In Samuel Delany’s “About 5,750 Words,” he defines science fiction in a very specific way that focuses heavily on context and language. A claim that stood out to me instantly was “content is not real” (Delany 1). On its own, this sentence barely makes any sense and requires a lot more explanation to understand what Delany is getting at (this actually relates to his general argument, funnily enough). Content on its own is meaningless and requires context for someone to fully understand it. Delany uses the word “red” to show an example of how a word on its own can mean completely different things in different scenarios. Delany then goes on to say that the word “content” is implying that something is being “contained,” which, according to Delany, is a “misleading visualization” (2) and real ‘meanings (content or information) are the formal relations between sounds and images of the objective world” (2). To truly understand information that is being presented to you, it must be contextualized. Delany provides a potent example of different ways to write a sentence about a person setting down some books onto a table. Although the action in each sentence is the same, the meaning and implications of each one creates a completely different experience. A person who would refer to books as “things” probably does not value them too much and treats them like any other household item whereas a character who diligently refers to each title and author of each book probably regards them highly and cares for them.
When defining science fiction, Delany states there is a “level of subjunctivity that informs all the words in an SF story at a level that is different from that which informs naturalistic fiction, fantasy, or reportage” (10). When something is “subjunctive,” it means it is “relating to or denoting a mood of verbs expressing what is imagined or wished or possible” (Oxford Languages). In terms of SF, Delany explains that the level of subjuncitivity boils down to events that “have not happened.” Events that “have not happened” are very different from events that “could have happened” (realistic fiction) or events that “could not happen” (fantasy). This is the defining feature of SF in Delany’s eyes.
Many people question the “real” difference between fantasy and science fiction and Delany’s levels of subjunctivity offer a very distinct explanation. When writing SF, the author must take into account the “how” of everything that happens. If there is a winged dog in a fantasy novel, the reader can just shrug and accept that the genre is fantasy and some sort of magic like that can exist; however, when it comes to SF, one must consider what events caused a winged dog to exist. Is it bioengineering? A parallel universe where dogs underwent a different evolutionary track?
Personally, I really like Delany’s way of defining SF. I think SF is an extremely broad genre that, in general, is very hard to define but the focus on events that “have not happened” instead of events that “could not happen” really outlines the goal of SF (as I see it). SF provides a critique of society, politics, humanity etc. and I think that approaching SF from Delany’s perspective can make the experience a lot more meaningful for a reader. One disadvantage I would maybe address is that Delany wants readers to “atomize” the works they read, meaning break them down into small distinct units. There are many readers who may not have this kind of patience or just want to read to relax and not as if they’re in a college class. This is totally valid and understandable, but I can also see how an SF novel requires intense close reading and analysis as SF is commonly used to provide criticism and send a message. Not paying enough attention seems to me as an act of disservice to the novel, the author, and yourself.