Fantasy, Sci Fi and Literature

[Jorkens]

This kind of comes out of the heavy reading thread...

What's the divide between sci fi and fantasy on the one hand and Proper Literature that you might study on a traditionalist university course on the other? It's something that comes up implicitly quite a lot in book threads around here, but it's also quite weird and hard to pin down. Why are 1984 and Brave New World not really thought of as science fiction? Is there anything that actually sits on the dividing line and is both Literature and genre fiction? The closest I can think of is J G Ballard...

[Mewtarthio]

"Proper" literature is just literature that's stood the test of time.

[Rob Knotts]

According the literature professors I've had, it basically works like this: science fiction (hard or otherwise) is a subgenre of the fantasy genre, and either can produce works that qualify as literature. The main reasons people have a hard time seeing fantasy/sci-fi as literature seem to be these: Fantasy and science fiction as we know it are relatively new genres, having basically emerged in the 19th century and becoming established in the 20th. "Fantastic" stories have been around a lot longer, but only became formal genres recently. Whether you read sci-fi/fantasy or not, chances are you've heard about series like Starship Troopers, Dune, or Lord of the Rings long before any major movies/series came out for them. It's hard to see something from pop-culture qualify as literature.

The literary quality of fantasy and science fiction is usually underrated because it's relatively new and tends to be familiar with more people than actually ever read it. There's real sci-fi/fantasy literature to be found, just a a lot of people who'd rather not look for it.

[kjones]

I consider Lord of the Rings to be both genre fiction and literature. I think much of the work of authors such as Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut would be considered by many to be beyond "mere" science fiction.

The problem comes from authors who put the science before the fiction. Literature is ultimately about great stories and compelling characters. If you have an incredible world, but nothing interesting happens in it, you'll never make it into the "literature" camp. (I'm looking at you, William Gibson.)

[ZombieRockStar]

"Fantasy" and "Science Fiction" are marketing labels used to decide which shelf you put a book on.

"Speculative fiction" is any work of fiction that depicts something other than the modern, "real" world.

"Literature," of the capital-L variety generally means and book of a commonly accepted canon. Who this canon is accepted/determined by is incredibly murky and really has no defining feature other than common agreement. The English program at my school offers three complete courses in Sci-Fi/Fantasy, in a totally non-ironic way, so even what's studied in schools is hardly a good measure.

If you're asking me what I consider Literature to be...I like books that are somehow different from any other, where the author obviously put legitimate thought into what he/she was writing, instead of following a formula. And I mean that in a much more general way than just an interesting plot or characters. So Literature, for me, is any book that isn't really just a copy of another.

And some of these could be also considered genre fiction. The Crying of Lot 49 is essentially any Dan Brown novel on an acid trip and with extremely better prose and without any pretensions.

Any work of fiction that's genre doesn't mean it isn't literary or doesn't have literary qualities.

Basically, there are only two kinds of books. Good ones and bad ones. Whether a book is good or bad is not determined by where it is in a bookstore.

[karmuno]

I consider Lord of the Rings to be both genre fiction and literature. I think much of the work of authors such as Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut would be considered by many to be beyond "mere" science fiction.

Those are the three authors that first came to my mind when I read the OP. Also 1984 has been mentioned. I'd also say Isaac Asimov qualifies, but his style doesn't compare to other authors mentioned (Orwell is my favorite writer, not for subject matter but for style).

[Jorkens]

I consider Lord of the Rings to be both genre fiction and literature. I think much of the work of authors such as Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut would be considered by many to be beyond "mere" science fiction.
Ooh yes, Kurt Vonnegut, I'd forgotten about him. He definitely seems to be on the dividing line.

I guess there is a 'test of time' thing too. It'll be interesting to see whether within our lifetimes a canon of the best science fiction and fantasy starts to get seen as literary - does anyone know when it was decided that Dracula and Frankenstein were Literature and vast swathes of other gothic novels weren't?

Also, is there an actualy difference in style between literary science fiction or fantasy and genre science fiction or fantasy? I always get the impression that one criterion for inclusion in the canon is some sort of economy and restraint of style...