AbstractScience fiction has been considered by many critics to be strictly a "pulp" field, containing works which are designed solely for entertainment and of no serious literary value. I contend that science fiction is more than pulp; the contention is supported as follows: The existing criticism of the field in general is surveyed and cross-criticized, with the conclusion that the content of science fiction is acceptable, but the literary form must be investigated in particular works as generalizations on the subject are profitless. The criteria for making literary judgments are briefly treated, in order to determine the conventional indicators of "literary merit." Finally, five "close readings" are offered, three of which support the claim that science fiction works do possess literary merit, and two of which further support the conclusions as to the content of science fiction reached in the first part. ©2003 Michael A. Padlipsky. All rights reserved. |