Devitt, “A Theory of Genre”
When trying to clarify how genres arise, Devitt mentions that “genres are named as people use them, and texts are classified as they are being used” (8). Also more than only being a classification system or template for creating texts/works, “genres make meaning; they are not simply a set of formal structures into which meanings are poured” (10). This kind of seems like the chicken and the egg – which came first scenario to me. We create the genres and classify the texts as they are being used – so aren’t we assigning meaning to them? But at the same time, the genres make meaning as well, like a kind of reciprocal shaping. I think this is really interesting because you can think of all of the variables involved. Every situation can have different influences, so meaning just seems like it can vary so much! Which leads me to my second point…
Another thing that interested me was although the reading seems fairly clear about genres and what they are, I think it would actually be really hard to try to identify genres or figure them out in real life scenarios. To go along with this concern, Devitt says “identifying reliable formal features of some genres have proven troublesome” (10). And continues by mentioning that “formal characteristics of genres chance over time but the user’s labels of the genres do not necessarily change” (11). So this makes me ask, does today’s convergent society complicate this even more? Especially with the use of the web, so many of the texts and works we create are made up of a variety of elements with different features. Each thing could belong to so many different genres – how do we decide? Is there a limit to what you can consider something?
Russell, “Genre first look”
I really like how Russell used the family/groceries/list scenario as an example to illustrate genre and activity theory. Something so simple as an example to base it on makes it a lot easier to understand. After setting up his illustration, Russell explains that “the first time one or more persons in an activity system (or between activity systems) are confronted with a need to carry out a specific action, to achieve a specific goal, the person(s) must choose some means of action, using some tool(s)” (1). It makes me think about how much history goes into creating genres and the way we choose to act/react to things. Almost every scenario we encounter has been come across by someone before us, if not by us ourselves. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time to solve our problems. In using his example, Russell explains that the list too “has a history.” He learned it from his mother and he has passed it on to his daughter. Also, it is influenced by a variety of changing conditions. Thus, “its cultural history stretches far and wide” (1). This makes me look closer at all of the things I normally take for granted in everyday life, like a simple grocery list, and see how it actually has a lot more to do with than just buying groceries. That may be its original purpose, but that’s not the only resulting element of it.
When trying to clarify how genres arise, Devitt mentions that “genres are named as people use them, and texts are classified as they are being used” (8). Also more than only being a classification system or template for creating texts/works, “genres make meaning; they are not simply a set of formal structures into which meanings are poured” (10). This kind of seems like the chicken and the egg – which came first scenario to me. We create the genres and classify the texts as they are being used – so aren’t we assigning meaning to them? But at the same time, the genres make meaning as well, like a kind of reciprocal shaping. I think this is really interesting because you can think of all of the variables involved. Every situation can have different influences, so meaning just seems like it can vary so much! Which leads me to my second point…
Another thing that interested me was although the reading seems fairly clear about genres and what they are, I think it would actually be really hard to try to identify genres or figure them out in real life scenarios. To go along with this concern, Devitt says “identifying reliable formal features of some genres have proven troublesome” (10). And continues by mentioning that “formal characteristics of genres chance over time but the user’s labels of the genres do not necessarily change” (11). So this makes me ask, does today’s convergent society complicate this even more? Especially with the use of the web, so many of the texts and works we create are made up of a variety of elements with different features. Each thing could belong to so many different genres – how do we decide? Is there a limit to what you can consider something?
Russell, “Genre first look”
I really like how Russell used the family/groceries/list scenario as an example to illustrate genre and activity theory. Something so simple as an example to base it on makes it a lot easier to understand. After setting up his illustration, Russell explains that “the first time one or more persons in an activity system (or between activity systems) are confronted with a need to carry out a specific action, to achieve a specific goal, the person(s) must choose some means of action, using some tool(s)” (1). It makes me think about how much history goes into creating genres and the way we choose to act/react to things. Almost every scenario we encounter has been come across by someone before us, if not by us ourselves. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time to solve our problems. In using his example, Russell explains that the list too “has a history.” He learned it from his mother and he has passed it on to his daughter. Also, it is influenced by a variety of changing conditions. Thus, “its cultural history stretches far and wide” (1). This makes me look closer at all of the things I normally take for granted in everyday life, like a simple grocery list, and see how it actually has a lot more to do with than just buying groceries. That may be its original purpose, but that’s not the only resulting element of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment