Talkin' 'Bout My Genre-ation

[David Morris]

>From: Thomas Eckhardt
>
> > 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
>
>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 
>necessarily "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.

Backtracking here a bit:  Well, yes, there's no question that historical 
context can be an absolute necessity when reading old texts.  Without all 
those footnotes in Moby Dick I would have missed enormous amounts.  But is 
this the same as trying to categorize the genre of a work of fiction as has 
been attempted here for V. or earlier for GR?  "Genres" are artificial boxes 
with limited value.  I can see great value in associations found (and very 
likely w/ Pynchon intended) with specific older texts or characters, again 
an enlarged cultural context, but what good does it do a reader to call GR a 
mennipean (sp?) satire, especially in a work which is so purposely 
enigmatic?  I'm sure Pynchon was aware of that genre.   If he was 
consciously writing in that tradition he might have even wanted to convey a 
message by way of similarities or contrast to its "conventions," I suppose.  
But his texts are so full of coded and uncoded references to specific works 
in the "canon" of literature (not to mention popular culture) which carry 
direct meaning.  These are much more fruitful than generalities like 
"genre," I think.

It's all a matter of degrees, I suppose, and context is always valuable to 
some degree, large frame as well as the more focused.

David Morris


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.