In a Nutshell
So let's start at the pinnacle of poetic creation:
Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream.
Pretty profound, huh? So when we Shmoopers read this pre-modern lyric, we might notice a few more things than we did when we sang it in a circle of other five-year-olds. We might notice the repetition of words in the first and third lines. We might notice the cute little rhyme of "stream" and "dream" (and the non-rhyme of "boat" and "merrily"—come on, what about a ferry-lee?). We might notice the existential philosophizing behind the final words. We might just be caught up in the watery current—that is, the fluid rhythm, of those stressed syllables.
Are you noticing the type of things we're noticing? Yeah, they all have to do with the words, the rhyme, the rhythm—basically, the sound and the style of the poem/little children's ditty. And that's what Formalism's all about—after all, it's right in the name: formalism.
Okay, let's back up a second. If we've ever taken an English class, chances are we've had to do "close reading" at one time or another. You know—the teacher makes you look really, really closely at a poem or some sentence in a book and goes: "Why is the author using this image?" "What's the rhythm in these lines?" "Is there foreshadowing here?" You know, the typical "Row, row, row your boat" stuff—and that's when we scratch our heads and go, huh?
Close reading sure ain't easy, whether you're looking at a children's ditty or Charles Dickens. But it's become a staple of the teaching of literature. And that's largely thanks to these Russian dudes known as the "Formalists," who lived and worked at the turn of the 20th century in Russia. They, as you might guess, started a movement in literary criticism called "Formalism."
So. Let's get into the nitty gritty. Formalists aren't interested in the historical context of a literary work. They're not interested in its "philosophical" or "cultural" background. Heck, they're not even interested in its author. All they care about, and all they focus on, is the literary work itself.
And that's because they believe that if we really want to understand a work of literature, we just need to look at it really closely, and specifically at its language. Who cares what Shakespeare's childhood was like, or the intricacies of court politics of Elizabethan England? Does that tell us anything about his plays? Um, nothing useful, the Formalists would say, and then start extolling the virtues of iambiac pentameter. Basically, according to the Formalists, we just need to dig deep, way deep, into the text itself.
These guys weren't playing around, either. They thought of themselves as scientists of literature. That's right, as in, their job was to "discover" and "classify" all of the important laws and elements that govern literary texts (in the way that scientists "discover" and "classify" laws of nature). Sure, that part may sound far-fetched to us now, but the Formalists were so influential that a lot of their ideas still impact the way we study literature today.
Why Should I Care?
Why Should Readers Care?
We've all had the experience (or at least we hope we've all had it) of reading something and being blown away by it. We're reading a scene in a novel, or a few lines of poetry, and it's so good our jaw drops. Or we find a single tear coursing down our cheek. Or we're laughing so hard at something a character in a book says that the other people in the library start giving us dirty looks.
And then we look up and wonder, how can they do that? How can an author, using some words on a page, make us react in this way? It seems like a total mystery. Writers must just be these supernatural creatures with superhuman powers. How else can we explain all the unbelievable things they do with words?
If you want to penetrate that mystery, then Formalism is just the theoretical school for you. Formalists are all about revealing the "tricks" behind the "magic tricks" (though they'd prefer you call it "illusions"). How does an author manage to move us? What, exactly, is she or he doing to make us cry here and laugh there? What devices force out those emotions?
Formalism, in other words, allows us to explain how writers achieve certain effects. And without us having to go off and do all kinds of background research in the library. All we need is the text itself. Phew!
Why Should Theorists Care?
Even if you're the sort of literary theorist who believes that things like cultural and historical context are important to analyzing texts (how outlandish), you should still really care about Formalism. Because Formalism is at the root of other very important theoretical schools that developed in the 20th century. Heard of Structuralism? Poststructuralism? Deconstruction? Well, all those (and basically in that order) developed partly out of the work of Formalists.
Plus, some very important literary theorists, like Mikhail Bakhtin (who came up with some theories about the novel that shape how lots of people read today), were also influenced by Formalism. Not to mention that Formalist ideas—like "defamiliarization" and "poetic language"—still influence the way that we think and write about literature today. So even if you're not formally a Formalist, you can still thrive on Formalist techniques.
This resource will help you begin the process of understanding literary theory and schools of criticism and how they are used in the academy.
Contributors: Allen Brizee, J. Case Tompkins, Libby Chernouski, Elizabeth Boyle, Sebastian Williams
Last Edited: 2018-01-24 02:41:39
Form Follows Function: Russian Formalism, New Criticism, Neo-Aristotelianism
Formalists disagreed about what specific elements make a literary work "good" or "bad"; but generally, Formalism maintains that a literary work contains certain intrinsic features, and the theory "...defined and addressed the specifically literary qualities in the text" (Richter 699). Therefore, it's easy to see Formalism's relation to Aristotle's theories of dramatic construction.
Formalism attempts to treat each work as its own distinct piece, free from its environment, era, and even author. This point of view developed in reaction to "...forms of 'extrinsic' criticism that viewed the text as either the product of social and historical forces or a document making an ethical statement" (699). Formalists assume that the keys to understanding a text exist within "the text itself" (a common saying among New Critics), and thus focus a great deal on, you guessed it, form (Tyson 118).
- 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?
- 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?
Here is a list of scholars we encourage you to explore to further your understanding of this theory:
- Victor Shklovsky
- Roman Jakobson
- Victor Erlich - Russian Formalism: History - Doctrine, 1955
- Yuri Tynyanov
- John Crowe Ransom - The New Criticism, 1938
- I.A. Richards
- William Empson
- T.S. Eliot
- Allen Tate
- Cleanth Brooks
Neo-Aristotelianism (Chicago School of Criticism)
- R.S. Crane - Critics and Criticism: Ancient and Modern, 1952
- Elder Olson
- Norman Maclean
- W.R. Keast
- Wayne C. Booth - The Rhetoric of Fiction, 1961