[zmmz]

Or maybe I'm unaware of romance novels dealing with game theory and metaethics.

You are right, you probably won't find romance novels dealing with those issues, but that is not something to be surprised or annoyed by.

Each genre has some things that it is, through the tropes of the genre, naturally good at exploring. Science fiction and cyberpunk are really good at speculating about the future (and, of course, by extension, the present: everything is a mirror), because of the setting that they take place in. On the other hand, Romance novels they tend to make good mediators for dealing with different issues, such as sexuality, taboos, class, etc. Just look at Jayne Eyre.

[TeMPOraL]

> but that is not something to be surprised or annoyed by. Each genre has some things that it is, through the tropes of the genre, naturally good at exploring.

Of course, you're right, and I am not in any way annoyed that romance or criminal novels don't cover the same topics as sci-fi. For instance, romance novels are good at things you described, + developing empathy in general.

My only peeve is with people dismissing sci-fi, arguably the most intellectually-stimulating type of fiction (as opposed to e.g. empathy-developing romance novels, etc.), while telling me "read books, they'll make you smarter". I admit I might be biased by the environment I grew up in, but I see this attitude everywhere among non-tech acquaintances, to the point that the expression "it's science fiction" is being used interchangeably with "absurd"/"nonsense". I feel like science fiction is somehow singled out in society as a special kind of crap.

[pdabbadabba]

To put a somewhat finer point on zmmz's comment: I think it's a mistake to think that genres other than sci-fi, such as Austen's work (which, by the way, are hardly mere "romance" novels in the popular sense of the word) don't "make you smarter" or are less "intellectually stimulating" simply because they deal with sexuality, class, taboo, etc. instead of game theory and metaethics. I think you may be confusing your particular intellectual interests with intellectualism itself. But my criticism stops there, because I totally agree with your broader point that smart "literate" people need to give sci-fi another look.

I do think that, to read your comments, you may somewhat underestimate others' esteem for sci-fi as a genre. In particular, I don't think it's true that, for most, "science fiction is somehow singled out in society as a special kind of crap." But, on the other hand, I don't think you're imagining things. (And let's not forget fantasy! I think just about everything we've said here about sci-fi is equally true of fantasy, both in terms of its value and it's under appreciation.)

[TeMPOraL]

> I think you may be confusing your particular intellectual interests with intellectualism itself.

I'm trying to articulate a very fine point myself here, so I might be failing at expressing it.

I agree that Austen's works, or other genres other than sci-fi are not "intellectual" or don't "make you smarter". They all have their niches and good books of each genre have lots of intellectual gems. Sci-fi is good at this particular mathy kind of intellectualism, the one that gives you game theory, and economics, and cryptography, that helps you to understand the increasingly complex world. The kind that puts your System 2 (as in Kahneman's System 1 and 2 of your mind) on overdrive, because what is discussed is something we rarely have natural intuiton for.

It's of course not The Only Knowledge. But (I believe) it's getting more and more important nowadays, and as for something that feels so vital, it's getting a disproportionate amount of hate and dismissal among general population.

[pdabbadabba]

Ah. I see your point now, and it's an interesting one. I'm not sure I agree with it, but thanks for clarifying.

[zmmz]

I feel like science fiction is somehow singled out in society as a special kind of crap.

Yeah, I think this is quite a common battle that many mediums/subjects have to fight. For this case, it seems like a combination a lack of interest in the themes explored in serious science fiction (the ones that get me and you excited), meaning that it does not get as much air-time in "serious" discussions; and the baseline exposure to the genre which does not grow into anything for most . For example, this is the case for me and high fantasy: I know nothing about what the genre has to offer.

I mean, I'm guessing that if I never transitioned into things like Gundam, Xenogears, Ghost in the Shell (can you tell I liked Japanese thigns as a teenager?) and onwards I would still think of sci-fi as cars with guns.

[hackuser]

> My only peeve is with people dismissing sci-fi, arguably the most intellectually-stimulating type of fiction (as opposed to e.g. empathy-developing romance novels, etc.), while telling me "read books, they'll make you smarter". ... I feel like science fiction is somehow singled out in society as a special kind of crap.

Here's one take on why it's dismissed by many: While sci-fi addresses intellectual concepts well, often its other elements are weak. This applies especially to characters, who frequently are no more than walking, talking representatives of those concepts. They often are not realistic, convincing, engaging people and they aren't having realistic interactions. Also, they too often have immature points of view.

If you want concepts, then sci-fi is appealing. If you want a full, convincing story, then those weak characters (and other problems) can be un-engaging, distracting (frustrating, silly, etc.), or even completely undermine the story. It's like eating good food (i.e., the concepts) mixed with something bland or even bad-tasting.

Certainly there are good sci-fi writers; I'm not dismissing the whole genre. But I can see how someone who wants good literature could get a bad impression and buy into the stereotype.

[dragonwriter]

> While sci-fi addresses intellectual concepts well, often its other elements are weak. This applies especially to characters, who frequently are no more than walking, talking representatives of those concepts.

When that happens, its often intentional -- that is, the characters exist as vehicles to explore the interplay of the concepts as such, and are not intended to be anything else. Its an approach with a fairly long history (thousands of years) in writing.

OTOH, there's lots of scifi that isn't like that, either intentionally or accidentally.

[com2kid]

> Here's one take on why it's dismissed by many: While sci-fi addresses intellectual concepts well, often its other elements are weak. This applies especially to characters, who frequently are no more than walking, talking representatives of those concepts.

IMHO this hasn't been a problem for a few decades now. Elizabeth Bear, Charles Stross, Greg Bear, lots of popular Sci-Fi authors focus heavily on characters.

[dllthomas]

The parent explicitly acknowledged that there do exist good sci-fi writers, so I don't know that your list contradicts anything.

I think it goes back to Sturgeon's Law. There's still plenty of bad sci-fi. Amongst the bad sci-fi, I think the above remains a common failing, along with myriad other failings. I'm not sure whether it is a more common failing in SF than in other genres - I try not to read enough bad books of any type to have a representative sample. I'd believe that it is, because author attention gets directed to other "more interesting" things. But I'd also believe that is not, and the perception is simply confirmation bias.