form

Why We Read

For formalists, literary criticism is distinct from other forms of analysis in that it
focuses on how language works. It's quasi-scientific in that there are no
"extrinsic" concerns. Just as an astronomer looks at the stars for the sake of
intellectual curiosity and "innocent knowledge," a formalist wants to study the
methods and techniques of literary texts. Although Russian Formalists and
American New Critics emphasize different aspects of a text, as formalists they
share a desire to understand the inner workings of a text, or as Steven Lynn
says, formalists "attend to how a work means, not what it means." In other
words, formalists study how literature works, not what literature is about.
Admittedly, formalists believe that some benefit occurs when we study
literature, but some often hesitate to offer specific benefits beyond becoming a
"good" reader of "great" texts and enjoying the pleasure that comes from
seeing how different parts come together to make a coherent whole. Others
believe that literature offers truths that other forms of language like science,
philosophy, sociology, and biology cannot provide. Michael Ryan points out
that for formalists, "art provides access to a different kind of truth than is
available to science, a truth that is immune to scientific investigation because it
is accessible only through connotative language (allusion, metaphor,
symbolism, etc.) and cannot be rendered in the direct, denotative, fact-naming
language of the sciences." Important, universal truths cannot be experienced
empirically, only alluded to through poetic language. These truths are also
often revealed through the process of defamiliarization, the act of "making
strange" a common object, experience, feeling, action, place, or something we
take for granted.

What We Read

Generally speaking, formalists championed modernist literature because of its
attention to language itself, but they had a penchant for metaphysical poets.
However, the bottom line is that we should read "literary" works ("literary" =
works that have no practical application, are "imaginative," and draw attention
to themselves), and we ought to spend time on those "literary" works that are
"worthy" of our attention (i.e. mega-complex works).

How We Read

You may want to consider these principles as well as note what Arnason says
on his "New Criticism" web-page:

� Above all, separate literary criticism from the study of sources, social
background, history of ideas, politics, and social effects. Formalists are not
interested in an author' intentions or in how a work affects readers. These are
"extrinsic" concerns. The formalist says, "if you want to talk about social class,
go take a sociology course." Focus exclusively on "literary" concerns like
narrative strategies and structure, setting, character, figurative language,
allusion, rhyme, point of view, diction, syntax, meter, tone, etc. See "Elements
of Fiction" and "Elements of Poetry."

� Explore the form or structure of the work. How do form and content work
together? How does each little part connect with other little parts and how do
they all connect with the whole? You must harmonize or reconcile everything.
Or as Arnason puts it, "the responsibility of the reader is to discover this unity.
The reader's job is to interpret the text, telling in what ways each of its parts
contributes to the central unity." The more harmonized the incongruities, the
better the text and the interpretation. Try to create the one true reading that
subsumes all others.

� As you work to interpret and harmonize everything, pay extra close
attention to individual words and their multiple nuances, ambiguities,
associations, etc.

� Ultimately, you want to discuss these different elements and arrive at a
"theme." As Arnason says, "a work is good or bad depending on whether the
themes are complex and whether or not they contribute to the central, unifying
theme."

� The job of the critic is to judge the text as one judges an object or machine,
to determine whether it works efficiently.

� Convey an attitude of objectivity during this process. You are, after all, only
seeing "what's really there." There is nothing personal about the text or about
the process of interpretation.

Writing Suggestions:

Part One:

Reading Closely

Option One: Suggest a Theme...

There are several ways to begin. First, you could begin your analysis with a
bold claim about the text's theme. Robert DiYanni explains that a "theme" is a
text's "idea or point formulated as a generalization. The theme of a fable is its
moral; the theme of a parable is its teaching; the theme of a short story is its
implied view of life and conduct." It may help to talk about theme if you use
these kinds of verbs: suggest, imply, point out. Use those verbs! "Cisneros
suggests... Kafka implies... Morrison points out..." (i.e. "[The author] uses
imagery, rhyme, and repetition to suggest that one must lose one's life to gain
one's life.")

Option Two: Reveal a Tension, Paradox, Irony, or Reconcilable
Ambiguity...

Second, you could organize your argument by identifying a fundamental
tension, paradox, irony, or ambiguity. Pose and answer questions like...
"What elements are in tension in this work? What unity resolves this tension?"
Pay particular attention to paradox, irony, unity, complexity, and ambiguity.
(i.e. "A core theme in [the text] is the struggle between innocence and
knowledge." Or, "The battle between the universal and the particular is
resolved in the form of the poem itself." )

No Matter What: Discuss Specific Literary Elements

After you suggest a theme or point out a tension, discuss how the author uses
elements like plot, setting, characterization, tone, diction, point of voice,
figurative language, imagery, syntax, word choice, rhythm, meter, etc. to
create certain effects or achieve the author's apparent goal. For example, talk
about plot or narrative structure first by dividing the text into separate parts
(i.e. "The poem is divided into four parts. Part one works by indirection...
Part two is a kind of transition... Part three offers direct confrontation... Part
four resolves the paradox..." etc.)

Once you have a sense of the overall structure, discuss each formal element,
one at a time, explaining to the reader how each element builds on and
connects with the previous element. (i.e. "The contrast evident in the
narrative structure is echoed in the imagery which suggests barren and
fertile characters, thus reinforcing the larger tension between innocence and
knowledge." "[The author's] juxtaposition between convoluted and simple
syntax conveys the tension between innocence and knowledge as well.")
Imagine that you are putting together a puzzle or creating a chain, and your
task is to connect one part with the existing parts. The parts of a "good" text
will go together well, and the parts of a "poorly written" text won't.

Remember... your task as a critic is to show how seemingly errant parts
actually fit together nicely. Formalists often move from surface to deep
interpretations, so you might want to organize your insights what that hierarchy
in mind. A variation of this strategy is to move from the easy insights to the
difficult ones, from the "easy to harmonize" parts to the "difficult to harmonize"
parts. Try to resolve the tension, explain the paradox, note the irony, and
demystify the ambiguity.

Remember, you must demonstrate how the text works without any reference
to the author, historical context, your reaction, etc.

Part Two:

Evaluating the "Machine." Does the Pudding Taste Good?

As we already noted, many formalists do evaluate what they read. So here
you need to evaluate and defend your judgment. In their essay "The Affective
Fallacy," Wimsatt and Beardsley point out that "judging a poem is like judging
a pudding or a machine. One demands that it work."

Does your text "work" well? Efficiently? Are there any lumps or bugs?
(Remember that you need to avoid writing something like ... "It works well
considering who wrote it or when it was written," for that would drag in
"extrinsic" concerns.) Remember as well that when you evaluate, you don't
consider how readers respond to the question, or whether you like it, or
whether anybody else likes it. More to the point, you need to ask, "Do the
different literary elements work together well in the attempt to convey the
theme, or is there something amiss? (i.e. Is there a quick and happy ending
without adequate preparation; an unbelievable coincidence, an unresolved
paradox; an unnecessary inclusion of an event, character, setting, action, etc.).
Arnason also provides a helpful criteria for evaluating a text according to its
depth, complexity, and meaning. Check out "Evaluating a Text."