Which work averts the Sci Fi Ghetto the most?

I'd say the works of JRR Tolkien, since The Lord Of The Rings is not only accepted in mainstream literature (and is actively referred to as the Trope Codifier for High Fantasy), but the very fact that there is such a thing as a Tolkien scholar proves this. And there's the fact that this carries over across mediums, as Peter Jackson's adaptations are not only the only Speculative Fiction films to win Best Picture, but they also hold the record for most Academy Award wins for any series.

Depends, really. In terms of popularity as a work of mainstream popular fiction, Star Wars seems a likelier candidate than The Lord Of The Rings, I think. In terms of academic recognition, there are numerous works with fantastic or science-fictional elements which are more well-respected than Tolkien's, be they political commentary like The Handmaids Tale and Midnights Children or classic poetic/theatrical works like The Tempest and Paradise Lost.

Although, I suppose The Lord Of The Rings is specifically identified as fantasy, whereas those works typically aren't, arguably because of said Ghetto (though there are other reasons).

What about Neuromancer?

edited 31st Dec '11 5:36:29 AM by BobbyG

In terms of straight popularity, Star Wars, all the way.

Also, more recently, you can take your pick of the current crop of superhero movies (or rather, the ones that are actually good), too. Everyone always forgets that superhero stories, depending on how they hold themselves, are either science fiction or fantasy...

Is popular acceptance relevant? Isn't the trope mainly about critical recognition?

From the fantasy side, definitely Tolkien. From the sci-fi, side, I'm not sure. However, the most convincing aversion I think is from horror: Lovecraft. Be it boffins or geeks, people looove Lovecraft.

I mean, cosmic horror stories tend to be even more specific and formulaic in scope than an average genre fiction. And yet, people put Lovecraft in such a high pedestal—it might have something to do with him not involved in a subculture revolving around the genre, and as such more accessible to people of high culture. Like Tolkien, there's such a thing as Lovecraft studies, too.

So, Lovecraft's works should be the greatest aversions. Unless you count comic writing, in which case you get the likes of P.G. Wodehouse. He's definitely more appreciated than, say, George Lucas.

edited 31st Dec '11 7:40:14 AM by Catalogue

I think Poe has slightly more academic credibility than Lovecraft, as does Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Ah, yes, Poe. He does. He's more like proto-horror though; my impression is, Lovecraft is widely read by both conventional horror fans and the lit fic crowd. Well, to my knowledge, anyway, I'm not a horror reader. Voltaire also wrote some of the oldest recogniseable sci-fis as philosophical treatises.

Frankenstein won the hearts of the public first before the academics; so it may have been a case where critics finally appreciated popular entertainment, like what happened with the James Bond stories.

Ah, also, I thought the recent Game of Thrones TV series was very well-received? That, too.

edited 31st Dec '11 8:08:05 PM by Catalogue

Not convinced that Lord of the Rings averts the ghetto. Ask an actual academic (outside of the bizarro-world of 'Tolkien Studies' - I mean, seriously?) about it and they'll roll their eyes and snort derisively. Tolkien is not remotely literary.

Tolkien gets points for linguistics knowledge and for translating Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, though.

Lovecraft is thematically problematic because his most notable thematic content is either of the bleak "we are tiny and alone in a godless universe" variety or the racist, xenophobic variety.

I'd figure Voltaire's treatises are disqualified from being science fiction in the same sense that A Midsummer Night's Dream and Macbeth are not generally regarded as fantasy fiction.

Well, many sci-fi authors write based on extensive, say, physics knowledge. That doesn't really help them to gain more literary recognition. I doubt linguistic knowledge would win significantly more points.

Ghetto aversion will inevitably be populated mostly by works that border on literary. If you try to be too literary you'll be straight inside the ghetto (like Salman Rushdie), decrease the dose a bit and you can avert it. Maybe.

Tolkien's a notable academic, yes, but as a writer? Entirely in the ghetto. Quite rightly, too.

^^ Nah, Salman Rushdie is so far out of the Sci Fi Ghetto he's on the Upper East Side sipping champagne or whatever it is they drink out there.

^ His fiction, OK, yes.

I'd say Nineteen Eighty Four tops all of the above. It's discussed as satire far more than as science fiction.

But people are reluctant to say that it's science fiction despite the characteristics. I think the two ways people are playing this trope are: (1) rejecting the work's value due to its genre, (2) accepting the value then disassociating it with the genre.

LOTR.

Yeah, I haven't considering it sci-fi either.

LOTR is definitely in the ghetto (and rightly too). Like I said: "Ask an actual academic (outside of the bizarro-world of 'Tolkien Studies' - I mean, seriously?) about it and they'll roll their eyes and snort derisively. Tolkien is not remotely literary."

1984 is, I think, actually in the ghetto. It is very well-known and lots of people use it as clumsy short-hand to show that they're well-read and intellectual and everything, but, again, it's not actually very literary.

edited 8th Jan '12 7:52:57 AM by Bajazeth

What's your take? I'm still thinking it's Lovecraft, though maybe not by much.

Again, if comic writing counts they will kinda dominate.

How are we definining "literary" in such a way that excludes Nineteen Eighty Four? I'm not sure it's a definition I've ever encountered.

(I'd say it's not actually in the ghetto, in the same sense that neither Salman Rushdie nor, say, Kurt Vonnegut is considered to be in the ghetto - but as they're seldom acknowledged to be science fiction or fantasy, I don't think they qualify.)

I think that for me 'literary' suggests a degree of academic reputation which 1984 just doesn't have. It is, in fact, genre fiction.

I guess we've been speaking to different academics?

Would you class, say, Charles Dickens as genre fiction? He seems fairly reputable, and was certainly writing popular fiction.

I'd be tempted to. He's certainly not as literary as, say, George Eliot or Henry James, to stick to the period.

edited 8th Jan '12 8:42:08 AM by Bajazeth

Ah. Going by that strict criterion (which is perfectly valid, by the way) I don't think any ghetto aversion ever existed at all. The best you can get would probably be some precious drops of vague magic realism here and there (like the aforementioned Rushdie or maybe Kafka?) but those don't really count.

edited 8th Jan '12 8:58:51 AM by Catalogue

^^ Then perhaps The Turn Of The Screw?

(This whole business is striking me as increasingly rather silly, as short of polling academics I'm not sure how we're expecting to learn anything from any of this.)

True Art at work.

^ "Which work is most respected by academics?" ≠ THIS WORK IS JUST BETTER.

edited 8th Jan '12 4:24:07 PM by BobbyG

Well, it's a strong yardstick. Talk about the ghetto long enough and you'll definitely stumble upon True Art elements I think.

edited 8th Jan '12 6:53:17 PM by Catalogue