Science fiction writers are often touchy about snobbery directed against their genre, the assumption that because something is set in the future, or has robots in it, or is set on another planet, it can’t be ‘serious’ literature (unless, of course, it’s written by someone who is already known for ‘serious’ literature, like Lessing or Ishiguro). See recent observations by Philip Palmer and Stephen Hunt.
I share this irritation. Of course science fiction can be badly written, poorly characterised etc etc but so can historical fiction. That doesn’t mean we dismiss War and Peace because it happens to be set in the past. Of course science fiction can be light-hearted, intended as a diversion and nothing much more, but this is undoubtedly true too of a lot of romantic fiction, and it doesn’t make us dismiss Jane Austen just because her novels fall into that bag. And of course science fiction involves making stuff up, and indulging the reader in imaginary worlds, but so does The Tempest and Midsummer Night’s Dream.
The tools of science fiction can be used for a lot of purposes (like a pack of playing cards that can be used for many different games). I use them to write, as originally and interestingly as I can, about things that matter to me, and strike me as important, which I believe is what Tolstoy, Austen and Shakespeare did too. I don’t know if the end result is literature and, assuming that this is even a meaningful question, it would be for others to judge not me. But it’s annoying that there are a lot of people out there who’d be happy to make that judgment without even reading what I have to say.