Hm, while it's an interesting point, I don't agree with the premise as to why academics don't do their wanky exercise in delving for hidden meaning in most SF. I think it's because they simply don't care. SF (mainly) isn't marketed as "literary" (with perhaps the exception of your Atwoods - and I don't think she's a great SF writer), so academics don't think it's worth their time.
If quality SF was subjected to an in-depth analysis, I'm sure that there would be enough metaphor and whatever to keep even the wankiest academic happy. I would say, however, that SF is a little light on allusion. I think world-building can remove some of the reliance on direct cultural resonance in "literary" fiction. But I think that world-building could be worthy of academic study in its own right.
Finally, SF can be very functional in its prose - and that's nothing to do with the settings or anything like that. It's to do with mass-market authors chunking out as much as possible in the shortest amount of time. I do wish there were more SF authors with, say, Ursula Le Guin's command of language. But then again, fine prose isn't necessarily a requirement for "literary" works. Does anyone honestly believe that Wuthering Heights has fantastic writing?
Regarding how a piece of fiction is marketed and how that influences its perceived artistic merit, I think it's very similar to how visual art is marketed. If someone has a "name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst)", or went to the right art college, or had the right mentors, and they can write pseudo-intellectual wank about the "relevance" of their work, it will sell, and be appraised by the important critics. Much more beautiful (of course, that's relative), well-crafted and interesting works will be disregarded because the creator doesn't play the right games. So too with "literary" and genre fiction, IMO.
no subject
If quality SF was subjected to an in-depth analysis, I'm sure that there would be enough metaphor and whatever to keep even the wankiest academic happy. I would say, however, that SF is a little light on allusion. I think world-building can remove some of the reliance on direct cultural resonance in "literary" fiction. But I think that world-building could be worthy of academic study in its own right.
Finally, SF can be very functional in its prose - and that's nothing to do with the settings or anything like that. It's to do with mass-market authors chunking out as much as possible in the shortest amount of time. I do wish there were more SF authors with, say, Ursula Le Guin's command of language. But then again, fine prose isn't necessarily a requirement for "literary" works. Does anyone honestly believe that Wuthering Heights has fantastic writing?
Regarding how a piece of fiction is marketed and how that influences its perceived artistic merit, I think it's very similar to how visual art is marketed. If someone has a "name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst)", or went to the right art college, or had the right mentors, and they can write pseudo-intellectual wank about the "relevance" of their work, it will sell, and be appraised by the important critics. Much more beautiful (of course, that's relative), well-crafted and interesting works will be disregarded because the creator doesn't play the right games. So too with "literary" and genre fiction, IMO.