Defining the Genre

On page 140, Rabinowitz wrote, "... it is possible to define genre not only in the traditional way, as a group of texts that share textual features, but also as a group of texts that appear to invite similar interpretive strategies." When I first read this line I was baffled as I had never thought of genres in such a way before, but when I read it again (as I started to write this post actually) I realized it makes genres more complex and confuses them.
One of the key parts of defining the genre in the line above is "invite similar interpretive strategies." I think, in order to fulfill that definition, the reader would first have to set standards and define similar. Two interpretations may have the exact same view of the characters, but a different interpretation of the entire plot. There needs to be some measure of how similar two interpretations need to be. Therefore, whoever is comparing the two interpretations has to have some sort of system for the interpreters. The interpreters need to have some sort of interpretation of all the characters, or just the main characters, or one particular motif, or the overlaying plot. However, that also messes with the interpretation because the interpreters are being forced to write about certain things and not necessarily just what their interpretation encompasses. Nonetheless, in order for similar to be defined there needs to be some sort of measuring system. (There can't be one interpretation that talks solely about the characters and, in the case of "The Dead," the snow motif while another talks about the plot and specifically the stair scene with Gabriel and Gretta. That would make it near impossible to determine if they're similar even if they touch upon other topics in their specific interpretation).
Even if interpretations are so carefully written that they can be compared properly to define similar, as said before, that still limits the interpretation because the interpreter is being told what to write. If he or she is told to discuss the snow motif, but wants to discuss the stair scene with Gabriel and Gretta then their interpretation is bound to be skewed. The snow motif could have gone right over their heads (as it did mine) or the interpreter could just have a very frustrated interpretation of the motif because they're writing about something they don't want to be writing about. Thus the interpretation becomes a bit void. (It would be like asking a high school student what they thought of a specific passage when they're going to write exactly what the teacher wants to hear so they can get the grade).
The person determining if two interpretations are similar or not could possibly wait until two interpretations discuss the exact same thing or piece meal interpretations together so he or she could compare those equally, but what about the rest of what the interpreter was saying? Does that get cast aside and considered useless? Even if the scraps of the interpretation are kept, part of the interpretation is reading it as a whole. The interpreter wrote about what he or she did because it really stood out to them, perhaps more so then the piece stolen by the mysterious comparing person. Taking bits and pieces that interest the one comparing, the ones that fit his or her needs, would take away from the rest of the interpretation and not necessarily reflect what the interpreter was really feeling or getting at.
All in all, I think defining genres in how they're interpreted doesn't quite work out the way Rabinowitz had hoped. Although it is a cool concept and a new way of looking at genre, it has too many loose ends that will only restrict the interpreter if tied. Personally, I think the genre should be left at "groups of texts that share textual features."
By the way, as a note to my readers, I am most certainly sure that I over thought that.