Sci-Fi Geeks Vs. Lit. Geeks
 

If it weren't for Cherry and Shawnee and Dana, I would feel like a lonely :alien: on a lonley :alien: planet (called Cellar Alpha Squad 7 starring Tek Jansen) because fully 2/3 of you are Sci-Fi (or should I say SyFy?) geekazoids who knew what a Triffid was before I had my first beer and I am into the Classics.

I think we should rumble.

First punch: If Sci-Fi is so great, why hasn't any Sci-Fi writer ever won a Nobel, huh?

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly, is both a classic and sci-fi. Have you read it, Brianna? What did you think?

DARN YOU LESSING!
And to think - I read her Golden Notebook!!! I'd forgotten about her.

haven't read Frankenstein yet...Mel Brooks kind of ruined it for me.

The bias against science fiction in literary circles is often strong enough that if a book is good enough, people will try their damnednest to justify not calling it science fiction. Ironically (because the opposite is true in SF circles), the less fantasy is mixed into the science fiction, the more some will insist it's not SF.

Not that I mean to denigrate fantasy, that genre is also unfairly maligned. Probably since the Victorian era, fantasy has been considered a children's genre, even though the older a surviving classic is, the more likely it is to be fantasy.

So, Bri, you're saying that anybody who hasn't won the Nobel for literature isn't worth reading?

I'm looking for Steinbeck fanfic. (lord I hope that doesn't exist.)

Fraid I am a total sci-fi geek Bri. Attitudes towards sci-fi and fantasy are all tied up with concepts of 'High' and 'Low' culture.

There is a place for the classics, there is also a place for sci-fi. And the truth is we have no idea what will count as a classic in a century or two. In 200 years students may be pretending to read the Belgariad in order to look cultured.

I read anything and everything. Though...I tend not to want to read it if someone tags it as Literature. There are exceptions to that: Dickens, Heller, Hemmingway to name a few.

I find the dividing line between sci-fi / fantasy and everything else, rather an artificial and unsatisfying one. Some of the most beautiful, lyrical, complex and literary works I've read have been in the 'sci-fi' section of the bookshop. Some of the most unengaging, self-indulgent, vapid nonsense has been sold to me as literature.

Read what thrills you. Work out why it thrills you. Thats what I find fun.

Take it back.

I didn't know we we dividing sci-fi from classics. Now we have the task of defining both of them to prove that they are mutually exclusive. Wow. Good luck on this tedious, futile task. :D

Science Fiction requires more imagination.

Hemingway and Steinbeck wrote what they knew from what they experienced. Jules Verne and Arthur C. Clark wrote of worlds that didn't exist in anyone's wildest dreams. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and 2001 A Space Odyssey are every bit as visceral and real as The Fisherman and the Sea and The Great Gatsby.

Which pair of books would you imagine was more difficult to write? I'm not taking anything away from the literary giants. Except the presumption that their science fiction brethren don't belong in the same club.

Absolutely there is a lot of sci-fi/fantasy type literature which is beautifully written. Some of those that fall into the classics realm, I've read. Not because I'm a snob, but because literature as art (meaning in this case that it endures) fascinates me, and I took a lot of lit electives in college.

I've said before I am more into the "slice of life" type of books, looking at the human condition, a study of frailty and strength and emotion. There are plenty of these types of books that fall into the category of not so good, as well. Classics of any genre live on.

I think I should expand my horizons and try some books that have been mentioned previously.

Great writing is great writing.

eta: Beestie, truly those are all great books, but I take issue with the presumption that less imagination is used when doing what Hemingway (I'm assuming you meant The Old Man and the Sea?) and Fitzgerald did when capturing the seemingly simple; so complex.

But ... but ... I like both.

There is good and bad in both genres.

I would say that writing good SF is harder, because you must first know some good science, know where the cutting edge of science is up to, then stretch your imagination beyond that, being creative yet keeping it at least "possible" given what we know about science so far. And then be able to construct an interesting plot and believable characters, and then be able to write well.

And I know that if you want to look like a real geek you should call it SF not SciFi. Dunno why though. Geeks can be pretty snobby sometimes.

but what about classic SF?

and Arthur C. Clarke was nominated for a Nobel peace prize.

I just find the distinction so articifial. Like Cloud says, what about Classic SF? The Time Machine...literature or science fiction? It's a silly choice it makes no sense. Science Fiction is a genre. Literature is not a genre. Science Fiction exists within and without Literature as a category.