Apologies if there's already a Thread dealing with this (I've searched but couldn't find one).
I've been mulling an issue over during the last few days and would be interested in knowing what other people thing.
The Literary Establishment (for want of a better term) seem to have a somewhat snotty view to genre fiction, and particularly to fantasy and science fiction. However, several literary writers (notably Margaret Atwood, Ian Banks and Kazuo Ishiguru) have used strong science fiction elements within their literary fiction and the Literary Establishment hail them for it - in fact both Atwood and Ishiguru have seen their SF themed work nominated for prestigious literary prizes, including the Man Booker.
So what I'm wondering is the following:
MM
I've been mulling an issue over during the last few days and would be interested in knowing what other people thing.
The Literary Establishment (for want of a better term) seem to have a somewhat snotty view to genre fiction, and particularly to fantasy and science fiction. However, several literary writers (notably Margaret Atwood, Ian Banks and Kazuo Ishiguru) have used strong science fiction elements within their literary fiction and the Literary Establishment hail them for it - in fact both Atwood and Ishiguru have seen their SF themed work nominated for prestigious literary prizes, including the Man Booker.
So what I'm wondering is the following:
- Is there any difference between so called 'literary science fiction' and 'bog standard genre science fiction' that merits the distinction?
- Do you think that an established 'literary' writer automatically carries more respect/cache from the Literary Establishment when they venture into the genre and if so, do you think that such respect/cache is merited?
- Is it possible for a genre-based writer to make the move into literary fiction to great acclaim or do you think that the move is one-way?
MM