Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Russian Formalism and New Criticism

    Uploaded by

    mohamed
    Russian Formalism emerged in early 20th century Russia as a literary theory focused on analyzing literature as a specialized use of language. It viewed literary works as autonomous from their social contexts and authors' intentions. Formalism introduced the concepts of "defamiliarization" and "foregrounding" to describe how literary language draws attention to itself through techniques that delay readers' comprehension. New Criticism developed in the 1920s-40s in America and emphasized close reading texts and examining the formal elements, themes, and tensions within works independent of external contexts like authors' biographies. Both saw literary language as distinct from ordinary language and advocated analyzing works based on their internal features over external influences.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Russian Formalism and New Criticism

    Uploaded by

    mohamed
    2K views6 pages
    Russian Formalism emerged in early 20th century Russia as a literary theory focused on analyzing literature as a specialized use of language. It viewed literary works as autonomous from their social contexts and authors' intentions. Formalism introduced the concepts of "defamiliarization" and "foregrounding" to describe how literary language draws attention to itself through techniques that delay readers' comprehension. New Criticism developed in the 1920s-40s in America and emphasized close reading texts and examining the formal elements, themes, and tensions within works independent of external contexts like authors' biographies. Both saw literary language as distinct from ordinary language and advocated analyzing works based on their internal features over external influences.

    Original Description:

    russian formalism and new criticism

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Read this document in other languages

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Russian Formalism emerged in early 20th century Russia as a literary theory focused on analyzing literature as a specialized use of language. It viewed literary works as autonomous from their social contexts and authors' intentions. Formalism introduced the concepts of "defamiliarization" and "foregrounding" to describe how literary language draws attention to itself through techniques that delay readers' comprehension. New Criticism developed in the 1920s-40s in America and emphasized close reading texts and examining the formal elements, themes, and tensions within works independent of external contexts like authors' biographies. Both saw literary language as distinct from ordinary language and advocated analyzing works based on their internal features over external influences.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    2K views6 pages

    Russian Formalism and New Criticism

    Uploaded by

    mohamed
    Russian Formalism emerged in early 20th century Russia as a literary theory focused on analyzing literature as a specialized use of language. It viewed literary works as autonomous from their social contexts and authors' intentions. Formalism introduced the concepts of "defamiliarization" and "foregrounding" to describe how literary language draws attention to itself through techniques that delay readers' comprehension. New Criticism developed in the 1920s-40s in America and emphasized close reading texts and examining the formal elements, themes, and tensions within works independent of external contexts like authors' biographies. Both saw literary language as distinct from ordinary language and advocated analyzing works based on their internal features over external influences.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 6
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    Russian Formalism and New Criticism are literary theories that focus on analyzing the form and structure of texts rather than their content or the author's intentions. Russian Formalism emerged in Russia in the early 20th century and analyzed literature based on its formal qualities and use of language.

    Russian Formalism views literature as a special use of language that draws attention to its own formal features. It rejects the role of intuition/genius in creation and sees literary works as produced through accumulating devices. Key figures include Shklovsky, Eichenbaum, and Jakobson.

    The two main terms coined by Russian Formalism are 'defamiliarization', referring to making the familiar strange, and 'foregrounding', referring to pushing the act of expression to the foreground.

    RUSSIAN FORMALISM AND NEW CRITICISM

    RUSSIAN FORMALISM
    It is a type of literary theory and analysis which emerged in the second decade of
    the twentieth century. As it was started in St. Petersburg and Moscow, henceforth
    the name Russian Formalism. This movement includes some crucial names like
    Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum, Roman Jakobson, Jan Mukarovsky, Rene
    Wellek, Peter Bogatyrev, G. O. Vinokur, Boris Tomashevsky, Osip Brik and Yuri
    Tynyanov. They were mainly linguists and historians and forms two groups which
    are—

    (a)Moscow Linguistic Circle, which was formed in 1915


    (b) The OPOYAZ (Society for the Study of Poetic Language), formed in
    Petrogard in 1916
    Formalism views literary works mainly as a specialised use of language and
    draws line of distinction between the literary (or poetic) and the ordinary,
    “practical” use of language, as M. H. Abrams writes in his book ‘A Glossary of
    Literary Terms.’ He also writes that this literary movement proposes that the
    central function of ordinary language is to communicate to auditors a message or
    information by references to the world existing outside of language. But on the
    other hand, it conceives literary language to be self-focused which means to offer
    the reader a special mode of experience by drawing attention to its own “formal”
    features- that is, to the qualities and the internal relations of the linguistic signs
    themselves. And this way they developed a reaction against the dominant
    intellectual trends of Russia like- literary history, social criticism that focused on
    the message of a literary work. Rather they advocate for the autonomy of a
    literary work, which according to them doesn’t depend on the author’s social
    background; the author’s psyche isn’t important. The most important thing for the
    formalists is to find out the ‘literariness’ in it as Roman Jakobson wrote in 1921:
    1
    ‘The object of study in literary science is not literature but ‘literariness’, that is
    which makes a given work a literary work. The rejected the role of intuition,
    imagination and genius in the production of a literary work. Rather, they say that
    accumulating literary devices, a literary is produced. For them literary devices
    like –ambiguity, metaphor, parallelism, imagery, personification, allusion,
    diction, paradox, epigraph, foreshadowing, alliteration and euphemism etc., are
    the most important elements of literary work. Here we can mention Shklovsky’s
    words “the literary work is the sum total of literary devices.’
    Russian Formalism invented two most important terms while analysing a work of
    literature and they are – (a) Defamiliarization and (b) Foregrounding.
    These two play very important role in the production of literary works according
    to the formalists. Viktor Shklovsky is the main figure who talked about
    ‘defamiliarization’ in his seminal book ‘Art as Technique (1917). The Penguin
    Dictionary of Literary Terms and Theory says about defamiliarization (or
    ostrananie): “To defamiliarize is to make fresh, new, strange, different what is
    familiar and known.” And this removes the automatism of the text delaying the
    perception of the reader. Because according to Shklovsky the process of
    perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.
    Aktualisace is the Czech word for the English term ‘Foregrounding’ that denotes
    the use f devices and techniques which push the act of expression into the
    foreground so that language draws attention to itself. Foregrounding occurs
    especially in poetic language. The Czech linguist Jan Mukarovsky (in his essay
    Standard language and Poetic Language) observes: “The function of poetic
    language consists in the maximum foregrounding of the utterance……it is not
    used in the services of communication, but in order to place in the foreground the
    act of expression, the act of speech itself.’ In a sense, foregrounding is the art
    which reveals art rather than concealing it.
    2
    NEW CRITICISM
    The term was made prominent by John Crowe Ransom in his book The New
    Criticism published in 1941. It refers to a kind of movement in literary criticism
    which developed in the in the 1920s (for the most part Americans). Notable critics
    in this mode were the Southerners, Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren,
    who’s textbook Understanding Poetry (1938) and Understanding Fiction (1943)
    worked remarkably to make this criticism dominant method of teaching literature
    in American Colleges. Other prominent critics of this movement were- Allen Tate,
    W. K. Wimsatt, William Empson, Yvor Winters, R. P. Blackmur, and Kenneth
    Burke. They advocated for the ‘autonomy’, of a literary text which can stand alone
    according their point of view. For them the author is not important. The words of
    the independent text are the most relevant thing of a reader. They wanted the
    readers to look deep into the language of a text which is basically poetry in this
    case. Talking about New Criticism, J. A. Cuddon in his book The Penguin
    Dictionary of Literary Terms and Theory writes: “The New Critics advocated
    'close reading ‘and ‘detailed textual analyses of poetry rather than an interest in the
    mind and personality of the poet, sources, the history of ideas and political and
    social implications.”
    Principles of New Criticism

    The first law of this criticism is that it shall be objective, shall cite the nature of
    the object and shall recognize the autonomy of the work itself as existing for its
    own sake. In analysing and evaluating a particular work, they avoid reference to
    the biography and temperament and personal experiences of the author, to the
    social conditions at the time of its production, or to its psychological and moral
    effects on the reader. For its focus on the literary work in isolation from its
    attendant’s circumstances and effects, the New Criticism is often classified as a
    3
    type of critical formalism. The formalistic approach adopted by the new critics
    implied an awareness of form. Awareness of form is seen in –sensitivity to the
    words of the text; denotative and connotative values and implications; awareness
    of multiple meanings. To get the from and read in a formalistic way, we look at
    the overall structure, shape, interplay, tone/mood, interrelationships, denotations
    and connotations, contexts, images, symbols..etc, trying to discover what
    constitutes the uniqueness of the work.
    The principles of the New Criticism are basically verbal. That conceives literature
    to be a special kind of language whose attributes are defined by systematic
    opposition to the language of science and of practical and logical discourse, and
    the explicative procedure is to analyse the meanings and interactions of words,
    figures of speech, and symbols. The emphasis is on the “organic unity” in a
    successful literary work, of its overall structure with its verbal meanings.
    The third principle is that the essential components of any literary work of
    literature, whether lyric, narrative, or dramatic, are conceived to be words, images,
    and symbols rather than character, thought, and plot. These linguistic elements,
    whatever the genre, are often said to be organized around a central and humanly
    significant theme, and to manifest high literary value to the degree that they
    manifest “tension”, “irony”, and “paradox”, in achieving a “reconciliation of
    diverse impulses” or an “equilibrium of opposed forces”; that’s what Abrams
    writes in his book “A Glossary of Literary Terms.”
    The new critics distrusted paraphrase. Because it necessarily means the loss of
    the context, of the experience of the poem, and hence of the poem’s full meaning.
    For the New Critics, paraphrase was, as Brooks put it in The Well-Wrought Urn, a
    ‘heresy’. As well as the ‘heresy of paraphrase’ there are two major textual
    approaches associated with New Criticism. These are the ‘intentional fallacy’ and
    ‘affective fallacy’. Both were developed in essays published in 1946 and 1949 by
    4
    Wimsatt in collaboration with Monroe Beardsley, and were collected in The
    Verbal Icon. Intentional fallacy signifies what is claimed to be the error of
    interpreting and evaluating a literary work by reference to evidence, outside the
    text itself, for the intention- the design and purposes- of its author. And on the
    other hand, affective fallacy signifies confusion between the poem and the results
    (what it is and what it does)’. It’s the error of evaluating a poem by its effects –
    especially its emotional effects –upon the reader. As a result of this fallacy “the
    poem itself, as an object of specifically critical judgement, tends to disappear,” so
    that criticism “ends in impressionism and relativism.”

    Comparison between New Criticism and Russian Formalism

    Both the approaches advocate for the special use of language in literary works.
    The literary language is different from non-literary language according to them.
    Literary languages use various literary devices to attract the reader’s attention to
    itself. The author’s role is irrelevant for both the approaches. The language of the
    text is all that readers need to be mindful of. Works of literature have been created
    following some forms. Consciously or unconsciously the author follows that form.
    For that, formalistic point of view can be applied to both of these movements of
    literary criticism and theory which originated in two different countries. But still
    we can find some underlying links between the two. The readers are given the
    most important roles to play in analysing and interpreting literary works while the
    author or the creator of that particular work is kept aside or considered “dead”, to
    use Roland Barthes term. Rather ‘close-reading’ and ‘detailed textual analysis’ are
    applied while literary texts are studied. Structure and form are what need to be
    considered; the content is not important for the readers to understand the text. The
    author’s emotion and intention are pushed to the background, while foregrounding
    the literariness of the text as Jakobson writes his seminal books about it. The
    5
    formalist’s use of some new terms in their theories of analysing the literary texts-
    like ‘defamiliarization’ of Shklovsky and ‘Foregrounding’ of Mukarovsky brought
    sea changes to the world of criticism. By the term ‘defamiliarization’ Shklovsky
    means that literary language uses devices like metaphor and imagery, to make
    familiar things unfamiliar. This way the readers are made to ponder over the
    implications of the text.

    But New Criticisms on the other hand, only advocates for the connotative
    meanings of words in poetry which is the main area of this criticism unlike
    Russian Formalism which can be applied to fiction as well. New Criticism doesn’t
    differentiate between form and content but Formalism does differentiate.
    Elemental units of analysis for the New Critics are the icons (images) but for the
    Formalists they are the motifs and other devices. Unlike Russian Formalists, New
    Critics value the ambiguity, paradox, irony, and intention in literature. The new
    critics have pointed out two types of fallacies as already mentioned- affective and
    intentional fallacy, among the readers- who sometimes become the victims of
    these two errors. That’s why poetry shouldn’t be interpreted from the emotional
    effects of the reader or the author’s intention of writing it. Rather the literary texts
    should be studied in isolation and independently of all these. And Formalism
    supports this proposition too as the formalists say that literary works are produced
    culminating various literary devices only, whereas the author is pushed aside.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy