Interesting take on defining science fiction

"Genres are usually defined by their tropes—mysteries have murders and clues, romances have two people finding each other, etc. Science fiction doesn’t work well when you define it like that, because it’s not about robots and rocketships. Samuel Delany suggested that rather than try to define science fiction it’s more interesting to describe it, and of describing it more interesting to draw a broad circle around what everyone agrees is SF than to quibble about the edge conditions. (Though arguing over the borders of science fiction and fantasy is a neverending and fun exercise.) He then went on to say that one of the ways of approaching SF is to look at the way people read it—that those of us who read it have built up a set of skills for reading SF which let us enjoy it, where people who don’t have this approach to reading are left confused." Jo Walton

The above quote is from a recent article on Tor.com, and well worth reading in its entirety.  I particularly like the concept of an SF reading skill set.  I think that's very true.

And a nod to Kristen at Fantasy Cafe for the link.

And I also really liked this bit:
"We’ve all probably had the experience of reading a great SF novel and lending it to a friend—a literate friend who adores A.S. Byatt and E.M. Forster. Sometimes our friend will turn their nose up at the cover, and we’ll say no, really, this is good, you’ll like it. Sometimes our friend does like it, but often we’ll find our friend returning the book with a puzzled grimace, having tried to read it but “just not been able to get into it.” That friend has approached science fiction without the necessary toolkit and has bounced off. It’s not that they’re stupid. It’s not that they can’t read sentences. It’s just that part of the fun of science fiction happens in your head, and their head isn’t having fun, it’s finding it hard work to keep up."

Or this bit:
"SF is like a mystery where the world and the history of the world is what’s mysterious, and putting that all together in your mind is as interesting as the characters and the plot, if not more interesting. We talk about worldbuilding as something the writer does, but it’s also something the reader does, building the world from the clues. "

I'll stop now, but GO!  Go read this article! 

And now I'm going to order Delaney's The Jewel-Hinged Jaw: Notes on the Language of Science Fiction, because Ms. Walton's references to the man's thoughts have me dreadfully curious.

Comments

[jjdebenedictis]

It’s just that part of the fun of science fiction happens in your head, and their head isn’t having fun, it’s finding it hard work to keep up.

That describes, very nicely, the way I react to good books in other genres. I can appreciate how well done they are, but I just didn't enjoy them.

[betsydornbusch]

I read the article and I agreed with it. I'm a trained SF slush reader with 4 years of experience (not to mention all the books I continually read in the genre). I don't know that I'd be so great at finding decent mysteries or literary stories. Actually, I do know I would not be as good at it.