Posted on 06/25/2002 7:02:06 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
I wonder, tho'. I notice that the Modern American Classics Library list of "the 100 Best Books of the Twentieth Century" included several mysteries--such as The Maltese Falcon--but NO SF.
Do you agree that Mystery novels are ALSO kept in a separate section in the library?
I think the library does this for the convenience of its patrons, but they DON'T compartmentalize these novels as "outside the pale."
I think SF ought to be included. In fact, the lines between SF and other genres have become so blurred anyway...is Frankenstein "real" literature, or is it not SF? How about Brave New World, or 1984?
The best SF writers I know of do NOT restrict themselves to reading SF. In fact, they tend to be more well-read--certainly wider-read--than just about anyone else.
I think we need to cease with the artificial labels. A novel is a novel, period.
Because way too many folks are reading SF (or Fantasy) almost exclusively because they think it is more FUN to read. To me, a lot of SF is like eating highly calorated air. Look, I've read and enjoyed a lot of SF but at some point I decided to check out literary novels.
Nothing wrong with reading Asimov or Vonnegut but how about reading them AND James Jones AND Robert Penn Warren AND Ralph Ellison AND Tolstoy? As to the SF ghetto, way too many people volutarily put themselves in that ghetto by reading SF and Fantasy almost exclusively.
Too bad too many of their fans don't have the same attitude. However, I do know that Asimov read widely and wrote the best guide to Shakespeare that I've ever seen.
We were about a hundred miles out of Barstow when the last of the ether began to take hold. My attorney was pouring beer on his chest to facilitate the tanning process. Nevermind telling him about the bats, I thought, he'll see them soon enough...
But it's just too easy to say "LOTR is my favorite," I guess. I think in that case "favorite" has to be qualified.
To tell the truth, I don't enjoy Tolkien's work because he was an outstanding writer--he was good, but he was too steeped in the cadence and strange turn-of-phrase of the Middle English of which he was a scholar. Rather, I enjoy it so much because of the STORY. But there isn't much beyond the story, Tolkien himself repeatedly said he was NOT writing an allegory, or an autobiography, or anything of the sort. He simply wanted to try his hand at crafting something along the line of a Nordic saga. He wanted to create a mythology.
As LITERATURE in the fullest sense of the word, LOTR is just "above average." The STORY is wonderful, but the prose is of a singular, even crude style. I don't mind that--I even enjoy it--but it is idiosyncratic in the same way as, say, Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" series. In that case, too, the STORIES were fabulous and keep you riveted, but the style of writing is quite singular. It doesn't attempt to rise far above the story, to express much more than the simple telling of the tale.
That said, I put "A Study in Scarlet" on my list, but because this was Conan Doyle's first book, and so more "fresh" than his other works. In fact, for the very same reason, I would actually rate The Hobbit above LOTR.
Most scholars will tell you the best novel in the English language in the Twentieth Century was James Joyce's "Ulysses." That kind of lets you know where we're headed, here.
I have learned more of life, of science and wonder and the way people are from SF than from "literature".
Pick out, in any given year, a non-SF novel that recieves awards and accolades, and an SF novel that recieves the same sort of praise. I would bet you that in 85% of the cases, the SF novel will be read in 50 years, and no one will remember the 'real' novel.
That happens a lot. The reason is often that our school system kills all interest in literary novels. I remember how boring Shakespeare seemed in high school until I rediscovered it on the outside. Same thing goes with literature. One reason is that students are reading these novels with the idea that they will be quizzed on it so they can't just sit back, relax, and enjoy the novels. High School is the biggest reason for the dearth of interest in great literature.
However, I have found in the past few years that the genre has hit a "plateau."
It's as if most of the rich veins have been mined out, and you only turn over a nugget now and again.
Again, that may well be simply my subjective experience. But I still belong to the SF Book Club after all these years--about twenty-five--and every time I read over the new list of stuff coming out, NONE of it seems appealing to me in the slightest. In fact, they've sort of turned to the "punkish" strain, which is full of characters I can't relate to, and don't like, to churn out more stuff.
IMO, there is no new Larry Niven, no Clifford Simak, no Scott Card, no Vernor Vinge coming over the horizon. It's all people who grew up reading comic-books (and NO real literature) and just emulating what they know.
Again, maybe it's just middle age--I'm 44--but that's the way it seems to me.
The best thing I've read of late in that genre are the Discworld novels of Terry Pratchett (which is really a send-up of the whole genre, anyway; a parody) and the "Song of Fire and Ice" series by George R. R. Martin (another old-timer; and this is Fantasy anyway).
Gene Wolfe is another who keeps churning out high-concept material, but again, he's an old guy.
I would be more sanguine about defending SF as literature if it didn't seem like it was in such need of vibrant new voices, of the same caliber and vision as the group of young turks who Harlan Ellison featured in his "Dangerous Visions" series in the late 60s-early 70s.
Scott Card is, in my own experience, the last "new" writer of any real worth.
I am not a SF fan in particular... I enjoy LoTR, it is the one book that I will re-read over and over again my entire life. But I have read few others in the genre. I don't seek them out over others. My interest vary widely... For a hoot, I love Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy... It is kindof a sober version of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I like John Grisham, but he probably doesn't fit your definition of detective stories. He is on the other shelf called legal thrillers... I would hate to think we can't talk about books because they aren't on the right shelf... I don't even know what shelf to put Tom Clancy on...
Also good - John Ringo, his military series starting with A Hymn Before Battle rocks. Really rocks. I've read RR Martin - love his Song of Ice and Fire, a little too much incest and other perversions, but a good story. Tad Williams, Otherland series. Read it. Read it and then read it again, it's worth it.
Anyway, try Willis, Ringo, or Williams, depending on your taste, and then tell me that all the good ones are dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.