Replies

Discrimination?

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.

Once you get down to it, there are more sub-genres of SF than there are genres in literature, I think. Hard, soft, cyberpunk, comic, time travel, satire, science fantasy, utopian/dystopian, space opera... throw in high, low, medieval, pan-celtic, arthurian, other historical, epic, light, dark, and milk chocolate fantasy and you've got a serious range. What other genre boasts that? Where else are your boundaries so free that you can talk about anything and most people won't even realize you're doing it?

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.

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.