Wednesday, June 3, 2009
What do you think, Viktor Shklovsky?
A Russian Formalist's Dream
SONNET 116
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! It is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
-William Shakespeare
The literature written by William Shakespeare was virtually flawless. Take for example the above work, Sonnet 116; within fourteen lines, the poem employs numerous literary devices, including metaphor, personification, and rhythm, and also utilizes a diction and syntax that one could only find within a Shakespearean sonnet. The richness of Shakespeare’s text is both incomparable to many, and superior to most other works of literature.
Within in the first few lines of the sonnet, Shakespeare uses a unique sentence structure in which the indirect object is placed before the direct object. This minute, syntactical element alone is enough to set the work apart from the language the one would here in everyday speech. Also, Shakespeare’s use and placement of varied and pre-determined punctuation gives the sonnet an essence of unfamiliarity. It is details such as this that comprise truly valuable literature. Furthermore, the images that Shakespeare creates using both metaphor and personification are remarkably clear. Shakespeare establishes an oceanic theme in the fifth line of the sonnet, and carries it through to line eight; the metaphor conveys the unfathomable strength of the love about which Shakespeare speaks through nautical language and images of tempests, wandering ships, and guiding stars. Shakespeare also personifies the subject of his poem (true love), by saying that “Love’s not Time’s fool”. By engaging this literary technique, Shakespeare successfully conveys his point; true love does not alter with time, but rather remains strong until the very end regardless of what it must endure. Shakespeare’s literary brilliance is also exemplified through the rhythm and meter of his sonnet. When walking through streets or browsing through a store, one would neither today nor in Elizabethan England, hear a person speaking in iambic pentameter.
Through archaic diction, a wonderfully poetic syntax, and perfectly utilizing various literary devices, William Shakespeare created literature that set, essentially, an unattainable standard of literary excellence.
The Missing Piece
STUPID PENCIL MAKER
Some dummy built this Pencil wrong—
The eraser’s down here where the point belongs.
And the point’s at the top—so it’s no good to me.
It’s amazing how stupid some people can be.
Apart from the apparent end rhyme and the obvious irony, “Stupid Pencil Maker” by Shel Silverstein is linguistically inadequate. Although Silverstein’s childish poem does employ a certain rhyme scheme and makes use of verbal irony, it ultimately cannot be considered a serious work of literature. The language used within a work of literature, most specifically a poetic work, should not be the language one would hear in an elementary school classroom, but rather language that uses both a diction and a syntax that creates an estranged system of text which one must pause to contemplate before fully comprehending what is being said. “ Stupid Pencil Maker” could very well be the voice of a first grade student expressing aggravation because he or she sat down to write a story but could not because “the pencil was built incorrectly”. It is clear that the poem is meant to entertain a certain audience, but in reality the language of the work is an insult to literature. However, credit must be given where credit is due; Silverstein takes advantage of a meaningless situation by using it to exercise various literary techniques. The narrator criticizes “some dummy” for building the pencil incorrectly, and comments on “how stupid some people can be”, but in reality the narrator is the “dummy” because he or she is too daft to realize that simply turning the pencil right side up would solve the problem. Aside from the ironic nature of the poem, one must also take note of the aabb pattern of the end rhyme. It was wise of Silverstein to use this opportunity to bring into play another literary device, however Silverstein’s rhyming is less credible than that of other poets, for example William Shakespeare. It is far easier to create a rhyming pattern using common, unsophisticated language than it is to form a rhyme scheme using an advanced vernacular and a complicated syntax. Although Shel Silverstein’s poem makes use of various literary devices, the primitive language employed by these devices hinders the work from being valued comprehensively.
Charlotte Brontë: A Woman after A Russian Formalist's Heart.
"Because I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you - especially when you are near to me, as now: it is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if that boisterous Channel, and two hundred miles or so of land, come broad between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapped; and then I've a nervous notion I should take to bleeding inwardly." – Edward Rochester of Charlotte Brontë’s novel Jane Eyre
The above quotation, from Charlotte Brontë’s novel Jane Eyre could very easily be mistaken for a man confessing his overwhelming love for a woman; however the content of the text is of very little import. It is the language and the literary devices utilized within this certain arrangement of words that legitimize the work as a worthy piece of literature. The subject of the quotation is insignificant; it simply creates an opportunity for the author to engage various literary devices; metaphor and hyperbole, for example. The metaphor is finely crafted; Brontë compares Rochester’s constant longing to be by Jane’s side to a string that binds the two together, and if the two should be separated by a great distance, his heart would break, just a string would snap if it were stretched beyond its capacity. The subject matter, however, is insignificant. Brontë could have applied this metaphor to any number of story lines or dialogues; it is clear that this particular situation was merely the most convenient occasion to utilize both a specific and pre-determined figure of speech. The instance also provides and opportunity for exaggeration; Rochester would not actually hemorrhage if he and Jane were to be separated, but expressing that “[He] has a nervous notion that [he] should take to bleeding inwardly” suggests a most powerful and passionate feeling. This exemplifies just how the surrealistic nature of literary devices emphasizes the significance of form; the content of the text could never actually occur, making it meaningless, but the format of the text is functions before the eyes of the reader, making it extremely real. Also, the language employed in this quotation is disparate from the language that a man of today would use to confess sentiments of adoration toward a woman, which immediately estranges the reader from the informal and routine nature of daily speech and conversation, thus forcing the reader to become re-acclimated to this unfamiliar language. Having to adapt to a new type of language both heightens the reading experience and creates a deeper appreciation of the text. Brontë’s work successfully uses unfamiliar diction, syntax, and various literary techniques to create a work of true merit.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
An Explication of The Russian Formalist Perspective
The Russian Formalists emerged in the early twentieth century, and by 1914 their ideas had blossomed. The Russian formalist perspective continued to thrive throughout the 1920’s until 1929 when Joseph Stalin condemned them for lacking political perspective.
The Russian Formalists did not seek to redefine literature, but rather they sought to reevaluate literature by repositioning the focus of their analyses from content to form. As opposed to the “quasi-mystical symbolist doctrines” (Eagleton) which had previously been the prevailing methods of literary criticism, the Russian Formalists believed that literature was in no way related to psychology, religion, or sociology, and instead that it was a methodical arrangement of language that deviated from everyday speech and therefore estranged itself from the ordinary, familiar, routine jargon of daily life. This estrangement was thought to be the result of a collection of literary devices, such as imagery, rhyme, diction, syntax, and sound, functioning within an organization of words. Russian Formalists claimed that literature “was neither a vehicle for ideas, a reflection of social reality nor the incarnation of some transcendental truth” (Eagleton), and thus studied specifically the literary devices employed in a work, as opposed to the ideas and emotions that they were meant to express. According to a Russian Formalist, “content was merely the ‘motivation’ of form, an occasion or convenience for a particular kind of formal exercise.” (Eagleton).
I chose to study the Russian Formalist method of literary criticism because it is completely contradictory to the manner in which we have analyzed all of the literary works that we read in Fishermen Varsity English this year. When critiquing a work of literature, Russian Formalists disregard content entirely: in the mind of a Russian Formalist, setting, plot, and characters serve only as the adhesive that binds together the various literary devices engaged within a work. In my opinion, to dismiss content and focus solely on form is purely heretical.
Of the literature that I have read within the past few years, the content of each novel, play, or poem is the both he richest and most intriguing asset of each work. The manner through which the content it conveyed is certainly something I pay close attention to, and undoubtedly plays a significant role to the work as a whole, but without the content the form could not exist. To me, a metaphor will always be a figure of speech in which two unlike things are compared as to suggest similarity. However, the words used to create the metaphor and the subjects of whom or which the metaphor speaks are ever changing. To say that only the form of a work of literature matters is to suggest that literature is not a meaningful style of artistic expression, but rather an opportunity to utilize various types of literary technique; I wholeheartedly disagree with the latter sentiment. The idea of any work of literature must exist before the form can exist. The form of a work indisputably contributes to the overall meaning of a work, but the content is both the basis of the meaning and the source from which the form is conceived.
Aside from the focus on form, Russian Formalist also emphasized the language used to flesh out form. Russian Formalists believed that literature, as Roman Jakobson said, “represents an organized violence committed on ordinary speech” (Eagleton), meaning that the language within a work of literature must disorient the reader by deviating from everyday speech, and in doing so force him or her into a deeper, more fulfilling experience. Although I am able to make sense of this idea, I do not fully agree with it. Not all literature is written with imaginative, verbose language, but that does not detract from the legitimacy or meaning of a work; on the contrary, simplistic diction and syntax can enhance a work of literature.
While I am captivated by the Russian Formalist perspective and sincerely respect the radical method of criticism, I find that in using this lens to critique any work or art, would lead to an incomplete, incomprehensive analysis.
[http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=979, accessed 3 June 2009.]
