Reply to comment

As to the comments between Aybala, Rachel, and myself on the topic of genres limiting literature, I feel I could have been a bit more eloquent when making my point. I am sure I came off as forceful and obsessed with defending genres, but I assure you that is not the case. Although I do feel strongly that genres are not a negative feature in the world of literature, I do understand that they might not necessarily add to literature as a whole. However, they do not take away from it, either. I can understand and respect Aybala's view because I see where she is approaching the subject matter from. Generally, when people purchase a book they expect to read a certain type or style depending on which genre they chose to explore. If one searches for mystery, a dead body, a long list of suspects but no known murderer, an investigation, and a resolved closed case at the end are to be expected. Taking these kind of predictable plots into consideration, it is easy to see why genres might seem limiting.

Let us look at it from another angle: perhaps it is not the genre that limits an author, but the effects of commercialism. If authors and publishers were not so concerned with the money-making aspect of writing then publishing companies would not demand the same old tired stories of their authors and perhaps authors would feel more comfortable stretching their legs within their respective genres. They would move away from the tried-and-tested plot lines and explore their genre and own creativity. By no means am I condemning the authors that do write according to their preferred genre; it is normal for writers to want to sell their work, especially if their income depends on it. My point is that authors do not have to write by these preconceived standards. Many modern authors insist on stretching genres to their limits and beyond such as Tim O'Brien and his "fiction" novel The Things They Carry.

As a junior in high school I was assigned that novel as a class reading. When the teacher was asked what type of novel it was, she said it was technically considered fiction but it is also autobiographical. Similar to Whitman, O'Brien bends genres with his writing style. At the end of one chapter he claims everything he described is fact while in the next chapter he negates himself and calls his tale lies. When asked how his book should be categorized he stated that he was not even sure seeing as at times he wrote the truth, at times he wrote fiction, and even went as far as writing the truth and claiming it was fiction or vice-versa in each chapter. The author himself did not feel obligated to“box” his work and was amused at the desperate attempts of people who tried to separate the fiction from the fact in order to achieve more genre clarity. O'Brien has been quoted that he just wrote without having in mind how he wanted his book to be classified offering readers a successful original novel that has no single category but can be labeled a variety of genres. By and large, authors feel pressured to stick to cookie-cutter conceptions of genres, but should in actuality look to writers like O'Brien. Genres do not have to "box" in writing, they can provide authors with a field in which to work in and it does not have to take away from the substance. The Mona Lisa is by all accounts considered a Renaissance portrait and Whitman's Leaves of Grass is still poetry, but they are nevertheless adventurous creative undertakings with meaning and novelty and are not tied down by their genres but fly in the face of these categorizations, stretching them and, in their own way, limiting the genre to fit their art, rather than the other way around.