Anomalies of Genre: The Utility of Theory and History for the Study of Literary Genres

This article discusses three recent books that deal with the Croatian literary hi/story. In the first part of the work we discuss the issues of the contemporary post-structural and deconstructionist view of writing history. The argument is based on Alun Munslow’s thesis that it is not possible to write hi/story outside the narrative genre. The starting point of discussion is that hi/story (of literature) is only one of possible modal practices of narration/narrative. This means that history can only be read as one of many narratives while simultaneously it reflects the narrative that is produced by its nature/mode. That in many ways changes the way in which today, in poststructuralist and postmodern perspective, one can (and will) interpret the tradition of literary history as a “practical activity” (interpretation of meaning and/or philological discipline) but also as a story (construction). The tradition of Croatian literary history is very much dependent on the narrative(s) of the nation, the idea of its continuity in time (“diachronic development”) and on viewing literature as the narration of the nation, or as a major way of preserving national memory. In most books on the 19th and the 20th century national literary history this was the prevailing viewpoint of scholars who were constructing the Croatian cannon and national narrative as “agreed upon” hi/story “of the nation” (and its literary memory/canon). The three books discussed in this article, each in its particular way (methodologically and by its idea of how to interpret texts), change, or at least contribute to the change of this traditionalist storytelling that has become hi/story (of national literature). This article simultaneously challenges the tradition of (literary) history writing and interprets various aspects of reading hi/story anew in the works by three contemporary authors. It puts in perspective three different types of “politics of small differences” that form the basis of the original contributions. Brešić’s study into the Croatian 19th century literature shifted from writing the hi/story of writers and national narratives towards the modes of presentation and study of genres. Bagić’s study of contemporary literature for the first time treats traditional literary genres and new media, as well as popular culture, equally, thus allowing new insight into the possibilities of studying both fiction and its discursive frames. The third book discussed here introduces the discussion of the role that contemporary questioning of humanities as a discipline has in both post-structural environment and interpretative community of scholars. In conclusion, the article discusses the possibilities of reading (literary) history anew in the hegemonic environment of school system, academia and cultural paradigm of the “nation”.

Genre theory, as it has developed in the last forty years, has made use of what I call a constitutive concept of genre, a concept that has built into it the assumption that genre plays a central epistemic role in the interpretation of verbal discourse. In this paper I argue that there are theoretical problems with such a concept that have not been recognized and that make it unsuitable as a critical instrument in literary history and literary studies. A fruitful concept of literary genre needs to be pragmatic with only a heuristic and not an epistemic function. As an example, the article looks at the criticism produced in connection with the picaresque novel and in particular at the account given of the origin of the genre, an account that could not have been given if one had employed a constitutive concept of genre.

Film: Genres and Genre Theory

Translation has played a very important role in Chinese literature, theory, and criticism. Modern Chinese literature is almost a translated literature, for, through a sort of cultural translation, traditional Chinese literary and critical discourse was deconstructed and has manifested itself in a new form. But translating Western journals into Chinese is only a recent practice, adopted since the turn of the century, because Chinese theorists realize that many insightful theoretical concepts and ideas first appear in journal articles. The article lays more emphasis on why Chinese scholars take the initiative of translating some leading Western humanities journals, such as New Literary History, Critical Inquiry and boundary 2, into Chinese. To the author, founded earliest among all the three above-mentioned and having close relations with Chinese literary scholarship, New Literary History most strongly influences Chinese scholars' literary study and critical thinking. And its academic norms and strict selection of manuscripts have certainly set a fine example in China's literary study and theory and criticism as well as the editing of journals of literary and cultural studies in the Chinese context. Chinese literary and cultural studies, due to the translation of these journals, will move closer and closer toward the international community, thereby having equal dialogues with the latter. Since most of the articles published in the above-mentioned journals anticipate their authors' substantial research and profound thinking of cutting-edge theoretical issues, they will certainly provide illumination to Chinese scholars' theoretical reflections. The article also points out that globalization has broken through the demarcation between nations and countries, and between center and periphery, with transnational corporations functioning as an "empire" everywhere. In this way, globalization has also benefited people who want to get out of their isolated domain, enabling them to communicate more effectively in such a "global village." It has therefore enabled Chinese scholars to more conveniently communicate with the international scholarship on any theoretical and academic topic, including literary and cultural studies. In today's context, they translate Western and international theoretical journals into Chinese, for the purpose of making China's literary and theoretical studies closer to the international community and allowing it to communicate more easily with the same. Maybe in the near future, when the Western and international colleagues want to know what has been going on in China's literary and cultural studies, and what new ideas we Chinese theorists have put forward, they will also start, in collaboration with their Western colleagues, to translate some excellent Chinese theoretical journals into the major Western and international language: English.

Contemporary Drift: Genre, Historicism, and the Problem of the Present, by Theodore Martin; Minor Characters Have Their Day: Genre and the Contemporary Literary Marketplace, by Jeremy Rosen

<i>David Duff</i> Romanticism and the Uses of Genre<i>Romanticism and the Uses of Genre</i>. David Duff. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. xiv+256.

This is the second article in a cycle on the connection between genre studies and linguistics. The previous article discussed the question “What have genre studies given to linguistics?” This article focuses on linguistic methods used in speech genres theory: more traditional for linguistics, starting with the descriptive method and its later varieties – structural – and less traditional (component analysis, the method of immediate constituents, the generative method, the method of describing external and deep content structures, the method of semantic fields). Speech genres theory is studied in relation to linguistic paradigms. The most significant for speech genres theory is the turn in linguistics from the study of the language only to the study of speech (discourse), and thus – the recognition of the presence of a specific systematic nature of speech. Besides, speech genres theory is analyzed in connection with traditional linguistic directions: syntactic theory and methodology are used in the study of the composition of speech genres, lexicology and semantics – in the study of the names of speech genres. The major focus is on the modern period when new areas of linguistics and speech genres theory emerge simultaneously (Internet linguistics and Internet genre studies). The article also discusses division of linguistic disciplines in connection both with the speech genre division of language (structural, diachronic, functional) and with the division of genre studies (structure of the speech genres, classification of speech genres, sociology of speech genres, psychology of speech genres and genre thinking, cognitive and culturological aspects of speech genres). The role of speech genres theory in the division of linguistic disciplines into deductive and inductive is also discussed. The article appreciates the role of several outstanding linguists in the development of speech genres theory. In addition, the author briefly touches upon the connection between genre studies and literary studies: in the study of literary texts and genres they converge.

Reviewed by: Generic Histories of German Cinema: Genre and Its Deviations ed. by Jaimey Fisher Roger F. Cook Generic Histories of German Cinema: Genre and Its Deviations. Edited by Jaimey Fisher. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2013. Pp. 314. Cloth $95.00. ISBN 978-1571135704. This collection of twelve substantial essays fills a notable gap in scholarly work on German film and is a welcome addition to Camden House’s prominent series in German Studies. In the introduction the volume’s editor, Jaimey Fisher, documents convincingly the need for a volume that focuses on the history and theory of genre in German cinema. He provides a good overview of the scant existing scholarship on German genre films and then describes how Generic Histories addresses the topic in a way that can contribute both to the history of German film and to genre theory more broadly. He lays out two key goals of this anthology. One is to illuminate from [End Page 682] a new perspective the links between art cinema and popular film. The second, more central concern is the need to override the partitioning of German history into fixed periods that are seen as distinct and disconnected. Fisher asserts that in emphasizing “the ongoing histories of film genres and their ever mutating forms” (4), the essays in this volume read genre in the German context across the boundaries of these periods and, in doing so, seek to contribute to genre theory more broadly. After stating these objectives, Fisher addresses briefly the influence that German theorists (Adorno, Horkheimer, Kracauer) have had on genre theory, before offering a brief historical sketch of critical writing on film genre. He does so in order to spell out the specific contribution that the “historic-discursive approach” of Generic Histories has to offer. Tailoring his short account of a complex history to this end, Fisher argues that genre theory as a whole has tended to follow a triangulated model constructed around the filmic text, audiences, and industry institutions. The thrust of this historical account (which includes John Calweti, Rick Altman, and Steve Neale, among others) is to show that the various models of genre theory have struggled to find an approach that incorporates both a historical focus on institutions and practices and a discursive engagement with the filmic text. Generic Histories seeks to rectify this by offering a history of German genre film that does both and that can thus serve as a model for genre studies in general. The collection pursues this goal by assigning a certain structure to the individual contributions. Each essay provides a general history of its designated genre and then provides a reading of a particular film as a case study. For the most part, the articles follow the design laid out in the introduction and, in doing so, give a broad history of genre film in German cinema. The contributions cover the most important genres: horror films, the essay film, science fiction, musicals, war films, crime films, the Heimat film, romantic comedy, and detective/police thrillers. While the collection may not cover every genre (e.g., political thriller, Bergfilme, and historical films are not included), there are no glaring gaps. In most cases, the essays also trace the development of a particular genre across different periods in German history, delivering on the promise in the introduction of “transperiod genre criticism.” Of all the contributions, Lutz Koepnick’s piece adheres to the plan laid out in the introduction most effectively. It provides an excellent critical perspective on the history of science-fiction film in German cinema, explaining its limited success in relation to German social, political and cultural history. In a skilled balancing of case study with the larger scope of his piece, he frames his arguments with a discussion of two Fritz Lang science-fiction films of the 1920s (one classic and one minor), and then comes back to Metropolis in a strong conclusion that solidifies his argument with a superb analogy drawn from a classical moment of German science-fiction. Gerd Gemünden also contributes effectively to the theoretical purpose of the volume. He gives a strong reading of Edgar Ulmer’s 1934 horror film The Black Cat as...

<i>Genre Matters: Essays in Theory and Criticism</i>. Edited by Garin Dowd , Lesley Stevenson , and Jeremy Strong . Bristol and Portland, OR: Intellect Books, 2006. Pp. 178.

Preface. List of Abbreviations. PART I: Introduction. 1. What is and What is Literature? English and Literature: The Subject in Question. The Uses of Literature. Great Books and Trash: The Canon Wars. Literary History, Periods, and Movements: Four Approaches to the Past. Critical Interpretation and Analysis. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. PART II: Foundational Skills. 2. Reading English: From Opening a Book to Critical Analysis. Foundational Reading Strategies: Overview and Detail. Five Intensive Methods of Reading Literature. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. 3. Library Research and Scholarly Method. How to Find what You Need: Old and New Methods. Research Methods and Library Classification Systems. Printed Library Resources. Research on the Web. Evaluating What You Find. Plagiarism. Documenting Your Sources. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. 4. Writing in Studies. Different Kinds of Assignments: Their Objectives and Audience. Kinds of Essays. Reading the Assignment. Establishing a Logical Position. Organizing Your Argument: Computer Drafts and Thesis Statement. Building Paragraphs and Arguments. Integrating Quotations. Revising for Content, Argument, and Style. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. PART III The Major Genres. 5. Drama. Plays, Drama, Theater, Performance: The Varieties. of Institutional Formation. Drama, Text, and Speech. The Theater and the Play: The Shape of the Stage and the History of Drama. Dramatic Action and Structure in Relation to Genre. Character Types and the Unities. Reading Plays. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. 6. Prose Fiction. Definitions: Novel, Fiction, Narrative, Metafiction. History and Origins. Reading Prose Fiction. Character, Setting, and Action in Prose Fiction. Bakhtin: Monophonic and Polyphonic Novels. Narratology: From Story to Narrative Discourse. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. 7. Poetry. The Elements of Poetry. Reading Poems: A Prelude to Critical Analysis. Critical Analysis. Prosody: An Introduction to Versification. Scansion. Line Length, Pauses, and Continuity. Sound. Rhyme. Stanzas and Diction. Ambiguity and Irony. Four Verse Forms. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. PART IV: Theory. 8 Language and Literary Studies. Linguistics: The Systematic Study of Language. Rhetoric and Persuasion. Literary Stylistics. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. 9. Recent Critical Practice. The Analysis of Genre: What Kind of Thing is That? Formalisms. Reading the Signs: Semiotics for Students of Literature. From One Meaning to Many: Constructing and Deconstructing the Text. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. 10. The Politics of Reading: Gender, Class, and Ethnicity. Gender Matters. Being Class Conscious. Ethnic Difference: Reading in a Postcolonial Context. Conclusion. Further Reading. Web Pages of Interest. References. Index.

Purpose/Thesis: The article presents the possibilities of using the interdisciplinary theory of genres, developed in the study of linguistics, literary studies, rhetoric, sociology, philosophy, psychology and other disciplines, in library and information science (LIS). The article argues the application of genre theory to LIS offers a new and interesting interdisciplinary perspective.Approach/Methods: A critical analysis of the literature on the subject introduces the basic premises of the interdisciplinary theory of text/information genres in its historical development in the world and in Poland. A similar method was used to present the most important directions genre theory opens to LIS.Results and conclusions: Before genre theory was first applied to LIS, it was developed in disciplines such as linguistics, literature, rhetoric, communication and media, discourse analysis, sociology, pedagogy and others and in many countries on all continents (mainly in the USA, Australia, Brazil and Scandinavian countries). The theory’s success is a result of its interdisciplinary development, beginning from linguistic and classical rhetorical genres approach and problems of categorizing texts to “de facto genres” and their function in everyday communication activities (social/rhetoric approach). Applied to LIS, it frames information objects as social constructs whose meaning is constructed in social discourse, driven by genre knowledge. The library and other information systems should be treated as a social communication activity in the recurrent situation of organizing and retrieving information. It means that the work of a librarian (or other information organizers) involves rhetorical activity of creating information objects, as does the work of other information creators, e.g. authors of scholarly publications. The functioning of information system, i.e. production and organization of textual information should be investigated using methods applied in other disciplines, especially humanities and social sciences, as it allows for a broader research perspective.Originality/Value: The article describes the possibilities of applying genre theory in LIS research, which still do not receive the attention they merit. A wider knowledge of the genre theory would make possible collaborative research involving scholars of other disciplines such as linguistics and sociology.

Genre's general provenance has been to categorize any number of cultural expressions, both verbal and non‐verbal, including sounds, images, speech, writing—all in the service of understanding the discursive construction of meaning. Genre theory attempts to make sense of this wide diversity and is in many ways the cultural task of providing a conceptual key to the complex knot of social expressivity. Because of genre's extent, however, the project of providing a master principle is largely unattainable, and most analyses of the subject either isolate significant components or offer descriptions of generic characteristics (Duff). There was a time, perhaps that of Horace (65–8bce) or Alexander Pope (1688–1744), when the work of generic distinction was similarly complex yet more forceful, as if the very limited and precise parameters of genre and non‐genre permitted a more definitive heuristic function. Today, most studies of genre in literary studies are those that recall the polemical ring of their classic forebears, Plato and Aristotle, yet are unable to significantly reproduce their schema (Fowler). These studies need not be in agreement with classicism; what they suggest instead is that genre theory is at its best when it claims the ideological significance of distinction as an important endeavor in its own right (seeideology). By considering this implication, this I not only intend to raise the question of a politics of genre but also to show that the field of study is historical in its impress, even if history is not pronounced in this critique or that. At this level, genre theory is an agonistic arena for debating cultural norms—the rules, let us say, of cultural exchange at any one moment in history. If grand statements on genre are less possible now, it is not because genre has diminished in importance but because a plethora of genres saturate advanced modernity and resist even the most everyday categorical distinctions that would separate them. Genres change and the genre of genre theory has mutated accordingly, but today the authority of genre theory has less relative social power than before, and that observation is not without its lesson for cultural analysis in general.

The Life after Texts, the Life within Them

L ITERARY history requires simplified categories for purposes of classification, but twentieth-century literary critics have become increasingly distrustful of them. The reaction against nineteenth-century literary history and the bellelettriste appreciation which frequently accompanied it, was useful in bringing fresh rigour into critical studies. But the new criticism itself produced new dangers. Evaluation, as Northrop Frye has argued, inevitably involves personal taste. In place of traditional assessments as a safeguard against bias and eccentricity, the new critics proposed an objective analysis of the words on the page, an apparently scientific detachment of method which too often served as a cover for begging the question. Any procedure is open to abuse, however, but perhaps the unhappiest effect of the new criticism was the destructiveness inherent in its discipline which diminished the field of study by working through principles of elimination rather than inclusion. The present popularity of genre criticism is in part a revolt against the limitations on learning and range which, for all its benefits, the new criticism imposed on literary study. The alternative approach of the historian of ideas until recently predominated in Comparative Literature studies, where habits of definition and synthesis derived from German nineteenth-century traditions of literary theory prevail. Its opponents have felt, and often justly, that large-scale generalizing and categorizing through trends and movements, however carefully and learnedly, is bound to minimize the uniqueness of individual authors which it is the main duty of critics to identify. But criticism has always fallen roughly into two schools the evaluative and the historical, the prescriptive and the descriptive, and each is necessary to the other. Thus any new venture in literary history would aim at uniting the best of both approaches, the precision of close reading with the range of context of the history of ideas; the theory of modes and genres with the interpretation of individual works. But to attempt this successfully means recognizing at the start the inherent difficulties

Gattungsgeschichte und ihr Gattungsbegriff am Beispiel der Novellen