eichenbaum-formalism

Russian Formalism

A literary theory movement in early 20th-century Russia focused on the formal aspects of literary texts, such as structure, style, and devices, rather than content or social context.

Defamiliarization (ostranenie)

Term coined by Viktor Shklovsky, it refers to the literary technique of making the familiar strange to enhance perception

Autonomy of literature

A key belief of Formalists that literature should be studied as an independent, self-contained system with its own laws and internal logic.

Evolution of literary forms

Eichenbaum argued that literary history should be understood as the evolution of artistic forms rather than as a reflection of social or biographical factors.

Mechanistic Formalism

A critique of early Formalism for being too rigid or mathematical in analyzing texts; Eichenbaum’s essay reflects a turn toward more flexible models.

Dynamic system Literature

is seen by Eichenbaum not as a static collection of works but as a dynamic system evolving through innovation and renewal of devices.

Dominant

A concept introduced later in Formalism, referring to the leading device or aspect in a literary work that organizes and governs other elements.

“Poetics of the plot”

Eichenbaum emphasized the analysis of narrative structure and storytelling methods as part of the scientific study of literature.

Art as “made” not “found”

A Formalist idea that literature is crafted through deliberate technical choices, not a spontaneous or transparent expression of emotion.

Literary evolution

as struggle Formalists describe literary history as a struggle of new forms against old conventions, rather than a linear or teleological development.

Critique of impressionism

Eichenbaum rejects subjective, emotional responses in criticism, advocating instead for analytic and descriptive study of texts.

Inner form vs. outer form

A distinction between the underlying organizing principle (inner form) and its outward stylistic or structural expression (outer form) in a text.

Formal method as historical method

Eichenbaum argues that the formal method is inherently historical because literary devices evolve and change over time.

Criticism of psychological analysis

Formalists rejected interpretations that relied on the author's psyche or biography, focusing instead on the text's formal properties.

Difference from sociological criticism

Formalism resisted Marxist and sociological readings that reduced literature to a reflection of class struggle or ideology.

Conflict between poetic and practical language

Poetic language disrupts or deforms ordinary speech, drawing attention to itself and producing aesthetic effects.

Functional differentiation

literary devices take on new functions as they migrate across genres and historical periods.

Canon formation

devices may be preserved, discarded, or revived, affecting what becomes “canonical” in literary tradition.

Displacement of content

the “what” of a text (its subject) is less important than the “how” (its form and technique).

Critique of symbolism

opposed the abstract spiritualism of Symbolist poetics, favoring observable linguistic analysis.

Artistic motivation

A literary device is “motivated” when it appears as a necessary, justified part of the artistic whole, rather than an arbitrary trick.