 |
| Via San Ved Tap Keeper |
Does literature have a set definition? For me, I think of literature as any type of
text that can be read whether for
analytical purposes or for entertaining purposes. According to this definition, science fiction
would definitely be considered literature.
Now whether it fits into someone’s “literary canon” on the other hand is
debatable. I don’t see why it couldn’t
be seen as important enough to be looked at in a scholarly manner. Not all books studied on an educational level
are one hundred percent non fiction. If
you’re going to analyze something such as literature, you should analyze it in
its entirty, not just selective parts of it.
Also, the fictional events that take
place in a science fiction novel could actually be metaphors used to represent
another event that was going on at that time in history. Even if the science fiction antics are
completely left field and don’t have any deeper meaning than random creation,
it doesn’t make this literature worth any less than other literature. In my opinion it’s better. It’s more entertaining and if analyzed it
would probably tell you a lot more about the author of the text and his or her
creative backgrounds. With science
fiction writers literally have no limitations, whereas in other genres they are
limited by rationaliy and reality.
If I personally wanted to read and
or study a book, and I was given the choice to analyze either Frankenstein or Jane Eyre, I would choose Frankenstein every time. At the same time I’m not excluding Jane Eyre as not being “real literature”
either. I’m simply saying I prefer one
genre over the other. Whether someone
else see’s the genre as being worthy enough to be studied is one thing, but to
not even consider a text literature isn’t possible. I don’t see where the argument can be made
against any genre. Literature is a big
category with many subcategories within it.
It cannot be labeled as one thing.
I like how you said that "science fiction writers have no limitations, whereas in other genres they are limited by rationality and reality." In my opinion, this is very true. If anything, this makes the science fiction genre more interesting. It seems that people belittle science fiction because all we need is our imagination, not facts or research. However, what people don't know is that you need scientific facts to write a science fiction novel. People seem to confuse fantasy novels with science fiction, such as Twilight. Though some may think anyone can write a sci-fi book, it is much more difficult and not just anyone can write a really good one.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any examples from Frankenstein or Jane Erye that can show how these works are useful and important works of literature? Are there things from these works that can teach us stuff that is helpful and can give insight to our lives? I agree that science fiction should belong in the literary canon because science fiction is able to discuss topics and situations that may not be possible in reality. Science fiction makes its readers think outside of the box and contemplate various aspects of life. Even though events that happen in science fiction novels may not always be possible they still can teach us things about the world in which we live in. Possibly how in "Frankenstein", everyone is afraid of the monster because of his frightening physical appearance and does not take the time to get to know him. Much like our society, we fear the unknown and usually do not take the time to get to know what the unknown truly is. "Frankenstein" can teach us not to act in this way because it can lead to serious consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think that you touch upon a vital element in the discussion of art as a whole, perception. Although you may define literature as “ as any type of text that can be read whether for analytical purposes or for entertaining purposes,” other individuals may perceive literature as having a different meaning. The same idea goes along with science fiction within the literary cannon, some academics view science fiction as a part of the literary cannon and some do not. Literature, and art as a whole are very subjective concepts.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the debate of whether or not science fiction is apart of the current literary cannon can be looked at in the larger picture of what people consider art. For instance, a couple weeks ago my friend, from a literary arts background, and I, from a music background had a discussion about our individual philosophy on what constituted art and good art. He focuses on the underlying meaning of works of arts more so than aesthetic qualities and initial emotional responses, whereas I focused on the aesthetic qualities and initial emotional responses more than the underlying meaning of works. We also differ in the way we define art. For instance, he would consider found materials that are called found art to be art where I would not. More or less what I’m trying to illustrate is that perception is vital in individuals view of what is or what is not art.
I really liked that you pointed out the metaphorical use of science fiction. Just like Foster talked about in his chapter on political writing, if you over-politicize your story it doesn't travel well, and if the reader hold a different point of view they immediately become defensive. Through the art of science fiction literature, authors are able to create interesting alternate realities, and then convey ideas to readers. These ideas can then become seeds of thought for a greater political change.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the last comment, it does seem that the literary cannon is extremely subjective. I like how you compared is with art, very applicable.