The main argument of Delaney in “About 5,750 words” is that science fiction is able to create a vast universe of endless possibility. Science Fiction gives writers verbal freedom to paint a picture in the readers mind of the impossible. It forces readers to imagine a world of the things that could happen or haven’t happened yet. According to Delaney “The subjunctivity is changed once more these objects, these convocations of objects into situations and events, are blanketly defined by: have not happened” (11). This means that SF moves far away from reality and makes the reader imagine scenarios that are not too far from our realm. Delaney further supports this by saying that ”Events that have not happened include include events that might happen” (11). This is why science fiction is a vast genre. It can be about technological advances or cautionary tales about society. It can also be about Utopian or dystopian societies (11). Science Fiction creates a whole universe that is explained thoroughly through the addition of every word. Each word can set the scene for the entire story. Simple words in science fiction are given more value than other literature. We are forced to think deeper when reading. A lot of it is left up to interpretation. SF also gives the reader insight on how the characters and universe got to where they are (12). One thing that stood out to me was “As SF- as an event that hasn’t happened, yet still must be interpreted in terms of the physically explainable” (13). That’s the cool part about SF because it creates scenarios the reader has to imagine and even justify of possibly happening using what they already know and experience. The advantage of Delaney’s definition is like I said earlier the genre is very vast and immersive. Each added word gives the writer freedom to explore anything he/she wants. A disadvantage of this definition is that according to Delaney “You are talking about subtleties to refined for the vast majority of readers to understand” (9). Readers at times won’t be able to understand and will be “Injured by bad writing” (10). Having to be too detailed and not catch subtleties can be bad for the reader. I sort of agree with what he’s saying. I am not the most sophisticated reader and I don’t like authors using too much details and over-explaining things. It gets confusing. Being clear and concise in SF allows for a much better flow and the subtleties will be up for interpretation by the reader.