Centerfield

The difference is that there is more of a gap between readers and judges of "serious" fiction than there is between readers and judges of science fiction. "Literary" awards are given out by English professors who take pride in preferring fiction that is basically inaccessible to the general reader and, therefore, not to be read by the hoi polloi. I'm sure this is less true with science fiction, which academics don't take seriously anyway.

And, of course, politics plays a large role in selection of the major literary prizes. Except for V.S. Naipaul, it's hard to win a major literary prize if you aren't left-wing. (And, there are a lot of people that still choke on the fact that Naipaul won.) Again, science fiction is much less driven, I suspect, by such considerations.

The difference is that there is more of a gap between readers and judges of "serious" fiction than there is between readers and judges of science fiction.

This is very true.

"Literary" awards are given out by English professors who take pride in preferring fiction that is basically inaccessible to the general reader and, therefore, not to be read by the hoi polloi. I'm sure this is less true with science fiction, which academics don't take seriously anyway.

Don't be too sure about that. There's actually quite a bit of academic interest in SF. (Though I agree with your main point there.) :-)

The Nebula Awards are given by the Science Fiction Writers of America, and their voters are their members, professionals in the field. While it's true IMHO* that their final ballot definitely leans liberal, it leans even harder towards technically fine writing.

The Hugo Awards are nominated and voted on by the members of the World Science Fiction Society, which be fans. It leans towards just plain popular, and well-done interesting and accessible writing is more the rule there. While various nominees can be accused of having political slant, I've never noticed any particular political bent overall. And I can't recall too much in the way of bad writing making the ballot. SF fans are a tough crowd, and quite literate.

Science Fiction is often political. It was quite Lefty in the fifties and sixties, though not as a rule. Herbert (not my most favorite Sci Fi writer, but a good one) wrote a short story called, "Committee of the Whole". Herbert intentionally takes the Second Amendment to its literal extreme. Simon should read it. Certainly, in his scenario, each person would have their natural right to keep and bear arms against possible tyranny with a weapon that could end earth's existence -parts are at Radio Shack.

Science fiction replaces the essential magic that made myth so believable and activating. It inserts the miraculous (but reasonably ordered [chaos]) into ordinary situations. Fiction then simulates plausible outcomes leading to new insights out the world, particularly human behavior. Since technology drives commerce and security, science fiction offers policy simulations in ways fiction often does not. In mainstream Sci Fi film however, Science Fiction tends to be a repeated cycle of alien monsters, looming disasters or re-defining reality (Matrix, Solaris, 2001, Blade Runner).

I think Science Fiction that seriously projects things a mere twenty to thirty years out can greatly add to today's policy decisions. Let’s see what thinkers believe the world will look like. I don't mean Terrorism 2027, but global environments that actually try to depict the world WE ARE heading towards.

I don't see us arresting people for "contemplating crime", or mothers who buy life-like robotic children when they feel like having a real child. Fictional Futurism can help portray the possible futures we can create or the ones likely to appear. Science Fiction is a manifestation of foresight, in ways a bit different than the story telling of fiction and epics. If our deepest myth is the hero, then perhaps Science Fiction presents a literary field for the collective hero beyond our world where little is held as heroic.