Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwalker
There is one simple problem with this discussion: a definition of science fiction as "science fiction I don't like." The Martian Chronicles is science fiction (not "sci-fi"; science fiction). So is 1984.
It's easy to claim you dislike all of any category of books -- or of any category of anything -- if you redefine that category to exclude anything you like. But it's not intellectually honest to do so.
|
The problem with using Bradbury as an illustrative is that he does not see himself as a science fiction writer but as a fantastist more in the tradition of L. Frank Baum or Maupassant than any of his respected peers such as Asimov (there's an interview where he says he stopped reading popular fiction of any kind quite early on and would only read the 'classics'). The only work he's ever written that he considers science-fiction is Fahrenheit 451. Now, who would you say has the final call on what a work is or is not, the writer or the audience? Again, it's a very interesting question to answer. Is it the viewed or the viewer that gives meaning? I can't answer it one hundred percent, but I do know that Bradbury is (took long enough) now respected not just as a science-fiction writer but beyond that, as a great writer (no science fiction needed).
This goes the same for Orwell, who in writing 1984, was (at least evidence points toward this) writing a political allegory, not a science-fiction dystopia (although I can't be sure if he was aware of science-fiction or not. My guess, through reading his stories and a good few autobiographies, is that he was not aware of the genre, even as it stood in those days.)
It is very easy to say you dislike all books in a certain category if you exclude the ones you like from that category. Very easy. Luckily, nobody has done that here, so nobody can be accused of intellectual dishonesty.