Everything we read (or even watch and listen to) connects to another piece. The Roozen piece made me think about any fantasy novels I have read and how they all kind of take things from each other and are in some way connected. Every discipline has its own way of writing and citing sources which helps someone distinguish what they are reading about. In my undergraduate experience, I remember trying to keep track of the various forms of writing and the “rules” or “guidelines” that needed to be followed in each discipline. For example, I was taking biology at the same time I took writing composition and I had to make sure I approached each writing assignment appropriately.
The Devitt piece was very interesting to read and there is a lot to say about it. For starters, what I took away from the piece is that in many cases, genre is not defined by the work but the work is defined by the genre which then in turn makes a reader judge a piece of literature based on the genre it is in, essentially “judging a book by its cover”. I find this to be true in other forms as well, especially in music. The idea of categorizing things into individual identities does not make sense for a lot of forms of art because art is so personal. In my opinion, in general, context is key which is interesting because after reading the section where Devitt speaks about context being hard to define, it is fair to question what context actually is. Devitt makes a great point that genre should be a “dynamic” concept instead of “static” because everything that genre is and does creates a divide in the definition of a genre’s purpose. I think genres are helpful because they can guide a reader and a writer in their desired direction but I also think that genre can also put writers in a box so it is a fine line to walk. Overall, I agree with Devitt in that having genre is necessary but needs to be redefined or adjusted.
Leave a Reply