Upon reading this essay, and blanking out more times than I can count on what was just said, one thing I can say definitively is that defining a genre is no simple task. There were so many different genre theories that there was no way to actually keep them straight. One thing this is essay did portray well, though, is the fact that these genres should be “classified” in a much different way. Before this idea is discussed any further, it’s important to actually understand what a genre is. In Miller’s words, “rhetorical criticism has not yet provided a firm guidance on what constitutes a genre.” (151) It only took one sentence into the essay for it to be established that, as of now, no one truly knows exactly what constitutes a genre. On that solid note, let’s delve into how one can categorize these “genres.”
For a lot of writers, it may be hard to try to shape their paper and pick a style if they aren’t experience with using rhetoric. One thing a genre can do, however, is provide a template to help start the piece. Out of the seemingly endless number of theorists mentioned in this essay, I found one that could really support this idea. Walter R. Fischer came up with a theory centered around the four primary “motive states” and their implications. In this theory, genres are defined and placed under different classifications of rhetoric, including the four motives. This theory reminds me of a flowchart can be easily followed to find a specific genre or genre category. If someone were to write with the intention to persuade on a formal level, they can follow the flowchart and come to the essay block, for example. From here, they will come to the final, and most specific level in this theory, where it classifies based on style. While I definitely found this theory to be very thorough, I had to agree with Miller regarding its shortcomings. The first shortcoming mentioned is that it is far from all encompassing. These genres all fall into rigid categories, meaning that there will be things that won’t perfectly fit because they need a category that doesn’t exist.
Fischer’s theory did, however, make a better attempt at accounting for reactions and motivations that arise because of situational influence than many of the theories. This theory is still far from perfect though. This fact made me stop and think. If genres are seemingly impossible to nail down, then why are we trying so hard to do it? Is it really worth the effort? In my opinion, I think the answer is a firm no. Even though these categories of genres can be helpful for a writer to figure out where to start, I find the idea of trying to categorize the millions of possible genres into set groups ridiculous. Miller is trying to say that these need to be categorized under social events and actions but even that is a task and a half. If public speech was a category, for example, there would be immeasurable amounts of different events that can fit under it. There could be riots, protests, promotional statements, campaign speeches, etc. All of these events are fundamentally different so it seems absurd to try to place them under the same heading. Just because they are all trying to make a persuasive impact on the public, does not mean they should be treated the same.
Along with Nat53, and mostly everyone else in the class, I was left extremely confused after reading Carolyn Miller’s essay concerning genre. One thing with which I am not confused, is that I am in complete agreement with Nat53’s opinion regarding genre. As Miller implied by talking circles around the subject, genre is far from easily defined. In fact, no one truly knows what exactly a genre is. Instead, one forms their own opinion of what can be classified as a genre and utilizes this as a guideline to their writing. One significant idea that Nat53 brought up was Walter R. Fischer’s theory on genre and the four “motive states”. More specifically, I really liked the visual they created of a flowchart to use as a comparison to this theory. I believe it underscores the role that genre plays in shaping a writing piece by serving as categories for the writer to fit their pieces under and, as a result, more effectively reach their target audience.
The problem with this theory, that Nat53 also mentions, is that not every form of writing will fit into these categories. Some pieces can be so specific that they will create a new genre on their own. With this in mind, I also agree with Nat53’s point that the expectations to pin every writing under a certain category or genre is too difficult of a task. Using genres as a simple guideline to start the writing seems more appropriate and, in my opinion, will be just as effective for the writer. Nat53 highlights the genre of public speech to prove that broad categories could lead to vastly different pieces of writing to be placed under the same heading. They then state, “Just because they are all trying to make a persuasive impact on the public, does not mean they should be treated the same.” This has me thinking: does categorizing different pieces of writing into the same genre lead to them being treated similarly or is it just a mere tactic of organization?