This part particularly resonates:
The writerÃ¢â‚¬â€œas opposed to the worldbuilderÃ¢â‚¬â€œmust therefore rely on an audience which begins with the idea that reading is a game in itself. I don’t see this happening in worldbuilding fiction. When you read such obsessively-rationalised fiction you are not being invited to interpret, but to “see” and “share” a single world. As well as being based on a failure to understand the limitations of language as a communications tool (or indeed the limitations of a traditional idea of what communication can achieve), I think that kind of writing is patronising to the reader; and I’m surprised to find people talking about “actively reading” these texts when they seem to mean the very opposite of it. The issue is: do you receiveÃ¢â‚¬â€œis it possible to receiveÃ¢â‚¬â€œa fictional text as an operating manual ? Or do you understand instead that your relationship with the very idea of text is already fraught with the most gameable difficulties & undependabilities ? The latter seems to me to be the ludic point of reading: anything else rather resembles theÃ¢â‚¬â€œpurely functionalÃ¢â‚¬â€œact of following instructions on how to operate a vacuum cleaner.