2. Formalism
• “Formalism” is, as the
name implies, an
interpretive approach
that emphasizes
literary form and the
study of literary
devices within the
text. The name
“formalism” was chosen
by opponents of the
literary movement who
considered the
approach
controversially
structured and formal.
3. • “Formalism,” like
“structuralism,” sought to place
the study of literature on a
scientific basis through objective
analysis of the motifs, devices,
techniques, and other “functions”
that comprise the literary work.
Neither author nor context was
essential for the formalists; it
was the narrative that spoke, the
“hero-function,”
4. Definition of New Criticism
• New Criticism emphasizes explication, or "close reading"
of "the work itself". It rejects old historicism's
attention to biographical and sociological matters.
Instead, the objective determination as to "how a piece
works" can be found through close focus and analysis,
rather than through extraneous and erudite special
knowledge. New Criticism, incorporating Formalism,
examines the relationships between a text's ideas and
its form, between what a text says and the way it says
it. New Critics "may find tension, irony, or paradox in
this relation, but they usually resolve it into unity
and coherence of meaning"
5. Leading Critics (Formalism)
• Formalist theory emerged from the meetings,
discussions, and publications of the Opojaz
(The Society for the Study of Poetic Language)
and the Moscow Linguistic Circle. They were
dissatisfied with the ways of studying
literature in the academe. Opojaz was based on
St. Petersburg, dates back to 1914, and
dissolved in 1923. Its nucleus was formed by
Sklovsky, Eikhenbaum, Brik, Tynyanov.
6. Roman Jakobson Leading Critics
(Formalism)
• Roman Jakobson was a bridge between Russian formalism
and structuralism. He was a founder member of the
Moscow Linguistic Circle and his all writings reveal
the centrality of linguistic theory in his thought and
especially the influence of Saussure. He was also an
enthusiastic supporter of experimental poets. Apart
from his linguistic research, Jakobson gained respect
for his very precise linguistic analyses of classic
works of literature. Jakobson attempted the daunting
task of trying to define “literariness” in linguistic
term.
7. Leading Critic (New Criticism)
• Ivor Armstrong Richards was an influential literary
critic and rhetorician who is often cited as the
founder of an Anglophone school of Formalist
criticism that would eventually become known as the
New Criticism. Richards’ books, especially The
Meaning of Meaning, Principles of Literary
Criticism, Practical Criticism, and The Philosophy
of Rhetoric, were seminal documents not only for the
development of New Criticism, but also for the
fields of semiotics, the philosophy of language, and
linguistics. Moreover, Richards was an accomplished
teacher, and most of the eminent New Critics were
Richards’ students at one time or another.
8. Formalism New Criticism
• Formalism is a literary theory that was
spearheaded by two main bodies – Russian
Formalists and New Critics – which focused on
understanding the literary text through the text
itself. Its principles posed a great shift from
the traditional approaches during its time, and
so it sparked a movement in the field of
literary studies that would adopt new
perspectives and ideas. While Formalism received
much criticism due to its dubious methods of the
closed reading of a text, its lack of a solid
theory of language, and so on, it was also able
to establish the notion of literary study being
9. • New Criticism aims to classify, categorize, and catalog
works according to their formal attributes. Along the
way, New Criticism wants to pull out and discuss any
universal truths that literary works might hold
concerning the human condition. These truths are
considered by New Critics to be static, enduring, and
applicable to all humanity
• Formalists value poetry rich in ambiguity, irony, and
intention, and want to make literary criticism a
science. This last projection introduces the concept of
expert readers into interpretive theory. Current
theorists tend to criticize Formalism for this and
other symptoms of narrow-mindedness.
10.
11. How does the work use imagery to develop its own
symbols? (i.e. making a certain road stand for death by
constant association)
What is the quality of the work's organic unity "...the
working together of all the parts to make an inseparable
whole..." (Tyson 121)? In other words, does how the work
is put together reflect what it is?
How are the various parts of the work interconnected?
How do paradox, irony, ambiguity, and tension work in the
text?
12. How do these parts and their collective whole
contribute to or not contribute to the aesthetic quality
of the work?
How does the author resolve apparent contradictions
within the work?
What does the form of the work say about its content?
Is there a central or focal passage that can be said to
sum up the entirety of the work?
How do the rhythms and/or rhyme schemes of a poem
contribute to the meaning or effect of the piece?
13. • How is the work structured or
organized? How does it begin? Where
does it go next? How does it end?
• What is the work’s plot? How is its plot
related to its structure?
• What is the relationship of each part of
the work to the work as a whole? How
are the parts related to one another?
14. Who is narrating or telling what happens in the
work?
How is the narrator, speaker, or character
revealed to the readers?
How do we come to know and understand this
figure?
Who are the major and minor characters, what
do they represent, and how do they relate to one
another?
What are the time and place of the work- its
setting?
How is the setting related to what we know of
the characters and their actions?
15. What kind of language does the author
use to describe, narrate, explain, or
otherwise create the world of the
literary work?
More specifically, what images, similes,
metaphors, symbols appear in the work?
What is their function? What meanings
do they convey? ( For poetry)
How does the work use imagery to
develop its own symbols? (i.e. making a
certain road stand for death by constant
association)
What is the quality of the work's organic
16. How are the various parts of the work interconnected?
How do paradox, irony, ambiguity, and tension work in
the text?
How do these parts and their collective whole
contribute to or not contribute to the aesthetic quality
of the work?
How does the author resolve apparent contradictions
within the work?
What does the form of the work say about its content?
Is there a central or focal passage that can be said to
sum up the entirety of the work?
How do the rhythms and/or rhyme schemes of a poem
contribute to the meaning or effect of the piece?
