Why is there an apparent prejudice against Science Fiction writers?

Question

Asimov was a professor; Heinlein helped design today's NASA space suits; Clarke helped invent telecommunication satellites.

Answer 1

Artful is right. The prejudice stems from SF's origins in the pulp magazines. Even 19th century pioneers like Mary Wolstonecraft Shelley and Jules Verne were seen as a bit pulpy and frivolous partly because of where their work appeared. It probably didn't help that Shelley was the Romantic poet Percy Shelley's teenage mistress when she wrote Frankenstein and therefore, didn't get taken as seriously as she should have during her lifetime. But more people remember Frankenstein today than can quote Percy Shelley's poems. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, but it's reality.

There's still a lot of debate in the SF community as to how much of this prejudice remains. The literary crowd are still very snobby about any genre fiction. Worse, some of them like to dip the occasional toe into genre fic without reading up on it first, then deny that they were writing it in the first place. So, you get awful, awful stuff like Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake. Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale was a good book, but Oryx and Crake was just terrible. And Atwood made it worse by trying to protect herself from criticism within the SF community with her claim that it wasn't really SF. Well...it was set in the future and dealt with the end of the world as caused by technology. What else would you call it besides post-apocalyptic SF?

On the flip side, literary fiction has become a sort of genre of its own, rather than the measure by which all fiction is measured that it was half a century ago. And anyway, genre fic pays a lot better and gets read more. So, the prejudice against SF and other genre fic has lessened.

Unfortunately, the bad SF you see in movies and television series gives the impression that "Science Fiction" equals "bad science". But that's a slightly different problem. You see a lot of bad detective work on crime shows today, but that doesn't make the mystery field any less respected.

Answer 2

Houston, we have a problem... Straight from AC Clarke, long before Apollo. Now we are working on his 'space elevator.'

I think you are mistaken, in your opinion. Sci-fi, as a genre, is so well respected that it has it's own channel. Freakin Stargate ran.. what... 9 seasons? And it only got canceled because they wanted to work on the OTHER Stargate show. Nine seasons is a heck of a run for anything. The original Star Trek only ran... what.. 3?

L. Ron Hubbard understood the function of religion so well he freakin made his own.

Anybody who knows literature can tell you that Frank Herbert understood complex sociological systems better than many who taught the subject.

Have we not averted nuclear disaster because sci fi authors have made the public wonder (and thus, scientists investigate) what really could happen? I argue the same for Big Brother scenarios... we will never fully go that way because we have already seen it, and fear it. Same with artificial intelligence. Same with cloning. We have been able to imagine how ugly it could get, if it goes the wrong way. Freakin global warming... right out of sci fi, and now we are investigating it! The morals and values expressed in fiction end up being the guidelines for ethical science (and unethical science!)

Take it to the positive... we have seen so many scenarios posited by educated, informed people about utopias and how they could work, that we will see some small examples of those principles in action in politics, although I would say that a true utopia, should we achieve it, would not last (since nothing ever does).

No way, man... historians, scientists, and liturgists, all realize the part literature plays in progress. As the Greeks and Romans wondered... does art imitate life or vice versa? These days, we know it is often both.

Perfect example... when I say Jules Vern... do you think visionary or crackpot? What do you think the guys who invented the submarine or the moon lander thought of him?

Answer 3

Is there still? I think it's seen as being much more mainstream now (but then that runs up against the anti-popularity snobs--you never win). There was a long period of sneering at it because it came from a pulp ghetto (at least in America--as I understand it, in England it's always had a lot more respect, with all sorts of mainstreamers indulging in it through the years, Huxley and Orwell and E. M. Forster and so on). Also by the way William Tenn and Cordwainer Smith were professors--and James Gunn and Jack Williamson (and probably a few others I'm forgeting).

Answer 4

Certainly there are readers who believe that the only worthwhile fiction is "literary" fiction. These readers tend to relegate all genre fiction--including science fiction, to the bottom of the pile.
Sometimes this is deserved. I think there is a lot of crappy science fiction, but, as the other answerers have pointed out, there is also a lot of very good science fiction. Vonnegut--who sometimes refused the sci-fi label, is one good example. Heinlein and Asimov are a couple of my favorites. In fact some of Asimov's short stories that I first read fifty years ago remain with me. Harlan Ellison is another of my favorites. I believe these along with some others are as good as most--or any--literary writers.
But, just to make myself clear, the reason they are somewhat despised is that they write genre fiction.

Answer 5

Personal opinion: if one is a good writer/scientist etc. - ONE MAKES IT, and possibly makes it big.

As for your question, in general what needs to be done, is to make a clear distinction BETWEEN those people who do indeed create and believe in a prejudice (say, that science fiction is an inferior literary genre), and other people who just tackle that subject from a critical point of view (which is often a positive and important thing, and what good and leading journalists and media people do).

If you do try to make that distinction, I believe that you'll be pleasantly surprised: You'll see that in a majority of cases, people who make irrelevant and unintelligent criticism -

are often very unsuccessful people, people who have done little and have achieved little. Incidentally - these may also be journalists and media people.

This is not always the case, but very often it is - plain jealousy that makes people make rash remarks -- try to observe this.


And in short, what I mean to say is that success, effort, expertise - all these in many (though again - not all) cases -
create respect, and patience in a man's thought, and thus prevent him using false irrational judgments and prejudices.

Hope this helps

Answer 6

That's a very good question. I think it stems from the fact that, in the early days of mass publishing, science fiction was relegated to "pulp" magazine status, and many of the stories were not so much true science fiction as they were fantasy or horror stories with a loose scientific grounding. The few exceptions to this were H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, but even they were considered writers of "popular" fiction and fantasy. The literati of the times considered anything that was not rooted in the classics to be "less than true literature" and as such science fiction was looked-down upon for many decades as being less than worthy of the status of literature.

Answer 7

Umm, prejudice? Not from where I sit.
Sci-fi authors are usually extremely intelligent or at least very knowledgeable about the sciences.
And because the sci-fi stories are usually so technical, readers also need to have some degree of intelligence and/or knowledge.
This is true whether it's a book, a movie or a television series.

Answer 8

Is there? I don't find that at all. Science Fiction is speculative fiction. It takes problems and issues from today and projects them into the future. I find it some of the most intelligently written material on the market. Many science fiction authors are highly educated people and write brilliantly. I don't see any prejudice against them. SWFA is a wonderful group with a lot of very vibrant and intelligent people.

I do believe there is a lot of prejudice against fantasy authors, and that I can understand in a way. But against legitimate Sci Fi authors? Never! Pax - C

Answer 9

And they've all contributed to movie happenings! As has Philip K. Dick, who wrote over 30 books in a relatively short life-span. ("Blade Runner" is the most famous film from his stuff.)

Who has something against sci-fi, anyway?
So much of the thought in that school is so original and, like you wrote, adds to our lives in unexpected ways. The many current fantasy fans (and I'm one) owe a nod at least to sci-fi books, since some fantasy ideas come from them... try reading the authors mentioned if you haven't already, Whoever-You-May-Be.

Answer 10

they may be fantastically innovative. they don't seem to be consistently. I see too many undesirable fantasy issues available - issues the place authors do exactly no longer look to care approximately doing their learn and getting information precise and consistent. i assume maximum of people experience now that fantasy is the least confusing variety to place in writing in -- you are able to in basic terms write besides the fact which you like. yet writers like Anne Mc Caffrey spent years getting all the main significant factors down for the planet Pern. She did a astounding activity of doing the historic past artwork in the previous she jumped into writing. Too many think of that's no longer required for fantasy. i could want to determine fantasy that follows extra classic paths - like physics and geography - than fantasy it is in basic terms elves and fairies in each and every single place doing truthfully besides the fact that the author needs them to do. As for technology fiction - real technology fiction is speculative fiction. It takes a topic or situation from in the present day and initiatives it into the destiny. returned, while finished impressive, it is super. while stored faraway from the historic past artwork, it is often trash. Pax - C