The evolutionary model is often mentioned in the context of the evolution of genre.  As I read Owens' essay, I was reminded of something I read about evolution itself - that humans only see themselves as a drastically different species because all the intermediate species between humans and monkeys are extinct.  When considering every species that has ever existed, classification is much more difficult because things that seem very defined start to run into each other.  Humans have to search for patterns over long periods of time and then categorize them. 

When considering the definition of the word genre it seems highly unlikely that one could classify every piece of writing in a manner that is organized and logical, yet mankind creates taxonomies for everything in life--literature included. The question seems to be why would one insist on a method of sorting texts by genres if it proves to be as dysfunctional as both Wai Chee Dimock and Stephen Owen claim? The answer seems to be that even the most general of divisions, such as the epic, lyric, and narrative, provide clarification for the public to a certain extent. Although a text might not perfectly fit in a prototypical genre, it could still qualify for the genre if it meets the general standards.

 Dimock's piece stresses the need for "literary studies to be more fluid in its taxonomies" (1384), and states that it should not emphasize divisions so much and should instead focus on the relationships within literature.  The resulting "fluid curriculum" would have a unique shape, formed by empirical organization of knowledge.  It is a freer way of thinking about literature: in this new way, one is simply "observing the meandering paths of this body of material" rather than immediately assigning it to a strict category.  Let the literature breathe.

SUGGESTED READING
Jeannette M. Wing, "Computational Thinking." Communications of the ACM 49, 3 (March 2006).

Snacks will be served in the Dorothy Vernon Room of Haffner Dining Hall

AGENDA:
a discussion of technology in the educational process,
led by John Dougherty and Bill Huber 

 The definition of "genre" is dependent upon the personal and public opinion of the era. As Stephen Owen points out, a piece of literature once defined a "history" can change, along with the generation and its opinions, to become instead a "romance," and even then to "the novel in antiquity," simply by one individual's translation. But if what is supposed to be a defining marker of the contents of a work can be thrown away so easily, as "unwanted baggage," then genre cannot be anything more than a classification based upon the thoughts and beliefs of the public and intellectuals of the time. Wai Chee Dimock speaks of the "history of genre"; but is it not more fitting to say the genres of history?

Genres are used to classify or "ground" a subject. To have a piece of literature named an "epic" emphasizes certain qualities and may even give it qualities that can then be used in analysis. To give it an identity is to immediately restrict the work to a preconceived paradigm. The authors of the two pieces we read (Wai Chee Dimock and Stephen Owen) actively reject this. Are Dimock and Owen afraid of the oversimplifiation of literature, something of which that should be appreciated for the complexity within itself?

 Both of these articles were similar in the fact that not only did they look at genre as being defined and morphed by history and culture, but also at genre as one way in which culture can be shaped. It was discovered that China did not have an early epic (Owen, 1390) and Europeans brought their own perception of what an epic was to Chinese culture. Would a different type of Chinese "epic" have developed had the European ideas not invaded? Would this Chinese epic have created a new genre? Would other writing then have fallen into this new genre? Referring to genres, Dimock says that "none does its work in isolation, and none without a continuous stream of input from other genres" (1380).

In their essays, both Owen and Dimock present persuasive arguments for the malleable, pliable nature of genre.  The implications of this conception are taken up by Jeanette Winterson.  She argues that the norms associated with genre facilitate greater creativity by authors.  Referring to both Orlando and Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, she writes that in “either case there is an immediate challenge to genre-boxing but there is to, an invitation to believe.  To accept what will follow as truth and as the kind of truth only possible between people who know each other well… We can be taken in by someone who offers truth with a wink and says ‘I’m telling you stories. Trust me.” 

The use of genre as a classifying method seems at first, and deceptively, to be a mere practical necessity--an organizing tool of the intellect to make the overly abundant world of phenomena accessible within the limits of perception and analysis. The more one considers genre, however, the more one realizes that the manner in which we make such a world accessible is not passive, rather an active selection informed by cultural imperatives. Inevitably, such selection (and selective omission) leads to categories and hierarchies that point less to the inherent qualities of the object as to human motivations to delimit and exalt certain perceived characteristics.