"Proper" Literature

[An-chan]

I often see people claiming that fantasy or sci-fi novels can't be "real" literature or "proper" literature. In general, some people seem to think that if a book is entertaining, it's not "real" literature. Personally, I strongly disagree with this kind of view on literature. In my opinion, "properness" and entertainment value aren't entirely separate things. Granted, the world of literature has seen plenty of crap and not all books count as "proper", but that still doesn't mean that a sci-fi novel is automatically crap. And it bugs me when people think like that.

What are your views on the subject? How would you define "proper" literature? Or do you perhaps think that the whole question about "properness" is either a subjective matter or just completely redundant?

I put the word "proper" in quotation marks, because its meaning in this context isn't completely clear.

[Jax]

I often see people claiming that fantasy or sci-fi novels can't be "real" literature or "proper" literature.

Sci-fi and fantasy have always been staples of the literary world in one form or another and have actually helped to developed modern literature -- and, for that matter, language and culture itself.

In the fantasy department, if you define fantasy as being about magic and monsters, the earliest known form of English literature is Beowulf, an epic about a man who rushes off to slay a lake monster that possesses magical properties. Moreover, a lot of early mythology can also be considered fantasy if we define the genre loosely. There would simply not be any form of literature if the human imagination wasn't allowed to stretch and play with that genre. Meanwhile, in modern times, some of the most influential works have been fantasy -- Harry Potter, for a noteworthy example, and its ability to draw readers in and convince kids that reading and writing is actually pretty fun.

Then, you've got science fiction, which is an art form of its own because writing it requires actually having knowledge in, well, the sciences or generally anything outside of just writing. Sci-fi asks questions, sure, but it also answers them within the boundaries of believability. That is, you can't actually write serious science fiction unless you first intend on holding a mirror up to reality and playing with the reflection. (This is opposed to fantasy, which basically says, "Screw the rules; I have magic.") Thus, science fiction actually is pretty innovative itself. Hence, it's effective as both commentary (1984 or other dystopian novels) and speculation (anything HG Wells has done) because it uses symbolism to tell a story about the real world. Not to mention it's shaped history anyway. Anyone know about the first radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds? Fun times.

That being said, to me, the term "literature" is pretty literal (no pun intended). It's something that conveys a message through a written medium. There is, of course, such a thing as good literature and bad literature, although this depends completely on the opinions and tastes of the reader, not the actual work itself. (It's like saying there's good and bad art. Someone might find feces on canvas offensive, but someone else might think it's a wonder of modern art.)

However, I will say that whoever says sci-fi and fantasy aren't actually literature before they really look at what both genres have brought to the literary world probably don't appreciate history.

[Post Office Buddy]

To refer to something as "proper" would be subjective as it is, so it's difficult to formulate a clear definition of what they mean. However, I'm going assume that most people think of traditional works being more "proper" than others.

I'm on board with the idea that proper =/= entertaining. As it is, the entertainment value of a book varies from person to person, so a piece of literature that is "proper" may be boring and bland to some but engaging and exciting to others. The same thing could be said about those not considered "proper".

Also, I agree that the genre a written work belongs to shouldn't determine whether or not it's crap. The range of quality within any genre is vast. Any single genre has just as many crap books as good ones. It all just depends on the opinion of the person criticizing it.

TL;DR version: The idea of what makes any piece of literature "proper" is subjective.

[Bay Alexison]

Even though I'm not a fan of sci-fi or fantasy, I wouldn't rule them out as not being proper literature. Like Jax said, many literature stories came from those genres. I know a lot of people said the same thing about my favorite genre mystery, but there has been a few great literature works in the vein of mystery, the most well known Sherlock Holmes. No, we're not going to go to a discussion about the latest movie version with Tony Stark being the lead role. :P

I believe people think of literature as something more of stories about social issues and characters preaching their beliefs, not really stories with real character interactions and plot. You know, like the "classics" we have to read for our school assignment, but we didn't read them anyways. :x