Matthew Cheney doesn’t believe that lit snobs exist. What do you think?
While I agree that claims by sci-fi fans of the genre being snubbed are probably overwrought, and certainly exaggerated, so too is Matthew’s rebuttal. I have met people who were condescending towards genres like sci-fi, or hardboiled pulp.
As to what I think about that, well I don’t think I could go wrong by agreeing with Heinlein when he said, “Obscurity is the refuge of the incompetent.” Of course, this might incite the wrath of many yet-to-be-successful creators, but let’s not misinterpret things.
What I believe Heinlein meant was this; It’s fine if you are obscure. But if you aggrandize and glorify that obscurity, putting it on a pedestal as means of compensation for your lack of popularity, then you are using obscurity as a shield or a refuge from the fact that your work is unsellable or unpopular. This is true whether your work resides in the hallowed category of literature, or trope-happy space cantina of sci-fi.
I will say one thing. I refuse to call it speculative fiction. What the hell is wrong with good old sci-fi? And perhaps that question itself alludes to the very thing that Matthew would like to ignore?
To be fair it’s not a question of whether lit snobs gang up and conspire against sci-fi or other genres. It’s a question of whether such a thing as a lit snob exists beyond the stereotype that Mr. Cheney would like to believe is a mere figment of some paranoid imaginations.
Like most stereotypes, there must be some truth to it or it wouldn’t exist, now, would it?
Do you think literary snobbery exists? Do such people look down upon sci-fi and other genres, in your experience?
I think the appeal of the term “speculative fiction” is that it is inclusive of fantasy, horror and paranormal fiction, leaving the term sci-fi to describe just that genre that deals with science. On a tangent, why is it that horror gets its own section in the bookstore, but fantasy and sci-fi are intermingled? I haven’t been able to figure that out.
As for literary snobbery, I have to agree it’s there. But I don’t think it matters much. Given the number of books published each year, specialization is inevitable: reviewers and award-giving organizations will favor books that possess a certain set of qualities, but readers will learn which reviewers and awards most closely match their own preferences. For example, I know I’m much more likely to enjoy a book that’s won the Nebula or the Hugo than whatever won the Pullitzer this year. And in the end it’s where the money comes from that’s significant, not the opinion of some self-proclaimed “literary elite.”
What’s wrong with fantasy? Horror? The problem is when it comes time to pitch/sell the work. Readers don’t know or care what speculative fiction is, in contrast to horror, fantasy, or sci-fi — in which cases they know exactly what those are. It is an attempt to replace a bunch of specific genre names with a more broad, inspecific title.
I’m not sure I see the point in that. I’m sure publishers would rather know too whether it’s fantasy or horror, for marketing purposes… rather than just speculative.
Re: Snobbery, yeah… I too care more about the Nebula or Hugo… says the guy who read The Road but hasn’t read the latest Hugo or Nebula. :)
That’s just because I’m really far behind in sci-fi… and The Road is technically ‘research’ for me because I’m writing post-apoc.