Russian Formalism

Issues

Sjuzhet vs Fabula

• sjuzhet = "narrative structure"
  • the order in which events are told, the pacing, and any narrative techniques like flashbacks, foreshadowing, or other forms of temporal manipulation.
• see sh.question-log.2024.08.28.fabulary-vs-fabularia (Private)

chatgpt.4o

Russian Formalism was a significant movement in literary theory during the early 20th century, and it contributed many foundational ideas about narrative structure, especially through the work of scholars like Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Eikhenbaum, and Vladimir Propp. While their ideas have been influential, they have also faced several criticisms over the years. Here are some of the main criticisms of the Russian Formalist conceptualization of narrative:

1. Overemphasis on Form at the Expense of Content:

• Criticism: Russian Formalists focused heavily on the structure and mechanics of narrative, often at the expense of considering the content, themes, or social context of the work. This led to a somewhat narrow analysis that some critics argue overlooks the deeper meaning or significance of literature.
• Response: Formalists argued that their approach was a necessary corrective to earlier approaches that ignored the specifics of literary form, but this emphasis can lead to a neglect of how form and content interact.

2. Neglect of Historical and Social Context:

• Criticism: Formalism was criticized for its lack of attention to the historical, social, and cultural contexts in which literature is produced and consumed. By focusing almost exclusively on the text's internal mechanics, Formalists were seen as disregarding the ways in which literature is influenced by and influences its broader environment.
• Response: Later movements, like Marxist criticism and Cultural Studies, emerged in part as reactions against this perceived limitation, emphasizing the importance of contextual factors in literary analysis.

3. Mechanistic Approach:

• Criticism: The Russian Formalists' approach has been criticized as being too mechanistic, reducing the complex, dynamic process of literary creation and interpretation to a set of formal techniques or devices. This criticism suggests that their analyses risk oversimplifying literature and ignoring its emotional and experiential dimensions.
• Response: While Formalists provided valuable tools for understanding narrative structure, critics argue that their approach does not fully capture the richness and complexity of literary works.

4. Limitations in Understanding Narrative Evolution:

• Criticism: Russian Formalists were primarily concerned with the synchronic analysis of texts—examining narratives at a single point in time—rather than considering how narratives evolve over time within particular historical or cultural contexts. This has been seen as a limitation, especially when trying to understand the development of literary genres or the influence of historical events on literature.
• Response: The emphasis on synchronic analysis allowed Formalists to develop precise tools for narrative analysis, but this focus also meant that diachronic (historical) analysis was often underdeveloped.

5. Inadequate Attention to Reader Response:

• Criticism: Formalists were primarily interested in the text itself and the ways it was constructed, often neglecting the role of the reader in interpreting and giving meaning to the narrative. This led to criticism that their approach was overly text-centric and did not account for the variability of reader interpretations.
• Response: Reader-response theory and later developments in hermeneutics challenged the Formalist view by emphasizing the active role of the reader in creating meaning, something the Formalists did not sufficiently address.

6. Theoretical Rigidity:

• Criticism: Some critics argue that Russian Formalism could be rigid in its theoretical applications, leading to formulaic analyses. For example, Vladimir Propp's morphology of folktales, while groundbreaking, has been criticized for being too rigid and not accounting for the variability and creativity found in actual storytelling practices.
• Response: Propp’s work was groundbreaking in systematizing the study of narrative structure, but critics suggest that it does not adequately address narratives that fall outside the patterns he identified.

7. Political Criticism:

• Criticism: In the Soviet context, Russian Formalism faced political criticism for its perceived detachment from the social and political realities of the time. Marxist critics, in particular, argued that Formalism’s focus on aesthetics and form was politically disengaged, making it incompatible with the goals of socialist realism and other politically oriented literary theories.
• Response: Formalists maintained that their focus on the autonomy of literature was important for understanding its unique qualities, but this stance led to significant tension with Marxist critics and the Soviet state.

Conclusion:

While Russian Formalism has been highly influential in the development of literary theory, it has also faced significant criticism, particularly for its emphasis on form over content, its neglect of historical and social context, and its sometimes rigid theoretical frameworks. These criticisms have led to the development of other schools of thought that aim to provide a more holistic understanding of literature, taking into account a wider range of factors including reader response, historical context, and ideological content.

References