Einführung und Modifikation von Genrebegriffen als Wertungsstrategien im literarischen Feld

Abstract

Abstract In the first part of the paper, the interconnection of evaluation and classification in the literary field is discussed. Genre constitutes one of the central notions in Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of literature. Werner Michler’s suggestion to regard genres not as theoretical models or collections of features, but as classifications by agents of the literary field, is expanded by the aspect of genre evaluation. Both processes of classification and evaluation seem intertwined and could be understood as evaluation strategies by agents and communities of the literary field. Introduction of new genre terms and their modification are popular strategies of revaluation of genres, works, authors, and audiences. In the paper, four groups of agents of the generic process identified by Michler (producers, distributors, non-professional recipients, and professional agencies of evaluation) are analysed in view of their power of revaluation. Furthermore, they are placed in the contemporary German literary field on the basis of Heribert Tommek’s model and depicted as hypothetical members of evaluative genre communities. These communities consist of agents and groups (e. g. fandoms) that defend and support genres, seeing in them a stake in the game which is the illusio, the faith in the principles of the field. In the second part, agents, communities, and their evaluative strategies are presented. First of all, it is the reception mechanisms which decide on the attribution of values to genres and affect the production of literature. Therefore, the authors write their texts with regard to conventional classifications and take part as well, more or less directly, in the processes of revaluation of genres they want to be associated with. The avant-garde is either interested in original genre terms or it avoids any ascriptions whatsoever. In comparison, the mainstream and the subfield of mass production concentrate on medially attractive or conventional and recognizable terms. Authors which have accumulated large symbolic capital can also revaluate genres with their prestige. The potential of terms and evaluations is also reflected in the structure of the field as seen by distributors of literature. Paratexts, advertisements, blurbs, and brands change according to their place on the aesthetic or economic pole of the field. This way, audiences that can choose genres, values and evaluations on the basis of the existing classifications are created and influenced. Even if their symbolic power is small, they manage to formulate evaluative classifications, first of all in the flexible area (forums, blogs) close to the professional agencies of evaluation. Genres are re- and devaluated also in the literary studies and by the critics. Here, the conscious usage of genre terms characterizes the profession. Literary critics and reviewers often choose new, original terms in order to prove their professional abilities of classification. In the structure of the field, between the avant-garde and the subfield of mass production, struggles for symbolic capital and the right to establish new classifications and evaluations take place. In these struggles, there are various agents of the generic process with their specific strategies involved. Many of them can be grasped as members of more or less stable evaluative communities. In the third part, the mainly theoretical explanations are complemented by two case studies of a weak (the so-called Aussteigerroman) and a strong (dystopian science fiction) revaluation of the genre in the last decades. Behind the career of the Aussteigerroman (novel about an outsider) there is of course the outsider-trend returning regularly since the 60’s, however, no strong evaluative communities in the form of institutions, media, or genre-oriented critics. In comparison, the career and popularity of dystopian fiction in all its variety and terminological modifications of the recent years cannot be reduced to external factors (like fear of the uncertain future, terrorism or pandemics), but it should be primarily explained in view of the influence exerted by agents and communities revaluating the genre. Both careers are cursorily depicted at the end of the paper.