A Note on Genre

[Terence]

Thomas Eckhardt wrote:
> 
> > I agree 1000% with David. However, for me, the picaresque is
> > parodied in the Menippean Satire V.. The Profane plot is
> > picaresque, Profane the picaro, not doubt about it, but
> > there is good reason to read these a picaresque parody.
> >
> > Now, this is not an argument about Genre anymore.
> 
> I certainly agree with both of you that every work of literature - at
> least every interesting work of literature - crosses the boundaries of
> lit crit definitions of genre or feels quite at home in various
> "Aristotelian boxes" simultaneously. Perhaps it might be helpful to use
> the notion of a "primary organizing principle", as Abrams put it, or of
> a "prevalent mode", as Frye would perhaps have called it, or a
> "dominant", which would be McHale's attempt to come to terms with the
> "ingraspable phantom" of literature. 

I'm not terribly comfortable with McHale's deconstructed
(gotta love that Steven Weisenburger's "deconstrictive")
application of Tynjanov/Jakobson's "The Dominant." 

Furthermore, although all the critics are apparently obliged
to kiss Frye's hand while they tie him down with chic
"postmodern" jargon to a bygone dominant critical throne, I
submit that Frye, whose pardonable offenses (prophesying the
end of satire) make him the whipping boy of so many, does
not set out to do what he is so often accused of having
done. Frye begins with very little and constructs a very
useful, if limited, as Frye himself acknowledges, nay
insists,  hermeneutic or comparative study.  He goes way
back to Aristotle and Plato because they are so important,
but mostly as a because there is not much else for him to
build upon. If we are willing to accept "mode" from Frye we
can begin to identify and describe (if not "classify") the 
"heroes" of V. (or at least Benny Profane). After "mode" we
could  turn to Frye's "radical of presentation" (a good
contrast to McHale's reader who becomes a character) and
Genre. 

What would be the "primary organizing principle" of V.?  


Anyways, I thought the discussion
> was rather illuminating, and your observation that V. might be seen as a
> parody of the picaresque only adds to this impression.

On this point and the problem of satirical "attack"  see
Kharpertian, Theodore D., especially Chapter 2 of his book,
A Hand To Turn The Time, "V.: Beyond the Veil"



                  This is the way the world ends
                  This is the way the world ends
                  This is the way the world ends
                  Not with a bang but a whimper.

PS Otto, why do you suggest that TRP writes anti religious
fiction?