Linus: The Rise and Fall of Lyric Genres

A. Ford
{"title":"Linus: The Rise and Fall of Lyric Genres","authors":"A. Ford","doi":"10.1163/9789004412590_004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Schemes for classifying works of art according to genre flourish outside the academy—in bookstores, on music-streaming services, on Netflix; yet in literary studies genre criticismhas been facing increasing resistance since the 1980s whenFrederic Jamesonpronounced it “thoroughly discreditedbymodern literary theory and practice.”1 Suspicion hangs over the word in academic criticism, where it often seems that no sooner is a genre mentioned than its integrity as a concept is undermined and any normative authority it might have had is dismissed. One senses at times a Nietzschean disdain for genres as cobwebs spun out by desiccated pedants which supermen-poets brush through without a thought. Such attitudes have, to be sure, some grounds: it would be naïve now to regard genres as pure and timeless essences rather than hybrid, politically conditioned and contingent groupings of works that are always evolving and always changing their “laws.” Demystifications of genre can, however, overshadow its other, productive side, the possibilities it offers to sharpen and enrich amessage and to provide orientation for an audience hearing a song for the first time. The fact that the authority and perpetuation of genres depend on poets and audiences at least as much as on scholars is not always acknowledged, nor is the reality that genres are omnipresent and inescapable: we greet no song without a frame. The status of genre is no less suspect in the study of those Greeks who laid out many of the basic lines and much of the terminology used in Europeanderived criticism. In the article on “genre” for the current Oxford Classical Dictionary, for example, Glenn Most and Gian-Biagio Conte aim for a balanced presentation but find little positive to say about ancient genres. They note that genre can be useful for poets and critics if it be regarded as “a system of literary projection inscribed within the texts, serving to communicate certain expectations to readers and to guide their understanding.” Yet they find ancient","PeriodicalId":372785,"journal":{"name":"Genre in Archaic and Classical Greek Poetry: Theories and Models","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genre in Archaic and Classical Greek Poetry: Theories and Models","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004412590_004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Schemes for classifying works of art according to genre flourish outside the academy—in bookstores, on music-streaming services, on Netflix; yet in literary studies genre criticismhas been facing increasing resistance since the 1980s whenFrederic Jamesonpronounced it “thoroughly discreditedbymodern literary theory and practice.”1 Suspicion hangs over the word in academic criticism, where it often seems that no sooner is a genre mentioned than its integrity as a concept is undermined and any normative authority it might have had is dismissed. One senses at times a Nietzschean disdain for genres as cobwebs spun out by desiccated pedants which supermen-poets brush through without a thought. Such attitudes have, to be sure, some grounds: it would be naïve now to regard genres as pure and timeless essences rather than hybrid, politically conditioned and contingent groupings of works that are always evolving and always changing their “laws.” Demystifications of genre can, however, overshadow its other, productive side, the possibilities it offers to sharpen and enrich amessage and to provide orientation for an audience hearing a song for the first time. The fact that the authority and perpetuation of genres depend on poets and audiences at least as much as on scholars is not always acknowledged, nor is the reality that genres are omnipresent and inescapable: we greet no song without a frame. The status of genre is no less suspect in the study of those Greeks who laid out many of the basic lines and much of the terminology used in Europeanderived criticism. In the article on “genre” for the current Oxford Classical Dictionary, for example, Glenn Most and Gian-Biagio Conte aim for a balanced presentation but find little positive to say about ancient genres. They note that genre can be useful for poets and critics if it be regarded as “a system of literary projection inscribed within the texts, serving to communicate certain expectations to readers and to guide their understanding.” Yet they find ancient
莱纳斯:抒情流派的兴衰
根据流派对艺术作品进行分类的计划在学院之外盛行——在书店、音乐流媒体服务、Netflix上;然而,自20世纪80年代以来,文体批评在文学研究中面临越来越大的阻力,当时弗雷德里克·詹姆斯(frederic jameson)宣称它“被现代文学理论和实践彻底抹黑”。在学术批评中,怀疑笼罩着这个词,似乎一种流派刚被提及,它作为一个概念的完整性就被破坏了,它可能拥有的任何规范权威都被驳回了。人们有时会感觉到尼采式的对体裁的蔑视,体裁就像由干巴巴的学究织出的蜘蛛网,超人诗人不动声色地扫过。当然,这样的态度有一定的根据:现在认为流派是纯粹的、永恒的本质,而不是混合的、有政治条件的、偶然的作品组合,它们总是在进化,总是在改变它们的“规律”,这将是naïve。然而,对音乐类型的去神秘化可能会掩盖它的另一个富有成效的方面,即它提供的锐化和丰富信息的可能性,以及为第一次听到一首歌的听众提供方向。体裁的权威性和永恒性至少依赖于诗人和听众,就像依赖于学者一样,这一事实并不总是被承认,体裁无所不在、不可避免这一事实也不总是被承认:我们欢迎的歌曲都是有框架的。在对希腊人的研究中,体裁的地位同样值得怀疑,希腊人制定了许多基本线条,并在欧洲使用了许多衍生批评的术语。例如,格伦·莫斯特(Glenn Most)和吉安·比亚吉奥·孔蒂(Gian-Biagio Conte)为当前的《牛津古典词典》(Oxford Classical Dictionary)撰写的一篇关于“体裁”(genre)的文章中,他们的目标是保持平衡,但对古代体裁却没有什么积极的看法。他们指出,体裁对诗人和评论家来说是有用的,如果它被视为“一种嵌入文本的文学投影系统,有助于向读者传达某些期望,并引导他们的理解。”然而他们发现古老的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信