Slashdot Mirror
Why Is Science Fiction Snubbed By Literary Awards? (galacticbrain.com)
Slashdot reader bowman9991 quotes an essay from GalacticBrain:
Science fiction authors have long been outcasts from the literary world, critics using the worst examples of the genre as ammunition against it. Unfortunately though, at times even science fiction authors themselves can turn on their own kind: "Science fiction is rockets, chemicals and talking squids in outer space," mocked Margaret Atwood, one of her many attempts to convince people that she is not a science fiction author, even though one of her most famous novels, A Handmaid's Tale, is exactly that...
Considered by the literary establishment, and frequently by non-SF award-giving institutions, to be trashy, pulpish, commercially driven lightweight gutter fiction, it's no surprise that very few works of science fiction have won major literary awards... Kim Stanley Robinson, author of the award-winning (not "literary" awards obviously) Mars novels, [in 2009] hit out at the literary establishment, accusing the Man Booker judges of "ignorance" in neglecting science fiction, which he declared was "the best British literature of our time".
The article ends with a simple question. "Will science fiction authors ever escape the publication ghetto?"
Considered by the literary establishment, and frequently by non-SF award-giving institutions, to be trashy, pulpish, commercially driven lightweight gutter fiction, it's no surprise that very few works of science fiction have won major literary awards... Kim Stanley Robinson, author of the award-winning (not "literary" awards obviously) Mars novels, [in 2009] hit out at the literary establishment, accusing the Man Booker judges of "ignorance" in neglecting science fiction, which he declared was "the best British literature of our time".
The article ends with a simple question. "Will science fiction authors ever escape the publication ghetto?"
Or, as Margaret Atwood put it more bluntly and infamously: "Science fiction is rockets, chemicals and talking squids in outer space."
So Sad Puppies were actually right?
Ezekiel 23:20
Literary awards are snobbish. Quality in literature is subjective, so awards go to people that award-givers want to award.
Isn't this obvious?
Ursula LeGuin doesn't write "trashy, pulpish, commercially driven lightweight gutter fiction" so no it doesn't count.
The fact that the vast majority of SF writers don't do that either seems to have eluded some of 'those' literary aficionados but I've always had a hard time separating them from audio enthusiasts or serious wine freaks. Their critiques sound remarkably similar. And make about as much sense.
Seriously, the big problem with SF seems to be that the protagonist isn't an alcoholic who has been suffering simultaneously from PTSD, fibromyalgia, some varied form of social / sexual or political repression and / or abuse while living in a run down apartment in a small American town.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Do these awards even matter? My understanding is that science-fiction sells pretty well.
Before you buy a book do you check to see if it has won awards? Do you even care?
It certainly seems that amazon doesn't use awards when recommending books that would interest me.
I understand that people want to receive recognition but in the end does it actually matter? It seems to me that just like other award ceremonies they just matter less and less. Kind of like when the Oscars don't represent the actual movies that people really liked they stop mattering to people.
In the end read what you want and let computer algorithms figure out what you are more likely to want to read and ignore the silly awards.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
In the same vein, no comedy has every won an Oscar for best film. Because the people who make that decision are pretentious, pseudo-intelectual snobs who think that comedy is beneath them.
As soon as I saw the words "Science Fiction" in the headline, I knew some Professional Victim would crawl out to whine about the "SJWs," and how unjust it all was, and how he was a hurt victim!
Looks like I was right.
As someone who really wants there to be good SF, can you please shut up? I mean I personally think the awards often go to by far the wrong place and the whole "literary SF" thing is in many cases a bunch of bull. However, when you get frothing lunatics spewing rants about SJW all over the place it just makes people switch off to both the messenger and the message.
In other words, if you like the status quo, you're doing a very good job at maintaining it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If your book is about space marines and 90% of the characters are male, that's not misogyny... it's life. If the book were then to only refer to and treat women as sex objects, submissive servants, etc. That's misogyny.
I'll grant the characters are probably misogynistic, but that would not necessarily make the story or the author misogynistic.
Regardless, you can write good sci-fi in the constraints laid out by the SJW.
This, right here, is the problem. Who the hell is ANYONE for whatever reason to lay out constraints? "Hey, the writing was superb, and the story was great, but in chapter 5 someone said something the thought police don't agree with, so no award for you."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Proper appreciation of science fiction requires an educated mindset that can properly appreciate science as well as hopefully look forward in the face of existential crisis.
Hey, that's some pretty good science fiction you just wrote. But fiction nonetheless.
You sound like one of those people who say that something isn't censorship because only the government can violate the first amendment.
Yes, bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct--the best kind of correct--when you say that stating "you can't say that" is indeed part and parcel of free speech. That doesn't change that these thought police are hell bent on gutting the notion of what free speech actually is. Being an asshole is protected speech. It's not in any way socially valuable, but we protect that speech (or at least we USED to) because protecting it protects speech that truly is valuable.
The past: "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Today: "YOU MISOGYNIST BASTARD, YOUR MICROAGGRESSIONS HAVE GIVEN ME PTSD."
I know which world I prefer(ed) living in.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?