Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Russian Formalism and Reader Response Theory

    Uploaded by

    Rayeha Maryam

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Russian Formalism and Reader Response Theory

    Uploaded by

    Rayeha Maryam
    19 views18 pages

    Original Title

    Russian formalism and Reader response theory

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    19 views18 pages

    Russian Formalism and Reader Response Theory

    Uploaded by

    Rayeha Maryam

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 18
    ing. However, it is ambi ious whetherhe feels strony eee animalistic and violent, and that the constantly fight off his attempts 1 Fape her. As a post-colonial reader, we ms nero as irony « Miranda and her father Prospero have metaphorically raped Caliban island and he is trying t0 return the favour, We can also read post-colonial literature, thats, the: fierature watten after colonisation, particularly by thie colonived, Russian Formalism: Sofare the twentieth century, most literary theorists tended to viewsthe wianonbetweentet | ‘and meaning through the prism of history, psychology, symbolism, and Irierary blowgeaphy It was not lintil after the Russian Revolution in 1917 that there emerged widesproud acadomie disogreement with such views, This disagreement was the rationale forthe wastenee of a 1 our of past-Revolution intellectuals who became known collectively as adherents ol Nusyan Formalism, The leading members included Boris Eichenbaum, Roman jakabson, Viadunir Propp, and Viktor Shklovsky, There were of course others who contributed to the ongoing cebate but these four were instrumental in founding three separate movements each of whch was. created to settle haw and to what extent the forms of literary texts interacted wilh this contents of these texts. Writing # Formalist (iterary Analysis Using formalism, a critic can show how the various parts of a Work ars welded toxetherto moke an organic whole. This approach examines a text a5 a self-contained abject, it does: not, therefore, concern itself with biographical information about the authon, historical The second was Obstichevsto po teucheniyu poeticheskogo ynzyka (OPQVAZ: Society : Closely assoelated with Study. of Poctic Language), which was founded in 1916 ih St. PatersbuT the Futuristtof italy, GPOVAZ members included Viktor Shklovsky-and Osip BAK. The remaining members wore liicraty historians, folklorists, and ponts alliof whom believed that literature must be based on clare textual analysis and clearly delineated descriptions ofa ‘text's contents. Members wort distrcssed aver what they saw asa. too close link between text and ‘author and between text ond chltural background, Therefore, they sought whenever possible to sever such inks. Though Shklovsly argued that the use of poatic language was aslanificant linguistic, — davice, he was quick to add that not all devices jp all toxts could be used to defamitinriza those texts by using unorihodox language to render the familiar as unfamiliar, To OPOYAZ members, Janguage canye in two categories: poetic and non-poetic. The fatterrepresented the ordinary language usage of daily life where meaning clustered around the literal, The former forced language to ssume-valucs and resonances ast normally associated with in its non-poctic state. (twas these values and resonances which comprised the défamiliarization that caused readers to seo and to appreciate how “old “scenes of worn-out non-dramatic non-urgency could unexpectedly marph into “nev! scenes of throbbing vitality. OMOYAZ was disbanded (n 1923 but quickly merged veith the Moscow Linguistic Circle. The third was the Prague school, When, the Moscow Linguistic Ciccle wae itself disbanded in the mid 19205, its members moved to Prague, where it had » varied agenda: it continued its Investigations into literary theory and inguistics and i began to specialize int phonemic analyses of the works of its most prominent fiember Raman Jakebson The Prague Schoal remained in continuous existence (except for the War years} Until 1950 when the USSR. forcibly annexed Czechoslovakia, © enipiricaldescription of language: When various formal devices interactud butt ith theinselves and the text the result was that the text itseif became a dynuinic Junction of thase Gevices such that what might have previously been seenas dull, dry, and ch hulp of these devices would emerge -as ostranenie which in Eny THAKINY SUAS After 1924, Russian Farmalism had advanced to the point where it could pliblely declare that the totality of literature must not te linked With anything nan-literary such as history at ideology, but rather this totality mustinaw be seen as'a function of inteflackiii and co related traits, Whether any one device functions as its author intended hinges On the latecy of all the other devices residing in the linguistic system that is the text. Just as hummer: buinigs lunetion bra Ricrarchy with dominancy at the apex and subordination at the plinth, so do deweos work likewise. Whatever the dominant device may be, it sets the interpretive {one for al} other subordinate devices with their totality at work in tandem to produce # self contained system that passes. through evolutionary phases such that each phase stands in clour demarcation fram the others, thereby making it possible for theorists to compare one ta the atker. This comparative process is far more likely to be diachronic in nature, often cneompassing many decades. One can infer from this dynamic process of chunge-and a concomitant awareness of change that the farm and hence the'content cannot remain constant lony effete Thus, there is an ongoing need to See and to sublimate those chanjes via dofamiliatization to moainrain the illusion of novelty. if the philosaphical vision ol human beings changes over time, itfollows that the background milieu of these human beings must change as well, thus implying that within that milieu there is a continuing struggle for dammance that roffects the view thatat the base of this canflict=the devices within the system—lics a HGUYH to BeEoNE ‘a text's techniques. The navel Tristyam nurence imple of anovel that draws the reader into an artific techniqu, thereby rendering, this novel formalistic through Its use and ever n Hovelistic devices, mast af which distort temporality using foreshadow flashbacking. “Ten Members ofthe Moscow Linguistic Circle and OPOYAZ both agread that Russian Formalism relates more to pootry than to any other literary genre. Both schools emphosized that literature is in essence merely an irrevocable function of how language must work: They noted that all texts are Irreitucible, 9 term which implies that these texts can only be what they are;they Cannat therefore be reduced ar expahded into allied disciplines such as histary or psychology. Members of these schools mandated that Prior to any attempt to explicate a text, one must first detink that text tom any and all mention of extra-literary references. Once ane completes ‘the required delinking, the nioxt step 15 te emplay empirically verifiable means of literary efiticism such a) a text's physical structure, its multi-faceted texture, and its diversity of fanguage fussian Formalism distinguishes between spurhet (plot) and fibula (Stary), Story is a chronological sequencing of events while plot can be expressed non-chronologically via repotition, paraltolism, and deferral. The fact that there were two separate schools of Russian Formalism co-existing simultaneously suggests that despite thelr similarities there were. ces of tought that guaranteed there could nat be a single unified nor agreed: clfas a continually evolving interpreter of language theory. What diverse of the many members was a set of shared basic assumptions that each men may k thought of in divergent ways. A typical meeting of one school or the other often invelved discussing, critiquing, assimilating, and discarding a myriad of concepts “and hypotheses. There never was a finished and polished totalized theory; rather at the end of ‘an often contentious meeting, members had engaged ina lively self-conscious act, of theorizing, most of which dealt with studies of specific authors and/or trends. And since there isalways on. ‘Ongoing evoliition of human culture which in turn produces a renewal of literature, it follows 4 sufficient di upon doctrine united aver the math that any literary system must eternally renew itself, jalism was to establish an empirically. Bea fully Because the underlying premise of Russian Formalls a eal fnathod ta link texts to devices, i followed that this cauld happen only ifthere were ca ; 40 antl mataphor to arrive at.what it sees ac text's "oy SeNtFast, Was less practical but more abstract and theo eatly den Content from form by insisting that form was not an'em ty vessel into which one pour foment: Because of form's structures of rhetoric which influenced he ‘a twador interpreted content, form was content. Thus to comprehend the meaning of co nent, one had fist to analyze the many types of form. Meaning thew is fixed by the way thot tor ves diainate

    You might also like