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."

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.

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

That's a good point.

[delayed]

> IDK if "The Testaments" qualifies though

I would have a hard time countenancing an argument that The Handmaids Tale (and by extension, The Testaments) is not sci-fi, in a world where Heinlein's "If This Goes On—" is widely regarded to be sci-fi.

On the other hand, if Atwood doesn't wish to be regarded as a sci-fi author, so be it

[delayed]

If it helps, The Testaments is in the same genre as The Handmaid’s Tale, whichever genre one wishes to assign to either.

> Atwood doesn't wish to be regarded as a sci-fi author

She's repeatedly said she doesn't. Indeed her dismissive remark that "SF is that 'squids in space' stuff, isn't it?" is what inspired the great Ken Macleod to write his "Engines of Light" trilogy which starts with Cosmonaut Keep.

Due to her attitude I've never even tried to read any fiction of hers. Macleod is a genius nearly on a level with his close friend Iain Banks.

I am with the other commenter in this thread: I've read quite a few (usually very highly-regarded) alleged SF novels by literary authors who say they don't write SF. I have hated pretty much every such book.

As one of very few women in the field, and one of even fewer who writes primarily about women, I tend to think a lot of this attitude is a reflection of the extent to which sci-fi has been an "old boys club" for most of Atwood's career, more than it is about the genre itself

All of literature can be regarded as an "old boys club" if you squint, but it's not like she'd have been unique. "The Left Hand of Darkness" was published before I was born, but I was old enough to read "The Handmaid's Tale" by the time that was published, albeit not quite old enough to properly understand it.

In fact I don't think "The Handmaid's Tale" really makes sense without the context of the AP feminists. Gilead comes about, as I understand it, because the AP feminists think they can use the Religious Right to achieve their goals and unsurprisingly that goes badly for them. AP feminism doesn't even exist when "Left Hand" was published.

I saw her talk once and I thought it was more her being glib. If I recall what she said correctly, it was “I don’t consider what I write to be science fiction, because something like it has already happened.”

But maybe that’s just post-hoc rationalization for a reactionary stance, idk.

[delayed]

One of the greatest sci-fi writers of all time is a woman. Most consider her to be the best. Ursula LeGuin.

And she absolutely is not the only one. There are plenty of very talented and very popular women authors in the genre.

Margaret Atwood just wants to be thought of as literary.

The handmaid's tale is without a doubt speculative fiction (SF), the umbrella term for writing that includes sci-fi, fantasy, alternative history, etc.

Margaret Atwood likes to position herself as a champion of values such as equity, justice, and progress, while using her clout to oppose a multi-family condo development close to her multi-million dollar mansion [1]

Needless to say, I will also never read any of her work.

[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo-con...

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.

You must be fun at parties.

There's been a few scifi authors who've won the Booker Prize for non-scifi; at least Atwood and Ishiguro. And both the Handmaid's Tale and Never Let Me Go were shortlisted for the Booker. But they didn't actually win it.

[delayed]

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

[delayed]

The distinction is that Harrison has spent his entire fairly lengthy career being published as a science fiction author, and the others did not. They were all firmly in the mainstream literary camp, even if their books occasionally strayed over.