Well, don’t you?
Do you go into a hip hop track expecting to hear complex melodies and weird instrumentation and being disappointed by their absence?
Did you listen to Discordance Axis first or did you start with more accessible grind or a generally more accessible genre before finding the appeal of the more niche stuff?
I mean it’s admittedly kind of a rhetorical cheat but reframing things from the perspective that genres are lenses that we use to understand works does free us up from questions of fuzzy genre borders or (in music especially) “is this a real genre?” Delany calls them interpretive codes and I think that’s totally fair. Black Metal is straight up unintelligible to a lot of people but they can kind of grow into it by listening to older metal and learning to interpret the music more remote from common experience.
And there’s neat liberties to be ahistorical with it. Delany doesn’t mention it explicitly in either of my quotes (I just cut it down to relevant definitions and examples) but it enables you to read Frankenstein as Science Fiction or Horror even though it existed before those genres were codified. And you don’t even have to make the preposterous claim that a genre existed 500 years before a word existed to describe it.
Gamebooks, Interactive Fiction and Hypertext all have broad similarities but were genres codified at different times in different media, and there’s nothing stopping me from evaluating Zork as a gamebook (and in this case it is likely a fruitful sort of misreading)