[Xantar]

While I certainly don't agree that fantasy or sci-fi novels have no literary merit just because they're sci-fi/fantasy, I do have to say that authors in the genre my and large aren't making it very easy for me to argue otherwise. All too often, I think they concentrate too much on gee whiz bang stuff. "Look, I created an entire world!" or "Look! I conceptualized a new technology!"

A case in point is Ringworld, Larry Niven's novel which is considered by many sci-fi buffs to be a "classic," mostly because it envisioned a world in the shape of a ring around the sun (just like Halo). That's all well and good, but the story itself consists of some explorers wandering around the place and looking at things. That's not only boring, it tends to make the book into something more like a technical exercise rather than a work of literature.

It's an unfortunate fact that because of the genre, sci-fi/fantasy authors think they can get away with mediocre characterization and story development so long as they present us with lots of cool gadgets or spells or something. I'm not saying that books to match Dickens don't exist in the genre. I hear Song of Fire and Ice is pretty good (though I haven't managed to get a hold of it). And I personally think Guy Gavriel Kay's Sarantine Mosaic makes very good jabs in the right direction.

But, sci-fi/fantasy is a very popular genre, and like anything where a lot of product is produced, the vast majority of it will be crap.

On the other hand, some people seem to think that if you dared to enjoy reading something, it must not be literature. There's stupid people on all sides, I guess.

P.S. Sorry, but Harry Potter really isn't great literature.