Written Discourse Five

I think, maybe, here we’re starting to get a bit closer to something resembling a point. An answer to that ‘Why?’ question I asked last time out. Nothing definitive, but it’s beginning to present a utility beyond the merely descriptive.

1. Some Sort of Sub-Heading

The note’s claim that ‘The Sydney School does not acknowledge any debt to Longacre’s work’ seem quite odd. Not because it’s wrong, I’m sure it’s entirely accurate, but because, once again, a lot of this seem to be hanging off the bones of classical rhetoric, which is a far, far older debt. The section covering definitions of genre (5.9) seems awfully similar to the standard modes of rhetoric. It’s not just me seeing this, is it?

2. Another Sub-Heading

I’m pretty confused by the claims made about narrative, as well, starting with ‘Narrative is also distinct from other genres because of ‘plot’, which is gloriously vague, and culminating in the claim that ‘Real life psychiatric histories are not so neatly packaged,’ which seems a strange thing to be asserting in a paragraph which started with this: ‘The recount would chronologically list all the relevant psychiatric history as a series of events…’ (emphasis mine).

Who decides on this relevance? Stuff gets included, and stuff gets omitted, and who decides how that happens and in what order is of prime importance in constructing a narrative. It’s why I’m also quite skeptical about using kids’ recounting of stories to demonstrate stuff. What they’re recounting has already been formed into a coherent story, and deciding how much the structure is imposed by the child and how much by the original author is certainly not a trivial task.

3. Final Sub-Heading, Indicating Vague Conclusion

Very vague. Sorry. But at least the invocation of Swift’s Modest Proposal allows me to link to Poe’s Law, which seems entirely relevant. Enjoy.