Super quick post because I have to dash off to do some errands on the way home. Today was a very full day, with teaching, a couple of meetings, a library run, and a bunch of little administrative/practical tasks to tick off the list (most important: submitted my application for the administrative job). I did squeeze in a few hour’s worth of work on the NNBL article though, and things are starting to fall into place. I’ll have a good stretch of time to work on it tomorrow and Friday, so there’s hope that I’ll have a completed draft by the end of this month.
That means (in typical fashion) that I’m already starting to fret about the next project, which will be the article on what I’m calling the “quirky-feel-good” genre. In the genre studies class I’m teaching this term we’ve been reading a bunch of article on various sub-genres of crime fiction from an anthology, and looking at them has given me some idea of good and bad ways of defining a sub-genre. What not to do: write a list of works that exemplify the sub-genre without ever really defining it or its identifiable and distinguishing characteristics. What to do: come up with a set of criteria that (even if debatable) delineate the sub-genre and give others a way of judging whether a work falls into the category or not, and give a few really clearly explicated examples. Typology is really not my bag, so this is going to be a huge challenge. I’m also going to need to watch a lot of movies!
Words written: 580