Article: Literary fiction adopting sci-fi elements

Homer.
Milton.
Shakespeare.

This particular turf war is not new. It is politics, pure and simple. See, for example, this insightful 2009 essay by Jonathan Lethem.

It's definitely a big topic! With lots of bruised egos on either side. As you say, the original intent was to create labels to *help* readers find books, but now (both sides) are just as interested in keeping people out. Margaret Atwood, for instance, insists that HANDMAID'S TALE is *not* science fiction -- at least she did for the longest time, I haven't checked recently.

Anyway, I'm assuming you're asking for reading on the genre wars (not book recs!). There are lots of very smart people out there. Samuel Delany is one of the smartest (for my money). As is Gene Wolfe. I've recommended this Donaldson essay on the fantastic in literature before. Vonnegut is another interesting case study.

It's a big topic. But glad to have you at the party!

ESGrace said:

I particularly loved this from Lethem's article:

"... Some of those readers, though, will graduate from a craving for fictions that flatter and indulge their fantasies to that appetite for fictions that provoke, disturb, and complicate through a manipulation of those same narrative cravings."

Click to expand...

I kinda hate that quote, because it creates a false division between genre and literary fiction, with literary fiction definitely being superior, since the reader must graduate to it.

It's the same language that's used to denigrate Romance readers and I'm pretty tired of all that bs.

onesecondglance said:

I hate that quote, it creates a false division between genre and literary fiction, with literary fiction definitely being superior, since the reader must graduate to it.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way. My forays into literary fiction suggests to me that there are bad and mediocre works as well as good ones. Simply because it is literary fiction doesn't mean it's better.

You're good, ESGrace. I was speaking about the article, not you.

I don't necessarily think the idea is to avoid becoming dated. I'd suspect it's more just that a certain subset of literary writers is realizing that they can write their literary style AND include speculative elements that they like. The internet is making it more and more clear that there's not as big a line between genre and literary fans as some people thought for ages

Among the factors arrayed against acceptance of SF as serious writing, none is more plain to outsiders than this: the books are so fucking ugly. Worse, they're all ugly in the same way, so you can't distinguish those meant for grown-ups from those meant for 12-year-olds.

Click to expand...

It might sound stupid, but this is a big concer of mine. For the average reader, the content of a novel by Samuel Delany is mostly undistinguishable from a Thomas Pynchon one. It's the packaging that tells them whether a given book is a respectable read or not. And the SF publishing world seems intent to drive the genre into the most squalid depths of its own genre ghetto. Do you guys remember Stross' Saturn's Children and its first edition cover? No wonder some people would be embarrassed of purchasing it, regardless of how much of a thoughtful, riveting read that was.

I suppose this self-ghettoizing is a product of commercial concerns, but still, I can't imagine Stross' cover helping it sell a lot of copies. Maybe it's just mindless inertia, with some self-loathing thrown in for good measure?

fistnik said:

It might sound stupid, but this is a big concer of mine. For the average reader, the content of a novel by Samuel Delany is mostly undistinguishable from a Thomas Pynchon one. It's the packaging that tells them whether a given book is a respectable read or not. And the SF publishing world seems intent to drive the genre into the most squalid depths of its own genre ghetto. Do you guys remember Stross' Saturn's Children and its first edition cover? No wonder some people would be embarrassed of purchasing it, regardless of how much of a thoughtful, riveting read that was.

I suppose this self-ghettoizing is a product of commercial concerns, but still, I can't imagine Stross' cover helping it sell a lot of copies. Maybe it's just mindless inertia, with some self-loathing thrown in for good measure?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's stupid at all. I do remember when Saturn's Children came out (it was the US edition, which it seems are uniformly more garish than their UK counterparts*), that Charlie Stross wrote an apologetic post on his own blog, saying the author doesn't get to choose the cover, sorry guys. I later bought that book in MMP with the generic spaceship cover (UK versions of SF titles love the generic spaceship covers). I just couldn't have read the US version in public, even if it was apparently a direct homage to a classic Heinlein cover. I'd have felt dirty.

I understand the self-consciousness genre readers can sometimes feel (although I've never felt quite so awkward and side-eyed as when I was reading Lolita on a plane, even in its sensible-shoes Penguin Classics edition). It does depend on the setting, though. I couldn't care less if someone judged my taste for generic spaceship novels on a train, but I might be slightly furtive about it waiting for a job interview, or schmoozing at a conference.

I've noticed a recent trend, where 'literary' SF writers get released with quite abstract covers, with no obvious genre signifiers at all. See the recent paperback editions of Iain M. Banks's SF novels, for instance, many of which could be shelved right next to his literary/mainstream novels. Some of the Delaney books I've got have very abstract covers.


*Why the difference? I can't prove it, but it seems to me that UK covers are almost always either abstract, or feature generic landscapes, planets, spaceships, etc., whereas US covers feature people and other figures much more frequently. (I also think UK covers are usually better-designed and not so garish, but that's probably just what I'm used to.)

I've noticed the same thing about Iain M. Banks, but suspiciously, these new genre-neutral editions seemed to pop up right after his death... At the time I thought it was just a move to milk the tragedy rather than an actual trend, but maybe it's just me being cynical.

I think there is also blending of genre lines more lately (or at least we know about it more lately) due to the de-monopolization of the large press publishers. Small press, Indie press and self-publishing means books that don't fit neatly into one genre are getting more attention and more readers. Therefore, books are more able to 'bleed' into several genres.

Or I may just be delusional. Time will tell

Do you mind giving us a list of those "obviously sci-fi" books?

ESGrace said:

Do you think that more and more writers are turning to sci-fi or setting stories in the near future to avoid becoming instantly dated?

Click to expand...

I didn't get that as the central premise. In any case, I'd say No. Every savvy writer knows not to be too specific, lest they run afoul of obsessive fact checkers, and to carefully ration their references to the currently up-to-date products or events or trends to something absolutely essential. So if I have character buy a drink I say "soft drink" rather than Coke. My readers today or a decade away or (being optimistic) a century away will fill in the generic "soft drink" with their own specific favorite. Which might not even be a fizzy drink but a fruit drink.

If any contemporary or literary writers are using more SFnal elements in their stories it's because much of the content of SF has become part of everyday life. There are several thousand space satellites orbiting the Earth, and we see the curvature of the planet in every weather cast on the news. The latest spaceship launch isn't exciting anymore; sometimes there are several a week all over the world. When/if aliens visit us they will be news for a year or three then become ho-hum afterward, maybe only mentioned when some nut jobs protest their presence.

This osmosis of SFnal stuff to other literary corrals goes the other way too. Ernest Hemingway's lean but vivid writing style has infected several generations of SF writers. James Joyce's unique writing style is no longer unique, as his several techniques have bled into the subconscious of anyone who's read some of his works in school.

Periodically some SF writers and readers object to SF/F becoming more literary and we have a few months or years of a tempest in a teaspoon. These are laughable to me. Any fan of Heinlein (often held up as an example of a "classic" writer) hears echoes of Hemingway and his contemporaries on every page. Heinlein read widely and could not have escaped them.

Books and magazines have become cheaper to make and distribute every year for several centuries and people have become more affluent and entertainment hungry. To them we've added movies and TV and the internet. We are awash in information and influence and barring catastrophe will be ever more awash in the years to come. We've also become more adept at ignoring this flood, but some of it seeps into our subconscious all the time. I find it no wonder that SF/F and contempo literature have interbred. It was inevitable.

I find this thread very interesting!!

The way you have all described it; there is something of a Venn diagram between "beautiful/interesting ideas" and "beautiful/interesting language" that separates Sci Fi from Lit Fiction... with some contested space in between.
I first got into writing fiction, doing long-form Philosophy of Mind thought experiments (Subjective POV of a 4th dimensional being, etc). That quickly became Neuroscience, and now I'm back to fiction again.

The writing I do now is probably best described as "beautiful/interesting mental states", and still comprises the backbone of my fiction and non-fiction alike. So that would be a third circle in the Venn diagram to then consider

Just how punitive are these "tempest in a teaspoon" types, exactly?