Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Perhaps it's impossible to wear an identity without becoming what you pretend to be." -- OS Card, "Ender's Game"


"Be careful who you pretend to be because you are who you pretend to be." -- Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night" (1961)

Hmmm. A real original thinker, just as I suspected.
 
sethypoo said:
What you're saying only applies if you can specifically define literature. I myself feel that literature is whatever each individual makes of it, nothing more. It takes effort to write good sci-fi; to write it off as not being literature is incorrect.

No, not really. Literature has a definition, and it isn't relative, and it isn't about making an effort.
 
IJ Reilly said:
No, not really. Literature has a definition, and it isn't relative, and it isn't about making an effort.

From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
literature |?lit(?)r? ch ?r; -? ch o?r; -?t(y)o?r| noun 1 written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit : a great work of literature. • books and writings published on a particular subject : the literature on environmental epidemiology. • the writings of a country or period : early French literature. • leaflets and other printed matter used to advertise products or give advice. 2 the production or profession of writing.
Science fiction is as much "literature" as any other genre. By definition, it doesn't have to be good.

Edit: the pronunciation didn't translate into the post....
 
IJ Reilly said:
"Perhaps it's impossible to wear an identity without becoming what you pretend to be." -- OS Card, "Ender's Game"


"Be careful who you pretend to be because you are who you pretend to be." -- Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night" (1961)

Hmmm. A real original thinker, just as I suspected.
Not exactly the same ideas. Read the quotes again.
 
Everybody is allowed their own opinion....but he just comes across as a whiner. Computers are computers and it really doesn't matter what it is as long as you can get your work done and you're happy with it.

Bleh, this is such a circular argument and it just keeps going and going and going....

D
 
Mr. Anderson said:
Everybody is allowed their own opinion....but he just comes across as a whiner.
Oh, I completely agree. He was quite whiney. My point was that he wasn't wrong per se - just as opinionated and blinded as the Mac zealots he was attacking.
 
WinterMute said:
This from the man who writes the worst populist trash sci-fi on the shelves.

Douglas Adams is spinning in his grave... :mad:

And PK Dick probably wouldn't wipe himself with this guy or his dossier. But I've never read his work and I don't want to come off as a xenophobe so I'll stop.

One word sums up his diatribe though - sad.
 
jsw said:
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Science fiction is as much "literature" as any other genre. By definition, it doesn't have to be good.

Edit: the pronunciation didn't translate into the post....

The qualification isn't the genre, it's whether it's recognized as having "superior and lasting artistic merit." As I said, I've read plenty of science fiction over the years and I think much of it is great writing. But I don't kid myself that it's great art. Very little of anything rises to that level.
 
This guy though the Rio Riot looked better than the ipod? Let's compare:
 

Attachments

  • sonic1.jpg
    sonic1.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 95
  • indexipod_20040719a.gif
    indexipod_20040719a.gif
    23.5 KB · Views: 140
IJ,
"Perhaps it's impossible" compared to "you are"
ARE different.
One is a speculation, the other a metaphor (or statement).
If anything OS Card just watered down the Vonnegut statement.

That doesn't stop Enders Game being a good book though.
OS Card's ideas of space travel (without the philosophical "philotic links" stuff - i mean the relative spped stuff) are perhaps the most realistic in the Sifi genre.

Literature or not? H'mm let's take the second definition:
"2 the production or profession of writing" this it most certainly is.
To me, literature means novels, not graphic novels or textbooks.
 
Chubypig said:
This guy though the Rio Riot looked better than the ipod? Let's compare:

Well that is his opinion, so we really can't put him down on his opinions. Although I did laugh aloud when I read that opinion :rolleyes: :D


EDIT: Wait that thing on the left is a digital music player? :eek: looks like the old GameGear from Sega :eek: :rolleyes:
 
Chubypig said:
This guy though the Rio Riot looked better than the ipod? Let's compare:
I guess the writer of that "review" prefers devices that require two hands to operate intead of one. That Rio is fugly.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Not to divert this thread too much... but science fiction as literature? Now don't get me wrong, I've read a lot of the stuff, and like it -- but literature? Let's not kid ourselves -- hardly any science fiction reaches that lofty goal.

Hardly any writing in general could be considered literature as you define it, let alone science fiction.
 
Although I don't agree with what he thinks about Apple, I love this guy's books. Ender's Game, and Ender's Shadow, both awesome stories. I recommend them.
 
author of this egregious article is obviously lost in the dark and probably will never see the light... :(
 
tangent23 said:
Hardly any writing in general could be considered literature as you define it, let alone science fiction.

Correctamundo! But not as I define it, as the dictionary defines it. Unless of course you want to use the broadest definition that includes all professionally written word as literature, in which case I'm sure Mr. Card's work compares very favorably to Apple's latest press release.
 
IJ Reilly said:
"Perhaps it's impossible to wear an identity without becoming what you pretend to be." -- OS Card, "Ender's Game"


"Be careful who you pretend to be because you are who you pretend to be." -- Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night" (1961)

Hmmm. A real original thinker, just as I suspected.

Haha, as soon as I read his article, I thought of the Ender's Game quote I've seen as a signature. Actually the idea that Card and Vonnegut reference goes back at least until the Elizabethan period if not longer ago. I remember reading about it in a Shakespeare class about how the Elizabethan's were preoccupied with masks and becoming what you pretend to be. For example, since Hamlet pretended to be crazy for so long, you begin to wonder (and an Elizabethan audience would definitely wonder) if he is beginning to be crazy for real as seen in the callous and extremely odd way he treated Polonius's death and the puns he whipped out on where he hid the body.

As for Science Fiction being literature, I think even with a strict definition that some Sci Fi actually holds up to the definition of literature. Even universities are beginning to see Science Fiction as worthy of the curriculum especially for its social criticism and the way its experimenting with literary forms. Its a maturing genre form that is trying to gain acceptance and i can understand it's hard to appreciate this art form as literature in its highest since yet since we are only speculating on if it will be a genre that will survive the ages, but I think it will succeed and in a hundred years it will be a part of the curriculum for an English survey courses on the 1900's and the 2000's. And think, prose fiction used to not be considered literature in its day because poetry was the form of choice for high art.
 
James Philp said:
IJ,
"Perhaps it's impossible" compared to "you are"
ARE different.
One is a speculation, the other a metaphor (or statement).
If anything OS Card just watered down the Vonnegut statement.

That doesn't stop Enders Game being a good book though.
OS Card's ideas of space travel (without the philosophical "philotic links" stuff - i mean the relative spped stuff) are perhaps the most realistic in the Sifi genre.

Literature or not? H'mm let's take the second definition:
"2 the production or profession of writing" this it most certainly is.
To me, literature means novels, not graphic novels or textbooks.

I'm sorry but i have to say the quotes may well be different but the idea that they are expressing is the same. I'd be amazed if he generated that quote without (at best subconsciously) having read Vonnegut. But infact, that shouldn't really attract criticism.

Metaphor?! (consult your dictionary widget and your 'MR guide to linguistic fascism') ;)

Literature? well, you could say that a science fiction author is engaged in a literary profession, but what he produces would not be literature unless it wins "superior and lasting artistic merit." the second definition is being incorrectly deployed here in my opinion. :confused:
 
Chubypig said:
This guy though the Rio Riot looked better than the ipod? Let's compare:

Isnt that the MP3 player thats the size of a Game Gear? I wouldnt wanna walk around outside with that in my pocket, making it look like im really happy to see everyone. :p

Cant wait for my iPod to arrive. :)
 
The thing is Windows doesnt run Logic...He says the apple is ugly, well I think apple's are very well designed, its very subjective, but I think that Apple concentrates on more non-computer aspects, like even the bottom of a laptop for example looks very clean and tidy on a powerbook whereas on a toshiba for example, it just looks like...well, its the bottom so who cares kinda look. As for being better products in terms of ipods, yeah ofcourse I agree with him. The ipod isnt superior at all, I mean i think the screen sux, the battery life is **** and it cant play WMA. BUT, whats important is that people arnt looking for MP3 players, they are looking for iPods. Its actually different, in terms of marketing positioning. Like I think for example, Mizuno running shoes are probably the best in the world for marathons and stuff, as many pros use it. But would you wear a Mizuno just coz its superior to other shoes? No, you would wear Nike, Converse etc coz it looks better and and you like the "design". So obviously, its not that customers always want superior products, just putting out the best MP3 player isnt going to sell, what is needed is differentiation as Porter put it. The guy who wrote the article should take some business classes!
 
Maedus said:
Haha, as soon as I read his article, I thought of the Ender's Game quote I've seen as a signature. Actually the idea that Card and Vonnegut reference goes back at least until the Elizabethan period if not longer ago. I remember reading about it in a Shakespeare class about how the Elizabethan's were preoccupied with masks and becoming what you pretend to be. For example, since Hamlet pretended to be crazy for so long, you begin to wonder (and an Elizabethan audience would definitely wonder) if he is beginning to be crazy for real as seen in the callous and extremely odd way he treated Polonius's death and the puns he whipped out on where he hid the body.

As for Science Fiction being literature, I think even with a strict definition that some Sci Fi actually holds up to the definition of literature. Even universities are beginning to see Science Fiction as worthy of the curriculum especially for its social criticism and the way its experimenting with literary forms. Its a maturing genre form that is trying to gain acceptance and i can understand it's hard to appreciate this art form as literature in its highest since yet since we are only speculating on if it will be a genre that will survive the ages, but I think it will succeed and in a hundred years it will be a part of the curriculum for an English survey courses on the 1900's and the 2000's. And think, prose fiction used to not be considered literature in its day because poetry was the form of choice for high art.

Right. I'm not claiming the idea is entirely original to Vonnegut, but the Card quote is little more than a rewording of the Vonnegut line from a book he published about 15 years before Card wrote "Enders." Call me a cynic, but I suspect Card was more likely thinking of Vonnegut than Shakespeare when he typed those words.

Nothing inherently prevents science fiction from being regarded as literature, but it's too early to say which authors and which books will make the cut. As much as I've enjoyed reading science fiction, especially during my teens and 20s, when I go back an look at these books, the flaws become pretty obvious. The best were fun to read and imaginative -- but "great books" they are not. And I'm including some of the top authors in the genre: Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Ellison, Niven, etc.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.