Talkin' 'Bout My Genre-ation

[Thomas Eckhardt]

David wrote:


> Over the last year and a half during the GRGR I was often glad that I'd
> never read any books about GR, not even the "GR Companion."  I DID benefit
> from many on-line Pynchon sources, but apart from reviews and a few on-line
> essays, these were mostly research tools.  I stumbled upon many leads
> through web-searches aided by a limited literature base, and I still
> continually benefit from leads offered here, but not "knowing the terms" has
> been a benefit, IMHO.  Direct experience of the text is very important.

Certainly. My initial notes and comments were based on an attempt to read the
text without the help of specific - that is: about V. or Pynchon - critical
works. Having some lit crit background, though, I could not help thinking about
genre.

> As for recognizing the targets of the satire or parody, that is not so much
> about recognition of genre as it is of cultural context.  Reading (or
> watching on TV) Pomo-multi-facted works, genres are easily recognized
> culturally, but not by name.  When lit-critters argue genre, it seems more
> aimed at categorization in order to tie the text into an historical
> framework.  This is a goal that diverts attention from the text itself.

I believe what you call "cultural recognition" is what I meant when I said that
you don't have to know the terms. For lit crit this is of course very important,
especially when older texts are concerned. For example, you might think that
Falstaff was an original creation of Shakespeare - and to an extent this is
certainly true, and this is important - but it might enhance your understanding
and even your fun to know that he is also a descendant of the "miles gloriosus"
or "bragging soldier" of antique comedy as well as of the medieval
"vice"-figure. This stock character was immediately recognized in the cultural
context of Shakespeare's time, and to do this the audience certainly didn't have
to know about the terms I use. Thus, I don't agree with your last statement. I
believe that a recognition of the historical cultural context of a work does not
nessearily "divert attention from the text itself" by "tying it into a
historical framework" - although sometimes this might indeed be the case - but
can and should help to enrich and enlighten one's reading experience.

I have never belonged to those - and there are many of them, I know - who feel
that their initial response to a text is severely damaged by having been taught
or being taught something about it. A good book holds up to thousands of
interpretations. See also Joyce, Kafka, Pynchon, Shakespeare.

>
> Structure, though, is a more important cosideration.  It is the part of
> "form" (as opposed to genre) which has "content."  "V"-ness s a form laden
> w/ content!

Beg your pardon?

Thomas