I'm not going to read the study because I don't read novels (SF, Fantasy or otherwise) for "effort" or "purpose" – I read them to be entertained. I read non-fiction to learn something, but even then it's because it's something I *want* to learn, not because of the "effort." I think there are certain people who think anything that is not "deep" (in their judgment) to be "frivolous and "beneath" them (i.e., they're snobs). It's why comedy movies are hardly ever taken seriously for awards – even though comedic acting often takes more acting skill than does acting in a drama. But this anti-SF/Fantasy bias is not new. As G.K. Chesterton wrote in "Orthodoxy, "odd" people, like odd novels ... or in his own words ...
Quote:
|
Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life.This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.
|
I'll take SF/Fantasy over "effortful and purposeful" reading EVERY time.