Talk:Orbital (novel)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating this article! I've tagged the reception section for copyediting as it has rather unnecessarily lengthy quotes. If you're interested in improving the quality of your reception sections, I'd recommend this essay, which has lots of tips on the topic. Let me know if you have any questions! (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a science fiction novel most of the time

There are sections that are science fiction; however, the majority of the book is closer to literary fiction, etc.

Literary fiction
The space setting serves more as a vehicle for exploring human nature and existential themes than as a speculative element in itself.

Philosophical thought piece
The novel often engages identity, isolation, and the meaning of existence, particularly in the extreme environment of space. These themes are treated in a way that’s more concerned with the internal, psychological aspects of the characters rather than the external, physical elements of space.

Drama
It explores intense emotional and interpersonal dynamics, especially as the astronauts deal with their isolation and sense of purpose. It’s a quieter, more introspective form of drama, and not rooted in the speculative. Create a template (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is not science fiction, but rather literary fiction that happens to be set in space. Harvey calls her book a "space pastoral" and not science fiction. The only reliable source I found that explicitly refers to the book as science fiction is NPR. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Marketing and Literary Fiction

Occam's Razor says it's science fiction, and science fiction can be literary fiction at the same time. This is a bit of an old debate, dating back to Frankenstein.

Literary fiction that happens to be set in space, featuring aliens and robots? That's also science fiction, despite a host of weasel words and marketing. The Booker Prize's and literary fiction's genre snobbery is beyond the scope of this article. If science fiction magazines are calling it science fiction and NPR is calling it science fiction and it's being sold in science fiction section of the bookshop, it's science fiction. Starburst

NPR and Starburst Magazine are calling it science fiction, let's not fall for the marketing. —signofgehenna^talk 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Weaknesses of the your argument

1. Oversimplification

While calling it “a science fiction novel” acknowledges its speculative elements, it flattens the work’s scope and might alienate readers expecting traditional sci-fi.

2. Overreliance on Genre Labels

Insisting it be categorized as sci-fi could reflect an attempt to resist genre snobbery, but doing so may impose an equally rigid label. Genres are descriptive tools, not definitive classifications.

3. Incompatibility with the Text

If the speculative elements are episodic and not central to the overall narrative, the label "science fiction novel" risks being inaccurate. It suggests a speculative core that Orbital doesn't entirely prioritize. Create a template (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, don't fucking edit the name / text of my comment you douche Create a template (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Rude, name calling is inappropriate. Changed your subject heading because it is a bias; if that's out bounds then apologies, but please don't resort to name calling.

As for your points.

Summary: Science fiction is as valid as literary fiction; why not both?

1) Multiple labels are allowed. It's beyond the scope of a wikipedia to decide if a genre label is alienating or not; we aren't the book's marketing department.

2) Multiple labels are allowed; let's expand the description, so it's easier for folk to engage with it.

3) I would argue that Harvey's novel does not work without the speculative elements. You sort of need the cave man, the alien and the robot for the more human bits to be brought into focus. It's a very pretty book, but removing the speculative elements (or denying them) harms them. It's a very, very pretty narrative, there's not an element I would describe as lesser and the Booker judges would agree.

Ultimately, it's being called science fiction by science fiction readers, and literary fiction by literary fiction readers. A useful and accurate compromise would be to call it both literary and science fiction, I'll duly update. Signofgehenna (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It might help to also compare it other science fiction works to see where the disagreement lies. I haven't read her book just yet, but the topics she covers reminds me a lot of hard science fiction by Stephen Baxter. One could then ask, what is the difference between them? Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've only read Baxter's Long Earth stuff, and it's tough to compare that with Harvey because the voices are so different. Signofgehenna (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

But, that’s the difference, isn’t it? Baxter focused mostly on ideas across time and space, taking a sweeping, wide angle view, while it sounds like (I haven’t read it yet) Harvey takes a microscopic view, zooming in on people themselves and their small lives and parochial ideas. The reason I say this, is because this difference is often at the heart of this kind of dispute, with readers thinking that something isn’t science fiction because it is too focused on ordinary lives and ideas. Viriditas (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)