Doug -
Geeze, doesn't anybody like good science fiction any more? Larry
Nivin's Ringworld. Poul Anderson's Gateway series.
I love that shit (much of SF)... but don't quite want to call most of it
literature... great storytelling and exposition of esoteric scientific
concepts... but not quite always what I want to call literature...
It is a good question... in this crowd, naturally sympathetic (I
presume) to Science Fiction. "What can pass as literature?" I know a
few SF authors and many are great at what I said above of your
suggestions (storytelling exposition)... and some of these works may be
remembered *as* literary... with enough perspective of time.
Jack Williamson was a friend and a prolific writer from the golden age
of SF and beyond (Scientifiction he first called it in 1927 and was
still cranking things out through the rest of his 100+ lifespan) but I
know he didn't claim to have been writing literature. The closest might
be his post WWII novel "the Humanoid Touch". It was what rescued him
from a long writer's block after realizing the horrors that technology
had wrought (in war) when they had been promised as a panacea.
Including by himself. It was not his normal pulp-SF adventure/space-opera.
Until the 60's I don't think I can call out any other SF as Literature
(though the Pre-SF Scientific Romance period with Verne and Doyle has
some good entries). London and Twain dabbled in that realm successfully
too.
Maybe I'm looking for more/deeper social significance than most SF even
aspires to (much less achieves)?
Some with literary talent/style:
Heinlein (only with Stranger and maybe a couple of others)
Samuel Delaney
Maybe Clarke and Asimov... barely?
Tolkien (Fantasy, not SF though)
Sterling and Gibson (barely).
Stephenson (barely... maybe if he can nail what he was trying to do with
his Baroque Cycle)
King (though not so much his SF/Horror)
In our own neighborhood, I might want to nominate (some of) the works of
Walter Jon Williams, J R R Martin, Laura Mixon-Gould and Sage Walker as
candidates for having literary qualities. Steve (SM) Stirling gets a
"maybe"... I think he has the talent as a writer and a storyteller and
there is significance woven through his works but he somehow gets caught
up more in juvenile/egoist stuff before he gets down to the important
cool, adult issues.
Margaret Atwood is assumed to be literary while her content is SF.
Ursula LeGuin is sometimes credited with the same.
Vonnegut is almost pure SF and yet he is usually considered contemporary
Am Lit. and I grant him (most of) that categorization.
I love the works of the Hard SF folks (Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Niven,
Benson, Bear, Benford, Forward .........) and especially those with a
good solid social message/question (Stranger, Dune, 2001, ...) But a
lot of it is mostly escapist (albeit into deep scientific curiosities)...
I personally do not snub SF as literature because of it's subject...
I'm sure some do. And I think good storytelling is key to literature
(and I find much of SF to be good examples of that). And some SF
authors are very good writers in the technical sense (though many are not).
I guess the final key for me is the social relevance. Is the story
saying something important... not just interesting and not just well
written. That is where (by volume) SF (and most popular fiction) falls
short. Romances, westerns, crime, mystery, espionage, etc. all have
good storytellers and some good writers... but the deeper social
significance seems too often missing or at least thin.
Maybe I read too much SF at a young age and missed the social
significance of (much of) it, or maybe I developed a taste for it from
the few examples I did encounter young... I'd love to be reminded of
the many authors and stories I read "back when" that may very well have
carried more than grand ideas and fun adventures in space and time (and
the inner space of scientific ideas).
On re-evaluation (reflection?) I do realize that parts of Anderson's
Gateway series probably do deserve a literary nod... and maybe Niven's
FootFall (though I read it for my love of dystopianism) too.
Among contemporary popular writers, Martin Cruz Smith's work (Stallion
Gate, Red Square, Gorky Park, Stalin's Ghost, Rising Sun) are exceptions
to this generality (I'm waay over my 10 sorry). He tells a good story,
with good imagery, dialog, exposition and the stories he tells and the
characters he builds are not just interesting but important to the human
experience. I'm not big on "character" novels but his Arkady Renko
actually works for me on repitition... the crazy Russian bastard
actually makes sense.
Just because I'm not a liberal arts major doesn't mean I don't read
critically (as well as for informational, educational, informational and
escapist) reasons.
Damn, I'm having a ramble-y day... sorry to expose all of you to all of
this... glad you have a "delete" key and the ability to skim lightly
over such. I do hope someone (else) has some strong opinions and ideas
about what makes literature and how does that fit with SF (and other
usually escapist/popular genres) and that they read far enough to take
the challenge here.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
