Literature...

[eris esoteric]

Please forgive, I've been playing around with Google Reader, to streamline keeping up with my web-comics, which lead directly to me trying to help the boyfriend set it up to read his blogs, which lead to me signing up for his blogs, which lead to me signing up for new blogs...

Yeah, it's a whole thing.

Anyway, an interesting entry on the Tor books blog:

Tor.com / Science fiction and fantasy / Blog posts / Unsolving the Genre Problem

So, without resorting to the stated circular reasoning (if it's good it's literature and not genre, and if it's not good it's genre and not literature), give me, individually, and without dissecting each others answers right off the bat, YOUR thoughts on what literature and genre fiction are.

I'll be along eventually with mine, but I'm having something like a psychotic day, so I'll beg your forbearance for the moment.

[eris esoteric]

My attempt to put this into words:

In my mind, literature is writing that changes something in the reader. It has an effect. It *does* something.

Usually this effect is to put you inside another person's head. To my mind, the more seamless the transition, the higher the quality of the work. So, for instance, if we were to compare Heinlein's Starship Troopers with Haldeman's Forever War, I would state that Forever War is closer to my idea of literature because it puts you into the head of an alien being, a Vietnam veteran, without you noticing it, while in Starship Troopers Heinlein simply depends on his usual method of telling you what to think.

Genre is, to me, merely a descriptor. It simply tells you what sort of story you are going to read. It tells you nothing about how well the story is written. It is sometimes a good indication of what the story is going to make you feel, but not always. And with the recent development of grouping everything that's not either a mystery or western under the broad umbrella of "speculative fiction," the lines between types of stories are getting more and more blurred.

[emeleel]

"Speculative Fiction"? Shudder.


(Not to answer your lit vs. genre question, but I just finished a cute read yesterday - a combo of hard-boiled mystery genre and the fantasy genre. Not great lit by any means, but fun and interesting in its own way.)

[eris esoteric]

Hey, now, I like the term Speculative Fiction.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

literature is writing that changes something in the reader. It has an effect. It *does* something

Pr0n fits this description.

[eris esoteric]

You know, I think I'm just gonna stand back from that statement, MJ, and hope that somebody stumbles by and posts something relevant.

I swear guys, this isn't a trap! I'm just trying to start a non-political discussion!

[Helen_B[$]]

Eris, by your definition, Terry Pratchet writes literature, as does Neil Gaimon. Both authors make one re-examine beliefs. They also, apparently, write genre, since they write fantasy.

I find grouping a bunch of things under the heading speculative fiction really bogus, since speculative fiction will always mean SF or science fiction to me.

[anderclayton]

eris esoteric said

And with the recent development of grouping everything that's not either a mystery or western under the broad umbrella of "speculative fiction," the lines between types of stories are getting more and more blurred.

Which seriously keys into one of my huge objections to the term "speculative fiction". What exactly is it? To me it is a way for snooty lit snobs to stuff away things that they don't want into a generic classification. Personally I find it a bit alarming that a segment of SF writers prefer the term as well. SF meaning science fiction there (I *never* mean it to be speculative fiction). I could go into defining both "fantasy" and "science fiction" but "speculative fiction"? No way. It is essentially a meaningless term.

To me the term "Literature" (big "L" there) really does fall into its own little genre (with all of the snooty implications involved) if you want to go that route. Even more than science fiction in fact because it generally (lately at least) tends towards many of the same writing traits.

Also in my opinion neither science fiction nor fantasy are really genres in that sense. Maybe 'metagenres' instead, maybe 'modes' (my words). You can use either SF or fantasy to produce pretty much any 'genre' fiction (including "Literature"). Even a style a lot like nonfiction can be formed with either ("Klingon Dictionary" anyone? Or there is a Zombie Survival Guide too)

From my perspective, the way 'genre' is currently used to classify a set of works ("That's genre fiction") is simply not useful.

On the other hand, I'd rather the library separate things out for me. It is a pain in the butt searching through everything for SF/Fantasy.

Ander

[anderclayton]

From the essay cited (after reading it), I really get the impression that the author wants to see the the dividing line broken down too. Meaning the line between Literature and everything else Not simply the genre line.

Hmm. As an anecdotal thing... At the local writing group (well, really talking about the Statewide one here) I belonged to, they have a contest. The year I joined, they had different categories, one was science fiction. The next year they decided to merge the SF category in with a generic "genre" fiction one instead. I didn't renew my membership.

Ander

[eris esoteric]

Helen_B said

Eris, by your definition, Terry Pratchet writes literature, as does Neil Gaimon. Both authors make one re-examine beliefs. They also, apparently, write genre, since they write fantasy.

That's exactly the position I'm holding. I don't think the setting a story takes place in should determine whether it is considered a serious work or not. Only the quality of the story telling matters, in my opinion. And hell, yeah, I think Gaiman writes Literature. I can't speak as much for Pratchet, as I've not follow his works as much.

[eris esoteric]

Helen_B said

I find grouping a bunch of things under the heading speculative fiction really bogus, since speculative fiction will always mean SF or science fiction to me.

anderclayton said

Which seriously keys into one of my huge objections to the term "speculative fiction". What exactly is it? To me it is a way for snooty lit snobs to stuff away things that they don't want into a generic classification. Personally I find it a bit alarming that a segment of SF writers prefer the term as well. SF meaning science fiction there (I *never* mean it to be speculative fiction). I could go into defining both "fantasy" and "science fiction" but "speculative fiction"? No way. It is essentially a meaningless term.

The use of the term "speculative fiction" is a response to several recent trends. First, there's a lost more people reading genre fiction, or at least admitting to it. And many of them are interested in more than one genre. Speculative fiction is a more convenient way for me to communicate that I like Horror and Science Fiction and Fantasy and Superhero Fiction and Magical Realism and Fairy Tales without having to say "I like Horror and Science Fiction and Fantasy and Superhero Fiction and Magical Realism and Fairy Tales."

Also, it's a blatant attempt to sooth those frightened by HARD science fiction. It's OK, we can tell them now. There's no scary robots. This is nice, simple Speculative Fiction! Granted, we're assuming that the average non-reader of science fiction (and horror and fantasy....) isn't all that bright, but we generally hold that opinion anyway (blame Spider Robinson, don't blame me.)

But most importantly, the genres are blending. Fanstasy is slipping into SciFi. SciFi is slipping into fairy tales. Fairy tales are slipping into mysteries. Quick, what was Firefly? Was it Science Fiction? Or was it a Western? As the lines blur, the old classifications are getting harder to maintain.

And really, are they even really all that necessary anymore?

[emeleel]

But "speculative fiction" is way to broad a term to my mind. I want to know at least a basic description of the genre of a book, even if it's a mixed-genre book. I know I can read the dust jacket, but a base-level description is good, too.

And what if you only like certain genres in this "speculative fiction"? I like sci-fi and fantasy and that's mostly it. I used to read light-ish horror (King's about my limit) but not much anymore. Don't read superhero stuff *at all*. Don't like alternative history fiction. So do I read "speculative fiction" or do I read "genre fiction"?

[emeleel]

BTW, Helen, I don't know - can a book really be defined as "L"iterature when you're rolling in the aisle while reading it?

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

eris esoteric said

You know, I think I'm just gonna stand back from that statement, MJ, and hope that somebody stumbles by and posts something relevant.

I swear guys, this isn't a trap! I'm just trying to start a non-political discussion!

Aw, I was just funnin' with you. I knew people with more time would post some literate and well-thought-out stuff about literature after my nonsequitor.

To me, "L"iterature is stuff you have to think about when reading it, and stuff that has had an effect on groups of people. For example, 1984 and Animal Farm are often referenced when talking about societal issues and systems - they had impacts on society. The Bible is "L"iterature - and some of Jesus' parables had them rolling in the aisles because they were often gross exaggerations that were very funny at the time but the humor's been lost in translation and as the culture has changed over 2000 years.

"Genre" - easy reads, can be entertaining, may make you think because a particular character's situation strikes a chord with you for very particular reasons, but no wider societal impact.

[eris esoteric]

OK, MJ, first you tell me that a book like 1984 has had far reaching impact on society, and then you try to tell me that a genre book can't have far reaching impact on society.

The beautiful thing about your post is that you used a science fiction book as your example of the book that has far reaching impact.

No, you are NOT allowed to use the argument IN THIS THREAD that because a book is good, it is not science fiction. (Especially since 1984 isn't even all that well-written. I mean, come on, there's a whole chunk in the middle where he gives up telling the story and starts lecturing on political structures. That's the kind of thing the critics are always whaling on Heinlein for... but it's OK when Orwell does it?)

And, because I'm mean, I'm going to throw this one out... Is Stranger in a Strange Land an easy read? Did it have only a limited impact?

But you've brought up two perceptions of genre fiction, and I would like to address them. The first is that genre fiction is "easy" reading. The second is that nobody reads them, so they're not important. Neither of these statements are true. First, not all genre books are easy reads with little point. Even comic books have been proving this statement untrue for twenty years now. And as for the perception that no body's reading genre fiction... where have you been? Did you miss Harry Potter? Have you not noticed the number of super hero movies coming out? And is it even possible to turn on a television set and not see vampires somewhere? Speculative fiction is becoming popular in MANY media, including books. And considering the number of science fiction writers who are writing books for the young adult market, and the success they are having, I think it's fair to say that this is a trend that is going to continue for at least another generation.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

OK, so I totally don't understand what you mean by "genre" then, because every book falls into some sort of a category or classification or genre (using the dictionary definition of the word), whether or not it becomes considered "L"iterature by large groups of people after publication. A Tale of Two Cities was, at some point, just a novel (or was it a serial?). Shakspeare just wrote "plays" before someone considered them "L"iterature. I don't quite know when or how I said that people didn't read science fiction or Harry Potter.

I am so glad that I decided to contribute a serious answer instead of a nonsequitor to this thread, I'll tell you what.

mj
retreating to the safety and frivolity of the Symposium

[eris esoteric]

I'm sorry, I thought I had been more clear from the outset about what distinctions I was talking about. Since I was not, the fault is entirely mine.

There are those who say that speculative fiction is not literature. They will admit that there are speculative fiction books that are literature, but once those books are proclaimed literature these types say that the books are no longer speculative fiction.

I am saying that there are many well-written, challenging, engrossing and affecting books being written as speculative fiction. And that these books are still speculative fiction even if serious people declare them to be well-written, challenging, engrossing and affecting.

[amykhar]

To me, fiction is fiction. If it's wonderful, it's wonderful no matter what the genre.

[anderclayton]

eris esoteric said

Also, it's a blatant attempt to sooth those frightened by HARD science fiction. It's OK, we can tell them now. There's no scary robots. This is nice, simple Speculative Fiction!

...or (ya know, for sure) nice, simple NOTHING!

Not making fun of you here but rather pointing to the fact that it really is just dumbing things down.

eris esoteric said

The use of the term "speculative fiction" is a response to several recent trends. First, there's a lost more people reading genre fiction, or at least admitting to it. And many of them are interested in more than one genre. Speculative fiction is a more convenient way for me to communicate that I like Horror and Science Fiction and Fantasy and Superhero Fiction and Magical Realism and Fairy Tales without having to say "I like Horror and Science Fiction and Fantasy and Superhero Fiction and Magical Realism and Fairy Tales."

So instead of saying any of those things, you say absolutely none of them because "speculative" has no meaning really (at least in this context). You could essentially change it from "speculative fiction" to simply "fiction" instead and it would really work the same (since all fiction is inherently speculative).

eris esoteric said

But most importantly, the genres are blending. Fanstasy is slipping into SciFi. SciFi is slipping into fairy tales. Fairy tales are slipping into mysteries. Quick, what was Firefly? Was it Science Fiction? Or was it a Western? As the lines blur, the old classifications are getting harder to maintain.

I did mention that I don't agree with the term "genre" applied to either one of them (science fiction and fantasy), didn't I? What you say essentially goes with that point.

Ander

[anderclayton]

eris esoteric said

No, you are NOT allowed to use the argument IN THIS THREAD that because a book is good, it is not science fiction. ...
Speculative fiction is becoming popular in MANY media, including books.

..and I'd say that you shouldn't be allowed to call it speculative fiction (or "nothing" as the case may be) simply because you want to change the terms around

Ander (who notes that yes he is quoting himself with the nothing thing but hey...)

[drmomentum[$]]

Firefly was an action show, set in a fantasy setting.

In science fiction the plot is usually driven by the social implications of science and technology. A lot of what is taken to be sci-fi is not. Firefly was very much action and character driven.

I think the biggest Sci-Fi element of it was River.

-JP