FORMALIST CRITICISM The term has often had a pejorative cast and has
been used by opponents to indicate either aridity or
UNIT 1: WHAT IS FORMALIST CRITICISM?
Formalism refers to critical approaches that
analyze, interpret, or evaluate the inherent features
of a text. These features include not only grammar
and syntax but also literary devices such as meter
and tropes.
Formalist criticism is defined as a literary criticism
approach which provides readers with a way to
understand and enjoy a work for its own inherent
value as a piece of literary art. Formalist critics
spend a great deal of time analyzing irony,
paradox, imagery, and metaphor. They are also
interested in a work’s setting, characters, symbols,
and point of view.
Formalist literary criticism focuses on the text as
the major artifact worthy of study rather than, say,
the author him or herself, the historical time period
during which the text was written, how the text
responds to gender roles or class concerns during
the period, or anything else that exists outside of
the text's world itself. It is a mode of criticism that
came about in response to the more author-
centered focus that dominated the literary world
prior to the twentieth century.
The formalist approach reduces the importance of a
text’s historical, biographical, and cultural context.
Formalism rose to prominence in the early 20th
century as a reaction against Romanticist theories
of literature, which centered on the artist and
individual creative genius and instead placed the
text itself back into the spotlight, to show how the
text was indebted to forms and other works that
had preceded it. Two schools of formalist literary
criticism developed, Russian formalism and soon
after Anglo-American New Criticism.
Formalism was the dominant mode of academic
literary study in the US at least from the end of the
Second World War through the 1970s, especially
as embodied in René Wellek and Austin Warren's
Theory of Literature (1948, 1955, 1962).
Beginning in the late 1970s, formalism was
substantially displaced by various approaches
(often with political aims or assumptions) that were
suspicious of the idea that a literary work could be
separated from its origins or uses.
ideological deviance.
One noted French literary critic, Roland Barthes,
actually wrote an essay called "The Death of the
Author" in 1967 in which he advocated for a
complete rejection of the author as a way into a
text's meaning. He argued that the text must be
separated from its author and studied on its own
terms in order to free it from the one interpretation
its author might have intended and open it up to the
possibility of having multiple interpretations that are
more dependent on the reader than the writer—
perhaps even ones that the author never
considered him or herself.
In the field of literary criticism, a formalist approach
is one that studies a text as a text and nothing
more. For example, a formalist reading of a poem
would focus on its rhythms, rhymes, cadences, and
structure. It would not seek to locate the poem in a
wider political or cultural context except insofar as it
helped to improve the reader's understanding of the
text itself.
Critics of formalism argue that it looks upon the text
as an isolated artifact to be kept in a glass case
and treated with hushed, unthinking reverence. The
text is a living, breathing thing, critics say, and its
meaning shifts over time. It is unfixed and subject
to multiple interpretations, none of which can
provide finality. On this account, a text is a process
and not a thing; it is dynamic and not set-in stone.
Advocates of formalism would counter that cultural,
historical, and political interpretations of texts are all
very well, but once we have stripped away all the
outer layers of textual interpretation, the text in its
original incarnation still remains with all its formal
elements in place. Any approach that ignores these
elements is likely to miss what is most vital and
most important about a text. Then, literary criticism
becomes the study of what critics say about a text
rather than the text itself. Different interpretations
are perfectly valid—indeed, the whole critical
enterprise would be impossible without them—but
according to formalists, such interpretations exist to
clarify and explain what is already there in the text
instead of replacing it altogether.
Formalist criticism is one way that a reader can
approach his understanding of a text. When a
reader looks at a poem, play, story or novel from a
formalist perspective, he is looking solely at the
work as something to be dissected, so he looks for
all of the literary techniques and devices that an
author uses to create the text and its meaning. He
does NOT look at the author's life, he does NOT
consider the text from a historical or psychological
perspective; he does NOT consider how this text is
like other texts -- those are all other modes of
literary criticism.
Think of "Twinkle Twinkle" as an example. With
formalist criticism the reader would notice the
repetition of the word twinkle and consider
connotation and denotation of the word. It would
notice the first-person speaker of the poem. He
would note the use of simile in the 4th line (like a
diamond in the sky). He would note the refrain of
the first two lines in lines 5 and 6, and he would
mark the meter and the rhyme scheme. Once the
poem was literarily dissected, then the reader can
consider how those elements work together to
create the meaning of the poem as a whole.
Broadly, it is concerned exclusively with the text in
isolation from the world, author, or reader.
Specifically, the Russian Formalism focused on
literariness of texts, defamiliarization, material &
device, story & plot, and narrative voice; while the
New Criticism focused on the text as an object that
can be analyzed independent of the author, world,
or reader.
Tenets of Formalist Criticism
Formalist thoughts:
The form of a work of literature is inherently apart of
its content, and that the attempt to separate the two
is fallacious. By focusing on literary form and
excluding superfluous contexts, Formalists believed
that it would be possible to trace the evolution and
development of literary forms, and thus, literature
itself.
Formalism is a philosophical theory of the
foundations of mathematics that had a spectacular
but brief heyday in the 1920s.Foundations: The
Linguistic Turn (Russian; defamiliarization) The
Cultural Turn (New Criticism; Human liberalism).
Formalist theory has dominated the American
literary scene for most of the twentieth century, and
it has retained its great influence in many academic
quarters. Its practitioners advocate methodical and
systematic readings of texts.
What isn’t formalist criticism?
▪ It does not treat the text as an
expression of social, religious, or
political ideas; neither does it reduce
the text to being a promotional effort for
some cause or belief.
▪ Those who practice formalism claim
they do not view works through the lens
of feminism, psychology, Marxism, or
any other philosophical standpoint.
▪ They are also uninterested in the
work’s effect on the reader.
Why do authors use this criticism?
Formalist critics use individual parts of the text, the
characters, the settings, the tone, the point of view,
the diction, and all other elements of the text to give
meaning to the text in a more literal way. A primary
goal for formalist critics is to determine how such
elements work together with the text's content to
shape its effects upon readers. formalism allows
the reader to analyze a literary piece with complete
objectivity.
Strengths of Formalism
1. Makes a Science of Literary Criticism.
2. Viable Method enables a Professional
Discipline.
3. Develops “Close Reading” skills.
4. Basis for other language-centered theories.
5. Great for analyzing poetry.
6. Well-known approach
7. Readily applied informally.
Weaknesses of Formalism
1. Seen as incomplete now.
Ignores:
Historical Aspects
Moral Aspects
Production / Reception
Psychological Aspects
Gender Aspects
2. Not applied easily to long forms
3. Similarity of Conclusions
4. Criticism always inferior to the object it
studies
Other names of formalist criticism
1. Russian Formalism
2. New Criticism
 3. Aesthetic criticism
4. Textual criticism
5. Ontological criticism
6. Modernism
7. Formalism
8. Practical criticism
The Relation to Other Theory
Formalism has an impact in the early Structuralism,
especially the Russian Formalists had significant
influence on structuralism and Marxist criticism.
This approach, which emphasizes literary form and
the study of literary devices within the text, shares
some similarities with Anglo-American New
Criticism and French Structuralism. Structuralism is
an extension to the Formalism, propounded by
Russian Critic Roman Jakobson constructing an
edifice on the foundations provided by Ferdinand
de Saussure. Combination of Formalism & Science
erected the statue of Structuralism. It is an attempt
to analyze a specific filed as a complex system of
interrelated part.
Sasabihin sa reporting:
Pagtapos ng slide 11. Though formalist critics are
primarily concerned with looking at the work, that
doesn’t mean they won’t research or take into
account things like the author’s life (Biographical
Criticism) or the psychology of the characters
(Psychological Criticism), but that those things don’t
become the MAIN focus of the analysis.
Formalist Critics Major Beliefs
1. Literature is a form of knowledge with intrinsic
elements--style, structure, imagery, tone, genre.
2. What gives a literary work status as art, or as a
great work of art, is how all of its elements work
together to create the reader's total experience
(thought, feeling, gut reactions, etc.)
3. The appreciation of literature as an art requires
close reading--a careful, step-by-step analysis and
explication of the text (the language of the work).
An analysis may follow from questions like, how do
various elements work together to shape the effect
on the reader?
4. Style and theme influence each other and can't
be separated if meaning is to be retained. It's this
interdependence in form and content that makes a
text "literary." "Extracting" elements in isolation
(theme, character, ploy, setting, etc.) may destroy a
reader's aesthetic experience of the whole.
5. Formalist critics don't deny the historical, political
situation of a work, they just believe works of art
have the power to transcend by being "organic
wholes"--akin to a being with a life of its own.
6. Formalist criticism is evaluative in that it
differentiates great works of art from poor works of
art. Other kinds of criticism don't necessarily
concern themselves with this distinction.
7. Formalist criticism is decidedly a "scientific"
approach to literary analysis, focusing on "facts
amenable to "verification" (evidence in the text).
What is the Formalist Perspective?
Literature can be read through a variety of lenses.
The formalist perspective concentrates on the form
of the literature itself. “Formalist criticism regards
literature as a unique form of human knowledge
that needs to be examined on its own terms”
(Kennedy 1468).
Questions that may be answered from a formalist
perspective include: What is the structure of the
piece? What imagery is used? What symbols help
convey a message? What is the theme?
A Formalist View of Literature Discounts or
Ignores Certain Aspects of Literature
The name of the author is not important. The time
in which the author lived is not important. Any
cultural impact on the author’s life is not important.
The political beliefs of the author are not important.
The actual reader is not important.
Formalists Focus on Specific Aspects
 Formalists pay special attention to “the
formal features of the text – the style,
structure, imagery, tone, and genre”
(Kennedy 1468).
 Not examined in isolation – “what gives a
literary text its special status as art is how
all its elements work together to create the
reader’s total experience” (Kennedy 1468).
 Great literature is “universal.” A universal
message is a message that transcends time
and culture.
A universal message reveals a great truth
about the human condition.
 Specific passages in great works of
literature can be closely analyzed to
determine its message and the constructs
utilized to convey the message.
 Formalists analyze the tension and
ambiguity in a piece:
Tension: “the way elements of a text’s
language reflect conflict and opposition”
(DiYanni 1561).
Ambiguity: “the ways texts remain open to
more than a single, unified definitive
interpretation” (DiYanni 1561).
Formalism Ignores Peripheral Aspects
 Who is narrating or telling what happens in
the work? How is the narrator, speaker, or
character revealed to readers? How do we
come to know and understand this figure?
 Who are the major and minor characters,
what do they represent, and how do they
relate to one another?
 What are the time and place of the work –
its setting? How is the setting related to
what we know of the characters and their
actions? To what extent is the setting
symbolic?
 What kind of language does the author use
to describe, narrate, explain, or otherwise
create the world of the literary work? More
specifically, what images, similes,
metaphors, symbols appear in the work?
What is their function? What meanings do
they convey? (DiYanni 1562). (DiYanni,
Robert. Literature Approaches to Fiction,
Poetry, and Drama. 2 nd ed. Boston:
McGraw-Hill, 2008).

 Formalists believe that looking at the

psychology and biography of the author
inform the writing process, not the
composition itself (Kennedy 1469).
 Formalism does not evaluate or consider
the religious, moral, or political value of a
piece.
 Formalism does not evaluate or consider
symbolism in a piece.
 Formalism strives to force literary or artwork
to stand on its own – people (i.e., author,
reader) are not considered so the piece can
be analyzed as a separate, independent
entity.
 Because formalism ignores peripheral
aspects, it is very limiting in its effectiveness
to analyze literature.
A Checklist of Formalist Critical Questions

 How is the work structured or organized?

How does it begin? Where does it go next?
How does it end? What is the work’s plot?
How is its plot related to its structure?
 What is the relationship of each part of the
work to the work as a whole? How are the
parts related to one another?