> first science fiction author to win the Booker prize

This feels like we're really splitting hairs in order to exclude Samantha Harvey’s Orbital (the 2024 winner) from the category of science fiction.

▲

codeulike 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

When you read Orbital, you very much get the feeling that it is squarely planting itself in the territory of "exploring right now in a literary way" rather than being sci-fi. I think it has a strong vibe of really not wanting to be considered sci-fi. That what makes it an interesting book

▲

15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

rob74 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I haven't read the novel, but going by the Wikipedia article you could argue that just because it features astronauts on the ISS doesn't yet make it science fiction - as long as nothing unusual happens to the astronauts, what goes on on the ISS is no more science fiction than what an airline pilot does in their day-to-day job.

Even the author seems to agree (also from Wikipedia): "In an interview, Harvey stated that her goal was to write the novel as a "space pastoral", focusing on realism and the beauty of space rather than the speculative nature of science fiction."

▲

tialaramex an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah, the key distinguisher for "Science Fiction" is that it asks a "What if?" question. Some SF authors (e.g. Margaret Atwood) don't like that because they're writing novels with no robots or spaceships, but too bad, you don't get to choose how other people experience your work.

▲

FearNotDaniel 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

But that then begs the question… isn’t Margaret Atwood already the first SF author to win the Booker Prize? Making Harrison second?

	▲	tialaramex 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It doesn't beg the question, "begging the question" is a type of fallacy in which we insist upon presuming X and then rely on that to prove X which is a waste of everybody's time. But yes, it is reasonable if we notice that Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" is Science Fiction to expect that awarding a Booker to its sequel "The Testaments" would constitute a Booker for Science Fiction. I would imagine the distinction attempted here is that despite writing those novels, Atwood doesn't consider herself to be an SF author, perhaps Harrison says he is an SF author. Atwood also won for "The Blind Assassin" which very much is not Science Fiction, it's historical fiction, it's not history but all the stuff happening in the background was real. This shades over somewhere. If your story features an England ruled by literal Nazis it's Science Fiction (alternate history is a type of SF, "What if the Nazis won?" is a fairly popular theme) but if your England just has some Nazi sympathizers and your story is set in the 1930s it might just be historical fiction.
	▲	codeulike 9 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		That's a good point.
	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 6 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Margaret Atwood did not win the Booker Prize for Oryx and Crake and sequels, the "arguably SF" ones mentioned above, but for other novels. IDK if "The Testaments" qualifies though. This might make MJH the first Sci-Fi author to win a Booker prize for a Sci-Fi novel.

▲

SideburnsOfDoom 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

For Oryx and Crake and sequels, it's hard to argue that "a novel with no robots or spaceships ... but a whole lot of genetic engineering" isn't actually SF.

It doesn't pass the test that e.g. a novel set on the actually existing International Space Station does. It does contain a core fictional scientific "what-if" extrapolation.

I respect the author's opinion here and I hold a different opinion, for that reason.