Introduction

Abstract

I n t r o d u c t i o n Jacob Blevins M C N E E S E S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y If agenre is what it is, or if it is supposed to be what it is destined to be by virtue of its telos, then “genres are not to be mixed”; one should not mix genres. [...] And if it should happen that they do intermbc, by accident or through transgression, by mistake or through alapse, then this should confirm, since, after all, we are speak¬ ing of “mixing,” the essential purity of their identity. Jacques Derrida, “The Law of Genre” Intertexts has always pushed boundaries and questioned literary enclosures, and this issue dedicated to genre continues that tradition. What literature, culture, andtheoryaresupposedtodo,whattheyaresupposedtobe,isofteninsignificant to the realities of their existence. In order to discuss any form of literary utterance, any type of literary manifestation, there has always been aseemingly inescapable needtodefine,tocategorize,andtodifferentiatetexts’functionsbasedonthe notionof“genre.”FromAristotle’sdiscussionoftragedy,toSamuelJohnson’svar¬ ious analyses of literary form, to Wordsworth’s Romantic manifesto of lyric poetryintheprefacetoLyricalBallads,toanynumberoftwentieth-centurydis¬ cussions of the novel, the principles of genre historically have been afoundation of literary study. There has been ahistorical valorization of genre, asuggestion that within any genre there are inherent essences to that genre—in form, in con¬ tent,incontext.Onemightarguethatgenrefunctionsforliteraturemuchtheway ideologyworksforculture;inasense,traditionprovidestheexpectations,the guidelines,thelawthatmakesexistencewithinthattraditionlegitimateandvalid. Writersandcriticsoftenrevolvearoundanimaginarycenterofgenericmeaning thatisalwaysinflux,alwaysashiftingconstructthatisre-formedeachtimeitis confronted,butatextwithoutgenre,asDerridaoncenoted,seemsimpossibleas well. We are therefore left with aneed for constant reexamination of what genre is andwhatgenredoes.Genreisneitherasitenoraspecificlandmarkofmeaning, but rather an entire landscape, acomplete geography of mapped and remapped literaryterritoriesthatshowus—oftenerrantly—wherewehavebeenandwhere we might go. ThefouressaysthatmakeupthisissueofIntertextsaddressvariousaspectsof ourunderstandingofgenre.PeterC.Hermantakesuponeofthemosttraditional ofgenres—tragedy—usingoneofthecanon’smostfamouscasestudies,Shake¬ speare’sRomeoandJuliet.In“TragedyandtheCrisisofAuthorityinShakespeares RomeoandJuliet,"Hermanexposesaparadoxbetweentheconceptionandactual execution of tragedy in the early modern period. After establishing that early Intertexts,Vo\. 12, No. 1-2 2008 ©Texas Tech University Press I N T E R T E X T S 8 6 modern commentators and writers believed that tragedy was clearly adidactic genre, one whose purpose centered on promoting moral and virtuous behavior, he then shows that despite that theoretical and generic understanding of the tragedy, tragedy in fact functioned as amode of ideological contestation—not confirmation. Herman argues that as atragedy Romeo and Juliet shows “how soci¬ ety violates its own norms”; it is not amedium meant to promote those norms. Specifically, the play demonstrates that authority fails the young lovers much in thesamewaythatauthoritywasfailingEnglandduringthecrisesofthe1590s. NotonlyisHerman’sanalysisoftheplayinsightfulforareadingofShakespeare, butalsoitclearlydemonstratesthesubversivenatureofthegenre,anaturethat ran counter to the expectations of the genre itself. Earl G. IngersoU’s “Flirting with Tragedy: MargaretAtwood’s The Penelopiad, and the Play of the Text” continues the discussion of tragedy but in amodern con¬ text Ingersoll challenges the idea thatAtwood’s The Penelopiad is anovel per se, stating, “The Penelopiad problematizes the conventional genre of ‘novel’ to such a degreethatitseemslegitimatetoclassifyitnotasa‘novel’butasaprosefiction version ofthemyth,akindof‘novelization,’oradaptationofapriortext.”Stress¬ ingvariousintertextualcomponentsofThePenelopiad,mostnotablytherework¬ ingofanddialoguewiththeclassicalmythofOdysseusandPenelope,Ingersoll proposes that to understand the intertextuality of this work, we must consider it moreinlinewiththegenreoftragedythanofthenovel.Infact,Ingersollbelieves that“Atwoodappearslessinterestedinwritinganovelthanofferingapasticheof literaryformsorgenres,”anditisonthetragicelementsinthework’s“Chorusof HerMaids”thatIngersollfocuses.Ingersoll’sapproachtoAtwoodshowsthatthe expectations of genre are often undermined, and thus the audience must reorient itselftoanewcenterofidentification.Theappearanceor“physical”formofa workcannotbethesoleidentifierofgenre;genreismoreintricatethanthat. Often,theonlywaytorethinktheworkitselfistorethinkitsgenericprinciples. Ihisideathattheappearanceofgenreisoftendeceptiveandservesalmostasa manipulationofreaderexpectationsisalsoaddressedbyWendyWhelan-Stewart Role-Playing the ‘Feminine’ in Letters Home? Whelan-Stewart deals with multiplemodesofgenreintheproductionofSylviaPlath’sso-calledautobiogra¬ phy,LettersHome.Ontheonehand,thiscollectionofcorrespondencefrom SylviaPlathtohermotherwasselectedandorganizedbyhermothertoconstruct acertain image of her daughter and asomewhat idealistic narrative of their rela¬ tionship—which calls the self-representative nature of autobiography into ques¬ tionbutthelettersthemselves,Whelan-Stewartalsoargues,aredeliberate constructs by Plath herself to promote apersona of ideal femininity to her mother. Plath’s persona in the letters often shifts, and Whelan-Stewart demon¬ strates convincingly that women’s magazines such as the Ladies’ Home Journal provided the models for projecting her self-image to her mother. In fact, the let¬ ters themselves reflect akind of dramatic staging and performance mode that m B L E V I N S ; I n t r o d u c t i o n 8 7 makes these letters transcend the realm of what is perceived as “true” autobiogra¬ phy and enters into various other generic models. Whelan-Stewart certainly exposes the difficulties with interpreting Plath’s...