Genre Wtf?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A GENRE painting depicts generic events and objects. Its specific rather than particular. Once you narrow the field of view to singular aspects of the field GENRE doesn't apply. Its no longer generic.

So why do you ruin a perfectly good word, corrupting its definition?

 

[Hypoxia]

A GENRE painting depicts generic events and objects. Its specific rather than particular. Once you narrow the field of view to singular aspects of the field GENRE doesn't apply. Its no longer generic.

You tripped up, equating 'specific' (from Species) with 'generic' (from Genera). The botanist in me wants to throw varietals at you. Genus (sing. of Genera) and Species (both sing. and plural) are as distinct as Strategy and Tactics.

But I digress. A Genre is a collection of components, just as a Genus is a set of species and subspp. and varieties. A Genre artwork MIGHT showcase the generalities and downplay specific (individual) variants. Or it MIGHT highlight those specifics, under the metaphoric umbrella of the generalities. Thus, we might have the Genre of PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH (Deutsch) BARNS; and one Genre painting of a specific barn with its hex decorations; and another with just a 'typical' barn, imagined. Both are Genre artworks. The former is specific, and the latter is generic.

See, you *can* both have and eat the cake!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You tripped up, equating 'specific' (from Species) with 'generic' (from Genera). The botanist in me wants to throw varietals at you. Genus (sing. of Genera) and Species (both sing. and plural) are as distinct as Strategy and Tactics.

But I digress. A Genre is a collection of components, just as a Genus is a set of species and subspp. and varieties. A Genre artwork MIGHT showcase the generalities and downplay specific (individual) variants. Or it MIGHT highlight those specifics, under the metaphoric umbrella of the generalities. Thus, we might have the Genre of PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH (Deutsch) BARNS; and one Genre painting of a specific barn with its hex decorations; and another with just a 'typical' barn, imagined. Both are Genre artworks. The former is specific, and the latter is generic.

See, you *can* both have and eat the cake!

Genre is French for GENERIC? If so, generic is specific and general, as opposed to particular.

 

[49greg]

Much ado about nothing?

 

[sr71plt]

Would you like us to take up a collection so you can buy a dictionary, James?

Genre: 1. a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content.

Of course the definition might be new to you. It's only been in use since 1770.

This isn't the first time you've brought this up. But maybe it's the last time you'll embarrass yourself with this(?)

 

[slyc_willie]

So why do you ruin a perfectly good word, corrupting its definition?

To stray a bit . . . .

We change the meanings of words all the time. Consider gay, nice, literally and decimate (just off the top of my head). The way we use these words has nothing to do with their original definitions.

"Gay" used to mean, simply, bright. Now it refers to a homosexual man.

To be "nice" was to be ridiculous and lazy. Now it means pleasantness.

If a pro golfer was "literally" on fire during the Masters, he would have burst into flame according to the original definition. Now we use it to make a point.

The Roman army used to "decimate" captured soldiers -- killing one out of every ten -- as a fear tactic and to keep them in line. Now we use it as a synonym for destroy.

I find the way we have changed the meanings of words and phrases over time fascinating.

But genre isn't one of these words, actually. It still means what it originally meant, which is a category, kind or sort (as others above me have said).

 

[sr71plt]

Well, OK, but I don't think a definition that was established in 1770 can be considered any part of a recent change.

And, like the word "cuckold" we argue about elsewhere, a 180 change in meaning doesn't push out the original meaning as long as it's in use. (The example often given--and that you give here--is "gay," which has a new meaning, but it isn't a 180 change--the sexual meaning of "gay" is an extension, taken from the 30s Noel Coward type of public behavior--a form of giddiness--of the original meaning, and the original meaning of "gay" is still in use).

JBJ is just dead wrong on "genre."

 

[Hypoxia]

Much ado about nothing?

Rather. Both the generic 'nothing', and the specific 'nothing'.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite East Village Fugs songs, Nothing. (tune: slow dirge]

Monday nothing, Tuesday nothing, Wednesday and Thursday, nothing
Friday, for a change, a little more nothing; Saturday, once more, nothing
(repeat in Latin)
(various other verses)
Fucking nothing, sucking nothing, flesh and sex, nothing
The whole wide world's a big pile of nothing
Nothing, nothing, nothing...
Not a damn thing

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

To stray a bit . . . .

We change the meanings of words all the time. Consider gay, nice, literally and decimate (just off the top of my head). The way we use these words has nothing to do with their original definitions.

"Gay" used to mean, simply, bright. Now it refers to a homosexual man.

To be "nice" was to be ridiculous and lazy. Now it means pleasantness.

If a pro golfer was "literally" on fire during the Masters, he would have burst into flame according to the original definition. Now we use it to make a point.

The Roman army used to "decimate" captured soldiers -- killing one out of every ten -- as a fear tactic and to keep them in line. Now we use it as a synonym for destroy.

I find the way we have changed the meanings of words and phrases over time fascinating.

But genre isn't one of these words, actually. It still means what it originally meant, which is a category, kind or sort (as others above me have said).

Its called word corruption. I can think of a bazillion things we do all the time that are fucking disasters. We do them cuz we're lazy and stupid.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

I find real exception with this.

People who use literally and decimate wrong, should literally be the one in ten.

Also, "nice" has an even older meaning, implying truth and accuracy.

I'm all for living language, but I don't accept balderdash.

Edit: I suppose what really bothers me about those two words, for example, is that they are obvious misuses rather than evolutions. People mean "figuratively" and "obliterate" but are just jumbled and too lazy to correct.

To stray a bit . . . .

We change the meanings of words all the time. Consider gay, nice, literally and decimate (just off the top of my head). The way we use these words has nothing to do with their original definitions.

"Gay" used to mean, simply, bright. Now it refers to a homosexual man.

To be "nice" was to be ridiculous and lazy. Now it means pleasantness.

If a pro golfer was "literally" on fire during the Masters, he would have burst into flame according to the original definition. Now we use it to make a point.

The Roman army used to "decimate" captured soldiers -- killing one out of every ten -- as a fear tactic and to keep them in line. Now we use it as a synonym for destroy.

I find the way we have changed the meanings of words and phrases over time fascinating.

But genre isn't one of these words, actually. It still means what it originally meant, which is a category, kind or sort (as others above me have said).

 

[slyc_willie]

Its called word corruption. I can think of a bazillion things we do all the time that are fucking disasters. We do them cuz we're lazy and stupid.

I think it's more a matter of ignorance than anything else.

I find real exception with this.

People who use literally and decimate wrong, should literally be the one in ten.

Also, "nice" has an even older meaning, implying truth and accuracy.

I'm all for living language, but I don't accept balderdash.

Edit: I suppose what really bothers me about those two words, for example, is that they are obvious misuses rather than evolutions. People mean "figuratively" and "obliterate" but are just jumbled and too lazy to correct.

Jumbled, yes. Lazy? I think they just don't know better.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

I think it's more a matter of ignorance than anything else.



Jumbled, yes. Lazy? I think they just don't know better.

You may be right, but I feel like it takes a certain amount of closed-minded ness to repeatedly use a word, without humor, in a way exactly contradictory to its precise definition in the face of consistent reality.

"Unique" is another word that drives me insane (figuratively!). And heroic. Genius. All great words, all of them lessened on a regular basis by hyperbolic carelessness.

"Timmy is a genius. He heroically did his homework last night in a very unique way. It was literally the most awesome thing I had ever seen. Cray cray adorbs. Totes McGoats! RAID kills bugs dead forever."

 

[patientlee]

You may be right, but I feel like it takes a certain amount of closed-minded ness to repeatedly use a word, without humor, in a way exactly contradictory to its precise definition in the face of consistent reality.

"Unique" is another word that drives me insane (figuratively!). And heroic. Genius. All great words, all of them lessened on a regular basis by hyperbolic carelessness.

"Timmy is a genius. He heroically did his homework last night in a very unique way. It was literally the most awesome thing I had ever seen. Cray cray adorbs. Totes McGoats! RAID kills bugs dead forever."

I happen to like cray cray. When my 5 y/o says it, it's literally adorable.

 

[slyc_willie]

You may be right, but I feel like it takes a certain amount of closed-minded ness to repeatedly use a word, without humor, in a way exactly contradictory to its precise definition in the face of consistent reality.

"Unique" is another word that drives me insane (figuratively!). And heroic. Genius. All great words, all of them lessened on a regular basis by hyperbolic carelessness.

"Timmy is a genius. He heroically did his homework last night in a very unique way. It was literally the most awesome thing I had ever seen. Cray cray adorbs. Totes McGoats! RAID kills bugs dead forever."

But, we're writers, and most of the people in the world are not (meaning we make an effort to use words correctly, while most people use them according to the accepted current vernacular definition). Consistency is relative. When I was a teenaged kid in the eighties, anything astounding or interesting was "bad." My friends and I and just about everyone else in our age group used that term consistently according to our definition.

I think a lot of word corruptions come about as the result of someone flipping through a thesaurus, looking for a word that "kind'a sort'a" fits the definition of what they would otherwise use, but has more "umph" to it. As you inadvertently pointed out, we see a lot of that in advertising.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

I concur.

I'm really not a stickler. I promise. (Am I? Am I!?)

And I have no problem with irony, or sarcasm. Being flippant is a part of my D n' A. Like a hillbilly Bukowski, I was borned into it. I'm more clever by half than someone who isn't clever whatsoever.

Yet, I refuse to believe that my profession gives me some kind of line on knowing what the fuck I'm saying. It's not like I'm Han Solo and everyone else is Chewie. (And I thought they spelled bad(ly) on the outside!)

I'm no mathematician, but I don't go around talking about going off on a cotangent when I'm angry, or finding the circumcision of a circle-jerk.

But, we're writers, and most of the people in the world are not (meaning we make an effort to use words correctly, while most people use them according to the accepted current vernacular definition). Consistency is relative. When I was a teenaged kid in the eighties, anything astounding or interesting was "bad." My friends and I and just about everyone else in our age group used that term consistently according to our definition.

I think a lot of word corruptions come about as the result of someone flipping through a thesaurus, looking for a word that "kind'a sort'a" fits the definition of what they would otherwise use, but has more "umph" to it. As you inadvertently pointed out, we see a lot of that in advertising.

 

[Gunnlaug]

Its called word corruption. I can think of a bazillion things we do all the time that are fucking disasters. We do them cuz we're lazy and stupid.

Ah, the times I've had this argument with my wife (she's a grammarian who goes batshit crazy about the degeneration of language). My argument is that it's precisely because of this laziness and stupidity that we are using modern English rather than the Old English that was used to compose Beowulf. The three hundred years following the Norman invasion of England saw the stripping away of huge levels of grammar, declension, etc. from Old English with the result that we have the Middle English of Chaucer and Shakespeare - things of beauty in and of themselves. Without this degeneration we would use 'um' endings to denote the 'to' preposition to give just one example. Another example - we would use different word endings to denote the genitive based on gender. Modern English is perhaps more flexible as a result, and is easier to learn.

The likelihood is that as American and British English diverge through this degeneration they will develop into two separate languages. So, this laziness actually creates as well as destroys, and getting angry about it will likely make precisely zero difference - no doubt there were Latin grammarians bouncing off the walls in frustration as Vulgate developed and Classical deteriorated.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think it's more a matter of ignorance than anything else.



Jumbled, yes. Lazy? I think they just don't know better.

I define STUPID as SERVER NOT AVAILABLE ERROR.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ah, the times I've had this argument with my wife (she's a grammarian who goes batshit crazy about the degeneration of language). My argument is that it's precisely because of this laziness and stupidity that we are using modern English rather than the Old English that was used to compose Beowulf. The three hundred years following the Norman invasion of England saw the stripping away of huge levels of grammar, declension, etc. from Old English with the result that we have the Middle English of Chaucer and Shakespeare - things of beauty in and of themselves. Without this degeneration we would use 'um' endings to denote the 'to' preposition to give just one example. Another example - we would use different word endings to denote the genitive based on gender. Modern English is perhaps more flexible as a result, and is easier to learn.

The likelihood is that as American and British English diverge through this degeneration they will develop into two separate languages. So, this laziness actually creates as well as destroys, and getting angry about it will likely make precisely zero difference - no doubt there were Latin grammarians bouncing off the walls in frustration as Vulgate developed and Classical deteriorated.

I s'pose that's why God footnotes Shakespeare so much. So I propose we kill anyone who has no idea what FARDEL means.

But I digress. I keep colliding with SPECIFIC (say KIND) as the essence of GENRE. And don't even get me started on what in hell GENERAL means.