The Significance of SF Reading Protocols and the Way We Read:

Walton Misses the Meaning

Zander MacDonald

In SF Reading Protocols, Jo Walton argues the protocols one uses to read science fiction
and fantasy constitutes a significant element in distinguishing the boundaries of the genres.
Walton’s reading protocols only arise in response to a deeper phenomenon in science fiction,
which in turn cannot serve as a sufficient condition for identifying a text as science fiction, or
give a consistent method delineating genres. Walton erred in thinking that the significance of
“...the way people read it...” (Walton 1) refers to a loose collection of skills, while it properly
refers to the unique subjunctivity (Delany 10) of science fiction; the pragmatic meaning that the
context of being science fiction adds to all utterances in a science fiction work.
Walton claims science fiction is not defined by its tropes as other genres are, and this
claim is untenable. The concept of genres remains intelligible only so long as there is a consistent
principle for marking the boundaries between genres, since the identity of such a concept is its
definition. Multiple definitions necessarily refer to multiple concepts. This is a basic axiom of
language. If one “genre” fails to be defined by its tropes, it means either all genres are not, or
science fiction is not a genre. Given that “mysteries have murders and clues” (Walton 1) and
“romances have two people finding each other” (Walton 1) are about as satisfactory a description
of the respective genres as science fiction being “about robots and rocketships,” (Walton 1) it
seems more reasonable that her definition is flawed. Therefore, when she suggests looking to
how one reads science fiction to mark its boundaries, one must also look to how one reads
romances and mysteries to mark their boundaries as well. The standard for dividing genres must
be consistent, and marking the boundary based on the way it is read and the tools the reader uses
lacks intuitive appeal.
Ursula K. le Guin questions the concept of genre, and looks to the function of the genre
for insight (le Guin 20). “Genre” can be used both to evaluate a work, such as when it is used by
literary critics, and to describe a work (le Guin 20). The use of genre descriptively allows for
there to be a science fiction community and tradition (le Guin 20-21). The descriptive use of
genre interests le Guin, and she considers the heart of a genre to be the tradition that it represents
(le Guin 21).

Genre writers and readers share a common stock of concepts, icons, images,
manners, patterns, precisely as the musicians and the audiences of Haydn’s and
Mozart’s time shared a materia musica which the composer was expected, not to
shatter or transcend, but to use and make variation on… Transcendence, as in the
case of Mozart, may of course occur; it’s wonderful, but it really isn’t the point...
(le Guin 21).

In this less simplistic view, genre certainly includes tropes, but its essence cannot be reduced to
tropes. Tradition also includes the supposedly important element of reading practices, and the
literary tools the author needs to create literature in the genre. Science fiction must have its own
principles and tools in its tradition, but science fiction writers are required to do something
almost unique to the genre. They need to build a world other than that in which we live, yet still
have it seem coherent and livable. Walton correctly points out that since science fiction needs to
build these other worlds, “...it has developed techniques for doing it,” (Walton 12). Walton then
goes on to mention “the simple infodump” and “incluing” as examples of such techniques
(Walton 12). These are just two different forms of exposition, and there is much more to world
building than exposition. Kathryn Cramer draws a comparison to the works of Escher, who
claimed there were rules for representing that which does not exist (Cramer 24). This goes
beyond techniques for explaining the setting, but extends to how the world is conceived, shaped,
and constructed in the consciousness of both reader and author. Cramer argues there are not only
rules and principles for relating the world, but also for structuring it.

...they [science fiction stories] are impossible Escheresque objects which use the
principles of science in much the same way that Escher used rules of geometric
symmetry—the rules give form to the impossible imaginative content. (Cramer 24)

Cramer does not claim the events in science fictions stories are all impossible and could never
happen, only that the majority of science fiction stories are not “plausible extrapolations”
(Cramer 24) of future events from current events. They are only impossible given the current
state of the world, or at the very least are engineered to give that impression. If science fiction
stories were strictly and blatantly impossible, its writers would not be required to wield these
principles for the “impossible.” The adherence to the principles of what is possible without
adhering to the current limits of current possibility of the observable world gives science fiction
a unique “subjunctivity” (Delany 10). Delany noted the meaning of a string of words in science
fiction is different than the same string in another genre, and he dubbed this “subjuntivity.” In
light of this subjunctivity, the way a text is read starts to become more significant in marking the
boundaries of genre.

Works Cited
Cramer, Kathryn. "On Science and Science Fiction." Introduction. The Ascent of Wonder:
the Evolution of Hard SF. Ed. David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer. New York: TOR, 1994.
24-28. Print.
Delany, Samuel R. "The Jewel-Hinged Jaw." Google Books. Web. 28 Jan. 2011.
<http://books.google.ca/books?id=7JQBknc-R7UC&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=about 5750
words Delany&source=bl&ots=cm8-ujTayh&sig=S773X-
0I58XxdIJpWoF_VneJUEM&hl=en&ei=rWdATf7EJIGs8QO05IGTBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result
&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false>.
Le Guin, Usela K. "Introduction." Introduction. The Norton Book of Science Fiction:
North American Science Fiction, 1960-1990. Ed. Brian Attebery and Ursela K. Le Guin. New
York: W.W. Norton &, 1993. 15-43. Print.
Walton, Jo. "SF Reading Protocols." Tor.com. 18 Jan. 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/01/sf-reading-protocols>.