Although I may be shifting my focus to genre in literature and writing instruction in the classroom, Rick Altman's book still provides some interesting framing. In his first chapter, Altman walks us through the history of literary genre theory.
Altman suggests that literary genre theory has been historically under-theorized, or maybe theoretically malnourished. He begins by listing the unexamined assumptions that underlie Aristotle's Poetics which are transmitted intact down through the ages.
- Classical Genre Theory
- Aristotle - analyzes works of others to define genre by traits of the work (not effect produced, notes Altman)
- Horace - extends Aristotle's analysis into rules to writers
- Neoclassical Genre Theory
- Torquato Tasso
- Pierre Corneille
- Nicolas Boileau
- John Dryden
- Alexander Pope
- birth of tragicomedy
- birth of drama, then melodrama
- Nineteenth Century Genre Theory
- Romantic movement - mixing of genres
- Friedrich Schlegel - provided theoretical underpinnings to abolition of generic differences
- Stendahl - led the assault
- Victor Hugo - led the assault
- establishing new canon
- Ferdinand Brunetiére - brought in evolutionary model of genres
- Twentieth Century Genre Theory
- Benedetto Croce - rejected scientific model and attacked the notion of genre
- Before Croce, the genre theory debate was classic versus romantic; he changed it to genre vs. innovation
- René Wellek and Austin Warren
- genres can be based on inner form or outer form
- provided a reasoned theory for establishing the existence and exact borders of a genre
- possible to redraw the generic map
- criticized by Altman for failing to recognize the role of the critic or theorist (I don't know quite what he means by this)
- Northrup Frye
- extended Wellek and Warren
- freed genre definitions of a dependence on tradition
- Tzvetan Todorov
- structuralist
- strongly criticized and opposed Frye
- distinguishes between theoretical and historical genres
- furthers a move by Welleck and Warren and Frye, to critic-defined genres
- defines genre by effect produced instead of (Aristotlean) reliance on traits of the work
- E.D. Hirsch, Jr.
- genre in the reading process, including all reading (not just literary)
- all understanding starts with the identification of genre; the reader interprets based on the genre. If understanding of genre of a work changes, meaning changes.
- Altman seems worried about Hirsch and Todorov placing too much emphasis on the reader, describing it as a "Sorcerer's Apprentice" effect - using a magic word that unleashes power that can't be controlled. "Once labeled by writers and critics, genres might well fall into the hands of untutored readers or out-of-control audiences." I fail to see the risk.
On another note, I'm dying to know the current state of film genre theory, given changes brought about by desktop production and online publication. How does the field deal with the rapid emergence of new forms and the empowerment of "unsanctioned" filmmakers?
Also interesting that Altman studied film genres at the University of Iowa with fellow student Henry Jenkins.
