Critics, And Adds Little To The Experience And Pleasure Of Essay, Research Paper
`?A reader?s
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 text?s 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 poet?s 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 author?s 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
(Milton?s ?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 one?s 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 it?s ?outer? and ?inner? form,
it?s ?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, Philosphy 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?), who?s
presence I was alerted to by virtue of my familiarity with the conventions of
the genre, and discovering Milton?s skill in fulfilling the criteria of the
genre whilst at the same time adapting it to suit his own purposes. Genre theory can help one?s 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, Ricoeur 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, you?ve never
read.? Slowly I entoned the famous verse, ?L?hydre-univers tordant son corps ecaille d?astres.? I felt his
almost fearful awe. He repeated the line, low-voiced, savouring each
resplendant word. ?It?s true,? he faltered. ?I?ll 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 author?s 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 author?s 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 theorist?s preoccupation with genre theory
is somewhat pointless. The best example I think would be the obsession with
what it is exactly that defines a text?s genre. Daniel Chandler has saidSpecific 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)iterature. 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
p228 [2] ?Theory of Literature? by Rene Wellek, Austin Warren, Penguin 1949
p229 [3] ?Theory of Literature? by Rene Wellek, Austin Warren, Penguin 1949
p231 [4] ?Making Sense of Genre? Deborah Knight http:/www p3 [5] ?The Book of Sand? by Jorge Luis Borges Penguin 1980 [6]?An Introduction to Genre Theory: The problem of definition? by
Daniel Chandler www