Page 23 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 23
Genre in the Technological Remediation of Culture 23
diation is similar to the evolutionary understanding of literary genres of
Russian formalists.4 Yuri Tynyanov points out that the static study of lit-
erary genres as exempt from the broader cultural and social context is un-
productive; similar to evaluating a cannon ball by its appearance rather
than by its capacity to fly.
An older contemporary, who has lived through one or two—if not more—
literary revolutions, will point out that in his day, this or that phenomenon
was not a literary fact, but has now become one; and vice versa. Literary jour-
nals and almanacs are nothing new, but only in our day have they come to
be perceived as ‘literary works’ and ‘literary facts’ in their own right. Zaum
has always existed, in the language of children, sectarians, etc., but only in
our day has it become a literary fact. Conversely, something that is a liter-
ary fact today may tomorrow become an ordinary fact of life and disappear
from literature. For us, charades and logogriphs are games for children, but
in the age of Karamzin, with its emphasis on verbal minutiae and play with
literary devices, they were a literary genre. As it turns out, it’s not just the
borders of literature—its periphery and frontiers—that are fluid: the center
itself is fluid as well. Instead of one primordial, regular stream of succession
flowing and evolving at the center of literature, with new phenomena con-
gregating around its edges, it is these new phenomena that come to occu-
py the center, while what was previously in the center is in turn relegated to
the periphery (Tynyanov 2019).
Art thus creates a simultaneous and homeostatic order that, with
new experiences, new entries, is newly motivated and renewed, a fact also
noted by Eliot:
The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is
modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among
them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for or-
der to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values
of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity
between the old and the new (Eliot 1932, 15).
The constructive principle, as the new element in the ‘literary set‘ that
generates new genres, can be any ‘strangeness’, ‘error’ or ’ irregularity‘ of
4 The similarity of approach is not surprising given that McLuhan studied literary the-
ory with Leavis and Richards, two major representatives of New Criticism as a type
of formalism. McLuhan’s method of media analysis is in fact an extension of the for-
malist method to all cultural content, including popular culture.
diation is similar to the evolutionary understanding of literary genres of
Russian formalists.4 Yuri Tynyanov points out that the static study of lit-
erary genres as exempt from the broader cultural and social context is un-
productive; similar to evaluating a cannon ball by its appearance rather
than by its capacity to fly.
An older contemporary, who has lived through one or two—if not more—
literary revolutions, will point out that in his day, this or that phenomenon
was not a literary fact, but has now become one; and vice versa. Literary jour-
nals and almanacs are nothing new, but only in our day have they come to
be perceived as ‘literary works’ and ‘literary facts’ in their own right. Zaum
has always existed, in the language of children, sectarians, etc., but only in
our day has it become a literary fact. Conversely, something that is a liter-
ary fact today may tomorrow become an ordinary fact of life and disappear
from literature. For us, charades and logogriphs are games for children, but
in the age of Karamzin, with its emphasis on verbal minutiae and play with
literary devices, they were a literary genre. As it turns out, it’s not just the
borders of literature—its periphery and frontiers—that are fluid: the center
itself is fluid as well. Instead of one primordial, regular stream of succession
flowing and evolving at the center of literature, with new phenomena con-
gregating around its edges, it is these new phenomena that come to occu-
py the center, while what was previously in the center is in turn relegated to
the periphery (Tynyanov 2019).
Art thus creates a simultaneous and homeostatic order that, with
new experiences, new entries, is newly motivated and renewed, a fact also
noted by Eliot:
The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is
modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among
them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for or-
der to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values
of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity
between the old and the new (Eliot 1932, 15).
The constructive principle, as the new element in the ‘literary set‘ that
generates new genres, can be any ‘strangeness’, ‘error’ or ’ irregularity‘ of
4 The similarity of approach is not surprising given that McLuhan studied literary the-
ory with Leavis and Richards, two major representatives of New Criticism as a type
of formalism. McLuhan’s method of media analysis is in fact an extension of the for-
malist method to all cultural content, including popular culture.
