Should the speculative genre (science-fiction/fantasy) be considered as literature?

[The Marquis de Leech]

23 hours ago, mormont said:

The term 'speculative fiction' is meaningless anyway - all fiction is speculative. It's like calling a genre 'fictive fiction'. The term was only invented because of the sort of weird snobbery that suggests genre fiction of various types (detective fiction, fantasy, sf, romance) is inherently without worth. 

I actually like the term 'speculative fiction.' It's an all-purpose umbrella term, that indicates "Here Be Weird Stuff," without getting into pedantic arguments over whether a given work is really fantasy or really science-fiction.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 7/9/2021 at 11:10 AM, butterweedstrover said:

Take anything from Homer to Milton and tell me where the story was an invention of one political ideology?

Ovid's Metamorphoses? Yes.

Dante's Divine Comedy? Yes.

Geoffrey of Monmouth? Yes.

[The Marquis de Leech]

16 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

You will have to substantiate your opinion. I already explained why I think they scorn artistic merit. 

Attempting to write an analytical work centered around one determinant truth is at odds with aesthetic value. 

You can have one, but you can't have both.  

So literature can only ask questions, not answer them?

[butterweedstrover]

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Ovid's Metamorphoses? Yes.

Dante's Divine Comedy? Yes.

Geoffrey of Monmouth? Yes.

Someone else mentioned Divine Comedy so I might as well reply here. 

I mentioned Milton (Paradise Lost) and Nennius (who Geoffrey of Monmouth borrowed from) as an example of propaganda. 

Like Vergil they are trying to bring some form of legitimacy to whatever it is their propaganda is targeting (whether it is religious or political or whatever). However unlike analytical works they are not trying to build some national origins through convincing arguments. 

Rather their legitimacy comes from the artistic merit. The Birth of a Nation (filmography) was also propaganda but rather than tell a convincing historical account it was proclaimed more for its beauty as a film. And today even those who oppose the political objectives behind the film find the work to have quite a bit of depth due to its focus on elliptical politics. 

In the same way Milton's Paradise Lost was not an attempt at convincing people of the historical thread between his work and the bible, but one created from a dream. Its focus on humanizing angels, the visualization of hell, and the poetic complexity made it into a masterpiece. And it was (is) considered to be part of the canon (not officially) because of how wonderful it was as a work of art. 

An analytical argument like with 1984 (Orwell) or A Christmas Carol (Dickens) are both more inline with political activism. They (can) use emotional manipulation to underline their larger political philosophies. But no matter how many times you read them, it is only ever the definitive truth (against poverty or authoritarianism) that is the structure of their writing. 

And to your second point, literature can provide meaning, but that comes from the entire whole, not the individual parts. With analytics an argument is built up over time, and every narrative beat is their to drive home the central truth. With art that cannot be found in the pieces of a painting or a sculpture, but the emotional affect of all the parts combined. 

And that meaning is ambiguous no matter the beliefs of the authors. If an author is determined towards one truth, they cannot afford ambiguity towards their philosophic intent. Orwell may entertain counter-arguments (controlled opposition) but he would never make ambiguous the central truth of the evil behind authoritarianism.  

[butterweedstrover]

17 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

How do you separate the two?  It seems this bifurcation would heavily rely on what intent a reader would ascribe to the author.

Re: bolded -  you could easily make the same argument for much of what falls under the sci-fi label.  Out of curiosity, not meant as a gotcha, but have you read any Wolfe?

*plus I think you're quite wrong that Wordsworth didn't have some point to make about the psychological (as much as that could have been a thing at the time) effects of industrialization.  Also not entirely random that Ichose someone close to the bridge between the Enlightenment and the Romantic period.

There will always be some debate about whether a book should count as literature or not, that is partly why there is no single definition that can be applied to everything. But there is enough to argue whether one believes a work of writing should be considered literature or not.  

So in a way you are right there would bifurcations, but for the sake of this thread we can also somewhat decide what the book is attempting to achieve. If it is heavy handed with its morality one can assume it is attempting to convince readers about some truth. 

Literature also attempts to convince readers about 'a' truth, but that comes from the composite work. Rather than build up an argument over the course of many pages, the 'truth' is what can be deciphered from the whole work. If speculative writers who are attempting at some form of realism want to be artistic then they would have to surrender that realism which is partly counter-intuitive to their goals.  

That is sort of why I started this thread. For example I have read very little of Gene Wolfe, not enough to have an opinion. But since he has been brought up I have heard arguments for and against his work being considered literature. So I thought of something of a formula in the case of speculative fiction. 

Because the goal of speculative fiction is realism (or to make real the fantastical) then it is counter-intuitive for that fiction to make irrational/elliptical elements to the structure of their narrative. As ambiguity is central to artistic-merit, it would seem speculative works are functionally against artistry.  

There is fantasy that is primarily artistic, like Alice in Wonderland, Gormenghast, The King of Elfland's Daughter, etc. but I don't know if they would classify as part of the speculative subgenre.  

As for Wordsworth or Blake, they were not very psychological. Their poetry on nature was more associated with adolescence. It was ironic because they did not build a cogent argument about the role of nature in a pre-industrial society. 

The concept of children came from the industrial era, before hand they were considered little adults. With this growth of 'children' being entirely separate to adults, there was a romanticization of innocence. And from that they extrapolated a relation between the simplicity of animal life to hold some sacred language that adults could not comprehend. 

Neither Blake nor Wordsworth really discussed the predatory aspect of the natural world, more so they were attempting to build an emotional connection to the concept of adolescence. Their words were beautiful, and really helped bread the more innocent fairy-tales of Disney, but it was never a serious psychological exploration.    

 

 

15 hours ago, DanielAbraham said:

Another way to look at it:  Literature doesn't exist.  

It's like indigo in the rainbow.  We all talk like it's there, but it isn't.  

There's no rigorous definition that includes all that which is "literature" and excludes everything that that isn't, so all we're left with is a metanarrative about relative social status through history.

Without also saying who's permitted to assign status and why, it's a literally meaningless question.  And once you've said who is and isn't permitted to decide on what stories matter and what stories don't, you're talking about a lot of things that aren't intrinsic to the stories anymore.

I think it should be debated, no? 

People have different opinions on what is or is not literature, but the evolution comes from serious consideration. Yes there is no one arbiter, but not all arguments are equal and from discussion literature can grow. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

There will always be some debate about whether a book should count as literature or not, that is partly why there is no single definition that can be applied to everything. But there is enough to argue whether one believes a work of writing should be considered literature or not.  

Just to clear the air, I personally consider anything written that isn't nonfiction to be literature.  Out of curiousity, do you consider fiction that doesn't clear your bar for literature to be art?

Quote

So in a way you are right there would bifurcations, but for the sake of this thread we can also somewhat decide what the book is attempting to achieve. If it is heavy handed with its morality one can assume it is attempting to convince readers about some truth. 

Literature also attempts to convince readers about 'a' truth, but that comes from the composite work. Rather than build up an argument over the course of many pages, the 'truth' is what can be deciphered from the whole work. If speculative writers who are attempting at some form of realism want to be artistic then they would have to surrender that realism which is partly counter-intuitive to their goals.  

That is sort of why I started this thread. For example I have read very little of Gene Wolfe, not enough to have an opinion. But since he has been brought up I have heard arguments for and against his work being considered literature. So I thought of something of a formula in the case of speculative fiction. 

Because the goal of speculative fiction is realism (or to make real the fantastical) then it is counter-intuitive for that fiction to make irrational/elliptical elements to the structure of their narrative. As ambiguity is central to artistic-merit, it would seem speculative works are functionally against artistry.  

I'm not sure that is the goal of what your calling speculative fiction, and I can't actually see any reason why sci-fi or fantasy is going to be less ambiguous than any other genre or type of fiction.  I'd also say that 1984, which keeps getting mentioned, is a really over the top example of didactic fiction.  IME that's not at all a universal component of sci-fi or fantasy.  Distopian and utopian fiction can have plenty of ambiguity over the intent or value of things that it examines even while being extremely clear and specific in choices of setting and world building.

Take Banks for example.  In the Culture novels he imagines a benevolent, god-like AI.  But it's really not clear at all if he's making an argument in any way about how we should treat technology.  

I guess I fundamentally don't see why something striving for realism or making the real fantastical is working against it being artistic.  

I'd say Patrick O'Brian or Hillary Mantel's historical fiction, striving to be accurate and realistic, is more artistic than a lot of the 'high art' literature I had to read.  

Quote

There is fantasy that is primarily artistic, like Alice in Wonderland, Gormenghast, The King of Elfland's Daughter, etc. but I don't know if they would classify as part of the speculative subgenre.  

Ok, now this is getting elliptical.  You're going to need to explain the relationship between at least fantasy and speculative fiction, and probably literature too.  Are you  saying that Gormenghast isn't speculative fiction because it's artistic?

Quote

As for Wordsworth or Blake, they were not very psychological. Their poetry on nature was more associated with adolescence. It was ironic because they did not build a cogent argument about the role of nature in a pre-industrial society. 

The concept of children came from the industrial era, before hand they were considered little adults. With this growth of 'children' being entirely separate to adults, there was a romanticization of innocence. And from that they extrapolated a relation between the simplicity of animal life to hold some sacred language that adults could not comprehend. 

Neither Blake nor Wordsworth really discussed the predatory aspect of the natural world, more so they were attempting to build an emotional connection to the concept of adolescence. Their words were beautiful, and really helped bread the more innocent fairy-tales of Disney, but it was never a serious psychological exploration.    

 

 

 

I don't understand how a person could read Blake and think it wasn't very psychological, or that he never "discussed the predatory aspect of the natural world." (see Songs of Experience, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, or yes, even "The Tyger". )

 

To the bolded, I'd love to hear more about how there was no concept of children before the industrial revolution.  The IR might have changed the role of children in society but I think this is a gross oversimplication.  

 

 

I wonder if it would be helpful if you just listed like 1000 classical and popular works in two columns, "literature" and "not literature".

edited to ask: are you the person who is responsible for The Art Decider on twitter?  It's literally an account that gives it's opinion on whether or something is or isn't art.

edit2: Just and observation, but most of this subforum, titled "Literature", is comprised of the discussion of what I'm assuming you'd label "speculative fiction".

[Clueless Northman]

5 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Literature also attempts to convince readers about 'a' truth, but that comes from the composite work.

Because the goal of speculative fiction is realism (or to make real the fantastical)

Trying to get such limited definitions of fictions or literature isn't a good idea, imho. You can easily exclude whole ranges of literature, this way. And when I say "not a good idea", I actually mean: it is utterly foolish and counter-productive, and possibly an insult to art and literature.

 

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Milton's Paradise Lost

And it was (is) considered to be part of the canon (not officially) because of how wonderful it was as a work of art. 

Trying to make a canon of literature, or classical literature, is a terrible idea, imho, and quite bonkers. We're loving books, we're not a cult or a religion of some kind. I consider Stoicism and Neoplatonism to be loony loathsome ideas on average, but I won't deny them a place among philosophical books, the same way "poetry" covers both Vergil and Martial. Wanting to make exclusive list of canonical writings is very counter-productive to promoting literature and reading, as far as I am concerned. And that's coming from someone who can have a snobbish elitist point of view at times, including with books.

On the other hand, I would understand people considering books as good, so-so and bad literature. Obviously there'll be endless debate on which titles are good and which are bad. Even with blatantly crappy books you'll find people who'll enjoy them and consider them great. Still, for me, it makes more sense that, at least on a personal level, people will sort out books between good and bad ones, rather than between literature and not-literature.

[butterweedstrover]

4 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Trying to get such limited definitions of fictions or literature isn't a good idea, imho. You can easily exclude whole ranges of literature, this way. And when I say "not a good idea", I actually mean: it is utterly foolish and counter-productive, and possibly an insult to art and literature. 

Speculative fiction is very much attempting at realism, that is the entire construction of the sub-genre. The question is: can it be possible for artistic-merit to coexist with analytical realism? 

I believe that the two are at complete odds. 

4 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

 

Trying to make a canon of literature, or classical literature, is a terrible idea, imho, and quite bonkers. We're loving books, we're not a cult or a religion of some kind. I consider Stoicism and Neoplatonism to be loony loathsome ideas on average, but I won't deny them a place among philosophical books, the same way "poetry" covers both Vergil and Martial. Wanting to make exclusive list of canonical writings is very counter-productive to promoting literature and reading, as far as I am concerned. And that's coming from someone who can have a snobbish elitist point of view at times, including with books.

On the other hand, I would understand people considering books as good, so-so and bad literature. Obviously there'll be endless debate on which titles are good and which are bad. Even with blatantly crappy books you'll find people who'll enjoy them and consider them great. Still, for me, it makes more sense that, at least on a personal level, people will sort out books between good and bad ones, rather than between literature and not-literature.

I meant the biblical canon. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

12 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Someone else mentioned Divine Comedy so I might as well reply here. 

I mentioned Milton (Paradise Lost) and Nennius (who Geoffrey of Monmouth borrowed from) as an example of propaganda. 

Like Vergil they are trying to bring some form of legitimacy to whatever it is their propaganda is targeting (whether it is religious or political or whatever). However unlike analytical works they are not trying to build some national origins through convincing arguments. 

Rather their legitimacy comes from the artistic merit. The Birth of a Nation (filmography) was also propaganda but rather than tell a convincing historical account it was proclaimed more for its beauty as a film. And today even those who oppose the political objectives behind the film find the work to have quite a bit of depth due to its focus on elliptical politics. 

In the same way Milton's Paradise Lost was not an attempt at convincing people of the historical thread between his work and the bible, but one created from a dream. Its focus on humanizing angels, the visualization of hell, and the poetic complexity made it into a masterpiece. And it was (is) considered to be part of the canon (not officially) because of how wonderful it was as a work of art. 

An analytical argument like with 1984 (Orwell) or A Christmas Carol (Dickens) are both more inline with political activism. They (can) use emotional manipulation to underline their larger political philosophies. But no matter how many times you read them, it is only ever the definitive truth (against poverty or authoritarianism) that is the structure of their writing. 

And to your second point, literature can provide meaning, but that comes from the entire whole, not the individual parts. With analytics an argument is built up over time, and every narrative beat is their to drive home the central truth. With art that cannot be found in the pieces of a painting or a sculpture, but the emotional affect of all the parts combined. 

And that meaning is ambiguous no matter the beliefs of the authors. If an author is determined towards one truth, they cannot afford ambiguity towards their philosophic intent. Orwell may entertain counter-arguments (controlled opposition) but he would never make ambiguous the central truth of the evil behind authoritarianism.  

Which really does beg the question: so what?

*Why* are you drawing these distinctions, as though they make a whit of difference to artistic merit?

I cannot for the life of me see how philosophical ambiguity makes a text inherently superior to one where the views therein are clear. Or that a text with a clear message is somehow not Real Literature. 

[Clueless Northman]

Well, then I suppose that at the very least you are very well aware that a lot of classical literature was actually constrained, by rules of their genre, by the wishes of their wealthy or powerful sponsors, by self-imposed constraints, by what the society wanted or deemed tolerable, by what the mythical/legendary/historical stories involved actually said, limiting any deliberate departure. The proportion of literary works that is 100% "art for art's sake" without any rules or constraints applied to it would be very low.

Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Horor don't even follow similar rules inside the sub-genres, so I fail to see how any kind of global goal you tried to hypothesize there would actually make them at odds with literature, since, like nearly every previous work of literature, they basically follow some rules and goals.

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

I consider Stoicism and Neoplatonism to be loony loathsome ideas on average, but I won't deny them a place among philosophical books, the same way "poetry" covers both Vergil and Martial.

Silly question... what do you consider loathsome about Stoic and Neoplatonic ideas?

[Buckwheat]

7 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The question is: can it be possible for artistic-merit to coexist with analytical realism? 

I believe that the two are at complete odds. 

I would be interested in what you think of the realist and naturalist works of the 19th century, such as by authors like Balzac or Zola or Dostojevski. They all tried to portray their stories as analytically and "objectively" as possible, with lots of descriptive details. Is this all at odds with artistic merit?

[polishgenius]

9 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Speculative fiction is very much attempting at realism, that is the entire construction of the sub-genre.

I mean this is just a falsehood, isn't it? Some of it is attempting at realism (in the sense of construction a world with coherent rules, coz I'm assuming you obviously don't mean actual realism). Much of it is very much not.  How are the writings of someone like Nnedi Okorafor, Jeff VanderMeer, Stanislaw Lem, Douglas Adams, Neil Gaiman, Catherynne Valente, M John Harrison, Christopher Priest and more about attempting realism? 


Like, credit to Larrytheimp for continuing to engage with you in good faith but like I said in the first post your entire argument perches not only on a definition of literature that is extremely narrow even by the standards of most people who do want to divide fiction into 'literary' and 'non-literary', but on a view of what SFF/spec fic that, at best, is very incomplete. People have said this multiple times but you haven't bothered to really respond. 

[Clueless Northman]

12 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Silly question... what do you consider loathsome about Stoic and Neoplatonic ideas?

Massively off-topic, sorry. Neoplatonism, actually, I'd just consider it to be completely loony. I shudder when considering some scholars who wonder if some if its tenets about The One, the demiurge, the nature of universe and the like, might actually have been ideas passed down from Plato as his inner esoteric teachings.

Concerning Stoicism, parts of it are indeed good and useful to get a degree of distanciation, to help cope with what happens. But it goes way too far into full-blown victim-blaming and heartless dismissal of those who suffer, as merely mentally weak, as far as I'm concerned. The whole point is that you shouldn't complain about whatever happens that isn't self-inflicted. If an asshole runs you over with his car, it's no biggie. If half your people is genocided by some fascist maniacs, it's not something you can act upon, so you shouldn't be upset about it, and you shouldn't do anything about it either. Plus the whole "Fate has decreed it, so embrace it" bullshit which makes it all even more ridiculous. I mean, when Epictetus states that it's way more important to ponder about one page of Chrysippus than to worry about Rome's always tricky and worrisome grain supply, that means life or death for a million human beings, it's quite clear they're too far down their own rabbit hole to have a grasp on reality.

All in all, I also can't forgive them for riciduling Epicurus, which we all know now was the one who was right (or, the less in the wrong) all along when it comes to the nature of the world, when all the Neoplatonic and Stoic notions about physics are just a big sad sick joke - and since deep down they derived from that or used it to justify a lot of their ethical and philosophical tenets and beliefs, makes the core of their teachings just empty and outdated, basically no better than any random cult. Granted, Neoplatonism is way loonier and way closer to our weirdest shit, like Scientology, and I'm definitely of the opinion it should be considered a religious cult rather than a philosophical movement.

[butterweedstrover]

8 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I mean this is just a falsehood, isn't it? Some of it is attempting at realism (in the sense of construction a world with coherent rules, coz I'm assuming you obviously don't mean actual realism). Much of it is very much not.  How are the writings of someone like Nnedi Okorafor, Jeff VanderMeer, Stanislaw Lem, Douglas Adams, Neil Gaiman, Catherynne Valente, M John Harrison, Christopher Priest and more about attempting realism? 


Like, credit to Larrytheimp for continuing to engage with you in good faith but like I said in the first post your entire argument perches not only on a definition of literature that is extremely narrow even by the standards of most people who do want to divide fiction into 'literary' and 'non-literary', but on a view of what SFF/spec fic that, at best, is very incomplete. People have said this multiple times but you haven't bothered to really respond. 

Isn't Gaiman usually classified as a literary author rather than a scifi/fantasty writer? This is what many fantasy readers I know (in person) tell me. 

Of the authors I recognize in your list, I agree (at the very least) they are trying to be artistic. However I don't know how many of them are popularly considered speculative writers. 

If we are talking about fantasy, there have been many literary fantasy novels since before Gilgamesh. As for science-fiction, Frankenstein is certainly literature. So evidently both genres are capable of being artistic. But since the two have evolved into the speculative sub-genre with the influences of authors such as Tolkien, Frank Herbert, and Asimov there has been a sort of line splitting them apart. 

Regardless of how you classify them, books that strive for the analytical realism popular in the speculative genre have a difficult time (in my opinion) of being literary because the intent of the narrative is at odds with the intent of literature. 

As to why this matters @The Marquis de Leech I think for one (in my opinion) the medium of fiction works best as an artistic attempt because  narration is (by its own nature) an emotional appeal. And the emotional appeal of an argument is usually (by its own nature) manipulative or nonexistent.   

[A wilding]

24 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Isn't Gaiman usually classified as a literary author rather than a scifi/fantasty writer? This is what many fantasy readers I know (in person) tell me. 

I am reminded of a relative that we once gave Gaiman's Anansi Boys to as a Christmas present. She read it with great enjoyment and headed to a bookshop the next day to buy more of his books. When we saw her a few hours later she was shocked and accusatory: "You didn't tell me that Gaiman was a fantasy writer!"

The point being than whenever the elitists decide that a genre work of any kind matches their criteria and qualifies as "literature" then they regard this as somehow reclassifying it - they no longer consider it a genre work, however many spaceships, wizards, fairly clued murders or whatever that it contains.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Isn't Gaiman usually classified as a literary author rather than a scifi/fantasty writer? This is what many fantasy readers I know (in person) tell me. 

Of the authors I recognize in your list, I agree (at the very least) they are trying to be artistic. However I don't know how many of them are popularly considered speculative writers. 

If we are talking about fantasy, there have been many literary fantasy novels since before Gilgamesh. As for science-fiction, Frankenstein is certainly literature. So evidently both genres are capable of being artistic. But since the two have evolved into the speculative sub-genre with the influences of authors such as Tolkien, Frank Herbert, and Asimov there has been a sort of line splitting them apart. 

Regardless of how you classify them, books that strive for the analytical realism popular in the speculative genre have a difficult time (in my opinion) of being literary because the intent of the narrative is at odds with the intent of literature. 

As to why this matters @The Marquis de Leech I think for one (in my opinion) the medium of fiction works best as an artistic attempt because  narration is (by its own nature) an emotional appeal. And the emotional appeal of an argument is usually (by its own nature) manipulative or nonexistent.   

Could you please explain how 'speculative fiction', sci-fi, and fantasy are related to you?  I have never once in my life heard a single person before you use 'speculative fiction' to be a subset of either one, it's most widely used as an alternate way of saying "sci-fi / fantasy" and, if anything, is used to include more works like horror and supernatural.  I think a little clarification here would go a long way.

Also the idea that Tolkien is aiming for analytical realism instead of something aesthetically beautiful is not something I would have taken away from his stuff that I've read.

 

[Buckwheat]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

Isn't Gaiman usually classified as a literary author rather than a scifi/fantasty writer? This is what many fantasy readers I know (in person) tell me.

Why does it have to be either/or?

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

there have been many literary fantasy novels since before Gilgamesh.

No.

[Clueless Northman]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

because the intent of the narrative is at odds with the intent of literature. 

Your core mistake, or at least misunderstanding, is thinking there is one single intent of "literature". Do you actually think the people who wrote Gilgamesh, Sophocles, Petronius, Ferdowsi, Shakespeare, Goethe, Zola, Calvino and countless other writers had the same intent? That would be quite an epic "death of the author" moment.

Frankly, deep down, and from personal experience from my misguided youth, I'd say the only major common element among writers is that they want to write stuff, and actually have to write, it's an inner urge. I guess music composers / songwriters have a similar urge, though the only one I had and have when it comes to music is that I want to listen to good music that I like.

[C.T. Phipps]

I used to teach at the college level and it is important to understand a few things about academia as well as literature (of which I have my Masters degree in and could have gotten my doctorate):

* These classifications are entirely made by supposedly smart people to make themselves feel better.

* There's no actual thing as genre as a coherent factual distinction between categories.

* Literature is not actually a measure of quality or depth.

* The emotion, depth, and meaning of a work can be as great or as poor as the reader takes from it.

* Plenty of fantasy/scifi works have changed human civilization. Not always the "literary stuff" either like 1984 or A Handmaid's Tale. Superman dealt a blow to the KKK.

* The difference between high and low fiction is a false one.

Rothfuss said it best: