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)

I've updated the subject header as the original was a massive bias.

It's being compared to a lot of different works, including Becky Chambers, Stanisław Lem, Mary Shelly and so on. Spiritual science fiction exists, and is a thing, and 'space pastoral' is just another way of saying 'spiritual science fiction' (Unless they are farms on the ISS? They aren't.)

As I say upthread, it's getting multiple labels because multiple labels apply. Signofgehenna (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, I appreciate what you've said here. There can definitely be confusion over a genre because of the things you've mentioned.

To be clear (and I'm not saying that you've accused me of anything yet), I never said that it isn't science fiction at all.

My only point was that it isn't purely science fiction, which is what was being presented in the lead after their edit. That is why I did these things:

• added multiple genres to the infobox
• reverted their edit of "science fiction novel" to "novel"
• posted here saying "There are sections that are science fiction; however, the majority of the book is closer to literary fiction, etc."
• eventually provided a final version

To be honest, I'd like for this conv to be locked since the issue has pretty much been resolved already, and there isn't much more that could be accomplished leaving it open. Create a template (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The entry requires more than one genre label

Moving away from the previous header, which is a bit misleading. The entry stands fine with multiple genre defintions, as it's a multi-genre book. Signofgehenna (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

altering my title from "It is not a science fiction novel most of the time" to "If it contains science fiction elements, it's science fiction" is totally inappropriate, because it completely alters the meaning of my original argument and misrepresents my position. This shift distorts the point I was trying to make and seemed more like an attempt to reshape the discussion than a genuine effort to clarify the genre. You've called my approach "misleading", and yet your actions — particularly in changing the header — appear to have been more driven by an uneven interpretation at that point than anything that I did the entire time, undermining the purpose of our conversation.

My original point posting on the talk page was to emphasize that the novel isn't strictly science fiction. It's primarily literary fiction, drama, and philosophy, with some science fiction elements. I never said that that such a classif is incorrect; rather that it is incomplete. Your repeated insistence on labeling it as a "science fiction novel", rather than "novel", without acknowledging its broader genre, was the issue, as it's an inaccurate and insufficient depiction of the novel. I specifically added multiple genres to the infobox even before we started debating, recognizing the presence of science fiction from the start, which shows that my approach was more inclusive and nuanced than your insistence on a singular classification earlier on.

Although I appreciate that we eventually came to a resolution, your continued questioning of my position, especially calling the title "massive bias" (even yesterday) is confusing, since I was always saying that the book was reflective of multiple genres, including but not limited to science fiction. I don't understand why this is an issue after we have agreed on a more balanced approach, especially when I was simply trying to reflect the book's multi-genre characteristics.

Before your edit, the page had referred to it as a "novel" for a couple of months, and at that time, the burden was on you to show that the label "science fiction novel" was the most accurate and complete genre descriptor. You never presented sufficient evidence to support that, and even if we did eventually agree that the book isn't solely science fiction, your approach to defining it was overly narrow at first. While this was likely a misunderstanding, I think both of us have learned something through the process. When I reverted the edit and posted, you had an opportunity to offer a more accurate revision that acknowledged the book's full range of genres. A more collaborative approach earlier on could have avoided this prolonged discussion. However, I also recognize that I could have avoided calling you names and suggest alternative phrasing to resolve the issue sooner.

Had you stopped talking about your perception of my bias after your comment on 15:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC), I would not be addressing this issue again. But continuing to label my header as "massive bias" and opening a new topic is indicative that you just won't let it go for some reason. Create a template (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

OKay, so that's a little off topic and I started a new thread and everything. Are you done? Can we please stop being silly? Would you like to swear at me some more? Could you please not? Can we please be done? Thank You. Signofgehenna (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)