Reply to comment

As Rosmarin says, "There is always a difference between the universal and the particular, and this difference is a consequence not only of leaving something out but of putting something in" (44). To me, this notion of the particular and the general supports the discussion we had in class on Tuesday about the flaws or mistakes that make Freadman's writing less than perfection. A "perfect" piece of writing would be impossible to critique and therefore would put an end to the game of genre. It is this difference between the particular work and the universal ideal that gives one an opportunity to provide a useful uptake. The differences provide the basis for further discussion.

I like how Rosmarin describes genre as a deductive tool. It shows the logical progression the mind of a literary critic would take to reach a conclusion about the genre of a particular work. While this deductive tool is useful for spelling out the quick reasoning one makes when reading a particular piece of writing, I also feel it shows an important weakness. You can have logical arguments that end up with false conclusions. Sure there are basic truths we feel exist as far as literary genres are concerned, but many works can fall into more than one category and one's assumptions based on generalizations are not always correct. Assigning genres to literary works can be a risky business, thus one should always keep an open mind and be ready for anything.