Genre Denial Syndrome

It is a recurring theme of discussions in OUSFG, notably with reference to Margaret Atwood and The Handmaids Tale, that the 'literary mainstream', which produces Straight Fiction or Mimetic Fiction, is in a state of genre denial, refusing to recognise great works of SF as SF.

Mike Froggatt has argued in the past (occasionally even while sober) that genre is a very, very loose term, and the main role is has is as a search aid. Now, in an ideal world (or on Amazon) a book can be put into dozens of categories, and searched for; however in a proper bookshop it can only belong it one. Therefore we can only put books into the SF category if:

• a) the most important thing about them is that they are SF
• b) placing them in SF will maximise their visibility to those likely to enjoy reading them.

Essentially SF as a genre exists to locate books within bookshops so the book-buying public can find them. Therefore you can walk in and effectively see: 'If you enjoy good prose style and strong characterisation [the things which are valued by the literary mainstream] please turn right, where you may find occasional books with robots, spaceships and mind-blowing ideas. If you enjoy robots, spaceships and mind-blowing ideas [the things which are valued by the SF community] please turn left, where you may find occasional books with good prose style and strong characterisation.'

I can't discuss Margaret Atwood, as I've never read her works, but trying to put, say, '1984' in SF would be like putting Manic Street Preachers albums in the classical section at HMV simply because they have strings on them. It will minimise the audience for the work which, I admit, given my example could be seen as a blessing in disguise. But the point stands.

SF is just a label for bookshelves.