Respect for the Fantasy and Science Fiction genre

Dragon Mage

Dark Knight
Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
2,218
Location
USA, Michigan
Gil
0
It has been known to me for a while that the fantasy/sci-fi genre are generally regarded with a level of derision. Hand a fantasy or sci-fi book to a well-read person and they'll generally laugh at you. It's as though these two generes -- but fantasy in particular -- are considered to not be real literature. In fact, here is an interview quote from Tracy Hickman, a well known and respected author in the fantasy genre:

Q: Honestly, do you believe that the fantasy genre will ever come to be recognized as veritable literature? Truth be told, in my opinion there has never been this many good books/series as we have right now, and yet there is still very little respect (not to say none) associated with the genre.

"I think that depends upon who one credits as granting such recognition. I’ve had numerous students over the years write to me, telling me that their assignment was to do a report on an author of literature but that their teacher told them that what I write isn’t ‘legitimate literature.’ I’m always curious as to what they mean by ‘legitimate literature’ and by what standard they are using to make that determination. From what I have seen thus far, I’m not certain that I crave the ‘respect’ of the academic community as I once might have done."

This... animosity towards the most flexible of the genres is somewhat appalling, and it is apparently for no reason. No doubt that some will say that fantasy and sci-fi have lots of bad drivel with sequels being endlessly pumped out and only a few series/books are actually good, but I wonder how that is any different from any other genre. Would anyone dare suggest that bad mystery books are a dime a dozen? What about harlequin romance -- you read four books, and you've pretty much read everything in the entire genre.

Every genre has lot's of mediocre stuff and a select number of truly excellent books -- that is how particular authors become famous, because they rise above the average. (Now keep in mind that the 'average' book is perfectly good for fine entertainment, but some authors are just distinctive and may appeal to a wider audience, thus their rise to fame. Average is not bad.) So saying that fantasy and sci-fi are treated poorly because of that is no excuse -- it's the truth for all genres, and these two are no different.

So my question is this: Why is the fantasy and sci-fi genre so discriminated against? Where does this animosity come from?
 
So my question is this: Why is the fantasy and sci-fi genre so discriminated against? Where does this animosity come from?

The whole thing about fantasy is that it's rarely ever worth taking from a critical analysis viewpoint. That's not to say there's a problem with the genre, but a problem with the works within the genre. A possible hypothesis I heard thrown up was that the vast majority of fantasy writers are in fact roleplaying in the form of fantasy rather than making social comentary or conveying deep seated themes with their works. That's probably the main issue, but I wouldn't rule narrow mindedness out either.
 
I think it may have to do with the fact that a lot of the really serious, hardcore "critics" are looking for how well a story is able to capture the essences of reality--recreating the world around us, or the emotions of humans. So when they look at a fantasy story, particularly if it takes place on another planet or with another species of character, they may feel like the mere lack of reality is an automatic knock against it? I'm not really sure, tbh--books like the Harry Potter series have been given critical acclaim based on her ability to create a detailed fantasy world filled with characters acting (mostly) in realistic ways. However, I'll bet it was probably a lot harder for her to be taken seriously when she first started out because of this sort of prejudice. Personally, I would think it takes a BETTER author to be able to create a fantasy story, because you're creating a whole new world, setting, characters, etc, and having to make them believable on top of that.

Also, maybe it has something to do with the idea that fantasy stories are perhaps too reminiscent to children's stories to some people, and that's a turn-off for serious critics? That doesn't really explain sci-fi though...I don't know, it is a hard question. Interesting thread topic though ^_^
 
It's been said that many advances in science are originally thought up from science-fiction. Many things you may see in a sci-fi book, movie, etc. will be things of the future, and it's the people who dream up these things that help make it a reality.

Fantasy requires a vast imagination. JRR Tolkien, the creator of Lord of the Rings, made an entire world and all of his books were based in that world. Other authors have even made guides and bestiaries of his world.

Unfortunately, fantasy is shadowed by other works because,, to be blunt,, there's a lot of shallow people in the world who'd rather not delve into imagination.

I have a lot of respect for sci-fi and fantasy. Who wants to be on boring old Earth all the time?
Boring people:mokken:
 
A lecturer of mine last year spoke quite a bit about this. He mentioned how there are actually a lot of ‘closet-fantasy-lovers’ among the academics, but they don’t like to talk about it or admit it to each other or their credibility could be tarnished, and some of their work would risk not being taken seriously anymore– for they are suddenly no longer serious academics. He said how in the desks of many academics will be found a half-written fantasy novel which is their hidden-secret, and often their shame.

Basically, for some academics, it is an act or a denial, but not necessarily a disliking of the fantasy genre. Some people just like to pretend that they turn their noses up at it, that they are more sophisticated, but in reality they may be fans of fantasy themselves in their own homes or offices.

I don’t see the point of the snobbery over it, myself, but for some it keeps their credibility.

A possible hypothesis I heard thrown up was that the vast majority of fantasy writers are in fact roleplaying in the form of fantasy rather than making social comentary or conveying deep seated themes with their works.

You see I think some do convey deep meaning, and parallels to our worlds are very common, just not always as blatant. It doesn’t have to be our world to make a point about it. It depends on the fiction though (or the kind of mind of the reader reading that fiction).

At the end of the day, fantasy draws from the same pool of human experience and knowledge as any other genre (and often outwardly references it); fantasy authors simply just apply their imaginations differently.

Unfortunately, fantasy is shadowed by other works because,, to be blunt,, there's a lot of shallow people in the world who'd rather not delve into imagination.

I agree. Imagination is the greatest gift of mankind, in my opinion. It’s what has been behind us throughout the development of culture and civilisation, and has enabled us to be who we are today – to neglect or deny it is a crying shame. It’s a shame to see so many people, even among academics, neglect the fantasy genre – where imagination is free and at its most vibrant.

Frankly, I'd be better a dead man than a man with no imagination - and I'd be dead in not having imagination.

Personally, I would think it takes a BETTER author to be able to create a fantasy story, because you're creating a whole new world, setting, characters, etc, and having to make them believable on top of that.

Absolutely, in my opinion. People don't give fantasy authors enough credit for the thought some of them have put into the worlds, species, characters, mythology and the imagination of the author in general.
 
Last edited:
Harlequin said:
The whole thing about fantasy is that it's rarely ever worth taking from a critical analysis viewpoint. That's not to say there's a problem with the genre, but a problem with the works within the genre. A possible hypothesis I heard thrown up was that the vast majority of fantasy writers are in fact roleplaying in the form of fantasy rather than making social comentary or conveying deep seated themes with their works. That's probably the main issue, but I wouldn't rule narrow mindedness out either.

Gamingway said:
I think it may have to do with the fact that a lot of the really serious, hardcore "critics" are looking for how well a story is able to capture the essences of reality--recreating the world around us, or the emotions of humans. So when they look at a fantasy story, particularly if it takes place on another planet or with another species of character, they may feel like the mere lack of reality is an automatic knock against it?

I'm really glad these things were brought up! ^_^

Is it necessary for every single book to contain some deep analysis of humanity? What's wrong with just creating a good story? I think critics are being rather ignorant, requiring all literature to have some kind of deep critical meaning or social commentary. I've read lots of books that harbored some kind of commentary -- very few did it well (only 2 that I can think of, and both were by the same author); I find that such commentary generally appears just slapped in there to make critics happy and it sullies the enjoyment of the story overall. I don't disagree with your synopsis here at all, but I personally dislike the haughty idea that literature isn't meant to be entertaining, only cynical and critiquing.

As for the idea that fantasy doesn't lend itself to critique, I can definitely say that is absolutely wrong (but I'm not surprised to see it here, it's a wide-spread stereotype for some reason). The genre actually has a great potential for social commentary and deep-seated themes. I've read very profound themes in more fantasy books than I ever have in mystery, historical fiction, or whathaveyou. Fantasy can be uniquely situated to critique not just laws and governments and politics, but the very nature of humanity -- not society, that's different -- and still give a damn good story. A perfect example would be the Death Gate Cycle series. Fantasy isn't bound by dealing with existing philosophies and politics, and can cut to the object that is rarely examined (that of humanity itself). And, though this is somehow conveniently forgotten, fantasy is well-known for having settings that are politically driven. Dune anyone?

Also, I hear you clearly Gamingway, but I, like yourself, will always be puzzled at the 'unrealistic'-ness that is always attributed to fantasy. Fantasy relies heavily on creating a very realistic setting, world, and -- above all -- people. Fantasy requires great talent -- just as you say and I completely agree with! -- to create such realistic and empathetic characters, and such realistic setting. I just don't get how people can possibly blow off fantasy for being 'unrealistic'.... historical fiction never happened either, but what does it being made up have to do with the price of tea in China? *mystified*

Also, maybe it has something to do with the idea that fantasy stories are perhaps too reminiscent to children's stories to some people, and that's a turn-off for serious critics? That doesn't really explain sci-fi though...I don't know, it is a hard question. Interesting thread topic though ^_^

May be onto something there, but fantasy has long since grown from fairy tales and fables. xD Maybe we can just blame it on critics being downright ignorant and not doing their research? Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me!

Thankies! ^_^

Argor251 said:
At the end of the day, fantasy draws from the same pool of human experience and knowledge as any other genre (and often outwardly references it); fantasy authors simply just apply their imaginations differently.

:jess: Exactly! You pretty much said everything I was going to, but better and with more awesome. ^_^ In fact, everything you've said, Argor, you've practically the words right out of my mouth.
 
personally I love fantasy in fact my english tutor and teacher tell me i read too much of it

i find it sad that many people don't read fantasy as they believe fantasy is mostly kids books and dare not read them however its because of this that they don't find the much better ones (not that the kids books aren't good i don't mean that they are just not adult enough for others) which have very deep and interesting stories

an example of this is the lord of the rings series many people before the movies didn't read this book and even after the movies many didn't even know it was a book

what sucks though is that the other great books are left unread because no one bats an eye to them and instantly assume that they are kids books and are so unrealistic with the magic and sorts like that even though they aren't in fact if you go to the fantasy section in a book store almost like a ghost town i kind of wish their were ways to make people see that these books aren't kids books they do involve deaths and character development and that they can suck you in so that you can feel what the character feels
 
personally I love fantasy in fact my english tutor and teacher tell me i read too much of it

LMAO me too! 8D Geniuses are never appreciated in their own time~

i find it sad that many people don't read fantasy as they believe fantasy is mostly kids books and dare not read them however its because of this that they don't find the much better ones (not that the kids books aren't good i don't mean that they are just not adult enough for others) which have very deep and interesting stories

an example of this is the lord of the rings series many people before the movies didn't read this book and even after the movies many didn't even know it was a book

what sucks though is that the other great books are left unread because no one bats an eye to them and instantly assume that they are kids books and are so unrealistic with the magic and sorts like that even though they aren't in fact if you go to the fantasy section in a book store almost like a ghost town i kind of wish their were ways to make people see that these books aren't kids books they do involve deaths and character development and that they can suck you in so that you can feel what the character feels

Quoted For The Absolute Truth

I have seen this sentiment as well -- that fantasy is only for 'kids' and isn't serious. Lord of the Rings is damn serious. Just because something doesn't necessarily exist mean that it's utterly trivial. I wonder how that idea ever came to be?
 
It is primarily a critical misunderstanding of the genre(s) and essentially, people still have that generalisation that fantasy equates a younger and less sophisticated audience. To a critic, they may dismiss the general archetypes of such a genre - that there is an oversimplication of the typical good versus evil depicted - and a standard black and white view of the world. But surely fantasies have outgrown these basic archetypes? As mentioned already here, you already have a wide selection of rather serious and dramatic works of fiction that go beyond into the meta-archetypes. Look beneath the veneer, fantasies can just be as capable of portraying social commentaries and harbour profound themes as much as any genre of fiction that a reader may find familiar. Isn't it perhaps a greater form of sophistication if a fantasy author is capable of inserting these kind of complex ideas into their works alongside the conventional otherworldly elements of fantasy and sci-fi?

Of course though, you do have fantasy books that have made it to the mainstream. I need not look further than Harry Potter or Twilight. Both are famous, universal examples of fantasy, and yet both have reached the elevated status that they have now, with lovers and haters alike of course. And look further, you can perhaps see the influence this has had with previously less mainstream fantasist authors who are compelled to create their own epics in a similar vein to what Harry Potter and Twilight has achieved. They differ from the more traditional vision of a fantasy (Lord of the Rings for example), but they still contain the same archetypes below the surface. Of course I suppose you could still argue against this that these kind of books continue to bear this stigmatism.
 
It comes from the fact that (on average, don't misquote to attack me) less research, and attention to accuracy in the factual details and locations must be done. If I want to write a book about the criminal underworld in Russia, I have to do research, probably visit Russia once or twice (minimum). I have to do the interviews, study the cultures and linguistics, in order to nail my characters.

Whereas if I sit down to write a fantasy or sci-fi story, I can do whatever I want, explain things away however I want, because there are no rules, no factual details, truths or consistencies you must obey and follow. It takes more imagination in some cases, but too often things are thrown together in cheap when it comes to scifi and fantasy.

"The pulse core is primed, Captain, but the resonation chamber is overloaded. We may have to purge the system to kick-start the engines again!"


I just coped out big-time, whereas Tom Clancy had to spend 2 gruelling months researching the Rockwell B-1B Lancer, interviewing pilots, mechanics, and the operations team that coordinate the Lancer from the ground.



You can see why "some people" respect the genres less than others.


It's not that these people are saying, "Fantasy & SciFi do not have the potential, and will never be as good as fiction."

It's just that in most cases, these fantasy/SciFi writers throw their work together in cheap. Those genres require something special, something intellectual and original to be recognized as a great work of literature. I don't think anyone is taking anything away from LotR, because it's got that special quality. Nothing about it was cheap or hastily remedied.
 
Back
Top