Texts Genre example essay topic

Genre Theory Is The Invention Of Literary Critics, And Adds Little To The Experience And Pleasure Of 'A readers appreciation of a work of literature is largely conditioned by, or dependent on, a familiarity with the features of the genre to which it belongs, or from which it deviates. Examine the validity of this statement. What is genre The word originally comes from the French for kind or class and is a system of classification of media (although literature is the only medium that need concern us here) that seeks to categorise texts into some kind of order. Indeed, the parallel has been made between the generic classification of works of literature and the division of all the creatures in the animal kingdom into various species. However, with a discipline as creative as literature, classification can never be as precise and scientific as that. So what dictates a texts genre Plato and Aristotle were the first to think about literature in terms of genre.

They saw genre as being distinguished by manner of imitation (or representation). This is best explained by Wellek and Warren [1]: lyric poetry is the poets own persona; in epic poetry (or the novel) the poet partly speaks in his own person, as narrator, and partly makes his characters speak in direct discourse (mixed narrative); in drama, the poet disappears behind his cast of characters. So, for these first theorists, genre was divided into three vast categories of poetry, prose and drama, each defined by how much of the authors own voice comes through in the text. These categories remained until the seventeenth and eighteenth century when writers began to think in terms of subdivisions of these groups. Indeed, according to Wellek and Warren, by the eighteenth century prose fiction had two species: the novel and the romance. For the Neo Classicists genre was an important preoccupation.

They were fond of this kind of concise ordering of literature. This fondness for order led Boileau to create a canon of genres which included the pastoral, the elegy, the ode, the epigram, satire, tragedy, comedy and the epic. [2] Due to the rigidly authoritarian and traditionalist nature of Neo Classicist criticism, any mixing of these genres was prohibited (the doctrine of genre tranche). There was also a hierarchy of worthiness applied to them (which is still evident today in a subtler form) which placed the epic and the tragedy above the sonnet or ode (Miltons minor poetry was of the latter, while his major or great works are of the former). However, it was never made clear by the Neo Classicists what it was exactly that dictated into which category a text fell. Wellek and Warren have attempted to address this problem: Gene should be conceived, we think, as a grouping of literary works based, theoretically, upon both outer form (specific metre or structure) and also upon inner form (attitude, tone, purpose more crudely, subject and audience).

[3] So, to identify a generic text, one needs a combination of an accepted style and continuous subject matter. Add to that the shared devices and purposes (features) of the genre and you have the means to be able to attempt to classify a text. So how does all this talk of genre affect the reading of a text Is it a pointless theoretical discussion with no relevance to the appreciation of the text in question, or does it increase our pleasure and help define the way in which we read and interpret that text When one chooses which book to read in ones ongoing journey through the universe of literature, one does not tend to simply pick a title at random. No, one tends to choose a title based upon a preconceived notion of whether one will enjoy it. And what is this notion based upon It is based upon what kind of text it is, into which genre it has been placed. One has a familiarity with its outer and inner form, its devices and purposes.

Therefore one knows more or less what to expect from the chosen text. It has been conjectured by Noel Carrol in his The Paradox of Junk Fiction, Philosophy and Literature Volume 8 that the reason people choose to essentially reread the same story in different guises time after time in their consumption of generic junk fictions has a lot to do with the pleasure gained from the practising of their skills of narrative interpretation. By this he means: the pleasure afforded by the opportunity to guess or infer, often correctly, what is going to happen next in an ongoing course of narrative events, as well as the opportunity to make judgements, including moral judgements, about these actions. [4] If one takes the basis of this theory and apply it differently to non junk fictions, it still works. Take the epic for example.

If one takes up a copy of Paradise Lost for the first time, one is familiar with the features of the genre. One knows that this text will cover a large expanse of time, will feature a hero who exhibits the characteristics of great strength, courage and honour. There will be battles, the pitting of wits between enemies all written in what is known as the epic style. One could argue that some of the pleasure derived from reading this text comes from predicting how the author will fulfill these criteria. Certainly a lot of my own pleasure in this text came from the identification of the epic hero (could it be Adam, The Son or Satan), whos presence I was alerted to by virtue of my familiarity with the conventions of the genre, and discovering Miltons skill in fulfilling the criteria of the genre whilst at the same time adapting it to suit his own purposes. Genre theory can help ones understanding of a text.

Take, for instance, an author like Jorge Luis Borges. When one is reading his short stories such as those that appear in collections such as The Book of Sand [5] it is clear that intelligent attention to the text itself is not enough to glean what approaches complete understanding. In his work on the hermeneutic interpretation of narrative texts, Rico eur pointed out the connection between the following of the events in a story and the understanding of that story. The following of events only occurs in a reader when he pays intelligent attention to the text. Therefore, one could say that to understand Borges writing, one only needs to read the text in this way. However, I would argue that this is not the case.

If you read Borges with no reference to genre, one could miss the point of the story altogether and misunderstand it. To approach something like understanding the writings of a man like Borges, one must understand that he blends many genres to produce his own individual style. In his writing, one finds the critical essay, fantasy, science fiction, modernism, meta fiction and autobiography to name but a few. Simply following the events through attention to the text itself is not enough. One needs a familiarity with some or all the genres with which he works to avoid being totally confused.

One cannot find all the pleasure that is possible with Borges from simply reading the text. Some of the pleasure gained from the reading of a text obviously comes from the appreciation of the skill of the author. How does one appreciate this skill It could be said that full appreciation of this skill comes from close attention to the text. When one reads a text, one notices the way in which the author employs language to inspire an emotional reaction in a reader. The greatest pleasure can be gained from a single line in a text. This is illustrated very well in a short story by Borges called The Other.

Whilst sitting on a bench in Cambridge, Borges finds himself conversing with a younger version of himself. This other conjectures that perhapse he is dreaming the narrator. I can prove at once that you are not dreaming me, I said. Listen carefully to this line, which, as far as I know, youve never read.

Slowly I en toned the famous verse, Lhydre-univers tor dant son corps eca ille das tres. I felt his almost fearful awe. He repeated the line, low-voiced, savoring each resplendent word. Its true, he faltered. Ill never be able to write a line like that.

Victor Hugo had brought us together. What this example indicates is that full appreciation of a text can come from simply reading it and enjoying the language and ideas. Certainly, this is true in some instances. However, if we take the example of William Golding's Lord of the Flies a knowledge of genre is central to the appreciation of the authors skill and the message contained in the text. Yes, one can read the text and be entertained and absorbed by the events and the way in which they are related, but if one did not understand the inspiration afforded by Coral Island one would certainly miss a large part of what the text has to offer. Coral Island and stories like it present an idyllic interpretation of what would happen if English public schoolboys were stranded on a tropical island.

The stark contrast of the events in Lord of the Flies increase the shocking realism of the text. One can also appreciate the authors skill in taking this genre blueprint and perverting it to drive the message home that underneath the conditioning of civilisation lurks a tendency towards the savage. So, we can see that in some instances, genre theory does add to the experience and pleasure afforded by intelligent attention to the text itself. However, I think that theorists preoccupation with genre theory is somewhat pointless. The best example I think would be the obsession with what it is exactly that defines a texts genre. Daniel Chandler has said Specific genres tend to be easy to recognise intuitively but difficult (if not impossible) to define.

[6] Due to this difficulty, theorists seem to be drawn inexorably to the challenge of its unravelling. This has led to endless debates between learned men that directs the attention away from the texts themselves. For example, the contemporary theory that genres are defined by family resemblances leads the theorist to simply illustrate similarities between some of the texts within the genre that they have been placed and not to actually study the texts themselves. Anyone can point out similarities between texts and I think it is somewhat unworthy of the academic theorist to do so. I also have objections to effects genre theory has had on the way works of literature are perceived.

I mentioned earlier that the classification of texts prompted a hierarchy of worthiness to establish itself which placed the epic above the sonnet. This hierarchy is still in evidence today. Terry Eagleton in his introduction to his Literary Theory (Second Edition) draws the distinction between literature and Literature. This draws attention to the prejudices which exist amongst those who consider themselves to be interested in L (l) literature. The modern genre of science fiction is generally considered by just such people, to be not as worthy of note as perhapse the Gothic Novel. However, authors such as William Gibson, Arthur C Clarke, Jeff Noon and Isaac Asimov are all science fiction writers who exhibit just as much skill and beauty as their gloomy counterparts.

However, due to this classification potential readers of the above authors may not be inclined to pick up their books due to preconceived ideas about the literary worthiness of science fiction. It is a dangerous trap. If they have not read the books due to their genre, they will never be able to experience the pleasure afforded by intelligent attention to the text itself. [1] Theory of Literature by Rene Wellek, Austin Warren, Penguin 1949 p 228 [2] Theory of Literature by Rene Wellek, Austin Warren, Penguin 1949 p 229 [3] Theory of Literature by Rene Wellek, Austin Warren, Penguin 1949 p 231 [4] Making Sense of Genre Deborah Knight http: / p 3 [5] The Book of Sand by Jorge Luis Borges Penguin 1980 [6] An Introduction to Genre Theory: The problem of definition by Daniel Chandler.