Rick Altman, Conclusion: A semantic/syntactic/pragmatic approach to genre

(In Film/Genre)

So in this final chapter, Altman sums up his argument and distills it into a sort of three-pronged approach, incorporating pragmatics - that is to say use - into his earlier model. Again, he argues that genre is between users and uses, rather than fixed at any one point. Genres (and, as I have noted before, franchises) "serve diverse groups diversely." It is impossible, therefore, for terminology to be neutral when referring to a genre. The terms we use are invariably loaded in a variety of different ways for different audiences.

The process of reintroduction which defines franchise texts, therefore, takes place in many different ways - established as invalid by fans while simultaneously being validated by studio rhetoric, and so on. It is important to incorporate this discursivity into any account of genre, or remakes, or franchises, etc. These (and indeed, all texts and communication systems, Altman argues) are sites of struggle and cooperation among multiple users" and groups of users. This kind of understanding helps us to escape the tyranny of the text, as he puts it.

Rick Altman, What's at stake in the history of literary genre theory? and Where are genres located?

(In Film/Genre)

In this relatively recent book (well, only a decade old, in any case), Altman recasts and expands his earlier, highly influential work on genre as part of a broader theory of communication, much as Steve Neale has done with his 1980s writings. The first chapter provides a very general overview of the history of literary genre criticism, and identifies the assumptions behind most thinking on genre, which have their genesis as far back as Aristotle. Altman, like Verevis, criticizes the pseudo-science of genre taxonomy, and is highly skeptical that any kind of work on genre can be as rigid and apolitical as some critics seem to believe.

Perhaps most damning is the assumption that genres exist in some kind of fixed, tangible, already-defined way, and not as fluid, multifarious cultural constructs. These are the kinds of assumptions I need to avoid when discussing franchises, by directly addressing this ambiguous nature. I must also avoid overemphasizing internal characteristics of franchise texts, for as Altman suggests, this kind of semantic/snytactic approach cannot be pursued alone without context. Too many theorists locate genre in one facet, whether textual, industrial or what have you, rather than examining how these facets intersect in order to establish what we call genre.