FORMALISM Reading for form 2 (Russian Formalism) Reading for form 1 (New Criticism) Reading for form 2 (Russian Formalism)
New criticism: America in the 1930s The New Critics saw poetry as a way of living authentically in a shallow world (post-war mass disappointment). In their vision, interpreting a text excludes both the reader and the poet. The form is paramount in order to find the “real” of the text meaning.
Intentional Fallacy theory (IF) IF(W. K. Wimsatt): the confusion of auctorial intention with the reality of the text The text in itself needs to guide us, not indicate what the author meant. The author’s intentions/commentaries are of little importance. The text is self-sufficient.
….& Affective Fallacy theory (AF) The reader takes his/her emotional reaction to the text with what the text “really” means to convey. The “real” meaning of the text is hidden from the reader. The New criticism postulated reading and interpreted the sheer text. Once the reader and author have been eliminated, the act of criticism is reduced to analyzing the techniques and strategies used to convey the literature effect.
Reading for form (New Criticism) The New Critics have created a special kind of critical canon, a “Procustian bed”. The main characteristics are irony, ambiguity, maturity, self-discipline (the poet/writer were not allowed to personalize the poem/work) This theory is reflected in Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, or J. Joyce’s Ulysses. This type of literature becomes the blue-print of authenticity, and “masculine” lucidity.
Russian Formalism In the first decades of 20th century in Moscow and St. Petersburg emerges the European tradition of modern literary studies. Research was moved to Prague in the late 20’s because of the repressive Soviet regime. The Formalist School is eventually established in France after the 2nd World War. The Formalist school reaches its peak in the 60’s (Structuralism).
Russian Formalism (follow-up) It becomes notorious when the linguist Roman Jakobson moves to N.Y., before 2nd world war. The formalist’s works were translated into English btw. 1950-1960. In France there was a parallel movement of cultural anthropology Cl. Levi Strauss. France was the promoter of Structuralism which was also going to become famous in NY.
Russian Formalism Initially focused on poetry. Their only concern is the form of a literary work, in order to read the deep meaning of the text. Not interested in the social function of literature. They ignore the referential function (the old Aristotelian mimesis concept) They believed literature is autonomous from the rest of reality. Highly interested in deciphering the way in which literature functions.
Essential questions of the Formalist approach What makes a text literature/literary? What do all literary texts have in common? Is there a common literary factor? The Formalist’s answer: literarity is the sum of all specific definitions for establishing the boundaries for “non-literature”.
Traditional ways of identifying literature Mimesis - the oldest of criteria. Restrictive because it excludes everything that is not mimetic (poetry). Expresivity - emerging emotions though empathy. Rethorics – relying on stylistic devices, as well as on their capacity to impress and influence the reader. Poetics – those traits which differentiate a poetic text from another literary text. Narativity - permanently circumscribed to literature.
Means of identifying literarity in Formalism Defined by a combination of de procedures: defamiliarizing of common language through ritmic and metrice structures (R. Jakobson) narrative constuction (Slovski, Propp) stylistic devices (Vinogradov) dialectics of genres (Tanianov) thematic structures (Tomasevski)