Devitt. Russell and Yanez. These theorist define genre differently, yet, their definitions still connect. I want you to explore these connections using the two texts as evidence for your claims. What does each theorist think and believe about genre and how does it relate to you as a composer, a writer, and a member of the WEPO class.
Per normal, please dialogue with one another and reach around 400-500 words.
Due: Wednesday, January 26, 2011.
What exactly is Genre? Amy Devitt states, “ The common understand of genre among too many composition scholars and teachers today is that genre is a relatively trivial concept, a classification system deriving from literary criticism that names types of texts according to their forms.” From back in the day up until now, the perception of the meaning of the word genre has been changing. It used to be known as the work off of many different theorists. Many of them worked in different writing fields or writing preferences. According to Amy Devitt genre back then was based off of text categorizations and formal features. It is now trying to modify the word with a new meaning; more like using our daily experiences to assemble right into our perfect writing environment. Genre is generally treated as a text type, and a more specific constitution of writing. Also according to Devitt, it is a word that shows us how our writing ‘works’. The most catching thing that Devitt mentions in her essay, is when she says this; “Genre is not that which is determined and defined by the components of our literary work or by the sets of literary works, but that which, in effect, determines and defines them.” The features are the forming of the genre itself, but now we are trying to study genre’s based off of daily occurrences more or less. It is more of understanding how composing comes about, and why writers write they way that they do to Devitt.
ReplyDeleteRussell and Yanez are not too far off from Devitt’s belief. Devitt believes that some interaction needs to take place. However, Yanez and Russell go by the theory that we, every face in the world, have a purpose when it comes to being historic, and that instead of learning about why writers write they way that they do, we learn more by social interaction. In the article they use many student examples, but one thing that really stuck out to me was their 3 statements that they received from students in the classroom. They consisted of, “It’s just memorization you can’t apply that to other parts of your life, it’s a waste of time, useless, just busy work, a painful chore, and I don’t get it, these are his writing tasks and he wants me to write in his way.” We are students are always learning, and things continuously change throughout the learning process. Yanez and Russell believe that there are totally different genre rules and norms, and what defines a genre. “The issue of of genre’s, as tools and rules, leads us to see the specialist lay/divide not in terms of a neat division or unassailable contradiction, but in terms of the circulation of discourse.” This meaning, how genre’s interact and have a great deal of having to do with link activity systems.
Both of these relate to me as a composer. I believe that we should understand how others write; that’s the beauty of being able to see things through the eye of another person. I also believe interaction plays a great role in how we link activity systems as well. This word is relevant to the WEPO class because we are constantly reading different categorized genres, and we are learning how to read and write many different styles of writing and composing; whether it is digital or on paper.
I had never really given much thought to the concept of genre, but I now realize that it is something we have subconsciously grown up with through our English education and through our everyday lives. Devitt defines genre as the “dynamic patterning of human experience, as one of the concepts that enable us to construct our writing world.” (573). She believes that traditional genre has only been concerned with the formal process of organization and layout of a specific work. However, she goes on to uncover the deeper meaning behind this when she explains that genre helps to make meaning. I found this to be very relevant when she gave the example of opening a letter. You automatically discard, at least don’t pay much attention to, junk mail, but when you get a letter from your friend, it means so much more. While both letters were still the same genre, they both meant something completely different. Russell and Yanez’s article explained this concept as well. He noted that one of his students wrote a history paper. But the purpose of the student’s paper was to be factual, whereas, a historian writing a paper would critically interpret history and persuade people to see his or her point of view. Russell and Yanez’s Activity theory showed genre as something that connects writing and helps us make sense of what we’re reading. This is shown when he compares writing to a ball when he says, “learning is not neatly "transferred" from one activity to another. A lot of games are played with a ball, just as a lot of fields use the tool called writing.” (336) A person can play many games with one ball, just like many genres can be formed with written work. I like this metaphor because it helps me understand that genre, or any form of writing for that matter, is not black and white. There aren’t rigid rules you have to follow to fit in a certain genre. Even though the specific genre is the rule that is followed, there are many different forms and purposes it can take on.
ReplyDeleteThis is in contrast to Devitt’s claim, that “by selecting a genre to write in, or by beginning to write within a genre, the writer has selected the situation entailed in that genre.” (578) I agree with this statement because I feel that whatever genre you choose, you automatically signal to the reader what the writing is going to be about. Even though we sometimes think we have an original idea or story, we subconsciously know where the story is going even before it begins, just by categorizing its genre. I think this is important to consider with our own writing in this class. We have to realize that genre takes on different forms of meaning. However, whatever genre we do decide to write in, it clues the reader into your story. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The tricky part comes if we decide to switch the genre in the middle of the piece. This confuses the reader and they can no longer rely on their preconceived notions of what the genre truthfully is. I agree with gbyrne4 that we are constantly reading and writing different genres and we need to be aware of this so we can write more effectively for different audiences. We have to realize that everything in our writing should have rhetorical situation, a purpose, and the genre of writing plays a crucial role.
I think it is interesting to see the way both articles address the development of our concept of genre. I see this reflected in both Gbryne’s and Amanda’s posts, where both of Devitt’s definitions of Genre are mentioned. The first one she points out as a flawed example of where our perceptions of genre have shortchanged us. She says “ The common understand of genre among too many composition scholars and teachers today is that genre is a relatively trivial concept, a classification system deriving from literary criticism that names types of texts according to their forms.” This view of Genre obviously is very limiting and is largely inconsequential, as it reduces the concept to a simple category that texts are supposed to fit into. DeVitt points out that Genre is more about a response to the rhetorical situation. She explains, “Like readers, writers also construct situation by constructing genre. A writer faced with a writing task confronts multiple contexts and must define a specific context in relation to that task (teachers tells writers to "figure out who your audience is" or "state your purpose"). By selecting a genre to write in, or by beginning to write within a genre, the writer has selected the situation entailed in that genre.” Russell and Yanez also propose a concept of genre that extends beyond the simple categorization of books that was common in the past. They talk about a concept of genre related to the different rules and norms of the different activity systems they discuss. They use the example of Beth, who had struggled to adapt to the historical writing style required in the class in the study and the intricacies of the historical book review genre. They explain their idea“The object and motive of the different activity systems have historically led people in each activity system to expect different things of the genre—thus there are different genre rules or norms.” I think that both of these concepts of Genre are important to us as composers today. DeVitt’s definition calls attention to the multitude of situations we encounter that call for writing, and the expansion of technology and the way it has opened up so many new possibilities to address these situations has rendered the old black and white definition of genre by categories relatively unhelpful. And looking at Russell and Yanez’s concept, we can certainly see the way that different nuances of different forms of writing affect the way we have to respond to those genres because of the different rules they have. It is clear between the two that Genre is a concept that has evolved from a simple definition that was very limiting to a more dynamic concept that accounts for the way that different forms and situations shape our writing, not just trying to fit writing into a pre-existing category.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I think about the word “genre”, the first thing that pops into my head is different categories of music. You have pop, rock, country, rap, hip-hop, etc. I also think about different genres of books such as fiction, non-fiction, romance, etc. One last thing is movies or T.V. There’s action, comedy, horror, etc. I think these examples, especially in correlation with books, are similar to different genres of writing. The possibilities with composing are endless. You could write a poem, a short-story, a novel, etc. These were my thoughts prior to the readings.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Russell’s and Yanez’s piece, genre is the different “ways” in which one writes. I like how they describe genre with the example of sports. Just because you know how to shoot a basketball doesn’t mean you know how to throw a baseball. So with writing, let’s say just because you’re an amazing poet, doesn’t mean you could write a romance novel. Basically, this article is explaining all of the many different sub-categories under one big category. Like a “genre” of fruit could be an apple, and a “genre” of apple could be Granny Smith. It tells a lot about a student, Beth, who struggles and is frustrated by her Irish History teacher’s expectations for the papers for that class. Being a journalist major, she was used to a different “genre” of writing and since her major was writing, she didn’t understand why she was wrong. Eventually she came around and her eyes were opened to a new way or genre of writing.
Devitt argues that these conceptions of genre have more to do with reading than with writing. She explains that genre theory has developed from works in rhetoric, linguistics, and literature. I think what she is getting at is that too many people are too worried about classifying writing into different genres. A majority, if not all, probably overlap in genre anyways. She also explains how understanding genre is more than just worrying about classifying schemes, but that you have to understand the origins and patterns of which the classifications come from.
I agree with Amanda Saxton when she says “…she goes on to uncover the deeper meaning behind this when she explains that genre helps to make meaning. I found this to be very relevant when she gave the example of opening a letter. You automatically discard, at least don’t pay much attention to, junk mail, but when you get a letter from your friend, it means so much more. While both letters were still the same genre, they both meant something completely different…” I felt like Devitt was going for a deeper and more abstract meaning to genre, while Russell and Yanez were more talking about the technical terms like classification. I like the metaphor she found about the letter, however, I think this could be construed as the overall genre being mail, and the different types of mail (i.e. Letters, junk mail, bills, etc.) could be the sub-genres.
I believe both readings relate to me as a composer. Just by judging from my views of genre prior to reading, Yanez and Russell’s definition related more toward me. However, Devitt allowed me to think about genre in a different way. I learned that a lot of genres probably overlap each other, and people worry too much about the exact classification of a writing piece. I think after these readings, I will slowly begin to blur the lines of genre and just compose and see what happens.
When I sit down to write, I never really think about what genre I am about to place my writing into. Like I said in previous blog posts, I sort of just write without thinking too much. This is not Devitt’s way of writing. She says that similar types of writing fit into different categories, or genres. The situations that writer’s experience lead them to writing that fits into these genres. So when you select a situation to write about, you are also selecting a genre. As writers, we don’t realize we are doing this, and maybe some of us don’t. But I think it does allow more organization in our work, even if we do it subconsciously. It goes back to the rhetorical situation. We never write without a purpose, like we never write without a genre. Even if we don’t think about it, our work has to fit into some type of genre.
ReplyDeleteI think this point that Devitt brings up makes a lot of sense. But I disagree that our writing can only fit into one genre. This is where Russell and Yanez come in. I think they make a great point when they talk about the a ball being used for many different sports. Amanda Saxton already explained this with more detail, so I won’t go very much into it. But I certainly agree that genres can overlap. I like Amanda’s idea that there are no rules when it comes to writing. You can follow a genre without it ruling over your piece. You never really know what your writing is going to transform into. Sometimes you begin to write about something, and it turns into a completely different thing. Last semester I started writing an article about the decline of farming in America, which turned into an article about global warming, which then turned into an article about first generation college students. Your writing tends to morph on you, and the genre does as well. And the finished piece tends to fit into several different categories.
I don’t really like thinking about genres because it seems so limiting to me. I know that with writing comes structure and rules and what not, but like the students in Russell and Yanez’s piece felt like they were forced to fit into a certain category with their writing, I do too. When I took my first english class in college, I was shocked to find out that I could choose to write about whatever I wanted to. I thought, “Um, no...you’re the teacher. You’re supposed to tell me what to do, how to write and what to think.” And then I began to write. And it was so freeing. I chose my own genre.
I think it’s important to learn about genre because, like Devitt says, you can’t write without one. It’s important to know how to write in a genre because you’re not going to always be able to choose your genre. When you work for a publisher, you’re most likely not going to get to choose your stories so it is good to learn about how to write for different categories, especially the ones you don’t like. I’m sure we are going to learn about a lot of different genres in this class. And I may not like or fit into every single one. But challenging myself is what is going to get me a job in the future.
Like Sam, I also first think of the different styles of music when i hear the word "genre". Almost every type of art, entertainment, or media has it's genres. As a writer, especially as English students in college, we are first and formost faced with the question "what do I want to write?" Do I want to write stories, if so what type of stories. Do I want to write poems? Do I want to write for journalism? As a writer, these genres mean very different things. According to Devitt, genre is "the dynamic patterning of human experience, as one of the concepts that enable us to construct our writing world." I agree with this definition one-hundred percent. Only once a writer knows there genre can they begin the creative composing process. How can you write without knowing what your writing is? One cannot sit down and begin writing and not know they're writing a poem, or a short story. A screenwriter cannot begin writing a screenplay unless they know its a comedy or drama. The categorization genre provides is essential to the composing process.
ReplyDeleteRussell and Yancey explained genre as something that connects writing and helps us make sense of what we're reading. I agree with this definition as well because as an audience member, or reader, knowing what type of story you're experiencing affects you're expectations. For instance, if you know you're reading a romance novel, you know they're is going to be romance, and most-likely a happy ending. If you're reading a drama, you don't expect to laugh, and you usually expect there to be some climactic scene. The genre effects both the audience and the composer. I have to agree with Eric, without genre the composer wouldn't be able to write and the audience wouldn't know what to expect (in a bad way).
Let me start by saying "Oh my God. That was a lot of reading." It was a lot to take in, but simply by reading the texts, I was immediately able to recognize the different perspectives in regards to genre. Both, in my opinion, were accurate in their definitions of genre. They seemed to appropriately define genre in regards to the different functions it presents. Devitt, on the one hand, focused on genre as shaped by the reaction of a reader to a particular text. She then goes on to say that these reactions to texts are reactions to rhetorical situations: reactions that are shaped by our experiences. These experiences may have been repeated exposure to a certain form of text, the different styles that we connect with specific genres. To Devitt, genre is cyclical because not only is it a response to rhetorical situations, but also a catalyst. As writers, we create rhetorical situations when we choose a genre. Our approach is what defines the genre. On the other hand, Russel and Yanez focus on genre as it functions in education. In the definition, genre is a link between activity systems. It is the context in which an object is viewed. Like Amanda said, their example of the way sports contain the same elements but are played in different respects, I think, was very helpful in understanding what they were trying to illustrate.
ReplyDeleteI think Beth's situation in Russel Yanez's piece greatly reflects the role genre plays for us in respect to composition, writing, and the class. Not only does understanding the divisions between genres help to broaden our knowledge of different subjects, but also teaches us in what styles and contexts to approach a subject. Part of the EWM major involves our rhetoric and how we direct it towards different audiences. The more we educate ourselves the functions of genre, the more successful we will be in addressing people of different professions in a manner which they will see as specific to their area of expertise. The closer our style is to their genre, they more easily they can be convinced that our perspective is the correct one.
Just on a side note, Amanda was stating how changing genres in the middle of a work would confuse the reader. I'm not necessarily convinced that's a bad thing. I think it could go either way depending on how it's done. It all depends on what you're changing. Would it be bad to change how the reader responds halfway through a work? Also, would it be bad to break the conventions of a genre? What if "junk mail" started out the same way a personal letter did: with a "Hey friend! How are you?" And then halfway through, it proceeded to discuss why you should buy a certain product. Would that be more or less effective than the expected junk mail genre?
I agree with Eric when he says that our traditional view of genre is limiting. In the past, I know I’ve viewed genre as exactly that which Devitt describes—naming types of texts according to form. However, Devitt’s theory is expanding my understanding of the word as it relates to rhetoric. Heavy on Bitzer’s rhetorical situation theory, Devitt’s text on genre states that genre appears when there are recurring situations. For example, the author claims that genre is “a semiotic situation and social context.” Knowing the specific genre, then, gives the writer cues appropriate responses to the situation. Most importantly, Devitt says that as a semantic and functional concept, genre constructs a recurring situation. Following that, writers and readers will construct concept and so the genre will change with society and dynamically changes with human behavior and social changes. In this way, Yanez and Russell’s theory is similar to Devitt’s. Their definition of genre is flexible and allows genre, based on rules and norms, to shift its meaning in different social situations, the social component being prevalent in Devitt’s theory. To them, genre is key in understanding the subject of our readings, and as Amanda S mentioned, connects writing. The example of the letter was perfect—the different form of writing will affect the audience’s response. In this way, genre is crucial in the way a writing is perceived. Although I don’t always pay close attention to genre when I am writing, I’ve realized after these readings that it exists with or without my knowledge just as rhetorical situation does. Also, Amanda, I totally agree with you when you mentioned that its first frustrating to be told to write about whatever you want! I had to adapt to being free to chose any subject I wanted to write about, but it is liberating in some ways and in my opinion, develops a writer’s own personal voice more.
ReplyDeleteAs for genre’s relevance to me in this major, it is interesting to find out what Devitt thinks about genre in response to the word that I’m currently researching for my project, “revision”. She says that, “In revising, a writer may check the situation and forms of the evolving text against those of the chosen genre: where there is a mismatch, there is dissonance. Genre by no means solves the problem of determining why writers revise what they do; but without genre a complete solution to the problem is impossible.” In that way, genre aids in finding solutions to revising a text because it explains why there is disconnect in the first place. Situations and their responses should match up to the genre in which they are writing. I found this helpful in better understanding some elements about why writers revise and I’m glad I can apply it to my work. Also, I feel that genre is relative to each work we conceive as composers. I agree with gbyrne and Amanda that we should be aware of different genres and know how to write in them so we are able to effectively target audiences.
Both authors had very valid points and revelations about genre that somewhat correlated. Devitt, Russell, and Yanez strongly believe that genre relies heavily on context. Devitt introduces this concept by stating, “understanding genre requires understanding more than just classification schemes; it requires understanding the origins of the patterns on which those classifications are based” (Devitt 575). This is to say that you simply cannot name a genre without analyzing the situation in which it is presented. Devitt also utilizes other rhetorical contexts when she asserts “genre entails purposes, participants and themes, so understanding genre entails understanding a rhetorical and semiotic situation and a social context” (Devitt 576). She is saying here that not only do you need to have a context; you also need to examine the rhetorical aspect of the genre, such as the rhetorical situation. All of this doesn’t define genre per se, Devitt is simply setting up the foundations for her conceptualizing. Her next point, “by integrating form and content within situation and context, recent work in genre theory makes genre an essential player in the making of meaning” (Devitt 576), gets closer to a definition. By saying that genre influences meaning, Devitt is suggesting a certain “chicken vs. egg” debate. She challenges that it is genre that influence meaning, instead of meaning impacting genre. It is here where Devitt introduces genre as a “dynamic” concept because “it not only responds to but also constructs recurring situation” (Devitt 577). Her whole point is that genre changes as the situation changes, while having an impact on the situation itself.
ReplyDeleteRussell and Yanez also assert that genre is contextually based. They note that “activity systems are not hermetically sealed, neatly divided between specialist and generalist, but in complex textual (genre) systems, through which the specialist/generalist contradiction is created and maintained” (Russell and Yanez 24). Though they do focus heavily on this point, Russell and Yanez also continue to define the bounds of genre. They write, “genres and their systems help us make sense of what's happening; they allow us to do certain kinds of work that are otherwise impossible; but of course they can also be constraining (they are expectations, rules, norms, after all)” (Russell and Yanez 28).
After reading, I realized that I severely underestimated the importance of genre on writing and composing. An understanding of genre is vital as a composer because I have to understand how others will perceive my work when I classify it. I agree with Amanda S. in that “we have to realize that genre takes on different forms of meaning”. This is really important when trying to get my point of view across clearly. I also understand that, as this field has developed, I can write more freely, without having to worry about fitting my composition into a certain category, as Eric F. said.
Like many of the others who commented in this blog, I tend to think of movies or music when I think of “genres.” Genre is the art of classifying. As humans, we like order, we like to have things under control. Why? Well basically, that’s just our nature. It’s why we have governments, parties, clubs, steriotypes, etc. I agree with Gabrielle and Sam in that various types of art have genre, but is it wrong to say that nearly every aspect of our lives, not just art, has some sort of genre? Just putting that out there.
ReplyDeleteDevitt explains in her essay that genre is defined by the writer, and his or her response or reaction to a rhetorical situation. Russell & Yancey define genre as sort of a way to establish a connection between activates. Both of these definitions help the composer by first establishing that genre does not stop at “comedy” or “action.”
As a composer, one must understand the complexities of genre and incorporate that into writing. I believe that both definitions can be used together to help a writer create a unique and coherent composition By using Devitt’s definition, the writer must understand the connection that is shared between the rhetorical situation and genre. The writer must first choose how he/she plans to react to a certain rhetorical situation and realize by doing so, they are placing themselves in a certain genre. By using Russel & Yancey’s definition, the writer must know his or her audience and understand that their work could be perceived differently in some circles.
An example of Russell & Yancey’s definition could be seen with the memoir: A Million Little Pieces by James Frey. Frey’s memoir received national attention when it was perceived that much of the memoir was fictional. The public reacted very negatively when Frey openly admitted to fictionalizing parts of the memoir. However, further investigation into the genre of memoir reveals that a memoir is not necessarily 100% non-fiction, but can be seen as a dramatization of past events. If A Million Little Pieces was considered entirely non-fiction, it would not be classified as a memoir, but an autobiography. This example portrays Russell & Yancey’s definition in that genre can and will be perceived differently by different people. It also can be seen as an example for Devitt’s school of thought in that Frey decided to answer his rhetorical situation in a semi-fictional matter. Devitt explains that in history, genre was “black and white” as Eric put it. Nowadays, the old definitions of genre have been blurred due to the “expansions of technology” and the public’s thirst for always wanting to see something they never have before.
To be a successful writer, one must understand that genre can be defined in many different ways, and how genre can be created. Knowledge is power.
After reading Amy Devitt, she classifies genre as a definition that has been compounded and expanded throughout the years.
ReplyDeleteIn past years, she says, the definition of “genre” was based upon textual evidence and formal foundations. However, now, the definition has become more based on the writer’s experiences. Devitt posits that a writer’s experience lead them to writing that works that accumulate into specific genres. When a writer chooses a situation or experience to compose, he or she in turn chooses a genre. Devitt further reiterates that, “Genre is not that which is determined and defined by the components of our literary work or by the sets of literary works, but that which, in effect, determines and defines them.” Devitt’s whole point concludes that a writer defines his or her genre, and that personal experience and style have a significant effect on the definition of genre; she also believes that the formal definition of genre has affected us negatively.
However, Russell, and Yanez believe in totally different genre rules and norms, thus defining genre differently. In their text, they delineate how genre’s interacted and have a great deal of having to do with link doings organization. It is important to learn about genre because I believe that genre is a mixture if these two definitions, genre is outlined in a formal sense; however, it is filled in through one’s experiences.
As two of my counterparts have stated before me, Amanda, and Eric, the best way to determine, as composers what our typified genre is, is to utilize both traditional and informal ways of composition, then we will get a truly unique interpretation.
Most people in our society think of genre as a kind catalogue system based on author’s form of writing in books and a musician’s styles of music. For the most part they would be right. Devitt says “The common understanding of genre among too many composition scholars and teachers today is that genre is a relatively trivial concept, a classification system deriving from literary criticism that names types of texts according to their forms.” The thing about genre that many people don’t realize is that it is practically limitless in its potential. Genre plays a big part in our lives. Devitt believes that genre can even dictate our reactions to things all the time. This is true, for example when you consider that a person who does not like country music will most likely immediately change the radio station once that realized they’ve unwontedly stumbled upon a country music station. We throw out what we recognize junk mail before we even open it and hurriedly open an email from a close friend.
ReplyDeleteThis is was somewhat similar to the situation presented by Russell and Yanez. The student’s they were observing had an automatic assumption about the history class they were taking. They each saw the subject as the memorizing of facts rather than something requiring original thought and arguments. In other words they had an instant reaction to the genre of Irish history as something to discard as useful and like junk mail they gave little too no thought to it. In WEPO, this course while pertinent to our major will force us to write in different formats/genres and challenge the way we are use to composing. I work in different genres all the time as a writer not just in class assignments, which, like Russell and Yanez say can present challenging contradictions with my own (still developing) writing style and having to alter to the subject or professor’s writing style. Outside of class I work in at least three genres of prose on a regular basis: Short fiction, screenplay, and fan-fiction. These are all subgenres of prose but each requires a unique voice and form.
I want to expand on what Amanda said about writers subconsciously writing themselves into genres: ” It goes back to the rhetorical situation. We never write without a purpose, like we never write without a genre. Even if we don’t think about it, our work has to fit into some type of genre.” This is an interesting thought. Is it that only specific genres responded well to the situation? I agree that genres overlap all the time but writers do ultimately end up fitting their work into one main genre. I’ve thought about this in my own way before and I always felt that it was the genres themselves that were somehow alive in the minds of the writers and reestablishing their place in literary and rhetorical world. Of course this is more than a little romantic thinking on my part but, why not?
Once I finished reading Amy Devitt, she classified genre as a definition that is compounded and something that can be expounded on for years that have passed and are to come. Years before my time, genre was based upon the textual evidence and formal foundation. But, as numerous years have passed the definition has become all about experience. This is said for a writer creates or begins composing their work they tend to subconsciously lean toward their own inner thoughts and feelings as they "choose" their genre. For it was stated that a writer already knows the way the story or the composition will end before they have even began writing. Devitt states that our writing can only fit in one genre, which I have to politely disagree with. Russel and Yanez made a good example when they used the ball as a topic. How a ball can be used in different was for different sports. Which shows that genre can be used for different ways for different types of composing. Amanda Saxton explained in depth that genre can overlap at times. I agree with this statement for their are no rules that restricts a composer when it come to writing. For you can write about a certain genre without it overtaking your very own paper, as well as we never know exactly what our work will transform into. We may have a general idea or direction into what we want our work to become, but it may never ends as wonderful as we expect it to be. As a composer I feel as if it is not that important to worry about genre. I say this because your not always going to be able to choose your own genre. I believe that I should know the requirement for the different genres as a whole, but to specifically focus upon genre to help aid in the direction the one is going. So to me learning about the true meaning of genre is irrelevant to me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I write, I try to make something that means something different to everyone who reads it, something that has multiple interpretations. I believe that anything worth reading does not fit into just one genre. Authors should not be contained by genre, but should be encouraged to play along the boundaries of the genre's classifications. I feel that genre is trivial. This is because genre is subjective to the reader. Written works are always subject to the reader. Genres are subject to their own boundaries. Can boundaries be placed on a genre? There are plenty of subcategories for every kind of genre. So then who decides which books fits into which genre? Literary critics? The author? C.S. Lewis continuously insisted that The Chronicles of Narnia were not allegories for The Bible, when to any other reader, that's exactly what they are. What measures do they use other than opinion? What makes their opinion more important than any other opinion?
ReplyDeleteOf course, when we're writing for someone other than ourselves, the audience must be considered. I mean that if we decide to pursue a career in writing, we will have to lower ourselves to some level of conformity. Because of this, we have to resort to form and style to give ourselves voices as composers. Form and style are what gives writers a distinction amongst other writers and styles when we have to stick to certain rules given by our bosses or professors.
In their passage Russell and Yañez use the example of a “general education” course to explain the complexity of writing and genre. There are two contradicting stories in this model. One is that writing is natural and cannot taught but is picked up over a period of practice, and the other is that writing is “thought of as the acquisition of a "remedial" set of transcription skills”(Russell and Yañez 2). The conflict of these ideas is shown between a student of journalism and her professor who is a historian. The difference between these two individuals is that Cory, the professor expects the students to write in his point of view, and Beth, the student, sees that this expectation is selfish and unfair because to her understanding all forms of writing are different. The concept of genre is put into play in the struggle between these two individuals.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Russell and Yañez, “genres are understood not merely as formal textual features, the what and how to write. Genres are also seen as expected ways of using words to get things done in certain recurring situations—the activity system, in AT terms. This brings into genre analysis questions of social motive and identity. The why and who of genre”. Because Beth was used to writing in a different genre than her professor, she struggled to accept his ideas and use them in her own work. Throughout the story Beth learns from her professor. She realizes that there is a genre for all types of writing, and since she was in a history class, it was appropriate for her to write in a more formal genre.
Devitt classifies how genre has been “… a dynamic and semiotic construct illustrate how to unify form and content, place text within context, balance process and product, and acknowledge the role of both the individual and the social” (Devitt 573). She suggests that there is a new system of genre which is approaching and is based upon the rhetorical situation and works and not so much the structure or formality.
Both Devitt and Russell and Yañez are right because genre is changing. It is also true that genre is very vague. As a composer, these ideas relate to me because I will choose my genre of how I will display a composition based on the situation. If my composition would be appropriate for the selected audience and purpose. The same goes for me as a writer and a member of the EWPO class. This class will present situations where I will have to design a project that best represents the material being shared. I agree with Alex, the comment about Russell and Yañez and how their piece helps us understand the difference between genres and how we should choose our style according to the subject is very important in our class.
Genre is a broad topic. What is it? Why do we write about specific themes? How to we come to the context of genre? Is Genre limiting? Devitt, Yanez, and Russell offer insights to how it is formed and warn to keep in mind to not to be limited to a specific context.
ReplyDeleteIn order to “accommodate our desires for a reunified view of writing, we must shift our thinking about genre for a reunified view of writing, we must shift out thinking about genre from a formal classification system to a rhetorical and essentially semiotic social construct” (Devitt, 573). Basically, writing can get too caught up in sections of genre. In order to have a more “unified view of writing,” we must think about rhetoric. “Treating genre as form requires diving form from content, with genre as the form into which content is put….treating genre as form and text type requires binding genre to a product perspective, without effect on writing processes or, worse yet, inhibiting these processes” (Devitt, 574). Genre is developed from the rhetorical situation, but genre can be inhibiting if the cause of its form is ignored.
Russell and Yanez argue that social interaction is a way of learning, and from there we form questions, and it eventually leads to writing. “we suggest that these theories can help teachers and students learn and critique existing discursive pathways (genres)- and create new ones—for expanding involvement with others” (1) Russell and Yanez point out that “The object and motive of the different activity systems have historically led people in each activity system to expect different things of the genre—thus there are different genre rules or norms.” Also Russell and Yanez point out that the social aspect is especially important when discussing genre, because we are social creatures and communication is everything. That It changes depending on the social context. The “activity theory is a way of analyzing human activity over time, especially change called learning.” This is a way of finding useful “questions to ask.” Also,“AT grounds analysis in everyday life events, the ways people interact with each other using tools over time, historically.” Basically we learn and are “active” by communicating with others (teachers, piers) and this is how writing is formed, what we want to write about (genre).
Overall I think both parties are right with their thoughts. As a composer I could relate to both articles. With a combination of both, one can be more informed on how genres play into writing. First, we need to shift genre to rhetoric, and not be limited to one specific. How do we know what genres we want to write about? Social interaction. This is how passions, disagreements, agreements are formed and therefore the individual wants to write about it. Genre pertains to what we are writing about—and these two ideas about it combine to enlighten the reader provided to the information. As a writer, I most often times come up with what I am going to write by what I talk about with people. I may have a disagreement and think, I am going to write about this. Also I have found genre almost suffocating when I write because it is limiting at times, and always changing. As a member of the WEPO class, I feel that we are all going to be writing for online readers, and we need to consider these arguments in order to be a more effective writer.
I agree with Kaylie that both Devitt, Rusell, and Yanez believe that genre is always changing.
The purpose of the word genre is most commonly recognized as the list of categories that like Sam said, separates music and texts into different categories so that when a person picks up that item they have an idea about the character these pieces will have. Genre is something that all of us are familiar with because we relate it to not only books and music but also in movies, television shows, and a number of other mediums. However, the type of genre that Devitt focuses on is writing; “To accommodate our desires for a reunified view of writing we must shift our thinking about genre from a formal classification system to a rhetorical and essentially semiotic social construct” (pg. 2). Devitt continues with explaining how genre impacts writing by creating a guideline for the direction a composition will take depending on the genre it falls into. “Knowing the genre means knowing not only, or even most of all, how to conform to generic conventions but also how to respond appropriately to a given situation” (pg. 6). Russell and Yañez on the other hand, focus on activity theory and genre systems theory when breaking down the purpose of genre. “The broad goal of this synthesis of activity theory (AT) and genre systems theory is to understand the ways writing mediates human activity the ways people think through and act through writing” (pg.1).
ReplyDeleteThe way I interpreted these two articles, genre is the tool used to create limitations when writing a piece. It can help a writer focus their idea more completely because it narrows the numerous amounts of ways a composition can unfold by creating generic conventions. The issue that Russell and Yañez mention multiple times is when the composer does not specialize in the genre they are working with. “We suggest ways these theories can help teachers and students learn and critique existing discursive pathways (genres)- and create new ones- for expanding involvement with others” (pg. 1). They go on to say “Geisler (1994), in her incisive AT analysis of the contradiction, has forcefully argued that general education courses were historically the result of a compromise between proponents of professionalization and defenders of liberal culture” (pg. 2). The idea is that in order to specialize in one area or genre a person must first be familiar with a number of things that may not directly relate to their specialization but they must take it anyway. This related to me because even though I am specializing in Writing Editing and Media I still had to take other classes to make sure I am a well rounded student which will benefit me later on.