
'It drives writers mad': why are authors still sniffy about sci-fi? - pseudolus
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/18/it-drives-writers-mad-why-are-authors-still-sniffy-about-sci-fi
======
skytreader
I really enjoy McEwan's work so hearing this from him is kinda disheartening.
That's a shame.

I've always thought of Sci-Fi as less about the speculative science--the
"airlocks" and the "antigravity", as the article would say--and more about
what it says about science's interaction with society. Sure a lot of the genre
were cheap and cheesy (though I won't hesitate to add, enjoyable) stories from
pulp magazines but the best of it is no less capital-L Literature as, say,
Shakespeare. I don't see the need for distinction (as McEwan is reported to do
in the article) as even these cheap and cheesy stories capture something about
the attitude towards science at the time of writing.

Heck, Shakespeare is astounding because he wrote for the masses. A lot of the
"respectable" genres could trace themselves back to penny serials too.

------
jhbadger
It's always frustrating when this happens. See also Cormac McCarthy and how he
seemed to think he was the first person to think about the emotions of people
in a post-apocalyptic wasteland in "The Road", despite that being a very
common trope in SF for decades.

