> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.