Where we're going we don't need roads

There's a meaty post waiting to be made about why science fiction is accepted as a mainstream film genre but founders as a disrespected literary genre. Whether we measure in box office returns or critical acclaim, science fiction on the big screen sits atop a lofty perch. Certainly it is a visual genre and that plays a big role in all of this. But how 'bout this, the film goer and the film critic are less self-conscious than their bookish cousins. What I mean to say is, the film world is much more open to embracing a popcorn flick than the literary world is to acknowledging the value of a page turner. Movies are meant to fun, books are meant to work. Or so seems to be the position of any literary rag or book review section you'll pick up. It's a bummer, man. Anyway, a Brit wonders Why don't we love science fiction?

The point is that [science fiction] is, in fact, the necessary literary companion to science. How could fiction avoid considering possible futures in a world of perpetual innovation? And how could science begin to believe in itself as wisdom, rather than just truth, without writers scouting out the territory ahead? Which is why this widely despised genre should be read now more than ever.