response 2

As Chandler explains in the section “Working Within Genres,” writers and film makers work under the assumption that the audience already has expectations for their material based on it’s apparent genre. There are certain conventions that make every genre identifiable but if the audience is not previously familiar with these conventions and the genre they belong to, they can go unnoticed. Faucet’s discussion of space and categorization further supports the importance of genres in understanding. Genres function as the framework needed for the viewer or reader to interpret the work in a particular way and therefore ensure we see what the creator wants us to see. Although Chandler mentions the need for “certain 'given' conventions” in a particular genre, he also says that “every work within a genre also involves the invention of some new elements,” which is done by O’Brien’s in his stories, “Spin,” “The Man I Killed,” and “Good Form.” There are plenty of mentions of foxholes, land mines, ammunition, and violence to make sure the reader is aware they are reading a war story. However, O’Brien brings something new to the table of the genre, a different form. War stories are often revered for their truth and frankness, but O’Brien shatters that mold by revealing, in “Good Form” that aside from being a solider, “almost everything else was invented.” He did not do this for entertainment value but rather to bring a different kind of truth to the genre. As a young solider he was afraid to look at the faces of the rival soldiers who perished before him but their bodies are real and his guilt is real. In “The Man I Killed,” O’Brien vividly characterizes the dead young man, saying “he wanted someday to be a teacher or mathematics,” and that he was dainty and frail and not built for war. This was not typically done in war stories but it successfully fits into the genre while allowing the reader to experience what the author wants him or her to and feel what he felt.