been (IMO) the premier example of science fiction as literature.

[Plonnikas]

Originally posted by Ming
While I enjoyed Ender's Game, please remember it was originally published as a novella in an SF pulp magazine.
It wasn't expanded into a novel until much later. While it's a good read, I would hardly classify it as real literature. It's your basic one trick pony with a typical short story ending.

Why can't that be literature?

[egershna]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The real reason is that no genre fiction is considered literature. The prejuidice against scifi extends to mysteries, romances, horror novels, etc. The chief reason is that genre fiction, by its very nature, is strongly bound by convention and therefore considered to be incapable of exhibiting the originality that is expected of capital-L Literature. A secondary reason is that genre fiction is considered to exist primarily for commercial purposes and only incidently as creative expression, while the opposite is is considered to be true of capital-L lit.

You can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but that's the reasoning. I can somewhat see that, but there are some genre fiction that don't necessarily suffer as a result by convention or commercial expectations rather than as an art form. The Fantasy genre has a great number of works that can be considered "literature" rather than simply novels. I guess, though, as a genre, fantasy is very expansive, covering works from "Lord of the Rings" to "Midnight's Children" to "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell".

[Immampdah]

recommend a book for me to read after I've finished the Foundation series, or repost/add your own canon I recommend the culture series by Banks. Start with Player of Games or Consider Phlebas.

[BeksTeene]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why can't that be literature? As I said... it really depends on what your definition of literature is. Some might claim it is. I wouldn't. But that's just my opinion. I remember reading it in its original form. I enjoyed it for what it was. Your typical short story with a surprise ending with a twist. But I wouldn't consider it great literature.

[ftpsoft]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Kim Stanley Robinson Ugh, this qualifies only if you define literature as 'boring books'. Red Mars remains one of the few books I think I actually regret finishing.

[Olympicdreams]

Originally posted by Perfection
English teachers are old women, old women hate SciFi. QFMFT

[effebrala]

Jules Verne

[gardeniyas]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
QFMFT And that's really the problem. The books they like revolve around fitting in, morality, and romance and stupid girl stuff. The literature that men care about generally revolve killing, screwing, stealling and laughing at stuff.

This is why boys don't read, because everything they read in school is girly stuff.

[M1iFiNmC]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
My recommendation is "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe.

JM I read them, but I hated them.

ACK!

[twiffatticy]

Originally posted by Perfection
English teachers are old women, old women hate SciFi. Not to inject an unwelcome not of reality into this misogynist fantasy fest, but -- just to pick the two most obvious examples -- men outnumber women on the Yale English faculty and massively outnumber them Harvard English faculty (by more that 2:1); since commonly held cultural definitions of literature tend to be derived from work done in institutions like the Harvard and Yale English departments, rather than from the opinions of internet posters with mommy issues, I'd say your reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.

[tinamasak]

Oh, Lequin is also often considered literature. Often times, speculative fiction is considered literature if it:
Is talking about the same sort of stuff as the rest of literature.
Is well written (or at least decently written).
Being written by a minority of some type is a bonus.

JM

[Susanleech]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
commonly held cultural definitions of literature tend to be derived from work done in institutions like the Harvard and Yale English departments Those departments might be better equipped to determine the value of literature, but you're deceiving yourself if you think they set popular trends. It's not like they do tons of groundbreaking research that anyone cares about. It's English for christssake.

[Heessduernbub]

"Catcher and the Rye"

I seem to recall reading Jules Verne in a Lit class. (And not Catcher...) Some of the other good Sci-Fi just probably needs some time before they really start to stand out from the drivel... just like any other genre.

[AbraroLib]

Foundation books were good, but I Wouldn't consider anything that Asimov wrote as being great fabulous stuff.

JM

[Riprincattiva]

Originally posted by Perfection
WRONG! Commonly held definitions of literature tend to be derived from middle/high school and to a lesser extent college not prestigious institutions. This is because everybody has had a crapton of middle amnd high school english teachers, a few have one or two college english profs, and almost nobody went to top tier university english classes. WRONG! The fact that most people get there definitions there does not mean that that's where the definitions originate. Most peopel also get their unsderstanding of evolutionary theory from high school biology teachers -- so is high school where the nature of evolutionary theory is determined?

[Foriaelalse]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Nobody's talking about popular trends. And obviously Americans don't care about the value of literature; they're barely literate. But that wasn't the point being discussed. Of course we're talking about popular trends! Specifically, why does the English education community in general neglect SF! That's a popular trend.