Can someone explain to me why there is a massive stigma against

>>9634331
There is a massive stigma against anything you could possibly post.

genre fiction is held in low regard because in most cases genre fiction is shit
not all of it, but most of it

They have no imaginative power, just a desire to participate in something someone else has considered worthwhile.

in short, attempted elitism

/lit/ is the most pleb of all the culture boards w/r/t its medium of choice
nevertheless elitism is important and grasping on to the distinction between literary and genre fiction is probably not a bad start
science fiction, while I love it, is usually not written for the sake of advancing the literary art. it is typically written to entertain. if it is an art, then it is the art of elaborating a certain kind of imaginative idea, but one which takes for granted a whole complex of conventional signs upon which only slight variations are made. like every genre, it is the art of manipulating these signs in order to produce the effect of novelty, but not, alas, novelty itself, which can only be achieved by subversion of the medium or genre itself.

>>9634331
Aside from a few absolute innovators (Jules Verne, Herbert, Heinlein perhaps, definitely Stanislaw Lem, Asimov), much of the work is derivative and redundant, almost to the point of plagiarism. A great deal of it comes out of established universes (Star Wars, Warhammer 40k, Star Trek), and almost none of it is written with a literary intent to explore human nature.

Much of the genre is about set pieces, like a space battle or a wormhole or a comet, or world building. It isnt about characters, or development, prose, or exploring the deeper nature of the human condition.

Finally, I dont think publishers care. Back when Barnes and Noble were everywhere, I always wondered why sci-fi/fantasy sections were as large as the fiction sections. I'm almost certain that publishers throw shit at the wall and hope for a Hunger Games or something to come out of it, unlike some of the better literary publishers like oneworld or dalkney or pushkin, which are extremely discriminating.

>>9634360
While there are some elitists here, they generally come out in uni discussion threads. I think many people here are searchers for transcendent literature, although many are entry level. Sci-Fi, aside from the authors above and their ilk, simply has a poor chance to provide that experience.

>>9634360
Elitism used to be cultivated in order to drive out normies and keep /lit/ from becoming /r/books.

It still is to a certain extent, but the distinction is starting to be lost when I can count three separate YA threads on the catalogue right now.

>>9634372
>explore human nature.

No wonder you're an idiot.

>>9634331
Book of the New Sun is one of the single most popular works on /lit/. This board has a stigma against bad science-fiction is all.

>>9634576
>Book of the New Sun is one of the single most popular works on /lit/ amongst fundamentalist croats

ftfy

>>9634581
I like to think that there's a little pinkyivan inside all of us trying to get out.

>>9634589
mine's not so little

>>9634331
I would like to think I'm not super elitist (I can't even read another language) but I find that sci-fi is not the most challenging work from a literary stand point. A good chunk of it doesn't adequately describe the human experience or even effectively speculate on how humans will behave in these fantastic environments. Why would you read it if it doesn't do either of things? What purpose does it serve?

Part of this has to do with the fact that most top 100 lists just detail the same old shit like Asimov and Arthur C Clark. This isn't bad, but I only know of a fraction of the shit true sci-fi nerds read like Wolfe and Banks. That shit really pushes the boundaries of the medium and those are two most normie examples off the top of my head.

>>9634417
r/books has way better sci-fi suggestions though. All you gotta do is post some 4chan chart over there and the true nerds come out of the wood work.

>>9634448
Most classic sci-fi doesn't deal with anything other than human nature tested under different psychological stressors. The only one I can think of that even suggests there is another factor at play is the Foundation series. Compare that to Hamilton who is largely speaking from a sociological perspective.

>>9634770
Literature isn't required to deal primarily with the human condition. That's not even undergrad level of understanding.

>>9634784
>Literature isn't required to deal primarily with the human condition
That's fine, I'm just telling why its looked down upon around here and why I'm generally disappointed when I read.

>>9634784
>>9634770
I'm being too mean but you get my point.

>>9634331
/lit/ has many christians, and they hate science, that's why they prefer to discuss old mythological garbage rather than scientific novels

>>9634800
A significant part of science-fiction like New Wave shit isn't scientific in any sense at all, though.

>>9634795
I actually don't.

Dune was about world building and making sure the reader was looking forward to the next chapter. It was fun, with some interesting themes.
None of the characters were more than one dimensional. They lacked depth. They were all manifestations of one emotion or tick turned into a character. Worry for my son. Worry for my people. Worry for the future. Follow orders. Be greedy. Be an asshole. No one had depth. None of the writing held my hand in using words to describe what was in the authors minds eye as well it was just "there's a big worm lol" there wasn't a history, a description, a metaphor, or anything.


I haven't read enough fantasy or sci-fi to know if Dune was truely unique for it's time or if it was merely another step in a direction of fantasy sci-fi that did X better than the last book.

>>9634837
We can see how smart you are anon, you can stop trying so hard now.

File: 1442203867126.jpg (29KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x667px

Because speculative fiction (at least in pretense) strives to be as conceptually original as possible, while the academia strives to be as well fundamented as possible, partly out of an inferiority complex towards the "hardness" of science.

So on one pole you have the hype machines and on the other you have papers on how the fall of the long s axiomatically changed the world. The real question is whether you want to be a blind Achilles or a myopic tortoise; just don't forget you'll never get anywhere.