Book Review: Modern Genre Theory (Judd)
Andrew Judd thinks its time to retire classical genre theory in favor of modern genre theory. I think he's (mostly) right.
Andrew Judd is deputy principal and lecturer in Old Testament at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. You can learn more about the book in this interview by Dru Johnson on the Biblical Mind Podcast.
We may not realize we have a closely held belief until someone challenges it. In this case, many readers may hold to a theory of genre without realizing it until they encounter something like Andrew Judd's recent Modern Genre Theory. In this book, he argues against classical genre theories in favor of modern genre theory, and I think he’s (mostly) right.
Overview
Typically, when we read a text, we instantaneously assign it to a specific genre. This (mostly) unconscious decision then shapes our interpretation of the text we are reading. Judd is probably right that "most of our big disagreements about the Bible begin as unconscious disagreements about genre" (xvii).
What’s true about the Bible is also true about other literature. For example, he offers the humorous illustration of genre confusion when Facebook blocked a post from The Babylon Bee because it was identified as “fake news.” It can be hard to distinguish between a fake news article (an inaccurate one) and a fake news article (a satirical blog pretending to be a news article).
Because our understanding of genre shapes our reading of texts, and specifically our reading of the Bible, it's essential to reflect consciously on the genre theory we use.
His basic argument is that we should discard older genre theories in favor of modern genre theories. In the first part of the book, he examines older classical genre theories, offering substantial critiques along the way. Then, he offers an introduction to modern genre theory, taking a slightly eclectic approach. In the second part of the book, he applies modern genre theory by examining a select group of biblical texts.
Concise Summary
Judd defines genres as "relatively stable conventions that writers and readers use to make meaning in certain contexts and not others" (xv). He fills in that definition with twelve tenets of modern genre theory (outlined directly below).
Texts don't belong to any one genre but are promiscuous, participating in complex relationships with multiple genres.
Genres are relatively stable conventions, like games we play with words.
Genres are fuzzy around the edges but have solid prototypes at their core.
Genres are about much more than merely sorting texts into predefined shelves; they are functional. Each genre invites us to play a different reading-game, offering different experiences, inviting us to take up different hermeneutical roles, setting particular goals, and furnishing us with a treasurey of resources to play with as we make meaning together.
These experiences, roles, and resources are about readers as much as writers.
Genres can regulate all sorts of things about a text, including formal features, distinctive content, and situational dynamics in the social context.
Genres are recurring responses to recurring social situations.
As social action, genres are used for getting something done.
Genres both reflect and help create the world we experience.
Part of that social context is the power dynamic—genre is always working for someone.
Genres don't live alone but function in genre ecostystems within a context of culture.
Texts don't read themselves, so the ball is always in the reader's court. Genre uptake is usually tacit, but as readers, we can also choose to make more tactical decisions about genre. Our goal in doing so might be somewhere on a spectrum from coordination to resistance.
General Observations
These tenets all need explanation, but that's what the book is for. I'll simply make a few observations.
First, I'm inclined to agree with Judd's take on modern genre theory. I don't think that the classical methods are right or ultimately helpful for interpretation. Still, because Judd encourages readers to start by identifying prototypes that hold genre categories together (tenet three), not every aspect of classical genre theory has to be completely jettisoned. Instead of total rejection, classical genre theory requires substantial revision.
Second, Judd's twin explanation of the fuzziness around the edges of genre (tenet three), paired with his observation that texts participate in multiple genres simultaneously (tenet one), allows readers to benefit from the standard classical categories of genre, while also releasing them from the strictness and rigidness of those categories.
Third, a major contribution of Judd's work is the emphasis on the social function of genres (tenet six). The emphasis is not on finding the life situation (Sitz im Leben) of a text in the same way that the form critics did with their emphasis on finding an exact situation to pair with an exact iteration of a text. Instead, the emphasis is on the category or kind of situations in which a certain genre might be used, along with what that genre would accomplish for that social situation.
Fourth, Judd creatively explores readerly responses to texts. Genres pull readers into the text in different ways, and readers can tactically experience a text as a particular genre (either in a mode of cooperation or in a mode of resistance). I appreciated the way he put this tenet to the test with his two readings of the gruesome story in Judges 19. He first explores how (mis)assigning it to the horror film genre results in a fruitful reading of the text. Then, he considers how assigning it to the wisdom literature genre does the same, but perhaps more in line with the text’s canonical purpose.
Fifth, and finally, Judd offers the "boomerang test" as a method of determining whether a reader has appropriately assigned a genre to a text. Judd is Australian, so the boomerang metaphor is fitting. He suggests that the major test for our reading strategies is what they bring back to us. He advises, "Take up your guess about the kind of genre your text falls into, give it a throw, see what comes back. If the payoffs suggest it doesn't work, try again." This metaphor encourages readers to engage in multiple readings of the text, allowing them to explore its nuances and complexities. Readers should consciously assign a text to a particular genre and then consider that genre’s effect on both the experience of engaging with that text and the resulting interpretation.
Critical Engagement
Genre theory has several points of contact with other theories employed in literary circles and the field of biblical studies, including speech act theory, relevance theory, and cognitive metaphor theory. Each theory is better at describing how communication works than it is at explaining how meaning is generated or prescribing how communication should take place. In addition, each theory draws attention to certain aspects or features of a communicative act, while obscuring others. For this reason, it is probably best to adopt a multidisciplinary approach to communication. These fields of study can work together because they share many common interests.
We should also be cautious about identifying a particular theory as the “silver bullet” for biblical interpretation. In certain sections, it feels like Judd is suggesting that if you just get the genre right, you will have an airtight approach to interpretation. To be clear, he explicitly states that genre clarification won’t solve every communication problem. Still, readers might walk away from the book with too much confidence in genre theory of any kind.
At other points, you may start to wonder whether the whole idea of genre is really that helpful for interpretation. The fuzziness around the edge of genre, in combination with its relative stability and promiscuity, leaves readers wondering how prototypes can actually be established. Beyond these concerns, the boomerang test, which essentially offers a “try it out and see what happens” approach to interpretation, raises questions about how much genre theory can actually do for readers.
For some, genre is nothing more than a heuristic device that offers little benefit for interpretation. I think I understand where they are coming from, but I maintain that the concept of genre is helpful for interpretation. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that modern genre theory (or any other genre theory) isn’t the final word on interpretive approaches.
Conclusion
Judd writes for that liminal space between the Church (pastors and educated laypeople) and the academy. He's clear, easy to read, funny, and really engaging throughout. He's also convincing when he claims that genre theory needs to be revisited, especially among biblical scholars. And if he's right that the majority of significant disagreements about the Bible are essentially unconscious disagreements about genre, his work merits the attention of both biblical scholars and everyday readers of the Bible.