My English teacher (whom I greatly respected) informed me that by reading the set works (which I disliked) I was preparing myself to enjoy them later on. From a distance of many years I find this not to be the case for me: the books that I enjoy re-reading are books that I enjoyed at first sight. Since this newsgroup is not overpopulated by college students I ask here for evidence on the question: have people who do not enjoy great literature (especially literary SF) in their maturity simply not spent enough time on it?

I note that the later lives of people very familiar with great literature - critics, writers, and teachers - does not suggest that it has become a universal consolation: depression is not unknown in this population.

On 2022-06-03, Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
> My English teacher (whom I greatly respected) informed me that by reading the set works (which I disliked) I was preparing myself to enjoy them later on. From a distance of many years I find this not to be the case for me: the books that I enjoy re-reading are books that I enjoyed at first sight. Since this newsgroup is not overpopulated by college students I ask here for evidence on the question: have people who do not enjoy great literature (especially literary SF) in their maturity simply not spent enough time on it?
>
> I note that the later lives of people very familiar with great literature - critics, writers, and teachers - does not suggest that it has become a universal consolation: depression is not unknown in this population.

There is certainly more to it than just spending time on literary SF.
I've spent the time on it!

In my mind, the time I've spent allows me to admire (some) literary SF
but not necessarily enjoy it. For example, I've read almost all of
the SF novels of Gene Wolfe. I admire most of what I've read and I
can see there are depths to them I am still not appreciating, but the
only ones I enjoy are _The Book of the New Sun_ and sometimes
_The Fifth Head of Cerberus_. Both of those were comparatively early in my
reading of literary SF and spurred me to read more.

Similarly, my early enjoyment of _Little, Big_ spurred me to read more
literary fantasy like from Holdstock and Hand but I didn't enjoy them,
only occasionally admired them.

So for me, I would say familiarity with other literary SF has allowed
me to understand more of what later works are trying to do, but has
not increased my enjoyment of those later works.

Chris

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:14:33 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
[snip-snip]
> have people who do not enjoy great literature (especially literary SF)
> in their maturity simply not spent enough time on it?

I am not sure "literary SF" is sufficiently homogeneous to make it
a useful metric. If you enjoy Lem, it doesn't necessarily mean that
you will enjoy Wolfe or Davidson.

On 2022-06-03, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:14:33 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> [snip-snip]
>> have people who do not enjoy great literature (especially literary SF)
>> in their maturity simply not spent enough time on it?
>
> I am not sure "literary SF" is sufficiently homogeneous to make it
> a useful metric. If you enjoy Lem, it doesn't necessarily mean that
> you will enjoy Wolfe or Davidson.

I certainly agree that "literary SF" is much more ill-defined than
"SF" with competing sub-genres of work (all sorts of "experimental SF"
for instance) that people will disagree on, but I still think there's a good,
answerable, question there.

Whatever *your* definition of literary SF is (and sub-genres thereof),
has reading more of a sub-genre of literary SF increased your
enjoyment of that sub-genre?

That's a slightly different question than was asked. It eliminates
an answer where one literary sub-genre leads to enjoying other sub-genres.
But hopefully the answers will be definition-independent enough to be
useful.

Chris

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 1:29:12 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:
[snip]
> Whatever *your* definition of literary SF is (and sub-genres thereof),
> has reading more of a sub-genre of literary SF increased your
> enjoyment of that sub-genre? [snip]

That's an interesting question. I think the answer is generally "no".

Whenever I come across a new subgenre or a new set of literary
conventions and discover that I enjoy them, my enjoyment usually
peaks early in the cycle. For example, Borges's and Lem's
"reviews of and introductions to imaginary books" were nifty, but
subsequent iterations were less interesting.

This applies to more than literary SF. For example, back when
fictional explicit sex was (mostly) decriminalized by the Supreme
Court, we got books like Silverberg's _Up the Line_ for the
mainstream SF market and books like Farmer's _A Feast Unknown_,
_The Image of the Beast_, and _Blown_ for the specialist SF/erotica
market. At first they were fresh and (mostly) fun, but it didn't last
long, although some of it may have had to do with the general
decline in quality of what was available within the niche during
the 1970s.

On Friday, 3 June 2022 at 14:14:33 UTC+1, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> My English teacher (whom I greatly respected) informed me that by reading the set works (which I disliked) I was preparing myself to enjoy them later on. From a distance of many years I find this not to be the case for me: the books that I enjoy re-reading are books that I enjoyed at first sight. Since this newsgroup is not overpopulated by college students I ask here for evidence on the question: have people who do not enjoy great literature (especially literary SF) in their maturity simply not spent enough time on it?
>
> I note that the later lives of people very familiar with great literature - critics, writers, and teachers - does not suggest that it has become a universal consolation: depression is not unknown in this population.

Work can be good without pleasing everyone -
"By god, not another bloody elf!" Hugo Dyson is
supposed to have said during a reading by
J.R.R. Tolkien. (He may not have done.)
<https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/c-s-lewis-pet-peeve.15054/>

But what is "literary science fiction" anyway?
Is there such a thing, if "literary" writing means
"not of a genre" and SF is considered a genre?

Ian Simpson settles here
<https://themillions.com/2017/03/case-genre-fiction-guide-literary-science-fiction-populist-fantasy.html>
on " science fiction that has been picked up by a
non-genre audience" (and not immediately put
down again). As well as "science fiction as written
by authors who wouldn’t normally write within the
genre", but I think that falls inside the other category
when it's a matter of "non-genre or other genre
Author X turns to science fiction, and Author X's
following follows". It may not. I'm not sure where to
put Iain M. Banks in this. (Obituary - )
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/09/iain-banks-dies-59-cancer>

I paused that 2017 article when I confronted the
question of whether a visit to a planet without men
in Nicola Griffith's _Ammonite_ portrays "living with
various matricidal cultures" as Ian Simpson says
and from a quick search, no one commented on,
or "living with various matriarchal cultures" as
the premise suggests. Or, both. Before I raise this
there, does anyone remember?

<https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/book-list/expand-your-mind-with-these-literary-science-fiction-books/>
from a publisher, teases "Breathtaking Prose and Style",
"Serious Subject Matter", and "Raising Big Questions",
perhaps not all at the same time. Ian Simpson wants
remarkable events in fiction, and is disappointed by
non-genre literature. If you're making stuff up, make it
surprising!

I suppose characters come into it as well... but mainly
the idea is for the writing to be good. But if the ideas are,
then who needs good writing?