Genette coined terms that are now widely used in ways that differ from his definitions. Do you really object to more expansive uses of "paratext" for things like readerly marginalia (that Genette wouldn't have recognized)?
What I object to is citing him and then twisting his categories all the while referring to them as Gennetean. The example you mention is imho absolutely valid; Patrick Andrist has done a masterful job recontextualising Gennetean framework for MS study.
Yeah, it's just something I've been thinking about for my book on Laodiceans. When words have taken on their own life, distinct from how they were coined, how long do we need to keep flagging that we're diverging from that earlier use?
Simply *not* saying you're following Genette at the outset would go a long way. There's a lot of good literature on paratextuality that goes beyond Genette's structuralism and perhaps that could be invoked as a conceptual framework of choice.
Yes, and he's famously sloppy in Structures already. He lamented the reception of his work but I'm increasingly convinced that a lot of its faults go back to his work itself.
I think I'm not making myself clear. What I am critiquing is when someone explicitly states they're following Genette and then use his categories in a sloppy or downright inaccurate manner.
Comments