Via Locus, here's a review of Margaret Atwood's new dystopia, Oryx and Crake.

Honestly, the book sounds kind of lame (though I did like The Handmaid's Tale). But this particular review is notable for this oft-thought, but little expressed, bit of contempt for science fiction:

I am going to stick my neck out and just say it: science fiction will never be Literature with a capital ''L,'' and this is because it inevitably proceeds from premise rather than character. It sacrifices moral and psychological nuance in favor of more conceptual matters, and elevates scenario over sensibility. Some will ask, of course, whether there still is such a thing as ''Literature with a capital 'L.' '' I proceed on the faith that there is. Are there exceptions to my categorical pronouncement? Probably, but I don't think enough of them to overturn it.

Now, some might try to quibble with Mr. Birkerts and find the exceptions he says are so few and far between, but I have another question: Since when is literature not "Literature" when it proceeds from premise? Why is focus on conceptual matters necessarily less prestigious or worthy of note than focus on "moral and psychological nuance"?

Even conceding everything he says, why would these defining features marginalize or delegitimize a work of fiction in any way?