The call for diversity was essentially based on the fact that many here would be content and happy to discuss, in the book club, ten books, one after the other, that are all derivative crap, just on the basis of the fact that they are sci-fi or fantasy.

As for my point, it was not that something relevant ceases to be science fiction. However, it was that much of what is published as science fiction or fantasy is crap. I pointed out that much of this may have to do with the fact that the market drives the publishing industry. The masses have spoken, and they want more Tolkien clones and new spins on Orson Scott Card. When books that don't target a few set popular markets come out, it's because the publishing company is willing to take a risk based on their perceived strength of the book. The risk is less with a Tolkien clone, so formulaic, well-worn premises get repackaged just like Hollywood blockbusters get repackaged. I therefore disagree with the "90% of everything is crap" quote - a greater proportion of sci-fi and fantasy is crap than other literature.

As such, the labels "science fiction" and "fantasy" end up, perhaps not defining, but at least indicting the quality of stories written in those genres.

Furthermore, as I wrote in another response, many people will look at the "speculative" nature of a work and say (like my father did to The Lord of the Rings, "That's a pile of shit. Magic, orcs, elves and wizards - it's just too unrealistic for me." The difference between that book and the book on male prostitutes in Thailand you referenced is that the latter exist, and even if the setting is unreal for you, you can correct that by going to Thailand and meeting people who were abused as children and forced into prostitution. If it's historical, you can pull up photos that show the reality of the time period, or go to a museum to see art from that time and place. You can't do that with Tolkien because it never existed.

I noted, quite specifically, the power of speculative fiction to comment on political, economic and social issues. Lem, Bulgakov, Zamyatin, Bulychev, Shvarts and others expressed dissent through speculative works. Of course, the ironic thing is that they lived in socialist countries with a planned economy that didn't focus publishing on market forces, which led to works with higher literary value being published. The literary establishment of the same system that repressed them in many cases promoted them actively. Sure, propaganda was also published (mostly crap), but the propaganda was also usually turned in as makulatura for recycling.

In short, I expressed my opinion and I stand by it. The site may have a sci-fi/fantasy focus, but that doesn't mean that we should be reading Goodkind's Sword of Truth series (just because it's fantasy) instead of The Brothers Karamazov or a similar work of recognised literary merit (just because it's not).