I don't think that's true at all. Sure many classics are great, but what is and isn't considered a "classic" is dictated to a large extent by what literature teachers choose to teach, and it is heavily biased towards what literature teachers find enjoyable.
Classics definitely aren't picked because millions of people over dozens of generations have enjoyed them more than other books. If that were the case, high school students would spend a year just reading Agatha Christie.
And I can count on one hand the number of science fiction and fantasy books we read in high school and college literature classes (1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451).
The criterion isn't 'enjoyable' - it's 'improving.'
There's a strange belief that reading certain books will make your mind better. (For ''better', read 'more middle class' - at least, that's how it works in the UK.)
There's an entire series of books by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu where he pulls apart culture as a symbol of status and social distinction. He's well worth reading on the topic. (But being middle class, I would say that...)
A lot of people miss the fact that literature is about teaching moral lessons. If you read books about novel writing, you'll see that some recommend that you start with a premise - which is a moral point you want to make.
You can then use the writing to dramatise the premise. This is more persuasive than stating it outright as an opinion, and also gives the book a focus it wouldn't otherwise have.
This is a slightly old-fashioned view now, but I think it applies to many old-fashioned classics - maybe not so much to modern fiction, a lot of which is either escapist or nihilistic or horrific for the sake of it.
1984, Brave New World, and F451 all have a strong premise, IMO.
As a mostly-sic-fi reader who later broadened his horizons to include lots of classic literature, I think a lot of sci-fi fans don't have a great sense of how "good" sci-fi writing compares with the sorts of things that end up in the literary canon. Often the basic craft of the writing isn't even up to the standards of a typical "canonical" work (see: Asimov, with his hopelessly flat characters and dialogue), let alone the finer qualities that take a work from "a fun read" to sublime.
On the contrary, most sci-fi fans know that Asimov's characters and dialogue are terrible. He's the shibboleth for sci-fi fans precisely because his characters are so terrible: if you can appreciate Asimov, it proves that you can appreciate the things sci-fi fans value - worlds, ideas, even plot - because there's nothing else to like about his works. They're made great solely by virtue of their ideas.
Even just within sci-fi, there are plenty of writers who are far, far better than Asimov at characterization or prosecraft. But if you judge solely by characterization and prosecraft, as too many fans of classic literature seem to, then that too is a very superficial way of appreciating reading.
Conversely, I still remember : Arcadia Darell, Golan Trevize, Bliss, Janov Pelorat, Hari Seldon, Raych, Joseph Schwartz (and his poignant final lines in the associated novel), Rik... I could go on, and on.
All strong characters, with genuine personality, that have resonated through decades of my reading. (And, I've read very widely.)
Just because Asimov didn't spend pages on introspection (Frank Herbert was the opposite in this regard) doesn't make his characters any weaker. They were part of a much wider story than 'mainstream' writers dare to tackle, often set in a far future where dialog (often from very rational characters) should be thought of as contemporary. That's what science fiction is about, surely?
see: Asimov, with his hopelessly flat characters and dialogue
What? I recently re-read the entire foundation series and was amazed at how I actually remembered a staggering number of the many protagonists from my single time reading the books almost 20 years ago.
I do agree that he might not be sci-fi writer with the best technique - Bester or Le Guin might be better there. Ironically we now suffer (somewhat) from the reverse problems: writers all have a higher education in writing: and end up writing very similarly (in my experience this is a bigger problem with American writers -- but that could be overt and non-overt selection bias: who gets published and who gets marketing/press).
On a side note: after viewing the pilot episode of "Man in the High Castle" (based on the book by P K Dick) earlier this evening, I realized I hadn't read the book. Now I'm a little over halfway through -- and I find it highly enjoyable. And more interestingly highly apropos current events with it's not-so-subtle critique of the US versus the horrors of nazism and ww2-era fascism.
TV show looks great, but I very much doubt it'll manage to pull of the dualism of the novel.
This is pure hogwash. Literary fiction is just another genre of fiction, not something that stands above other genres. There are serious literary authors who have branched into genre fiction who agree with me. Read over this interview with Michael Chabon [1].
This is like complaining that music from the 80s is so much better than music from today because you've cherry picked a few dozen gems from an entire decade.
No, it's more like complaining that a very small set of music cherry-picked over a very long period of time, from hundreds years of music, is better than the majority of music from today. Which isn't a complaint, it's a straightforward observation. The parent didn't say 'literary fiction' in general.
No it's exactly like complaining that there is no good music being made today because the average new song isn't as good as the best song from the 80s.
My complaint is that in most cases people are comparing average Science Fiction to the best of Classical Literature, but this tells you nothing about the best of Science Fiction.
Sure the average Science Fiction novel isn't as good as the best classical literature. But that's not the implication of the original comment. The implication is that Science Fiction is inferior--it's meant for entertainment, not capable of holding up to serious literature. Science Fiction is merely enjoyable, not sublime.
Literary fiction is just another genre of fiction, not something that stands above other genres.
I'm not even sure it's that. I mean, what "genre" is "non genre" fiction? If "literate" fiction is just "anything with no specific genre" then that isn't saying much. And a lot of the classification of works into the category of "literate fiction" is post-hoc rationalization anyway.
TL;DR: Bradbury, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and Vonnegut, sort of.
Bradbury, unreservedly.
I remember really liking Dune through God Emperor, but I read it so long ago that I recommend it only tentatively. I do recall that the one non-Dune book of Herbert's I attempted to read seemed like it was written while on acid, and not in a good way.
A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of the best sci-fi novels I've read. Its author wasn't very active, though, so there's not much else from him. I haven't read any of the rest, but none of it has the reputation that Canticle does.
I'd put forward Vonnegut, but a) he's often not classed as a sci-fi writer for some reason, and b) I personally think he's at his best when his sci-fi tendencies are kept to a minimum (Dead Eye Dick, Bluebeard, Galapagos, which is as more fantasy than sci-fi if one must stick a genre label on it). I'd class Atwood as similar to Vonnegut in this regard, but even more so—her sci-fi work is just OK, from what I've seen of it, and I prefer her "straight" fiction.
If found Clarke's The City and the Stars deeply affecting (though, for long stretches, a bit of a chore), but the other couple novels of his I've read I wish I hadn't. A couple interesting ideas that stick, but not much substance. They were The Hammer of God and The Songs of a Distant Earth, for the record. They weren't even very entertaining. Both were late novels, so maybe his earlier stuff tends to be better? Mere speculation. I've been put off trying more of him by his current 1-for-3 record. I do like the movie 2001, though :-)
Bester's probably my biggest blind spot among the sci-fi greats—I've read nothing by him.
I can recommend The New Hugo Winners collections over The Hugo Winners, pretty much universally, if you're looking for short stories. Asimov all but sneers at them in his torch-passing introduction, but the reason he feels out of touch with those authors' work is because they're way better than what he was used to. However, I've yet to find a contemporary sci-fi author I can rely upon to deliver an entire novel that doesn't fall apart at some point, one way or another. I haven't tried Murakami, who seems well regarded and is, by reputation, my greatest remaining chance.
(Just to be clear, I enjoy plenty of other sci-fi in a guilty-pleasure, lazy weekend sort of way, in the same way that I genuinely like watching [some] crappy movies on Netflix)
A lot of people miss the fact that literature is about teaching moral lessons. If you read books about novel writing, you'll see that some recommend that you start with a premise - which is a moral point you want to make.
I'd argue that science fiction is more focused on teaching a moral lesson than any other genre.
Agatha Christie is indeed enjoyable, but she hasn't been read for hundreds of years. Do you really think people will be reading her 200 years from now?
I'm not sure why you think what is considered a classic could be dictated by what is taught in schools? I can see no basis for this assertion.
Do you really think people will be reading her 200 years from now?
Well people have been reading her novels for 95 years now, and she's sold over 2 billion copies. So the answer is yes I do.
I'm not sure why you think what is considered a classic could be dictated by what is taught in schools? I can see no basis for this assertion.
Because what most people consider classics are books they were told are classics--mostly by their high school literature teacher. I'm sure there are more objective measures, but the majority of people certainly don't use them.
Being a classic is a bit self propagating. Kids grow up hearing that Ethan Frome is a classic, they become teachers and teach their students that Ethan Frome is a classic.
Comments
I don't think that's true at all. Sure many classics are great, but what is and isn't considered a "classic" is dictated to a large extent by what literature teachers choose to teach, and it is heavily biased towards what literature teachers find enjoyable.
Classics definitely aren't picked because millions of people over dozens of generations have enjoyed them more than other books. If that were the case, high school students would spend a year just reading Agatha Christie.
And I can count on one hand the number of science fiction and fantasy books we read in high school and college literature classes (1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451).
The criterion isn't 'enjoyable' - it's 'improving.'
There's a strange belief that reading certain books will make your mind better. (For ''better', read 'more middle class' - at least, that's how it works in the UK.)
It may even be true:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/07/reading...
There's an entire series of books by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu where he pulls apart culture as a symbol of status and social distinction. He's well worth reading on the topic. (But being middle class, I would say that...)
A lot of people miss the fact that literature is about teaching moral lessons. If you read books about novel writing, you'll see that some recommend that you start with a premise - which is a moral point you want to make.
You can then use the writing to dramatise the premise. This is more persuasive than stating it outright as an opinion, and also gives the book a focus it wouldn't otherwise have.
This is a slightly old-fashioned view now, but I think it applies to many old-fashioned classics - maybe not so much to modern fiction, a lot of which is either escapist or nihilistic or horrific for the sake of it.
1984, Brave New World, and F451 all have a strong premise, IMO.
As a mostly-sic-fi reader who later broadened his horizons to include lots of classic literature, I think a lot of sci-fi fans don't have a great sense of how "good" sci-fi writing compares with the sorts of things that end up in the literary canon. Often the basic craft of the writing isn't even up to the standards of a typical "canonical" work (see: Asimov, with his hopelessly flat characters and dialogue), let alone the finer qualities that take a work from "a fun read" to sublime.
On the contrary, most sci-fi fans know that Asimov's characters and dialogue are terrible. He's the shibboleth for sci-fi fans precisely because his characters are so terrible: if you can appreciate Asimov, it proves that you can appreciate the things sci-fi fans value - worlds, ideas, even plot - because there's nothing else to like about his works. They're made great solely by virtue of their ideas.
Even just within sci-fi, there are plenty of writers who are far, far better than Asimov at characterization or prosecraft. But if you judge solely by characterization and prosecraft, as too many fans of classic literature seem to, then that too is a very superficial way of appreciating reading.
Conversely, I still remember : Arcadia Darell, Golan Trevize, Bliss, Janov Pelorat, Hari Seldon, Raych, Joseph Schwartz (and his poignant final lines in the associated novel), Rik... I could go on, and on.
All strong characters, with genuine personality, that have resonated through decades of my reading. (And, I've read very widely.)
Just because Asimov didn't spend pages on introspection (Frank Herbert was the opposite in this regard) doesn't make his characters any weaker. They were part of a much wider story than 'mainstream' writers dare to tackle, often set in a far future where dialog (often from very rational characters) should be thought of as contemporary. That's what science fiction is about, surely?
What? I recently re-read the entire foundation series and was amazed at how I actually remembered a staggering number of the many protagonists from my single time reading the books almost 20 years ago.
I do agree that he might not be sci-fi writer with the best technique - Bester or Le Guin might be better there. Ironically we now suffer (somewhat) from the reverse problems: writers all have a higher education in writing: and end up writing very similarly (in my experience this is a bigger problem with American writers -- but that could be overt and non-overt selection bias: who gets published and who gets marketing/press).
On a side note: after viewing the pilot episode of "Man in the High Castle" (based on the book by P K Dick) earlier this evening, I realized I hadn't read the book. Now I'm a little over halfway through -- and I find it highly enjoyable. And more interestingly highly apropos current events with it's not-so-subtle critique of the US versus the horrors of nazism and ww2-era fascism.
TV show looks great, but I very much doubt it'll manage to pull of the dualism of the novel.
This is pure hogwash. Literary fiction is just another genre of fiction, not something that stands above other genres. There are serious literary authors who have branched into genre fiction who agree with me. Read over this interview with Michael Chabon [1].
This is like complaining that music from the 80s is so much better than music from today because you've cherry picked a few dozen gems from an entire decade.
[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/27/entertainment/ca-cha...
No, it's more like complaining that a very small set of music cherry-picked over a very long period of time, from hundreds years of music, is better than the majority of music from today. Which isn't a complaint, it's a straightforward observation. The parent didn't say 'literary fiction' in general.
No it's exactly like complaining that there is no good music being made today because the average new song isn't as good as the best song from the 80s.
My complaint is that in most cases people are comparing average Science Fiction to the best of Classical Literature, but this tells you nothing about the best of Science Fiction.
Sure the average Science Fiction novel isn't as good as the best classical literature. But that's not the implication of the original comment. The implication is that Science Fiction is inferior--it's meant for entertainment, not capable of holding up to serious literature. Science Fiction is merely enjoyable, not sublime.
Literary fiction is just another genre of fiction, not something that stands above other genres.
I'm not even sure it's that. I mean, what "genre" is "non genre" fiction? If "literate" fiction is just "anything with no specific genre" then that isn't saying much. And a lot of the classification of works into the category of "literate fiction" is post-hoc rationalization anyway.
Which authors would you recommend(for sci-fi)?
TL;DR: Bradbury, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and Vonnegut, sort of.
Bradbury, unreservedly.
I remember really liking Dune through God Emperor, but I read it so long ago that I recommend it only tentatively. I do recall that the one non-Dune book of Herbert's I attempted to read seemed like it was written while on acid, and not in a good way.
A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of the best sci-fi novels I've read. Its author wasn't very active, though, so there's not much else from him. I haven't read any of the rest, but none of it has the reputation that Canticle does.
I'd put forward Vonnegut, but a) he's often not classed as a sci-fi writer for some reason, and b) I personally think he's at his best when his sci-fi tendencies are kept to a minimum (Dead Eye Dick, Bluebeard, Galapagos, which is as more fantasy than sci-fi if one must stick a genre label on it). I'd class Atwood as similar to Vonnegut in this regard, but even more so—her sci-fi work is just OK, from what I've seen of it, and I prefer her "straight" fiction.
If found Clarke's The City and the Stars deeply affecting (though, for long stretches, a bit of a chore), but the other couple novels of his I've read I wish I hadn't. A couple interesting ideas that stick, but not much substance. They were The Hammer of God and The Songs of a Distant Earth, for the record. They weren't even very entertaining. Both were late novels, so maybe his earlier stuff tends to be better? Mere speculation. I've been put off trying more of him by his current 1-for-3 record. I do like the movie 2001, though :-)
Bester's probably my biggest blind spot among the sci-fi greats—I've read nothing by him.
I can recommend The New Hugo Winners collections over The Hugo Winners, pretty much universally, if you're looking for short stories. Asimov all but sneers at them in his torch-passing introduction, but the reason he feels out of touch with those authors' work is because they're way better than what he was used to. However, I've yet to find a contemporary sci-fi author I can rely upon to deliver an entire novel that doesn't fall apart at some point, one way or another. I haven't tried Murakami, who seems well regarded and is, by reputation, my greatest remaining chance.
(Just to be clear, I enjoy plenty of other sci-fi in a guilty-pleasure, lazy weekend sort of way, in the same way that I genuinely like watching [some] crappy movies on Netflix)
Have you read R.A. Lafferty?
Nope, unless I read something of his in a collection and forgot about it. I'll check him out.
Carl Sagan - Contact - awesome book, btw skip the movie
Philip K. Dick - anything!
Asimov - Foundation series
Cortázar - anything!
I'd argue that science fiction is more focused on teaching a moral lesson than any other genre.
And generally more blunt about it, certainly.
Agatha Christie is indeed enjoyable, but she hasn't been read for hundreds of years. Do you really think people will be reading her 200 years from now?
I'm not sure why you think what is considered a classic could be dictated by what is taught in schools? I can see no basis for this assertion.
Well people have been reading her novels for 95 years now, and she's sold over 2 billion copies. So the answer is yes I do.
Because what most people consider classics are books they were told are classics--mostly by their high school literature teacher. I'm sure there are more objective measures, but the majority of people certainly don't use them.
Being a classic is a bit self propagating. Kids grow up hearing that Ethan Frome is a classic, they become teachers and teach their students that Ethan Frome is a classic.
The Lindy Effect [1] would say that the best guess is that they'll still be reading her 95 years from now...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Effect
Literature teachers have hated the classics for the last 40 years or so. The "canon" has not only been under attack, it has lost the fight completely.
According to the study written about here, that's not true.
https://nylusmilk.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/top-10-most-taugh...
This also fits with what I remember from high school 13 years ago.