isnt one of the points of the course for us to realise that genre can be either conformed to or challenged?
For last years question "How useful is it to understand texts in terms of genre? Are texts more engaging when they conform to the conventions, or when they challenge and play with the conventions?" my line of arguement would be...
"When considering texts it is useful to take genre into account, as it primarily provides established premises for the responder and composer alike. However texts often prove more captivating when they challenge and subvert the boundaries of genre and defy expectations."
for a question about the exsistance of genre in contempory literature id obviously argue both, then settle with traditional views of genre exsisting less or meaning less now. I would say that genre is a way of cassifying texts which have similar features (of course id put more effort into this wording if it wasnt 12:50 at night)
its really important to mould your definition to the question rite? i would for example use these more static terms for a q that was in re to the traditional views of genre AS being boundaries etc, however in relation to a contempory literary analysis of genre one would argue that it provides basic guidlines, however is quite fluid. And of course the development of literature and genres themselves rely on this challenging of the boundaries.
for one of my assesments i studied a critique called "parody and detective fiction" (partucular to the classic crime fict) anyway it was awesome. To understand it one must reconsider their definition of parody as maintaining parts of previous texts yet developing others rather than a completly malicious or rediculous recreation. Get it?
It said that there is heaps of parody in crime fiction that is less intentional than the obvious satire of TRIH. For eg, the sidekick is a parody of the detective, red herrings are parodies of real clues, and most important all cf texts are parodies of their predecessors.
The 1st CF writer, Wilkie Collins parodied the gothic horror writers of the 1800's in keeping the ideas of horror, chaos and disorder, while SUBVERTING them by ommiting the supernatural causes of this horror and making it more human(this did BTW prove more horrific for the victorians who were forced to consider the capabilities of the human rather than a make believe monster.)
this development thru parody continued with poe, doyle and then christie hammett and chandler etc, and is responsible for the creation and the development of the cf genre, and its subsequent sub-genres.
Without challenging genre what texts would we be still creating today? I dont even know what the first creative stories would be? myths and religious stories i can only presume...it would get rather old though wouldnt it?
Im sorry bout the raving, i dont know how that was relevent, but its interesting. lol.