WEBVTT

00:00.870 --> 00:02.210
Prof: All right.

00:02.210 --> 00:06.630
So today we start a sequence
which takes us through

00:06.628 --> 00:10.518
deconstruction,
and it's a sequence which has

00:10.516 --> 00:12.456
genuine coherence.

00:12.460 --> 00:16.050
That is to say,
these are figures all of whom

00:16.052 --> 00:19.402
are attentive to each other's
thought,

00:19.400 --> 00:25.240
draw on each other,
and build from the materials

00:25.242 --> 00:32.082
that we're going to start
covering toward a certain--

00:32.080 --> 00:35.310
not a certain end,
but toward a moment in which

00:35.313 --> 00:39.253
the materials of the tradition
seem to be undermined,

00:39.250 --> 00:43.610
actually, in deconstruction,
but in which they are still

00:43.609 --> 00:46.779
prominent and set the terms of
debate.

00:46.780 --> 00:53.080
The relationship between the
Russian formalists and the work

00:53.081 --> 00:57.461
of the linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure,

00:57.460 --> 01:00.010
which we'll be taking up on
Thursday,

01:00.009 --> 01:01.469
is a complex one.

01:01.469 --> 01:05.249
I'm going to say certain things
about it, and you may find

01:05.251 --> 01:08.771
yourselves discussing this
relationship in section.

01:08.769 --> 01:13.159
I think much will come clear
when we actually get into what's

01:13.155 --> 01:17.755
called "structuralism"
and you read the essay by Roman

01:17.760 --> 01:20.390
Jakobson called
"Linguistics and

01:20.391 --> 01:23.681
Poetics,"
Jakobson having spent the early

01:23.680 --> 01:28.360
part of his career as a
card-carrying member of OPOJAZ,

01:28.360 --> 01:29.640
the journal of the Russian
formalists;

01:29.640 --> 01:33.160
and then who,
owing to various forces that

01:33.156 --> 01:37.096
I'll be talking about,
emigrated first to Prague,

01:37.102 --> 01:40.782
Czechoslovakia where he joined
a linguistic circle,

01:40.780 --> 01:44.710
which in a variety of ways
proved to be the origin of

01:44.705 --> 01:46.965
what's called structuralism.

01:46.970 --> 01:50.040
Then, of course,
he moved on to Paris where he

01:50.043 --> 01:53.253
knew Claude Levi-Strauss and
influenced him and,

01:53.253 --> 01:55.783
ultimately, to the United
States.

01:55.780 --> 01:58.470
The essay, "Linguistics
and Poetics,"

01:58.473 --> 02:00.643
which you'll be reading next
week,

02:00.640 --> 02:03.580
I think will give you perhaps a
clearer sense of the way in

02:03.575 --> 02:05.495
which the Russian formalists'
work,

02:05.500 --> 02:09.920
and the work of Saussure--the
foundational work of Saussure--

02:09.919 --> 02:14.449
in the General Course in
Linguistics amalgamates in

02:14.448 --> 02:18.898
ways that are profoundly
fruitful and influential for the

02:18.897 --> 02:21.837
subsequent course of
structuralist and

02:21.837 --> 02:24.457
deconstructionist thinking.

02:24.460 --> 02:29.090
So today we begin thinking
about the Russian formalists,

02:29.090 --> 02:33.510
but I also do want to think of
them as kicking off a tradition

02:33.508 --> 02:35.618
which,
just in order to place

02:39.482 --> 02:43.542
about already,
one can say something like this

02:43.538 --> 02:48.058
about this tradition:
it differs markedly from,

02:48.060 --> 02:52.420
and it's opposed to,
hermeneutics in this one

02:52.420 --> 02:53.710
particular.

02:53.710 --> 02:57.660
It's one that is maybe
initially counterintuitive but

02:57.655 --> 03:01.145
actually, I think,
is rather important once you

03:01.145 --> 03:03.265
begin to think about it.

03:03.270 --> 03:07.170
Hermeneutics is,
well, more or less by nature

03:07.169 --> 03:10.979
and by definition,
interested in meaning.

03:10.979 --> 03:14.419
That is to say,
the arts of interpretation are

03:14.421 --> 03:18.021
used for the purpose of
discovering, uncovering,

03:18.018 --> 03:20.158
and arriving at meaning.

03:20.158 --> 03:23.238
Very frequently,
as is the case in Gadamer,

03:23.240 --> 03:25.980
this meaning is called
"the subject matter":

03:25.979 --> 03:28.759
that is to say,
what--in thinking about

03:28.757 --> 03:32.127
literature in terms of form and
content,

03:32.128 --> 03:34.148
let's say--we'd call
"content."

03:34.150 --> 03:38.180
So in any case,
hermeneutics is devoted to the

03:38.180 --> 03:42.840
discovery of meaning,
and the art that it's concerned

03:42.836 --> 03:46.236
with is the art of
interpretation.

03:46.240 --> 03:50.320
Well, the Russian formalists
differed very sharply in this

03:50.315 --> 03:54.385
regard because what they're
interested in is precisely the

03:54.389 --> 03:57.039
way in which
"literariness,"

03:57.035 --> 04:00.325
as they call it--
the devices of

04:00.330 --> 04:05.990
literariness--can be deployed so
as to impede,

04:05.990 --> 04:09.800
to interfere with,
and to hinder our arrival at

04:09.800 --> 04:10.630
meaning.

04:10.628 --> 04:14.278
If, in other words,
hermeneutics is devoted to the

04:14.284 --> 04:18.244
possibility of communication and
of understanding,

04:18.240 --> 04:21.820
the Russian formalists are
interested in that special

04:21.819 --> 04:26.089
aspect of verbal communication
called "literariness,"

04:26.086 --> 04:29.726
which actually interferes with
these very processes of

04:29.733 --> 04:32.353
communication and understanding.

04:32.350 --> 04:36.480
The roughening of the
surface--celebrated by Shklovsky

04:36.476 --> 04:40.056
as a form of
"defamiliarization"--

04:40.060 --> 04:46.330
is what slows us down,
what gets in the way of our

04:46.327 --> 04:51.187
arriving at meaning,
and does so for a variety of

04:51.192 --> 04:54.902
reasons that the formalists are
engaged to attend to.

04:54.899 --> 04:59.309
Now you may take note of the
fact that what I'm saying isn't

04:59.310 --> 05:03.160
completely convincing,
perhaps, to those who have been

05:03.163 --> 05:06.813
reading the New Critics and
Wolfgang Iser and have noticed

05:06.812 --> 05:10.832
that they,
too, are very interested in the

05:10.834 --> 05:16.994
ways in which literariness does
involve special techniques and

05:16.985 --> 05:19.905
devices that slow us down.

05:19.910 --> 05:23.040
In other words,
replacing the shortest distance

05:23.038 --> 05:26.498
between two points that we
experience in a practical

05:26.504 --> 05:28.654
message,
"literariness,"

05:28.653 --> 05:31.813
as the formalists call it,
or "poetic language,"

05:31.810 --> 05:35.300
as they also sometimes call it
and as the New Critics certainly

05:35.295 --> 05:36.985
call it,
slows us down.

05:36.990 --> 05:39.740
It creates as a distance
between two points,

05:39.742 --> 05:43.012
rather than a straight
line, an arabesque.

05:43.009 --> 05:46.569
In other words,
it makes us pause over what

05:46.565 --> 05:47.915
we're reading.

05:47.920 --> 05:52.360
It gets in the way of arriving
too quickly at meaning,

05:52.355 --> 05:55.865
if indeed one arrives at
meaning at all.

05:55.870 --> 05:59.290
The formalists are uniquely
concerned, however,

05:59.293 --> 06:02.343
with the way in which
literature is put

06:02.343 --> 06:03.613
together.

06:03.610 --> 06:06.950
Those titles that Eikhenbaum
keeps talking about--

06:06.949 --> 06:08.469
How Don Quixote
was Made,

06:08.470 --> 06:10.850
How Gogol's Overcoat
was Made--

06:10.850 --> 06:15.660
reflect the preoccupation of
the Russian formalists with how

06:15.656 --> 06:18.016
literature is put together.

06:18.019 --> 06:21.019
In other words,
whereas the New Critics and

06:21.023 --> 06:25.173
Wolfgang Iser are interested in
the roughening of form,

06:25.170 --> 06:28.560
they're interested in it for
hermeneutic purposes.

06:28.560 --> 06:32.470
It slows us down,
yes, but this slowing down is a

06:32.471 --> 06:37.121
means of enriching what we
finally grasp to be the meaning

06:37.117 --> 06:38.257
of a text.

06:38.259 --> 06:42.569
So they are still engaged in
the hermeneutic enterprise in

06:42.572 --> 06:43.862
interpretation.

06:43.860 --> 06:47.190
The formalists are really
relatively indifferent to

06:47.187 --> 06:51.047
questions of meaning and to
questions of interpretation.

06:51.050 --> 06:54.550
They're interested in what they
call "science."

06:54.550 --> 06:56.880
They're interested in structure.

06:56.879 --> 06:59.259
They're interested,
in other words,

06:59.259 --> 07:01.779
in the way a text is put
together.

07:01.778 --> 07:04.748
That is, I think,
essentially the difference

07:04.752 --> 07:08.212
between what we have been
talking about so far,

07:08.209 --> 07:11.389
even though there have been a
variety of outlooks,

07:11.389 --> 07:14.049
and what we are talking about
now.

07:14.050 --> 07:17.080
Temporarily,
as we advance through the

07:17.084 --> 07:21.594
syllabus, we're bracketing or
suspending our interest in

07:21.593 --> 07:26.353
meaning and focusing instead on
how something is made.

07:26.350 --> 07:29.170
Take, for example,
Tony the Tow Truck.

07:29.170 --> 07:39.350
I mentioned that an interesting
phenomenon in Tony,

07:39.350 --> 07:43.190
the text of Tony,
is the tripartition of the

07:43.187 --> 07:45.817
"t"
sound: "Tony,"

07:45.817 --> 07:48.587
"tow,"
"truck."

07:48.589 --> 07:54.959
Just after we read in the text,
"Tony the Tow Truck,"

07:54.963 --> 08:00.723
we encounter a triadic or
triple encounter with vehicles:

08:00.720 --> 08:03.290
Neato, Speedy,
Bumpy.

08:03.290 --> 08:06.460
In other words,
there's a three-ness which

08:06.459 --> 08:11.099
appears at a variety of levels
in the text of Tony the Tow

08:11.098 --> 08:15.188
Truck which exactly
corresponds to the aphorism of

08:15.194 --> 08:18.524
Osip Brik quoted by Eikhenbaum
in your text:

08:18.519 --> 08:22.619
"repetition in verse is
analogous to tautology in

08:22.617 --> 08:24.547
folklore."

08:24.550 --> 08:28.800
Now we have uncovered something
about the form,

08:28.800 --> 08:31.470
the structure,
of Tony the Tow Truck in

08:31.470 --> 08:33.930
saying this,
but we haven't discovered or

08:33.931 --> 08:36.901
uncovered a thing about the
meaning of Tony the Tow

08:36.904 --> 08:37.414
Truck.

08:37.408 --> 08:40.718
Nothing follows from this
really--I think--rather

08:40.719 --> 08:44.469
interesting observation that
there's a kind of pervasiveness

08:44.474 --> 08:45.624
of triadicity.

08:45.620 --> 08:49.730
Nothing follows from this
observation about the actual

08:49.731 --> 08:51.441
meaning of the text.

08:51.440 --> 08:53.230
Now if you're clever enough
maybe you could

08:53.234 --> 08:54.174
>

08:54.174 --> 08:56.444
parlay it into a sense of the
meaning of the text.

08:56.440 --> 08:57.070
Who knows?

08:57.070 --> 08:59.150
Maybe we'll try on some other
occasion,

08:59.149 --> 09:04.459
but for the moment I think you
can see that in making remarks

09:04.461 --> 09:09.691
of this kind about a text one
has shifted the attention from

09:09.686 --> 09:11.896
meaning to structure.

09:11.899 --> 09:17.249
It's in that context that most
of the observations we encounter

09:17.248 --> 09:21.128
in Russian formalism need to be
understood.

09:21.129 --> 09:24.959
Now the stress on taxonomy--in
other words,

09:24.960 --> 09:28.000
the stress on the relationship
among parts,

09:28.000 --> 09:33.220
the understanding of the
various parts of the literary

09:33.216 --> 09:38.036
texts as "devices,"
which is to say,

09:38.038 --> 09:42.218
interrelated one with the
others--this emphasis on

09:42.221 --> 09:47.511
taxonomy is one of the ways in
which the formalists insist that

09:47.511 --> 09:50.671
what they're doing is
scientific.

09:50.668 --> 09:55.368
Nobody can possibly miss in
reading Eikhenbaum's

09:55.370 --> 10:00.470
rhetorically rather bizarre
essay his obsession with

10:00.470 --> 10:03.760
struggle,
with the fight,

10:03.759 --> 10:06.659
and with doing battle.

10:06.658 --> 10:09.028
You go on and say to yourself,
"Good heavens.

10:09.027 --> 10:10.667
It's just talk about
literature.

10:10.668 --> 10:11.478
>

10:11.481 --> 10:11.701
Relax.

10:11.702 --> 10:12.592
>

10:12.590 --> 10:15.430
It can't be that
important."

10:15.428 --> 10:18.888
But for Eikhenbaum,
there's obviously a lot at

10:18.894 --> 10:19.514
stake.

10:19.509 --> 10:23.429
I'll try to give you some
social and historical reasons

10:23.434 --> 10:27.074
why this is the case,
but in the meantime what he's

10:27.070 --> 10:30.130
struggling for is
important to recognize,

10:30.133 --> 10:30.593
too.

10:30.590 --> 10:32.660
In the very first sentence of
the essay,

10:32.658 --> 10:36.108
you read the expression
"the struggle for

10:36.106 --> 10:39.706
science"--
an interesting formulation,

10:39.711 --> 10:42.951
"the struggle for
science."

10:42.950 --> 10:45.610
Now obviously,
the struggle takes place

10:45.614 --> 10:49.194
against the backdrop of
completely undisciplined and

10:49.188 --> 10:53.038
unsystematic thinking which
Eikhenbaum identifies as the

10:53.044 --> 10:56.134
typical thinking of the
universities,

10:56.129 --> 10:57.369
of the academy.

10:57.370 --> 11:00.290
It's a pretty state of affairs,
in his view,

11:00.293 --> 11:03.973
when the most rigorous thinking
that's being done about

11:03.966 --> 11:07.296
literature is being done in
popular journals.

11:07.298 --> 11:10.458
That's part of the struggle,
undoubtedly,

11:10.460 --> 11:16.430
but another part of the
struggle is simply to reach some

11:16.432 --> 11:19.242
means,
to break through to some means

11:19.238 --> 11:22.528
of understanding the thing that
you're talking about.

11:22.528 --> 11:25.018
You want to talk about it
systematically,

11:25.024 --> 11:28.524
but how can you talk about
anything systematically if you

11:28.518 --> 11:30.138
don't know what it is?

11:30.139 --> 11:34.759
You need to pin down an object
of study,

11:34.759 --> 11:39.309
a first principle from which
other principles can emerge,

11:39.308 --> 11:42.538
and part of the process is to
say, "Hey,

11:42.538 --> 11:44.578
it's not literature we're
talking about.

11:44.580 --> 11:45.970
Who knows what literature is?

11:45.970 --> 11:47.980
Nobody's really ever known what
literature is."

11:47.980 --> 11:50.900
What we're talking about is
literariness--

11:50.899 --> 11:54.619
that is to say,
certain devices that we can

11:54.615 --> 11:58.505
identify that perform a certain
function--

11:58.509 --> 12:01.579
and maybe out of the
identification of these devices,

12:01.580 --> 12:06.620
to evolve a theory that's more
widespread.

12:06.620 --> 12:09.290
Now I use the word
"evolve"

12:09.294 --> 12:10.414
deliberately.

12:10.408 --> 12:12.898
In the backdrop,
in the background,

12:12.898 --> 12:15.608
of that expression,
"struggle for

12:15.605 --> 12:18.895
science,"
there are two key figures.

12:18.899 --> 12:24.129
The first is obviously Marx
against the backdrop of the

12:24.125 --> 12:30.315
first great Socialist Revolution
which eventually resulted in the

12:30.318 --> 12:34.938
Bolshevik Revolution of 1917,
when the Russian formalist

12:34.942 --> 12:36.382
movement was at its height.

12:36.379 --> 12:41.389
Against the backdrop of Marx's
thought pervading not just

12:41.385 --> 12:46.745
Russian life but beginning to
pervade Russian government--

12:46.750 --> 12:49.380
against this backdrop,
the idea of struggle,

12:49.379 --> 12:54.789
as in class struggle,
is going to predominate.

12:54.788 --> 13:01.088
Eikhenbaum in this culture will
be using such a word advisedly,

13:01.090 --> 13:04.500
almost familiarly,
but at the same time it's very

13:04.504 --> 13:08.634
interesting that the kind of
science he's thinking about is

13:08.630 --> 13:10.410
not just any science.

13:10.408 --> 13:13.548
You'll see this more and more
clearly as you read through the

13:13.548 --> 13:15.168
text and as we talk about it.

13:15.168 --> 13:20.118
It's Darwinian science and it's
very interesting that Darwin,

13:20.120 --> 13:23.180
as much as Marx,
is all about struggle:

13:23.177 --> 13:27.817
the struggle for survival,
the struggle for dominance.

13:27.820 --> 13:31.000
Notice the importance--and
we'll come back to it--

13:31.000 --> 13:33.100
of the word
"dominant":

13:33.095 --> 13:36.625
"the dominant"
in the thinking of the Russian

13:36.629 --> 13:40.489
formalists and the struggle for
dominance among species in a

13:40.493 --> 13:41.413
habitat.

13:41.408 --> 13:44.758
So in literature you have
something like--

13:44.759 --> 13:48.909
if you think in terms of
literary evolution as Jurij

13:48.910 --> 13:53.470
Tynjanov does in the essay that
the passage on your sheet

13:53.469 --> 13:57.239
concludes--
if you think in those terms,

13:57.238 --> 14:02.248
you think about literary
history itself as a sequence of

14:02.245 --> 14:07.335
changes in which devices and
aspects of the literary text

14:07.341 --> 14:13.351
struggle for dominance within
and over against other devices.

14:13.350 --> 14:19.240
So it is simultaneously in his
very first sentence a Marxist

14:19.244 --> 14:25.044
and a Darwinian vocabulary that
Eikhenbaum is invoking,

14:25.038 --> 14:28.708
and that's what partly accounts
for the strenuousness of his

14:28.706 --> 14:29.386
rhetoric.

14:29.389 --> 14:33.909
There is the backdrop of class
struggle which is understood as

14:33.908 --> 14:34.648
crucial.

14:34.649 --> 14:38.309
There is the fermentation of
Darwinian thought,

14:38.306 --> 14:42.276
which at the same time is
understood as crucial.

14:42.279 --> 14:47.279
A great deal is at stake,
and if those disorganized,

14:47.279 --> 14:52.339
unsystematic academics aren't
attuned to the importance of

14:52.341 --> 14:55.381
these struggles--
right, class struggle,

14:55.380 --> 14:59.100
the struggle for science,
science as the science of

14:59.101 --> 15:03.501
struggle--
if they aren't attuned to these

15:03.500 --> 15:06.910
currents,
these contemporary currents,

15:06.909 --> 15:10.939
that's just another way of
showing how irrelevant and

15:10.941 --> 15:12.571
obsolete they are.

15:12.570 --> 15:17.270
Now "The Theory of the
Formal Method,"

15:17.269 --> 15:21.769
Eikhenbaum's essay that you've
read for today,

15:21.769 --> 15:24.169
was written in 1927.

15:24.168 --> 15:27.898
In other words,
it was written directly in the

15:27.895 --> 15:32.525
aftermath of a bombshell
published by Leon Trotsky called

15:32.533 --> 15:36.263
Literature and Revolution
in 1926.

15:36.259 --> 15:40.799
Trotsky's Literature and
Revolution is a brilliant

15:40.801 --> 15:43.311
book,
an attack on many things and a

15:43.306 --> 15:47.306
defense of certain other things,
but in particular and very

15:47.312 --> 15:50.172
painfully an attack on the
formalists.

15:50.168 --> 15:55.478
Trotsky argues that the
preoccupation with form in and

15:55.475 --> 15:59.475
for itself is a kind of
aestheticism--

15:59.480 --> 16:02.070
something, by the way,
which Eikhenbaum denies during

16:02.072 --> 16:05.112
the course of his text--
a kind of aestheticism,

16:05.109 --> 16:09.649
turning its back on history and
turning its back precisely on

16:09.648 --> 16:11.008
class struggle.

16:11.009 --> 16:14.019
Trotsky is not simple-minded in
his literary taste,

16:14.015 --> 16:17.135
and he doesn't just sort of
spontaneously insist that

16:17.143 --> 16:19.853
everybody has to write socialist
realism.

16:19.850 --> 16:23.310
That doesn't,
by the way, happen until 1934

16:23.307 --> 16:27.667
when it became a kind of
pronouncement of necessity at

16:27.668 --> 16:33.018
the International Soviet Writers
Conference on that occasion.

16:33.019 --> 16:35.929
In the meantime,
Trotsky's book is a shot fired

16:35.926 --> 16:39.776
across the bow of those forms of
"aestheticism"--

16:39.779 --> 16:44.219
quote, unquote--which can be
understood as self-involved,

16:44.220 --> 16:48.030
self-preoccupied,
and indifferent to history and

16:48.030 --> 16:49.410
class struggle.

16:49.409 --> 16:52.769
It's 1927.

16:52.769 --> 16:53.989
Things are changing.

16:53.990 --> 16:57.220
It's been ten years since the
Revolution.

16:57.220 --> 17:06.020
There is a kind of taking hold
of society and government by

17:06.020 --> 17:15.580
increasingly bureaucratized and
strict forms of surveillance and

17:15.582 --> 17:20.592
management of social matters.

17:20.588 --> 17:24.518
Whether and to what extent the
Russian formalists and their

17:24.521 --> 17:26.861
allies,
the Futurists--among them

17:26.863 --> 17:31.903
Mayakovsky and others--
felt a kind of antagonism or

17:31.900 --> 17:38.410
growing threat from the
government is not wholly clear

17:38.413 --> 17:39.523
to me.

17:39.519 --> 17:45.509
It's been disputed and one
doesn't know for sure.

17:45.509 --> 17:50.459
There is still a tremendous
amount of intellectual ferment

17:50.457 --> 17:54.187
and excitement in the capitals
of Russia.

17:54.190 --> 17:57.980
This is not a wasteland of
thought by any means,

17:57.978 --> 18:02.568
and the Russian formalists are
an important part of what's

18:02.571 --> 18:03.621
going on.

18:03.618 --> 18:06.358
Nevertheless,
Trotsky's book is a

18:06.359 --> 18:07.559
provocation.

18:07.558 --> 18:12.008
It's a challenge,
and Eikhenbaum's essay that you

18:12.009 --> 18:16.339
read for today is in part--
to a degree that it can't

18:16.336 --> 18:19.726
really come out and talk about,
or doesn't want to come out and

18:19.726 --> 18:23.546
talk about it--
a response to Trotsky's book.

18:23.548 --> 18:28.198
So there were criticisms in the
air--but obviously he doesn't

18:28.202 --> 18:30.532
want to say much about that.

18:30.528 --> 18:32.478
There's one way in which he
does talk about it,

18:32.478 --> 18:32.858
though.

18:32.858 --> 18:38.208
That is the marvelous exchange
between the ethnographic critic

18:38.214 --> 18:43.224
Veselovsky and Shklovsky of
1917, which I'll return to;

18:43.220 --> 18:47.890
but for the most part,
he stays away,

18:47.890 --> 18:51.750
seems at least to stay away,
from the provocation and simply

18:51.749 --> 18:55.089
defends the right of the
formalists to exist and the

18:55.085 --> 18:57.435
integrity of what they're doing.

18:57.440 --> 18:59.170
The obvious
"enemies"--

18:59.170 --> 19:01.560
and of course,
this is Eikhenbaum's language,

19:01.558 --> 19:03.888
so one needn't wince away from
using it--

19:03.890 --> 19:06.840
the obvious enemies,
in this case,

19:06.837 --> 19:10.857
are figures like Potebnya the
academician,

19:10.858 --> 19:15.688
who in a way defended the
premises of the Symbolists,

19:15.690 --> 19:19.800
which was the other very lively
group of antagonists to the

19:19.798 --> 19:23.198
formalists--
to the effect that poetry is

19:23.195 --> 19:24.825
all about imagery.

19:24.828 --> 19:29.008
It's all about patterns of
thought.

19:29.009 --> 19:32.669
In the case of the Symbolists,
it's thought arising from the

19:32.673 --> 19:36.403
unconscious and being reinforced
by sound and by language;

19:36.400 --> 19:40.490
so that language is subsidiary
to imagery and thought,

19:40.490 --> 19:43.510
a kind of handmaiden of it--the
vessel,

19:43.509 --> 19:47.429
in other words,
into which the energies of

19:47.430 --> 19:50.300
symbolic thought are poured.

19:50.298 --> 19:55.128
It's this basic antagonism,
this difference of opinion,

19:55.126 --> 19:59.146
that Eikhenbaum wants to focus
on and, indeed,

19:59.150 --> 20:00.760
does focus on.

20:00.759 --> 20:06.449
At the same time,
there is a feeling,

20:06.450 --> 20:10.040
somehow there is a feeling--and
it's very clear in an essay by

20:10.036 --> 20:13.266
Jakobson called "The
Generation that Squandered its

20:13.269 --> 20:15.839
Poets"--
of something like

20:15.842 --> 20:19.452
bureaucratization that's taking
hold,

20:19.450 --> 20:23.350
something like the an
atmosphere in which our

20:23.346 --> 20:28.216
perceptions of the things around
us become automated.

20:28.220 --> 20:34.490
Shklovsky in particular is very
much preoccupied with the sense

20:34.494 --> 20:38.244
of the automatization or
automism--

20:38.240 --> 20:41.450
I much prefer the latter
word--of perception,

20:41.450 --> 20:45.610
the way in which we no longer
really see what's around us.

20:45.608 --> 20:48.888
I quoted the other day Wallace
Stevens saying that poetry

20:48.892 --> 20:52.352
should "make the visible a
little hard to see."

20:52.348 --> 20:54.678
By the same token,
Shklovsky insists,

20:54.680 --> 20:59.570
and his colleagues insist,
that the business of the

20:59.568 --> 21:05.628
roughening of surface by means
of various modes of literariness

21:05.631 --> 21:10.131
is to defamiliarize automated
perceptions;

21:10.130 --> 21:14.160
to make us suddenly see again,
to see the nature of the

21:14.156 --> 21:17.196
language that we're using,
and, indeed,

21:17.201 --> 21:19.701
also to see--this is very
clear,

21:19.700 --> 21:22.170
by the way, in the essay
"Literature as

21:22.169 --> 21:24.409
Technique"
in your anthology that I

21:24.409 --> 21:29.069
recommended that you read--
at the same to see the world

21:29.065 --> 21:35.325
itself anew by means of devices
of language that tear the film

21:35.329 --> 21:37.589
away from our eyes.

21:37.588 --> 21:41.828
So defamiliarization,
against the backdrop of a kind

21:41.832 --> 21:46.572
of gray uniformity that Jakobson
in his essay on "The

21:46.573 --> 21:50.573
Generation that Squandered its
Poets" called

21:50.566 --> 21:54.046
"byt"--
I don't know how to pronounce

21:54.054 --> 21:54.384
that.

21:54.380 --> 21:57.520
I don't know a word of Russian,
and so I actually try to avoid

21:57.519 --> 22:00.399
using the rather well-known
Russian equivalents for these

22:00.402 --> 22:02.412
terms because I feel like an
idiot.

22:02.410 --> 22:06.820
Yes, I see them in the text
just as anybody else does,

22:06.818 --> 22:09.518
but since I don't really know
what they mean except by means

22:09.521 --> 22:11.661
of the translation,
why should I use them?

22:11.660 --> 22:15.190
But in any case,
this is a well-known term used

22:15.185 --> 22:18.095
by Jakobson in this essay which
is,

22:18.098 --> 22:21.778
like all such terms that
somehow wander into other

22:21.775 --> 22:25.105
languages,
difficult to translate.

22:25.108 --> 22:26.848
That's why they wander into
other languages.

22:26.848 --> 22:32.318
It means something like a kind
of dulled grayness or

22:32.315 --> 22:34.775
ordinariness of life.

22:34.779 --> 22:39.319
It's that backdrop--it's that
sense of bureaucratized

22:39.324 --> 22:42.544
existence--
that defamiliarization has,

22:42.541 --> 22:46.761
to a certain extent,
the ideological purpose of

22:46.761 --> 22:49.481
dispelling and undermining.

22:49.480 --> 22:52.880
One has to recognize,
in other words,

22:52.880 --> 22:55.880
that this motive,
this motive force,

22:55.880 --> 23:00.010
stands behind the work of the
Russian formalists,

23:00.009 --> 23:05.349
so that the claim to be
strictly scientific needs to be

23:05.353 --> 23:10.503
hedged a little bit as a return
of the aesthetic,

23:10.500 --> 23:14.670
or a return of value,
understood as the insistence

23:14.670 --> 23:18.500
that life doesn't need to be all
that dull.

23:18.500 --> 23:21.520
That really is implicit
>

23:21.522 --> 23:24.012
in the Russian formalist
viewpoint.

23:24.009 --> 23:25.769
Literariness, then.

23:25.769 --> 23:27.719
What is literariness?

23:27.720 --> 23:32.110
It is those aspects of a text,
the way in which those devices

23:32.114 --> 23:35.854
of a text that call themselves
to our attention,

23:35.848 --> 23:40.308
are new: that is to say,
the way in which they shake up

23:40.309 --> 23:45.679
perception through the fact that
we're not used to seeing them.

23:45.680 --> 23:51.380
In a way, this call for that
which is new is worldwide;

23:51.380 --> 23:54.930
at the same time you have Ezra
Pound among the high Modernists

23:54.933 --> 23:57.443
in the West saying,
"Make it new,"

23:57.440 --> 23:58.490
as his slogan.

23:58.490 --> 24:02.840
You have the various
observations of Eliot and Joyce

24:02.836 --> 24:05.326
and others,
whom I cited last time in

24:05.325 --> 24:08.015
talking about the background to
the New Criticism--

24:08.019 --> 24:11.229
all of them insisting on the
necessity of difficulty,

24:11.230 --> 24:15.390
of novelty, of coming to terms
with the immediacy of one's

24:15.386 --> 24:19.766
particular circumstances,
and of getting away from that

24:19.766 --> 24:23.146
which is familiar and ordinary
and vague.

24:23.150 --> 24:26.860
It is a transnational idea,
in other words,

24:26.861 --> 24:31.281
which nevertheless has,
obviously, certain specific

24:31.278 --> 24:34.988
applications depending on where
it is.

24:34.990 --> 24:39.220
The newness that the Russian
formalists are interested in is

24:39.220 --> 24:40.870
not just any newness.

24:40.868 --> 24:48.078
It has to do particularly with
the palpable or roughened form

24:48.076 --> 24:51.796
of that which defamiliarizes.

24:51.798 --> 24:54.348
Now how do we understand this
form?

24:54.348 --> 24:56.618
"Form"
as opposed to what?

24:56.618 --> 25:00.968
This is a crucial issue for the
Russian formalists,

25:00.972 --> 25:03.762
which they handle very boldly.

25:03.759 --> 25:10.179
Part of their platform is that
everything is form.

25:10.180 --> 25:13.410
There is no distinction,
in other words,

25:13.412 --> 25:15.652
between form and content.

25:15.650 --> 25:19.490
That's the fundamental mistake,
as they see it,

25:19.493 --> 25:23.513
that their enemies of various
kinds make in their

25:23.507 --> 25:26.347
understanding,
in their approach to

25:26.348 --> 25:27.768
literature.

25:27.769 --> 25:30.269
But, you know,
the formalists' own basic

25:30.272 --> 25:32.782
distinctions are dualistic,
aren't they:

25:32.779 --> 25:35.489
the distinction between poetic
and practical language,

25:35.490 --> 25:37.800
the distinction between plot
and story,

25:37.798 --> 25:40.548
the distinction between rhythm
and meter?

25:40.548 --> 25:43.528
In all of these cases,
you're tempted to say,

25:43.529 --> 25:44.749
"Well, gee.

25:44.750 --> 25:46.350
One of those must be form
>

25:46.348 --> 25:48.998
and the other must be
content--in particular,

25:49.000 --> 25:51.130
obviously "plot"
and "story"

25:51.125 --> 25:53.425
where "plot"
is the constructedness of the

25:53.431 --> 25:56.191
text and the "story"
is what the text is about.

25:56.190 --> 25:59.650
Doesn't that sound a lot like
form and content?"

25:59.650 --> 26:02.970
Well, I actually think the
Russian formalists can be

26:02.972 --> 26:05.322
defended against the charge
that,

26:05.318 --> 26:09.568
unbeknownst to themselves,
they fall back in to

26:09.570 --> 26:14.750
form-content distinctions by
insisting on this variety of

26:14.746 --> 26:16.036
dualities.

26:16.038 --> 26:21.418
I want to spend a little time
suggesting and developing the

26:21.423 --> 26:25.883
way in which that defense could
be undertaken.

26:25.880 --> 26:30.230
Poetic and practical language:
you've already been hearing

26:30.230 --> 26:33.970
this in I.A. Richards and in
the New Critics.

26:33.970 --> 26:38.390
While the New Critics,
in a variety of ways,

26:38.390 --> 26:41.620
insist that form is meaning,
form is content and so on,

26:41.618 --> 26:44.998
they're still not really
breaking down the distinction

26:44.998 --> 26:46.718
between form and content.

26:46.720 --> 26:50.820
There's an obvious sense in
which they understand poetic

26:50.824 --> 26:54.634
language to be that in which
form is predominant and

26:54.630 --> 26:59.630
practical language to be that in
which content is predominant,

26:59.630 --> 27:03.400
but the Russian formalists see
it in a slightly different way.

27:03.400 --> 27:10.480
Content is a function--or let
me say practical language,

27:10.480 --> 27:11.970
the purpose,
in other words,

27:11.974 --> 27:14.914
of communicating facts or of
communicating at all,

27:14.910 --> 27:17.470
which we associate with
practical language--

27:17.470 --> 27:21.040
is a function of poetic
language.

27:21.038 --> 27:23.968
That is to say,
it coexists with poetic

27:23.971 --> 27:24.821
language.

27:24.818 --> 27:28.798
It is an aspect of a text,
the way in which it does

27:28.795 --> 27:33.695
communicate in other words,
which has to be understood as

27:33.702 --> 27:38.132
existing in a dynamic,
functional relationship with

27:38.130 --> 27:43.230
those aspects of the text in
which literariness is dominant.

27:43.230 --> 27:46.330
It's not a question,
in other words,

27:46.330 --> 27:51.470
of poetry or of a novel being
somehow or another strictly a

27:51.471 --> 27:54.131
matter of poetic language.

27:54.130 --> 27:59.310
In poetry or the novel,
you can argue that the poetic

27:59.305 --> 28:02.435
function--
and this is the term Jakobson

28:02.440 --> 28:05.250
will ultimately use for it in
his essay,

28:05.250 --> 28:06.400
"Linguistics and
Poetics"--

28:06.400 --> 28:10.310
that the poetic function is the
dominant;

28:10.308 --> 28:15.038
but that's not to say that
practical language is absent or

28:15.039 --> 28:18.359
that it doesn't have its own
function.

28:18.359 --> 28:22.529


28:22.528 --> 28:25.838
By the way, if we begin by
talking about poetic and

28:25.843 --> 28:28.763
practical language,
we're beginning where the

28:28.758 --> 28:30.678
Russian formalists began.

28:30.680 --> 28:35.130
As Eikhenbaum explains,
in 1914 the first publication

28:35.134 --> 28:40.024
of their journal was entirely
devoted to poetic sound,

28:40.019 --> 28:45.989
to the way in which sound
seems, indeed is,

28:45.990 --> 28:51.320
not merely subservient to the
elaboration of sense.

28:51.318 --> 28:54.438
One of the things,
by the way, that Eikhenbaum

28:54.442 --> 28:58.472
does in passing is remind us
that we should be on our guard

28:58.469 --> 29:01.939
against thinking that sound is
onomatopoetic--

29:01.940 --> 29:06.110
that is, that it reflects the
meaning of what it's talking

29:06.105 --> 29:06.685
about.

29:06.690 --> 29:11.630
When I say "pigeon,"
I don't really seem to have any

29:11.626 --> 29:15.266
particular sense of an
onomatopoetic word,

29:15.269 --> 29:17.609
but if I use the Latin,
pipio,

29:17.608 --> 29:18.788
which means "to
chirp," all of a sudden I

29:18.785 --> 29:19.565
say,
"Oh, that's

29:19.567 --> 29:20.377
onomatopoetic."

29:20.380 --> 29:23.520
Well, the formalists and also
Saussure--

29:23.519 --> 29:26.459
this is one of the most
important links between the

29:26.461 --> 29:30.201
formalists and Saussure--
are very carefully on their

29:30.196 --> 29:33.136
guard against supposing that
sound,

29:33.140 --> 29:37.510
that the ways in which we hear
language,

29:37.509 --> 29:40.909
is onomatopoetic because that
would suggest once again,

29:40.910 --> 29:44.270
in keeping with Symbolist
ideas, that sound was

29:44.271 --> 29:46.101
subservient to meaning.

29:46.098 --> 29:50.768
The importance of the earliest
work of the Russian formalists

29:50.765 --> 29:55.425
was the establishment of the
idea that sound goes its own way

29:55.430 --> 29:58.540
and is not subservient to
anything,

29:58.538 --> 30:04.158
that it is a device independent
of,

30:04.160 --> 30:07.020
though interacting with,
other devices,

30:07.019 --> 30:11.739
and that it doesn't exist for
the purpose of elucidating

30:11.743 --> 30:12.693
anything.

30:12.690 --> 30:16.640
In fact, it exists,
amazingly, in order to hinder

30:16.637 --> 30:21.327
understanding in the kinds of
texts that we're inclined to

30:21.326 --> 30:23.626
call "poetic."

30:23.630 --> 30:27.360
It's repetitive;
it's anti-economical;

30:27.359 --> 30:30.319
it's retardant.

30:30.318 --> 30:34.258
Language of this source is a
device, and in relation to other

30:34.261 --> 30:37.221
devices it's called a
"function."

30:37.220 --> 30:38.430
We call it a function.

30:38.430 --> 30:39.890
That is to say it has a
function;

30:39.890 --> 30:44.600
it has a function within our
understanding of the way in

30:44.596 --> 30:47.076
which a text has structure.

30:47.078 --> 30:51.608
Every aspect of the structure
of the text can be understood as

30:51.613 --> 30:53.103
having a function.

30:53.098 --> 30:55.218
Take, for example,
"The rain in Spain falls

30:55.218 --> 30:56.478
mainly on the plain."

30:56.480 --> 31:03.900
Now this is an example of a
text in which alliteration is

31:03.895 --> 31:06.805
plainly predominant.

31:06.808 --> 31:10.938
It is repetitive,
and we understand it to be

31:10.943 --> 31:16.423
somehow different from the
ordinary way in which a fact is

31:16.424 --> 31:20.884
communicated;
but if we are not Russian

31:20.875 --> 31:23.225
formalists,
we're tempted to say,

31:23.229 --> 31:26.539
"Well,
it's a mnemotechnic device

31:26.540 --> 31:31.030
introduced for the purpose of--
that is to say,

31:31.034 --> 31:33.964
it's subservient to--
the communication of a

31:33.960 --> 31:34.680
fact."

31:34.680 --> 31:37.150
By the way, I've never known
whether it is a fact.

31:37.150 --> 31:38.640
>

31:38.640 --> 31:39.770
A lot of mountains are rainy.

31:39.771 --> 31:40.671
>

31:40.670 --> 31:42.550
The Pyrenees I suppose are dry.

31:42.548 --> 31:44.218
I really have no idea whether
it's a fact, and it's not

31:44.219 --> 31:45.919
important in My Fair Lady
whether it's a fact.

31:45.920 --> 31:54.510
What's important in My Fair
Lady is to repeat the

31:54.513 --> 32:00.123
repetitiousness of verse--
[spoken with heavy emphasis on

32:00.115 --> 32:01.585
rhythm]
"The rain in Spain falls

32:01.585 --> 32:05.565
mainly on the plain"--
in terms of the tautology of

32:05.565 --> 32:06.545
the plot.

32:06.548 --> 32:11.958
Eliza Doolittle tries
repeatedly to say that but,

32:11.960 --> 32:16.480
just like Neato and Speedy
failing or being unwilling to

32:16.480 --> 32:21.710
push Tony out of his problem,
so Eliza repeatedly says [with

32:21.712 --> 32:25.102
a cockney accent],
"The rain in Spain falls

32:25.096 --> 32:26.626
mainly on the plain."

32:26.630 --> 32:31.440
That's not good enough,
and so the repetition in the

32:31.439 --> 32:36.909
plot reinforces the repetition
of the sound in question.

32:36.910 --> 32:43.060
Whether or not it's a fact is
completely immaterial to Eliza,

32:43.058 --> 32:46.128
it's completely immaterial to
Henry Higgins,

32:46.130 --> 32:50.470
and it's completely immaterial
to the outcome of My Fair

32:50.474 --> 32:51.304
Lady.

32:51.298 --> 32:58.618
What's important in My Fair
Lady is the functionality of

32:58.622 --> 33:06.062
repetition in the transformation
of the principal character into

33:06.063 --> 33:08.193
a lady, right?

33:08.190 --> 33:12.450
So in formalist terms,
that's the way we have to

33:12.448 --> 33:15.708
understand what,
if we weren't formalists,

33:15.709 --> 33:17.879
we would suppose,
as I say, to be a

33:17.877 --> 33:20.987
mnemotechnical device for the
purpose of communicating

33:20.990 --> 33:23.340
something about the weather in
Spain.

33:23.339 --> 33:24.329
Right?

33:24.328 --> 33:30.098
I think it's interesting to
think in those terms about the

33:30.096 --> 33:33.026
relationship among devices.

33:33.029 --> 33:38.239
Now the point is that yes--and
this is what emerged from

33:38.237 --> 33:43.537
subsequent thought in the
Russian formalist movement--

33:43.538 --> 33:48.458
the first wave or phase had to
do strictly with sound,

33:48.460 --> 33:50.640
but then they began to say,
"Well,

33:50.640 --> 33:53.210
what about this notion of
device?

33:53.210 --> 33:57.190
What about the way in
which--maybe the best thing to

33:57.193 --> 34:01.733
do if we're going to avoid
keeping once and again and again

34:01.726 --> 34:06.726
and again falling in to the trap
of making one aspect of the text

34:06.727 --> 34:12.257
subservient to other aspects,
merely there for the purpose of

34:12.264 --> 34:15.994
reinforcing content--
if we're going to avoid doing

34:15.987 --> 34:17.877
this,
if we're going to see the text

34:17.876 --> 34:21.866
as a text that has a structure,
hadn't we better say that

34:21.873 --> 34:26.133
everything in it is form,
that everything in it is a

34:26.134 --> 34:26.654
device?

34:26.650 --> 34:27.820
How are we going to do that?

34:27.820 --> 34:31.450
Because it would certainly seem
that texts refer to

34:31.445 --> 34:32.395
things."

34:32.400 --> 34:35.950
Well, yes, they do,
so why don't we call that to

34:35.949 --> 34:38.189
which they refer--
for example,

34:38.188 --> 34:41.588
in the case of socialist
realism or indeed realism of any

34:41.592 --> 34:43.702
kind,
why don't we call that to which

34:43.697 --> 34:45.957
they refer the "society
function"?

34:45.960 --> 34:50.940
Why don't we say, "Oh,
yeah, in a certain kind of

34:50.936 --> 34:57.686
text, the dominant device in
that text is referentiality,

34:57.690 --> 35:02.180
is the way in which the real
world is hooked onto and that

35:02.177 --> 35:06.107
can be understood as a device
with respect to other

35:06.112 --> 35:07.532
devices."

35:07.530 --> 35:11.190
It becomes, at certain moments
in the evolution of forms

35:11.193 --> 35:14.663
according to the Russian
formalists, the dominant.

35:14.659 --> 35:18.899
You see, this is the way in
which you avoid the form-content

35:18.902 --> 35:19.912
distinction.

35:19.909 --> 35:22.649
You say, "Oh,
so-called content.

35:22.650 --> 35:25.680
What other people call content
is a device like any other,

35:25.679 --> 35:30.499
and it engages in the struggle
for dominance with all the other

35:30.496 --> 35:35.386
devices that one can identify as
aspects of literature."

35:35.389 --> 35:38.879
Take the distinction between
plot and story.

35:38.880 --> 35:42.600
There you would really think
the formalists are on thin ice.

35:42.599 --> 35:46.139
Plot, yes, we all agree that's
the constructed-ness of the

35:46.141 --> 35:46.641
story.

35:46.639 --> 35:49.559
That's the way the story is put
together, how the overcoat is

35:49.563 --> 35:50.443
made, and so on.

35:50.440 --> 35:53.860
But story, that's what the plot
is about,

35:53.856 --> 35:58.286
and if that's what the plot is
about, how can we avoid calling

35:58.289 --> 35:59.379
it content?

35:59.380 --> 36:01.390
Well, it's very interesting.

36:01.389 --> 36:05.629
In the first place,
notice that sometimes story can

36:05.628 --> 36:09.358
be the dominant in obviously
formal terms.

36:09.360 --> 36:12.210
I think of that story that all
of you have probably read in

36:12.213 --> 36:14.973
school, The Things They
Carried by Tim O'Brien.

36:14.969 --> 36:20.499
It's a list of the contents of
the knapsack of a soldier during

36:20.498 --> 36:24.688
the Vietnam War,
just a list of the contents.

36:24.690 --> 36:30.540
Of course, all these items in
the knapsack are evocative and

36:30.541 --> 36:34.311
what they do is they suggest a
plot.

36:34.309 --> 36:36.969
By the end of the story,
in other words,

36:36.967 --> 36:38.737
there is implied a plot.

36:38.739 --> 36:42.399
It's just the opposite of the
usual relationship between plot

36:42.398 --> 36:43.128
and story.

36:43.130 --> 36:48.250
Ordinarily, a plot constructs
something which is implied--

36:48.250 --> 36:50.150
that is to say,
that which happens,

36:50.150 --> 36:56.100
that which we can talk about in
paraphrase or as a subject

36:56.101 --> 37:01.271
matter outside the text--
but here in O'Brien's story,

37:01.273 --> 37:04.053
you're given the subject
matter.

37:04.050 --> 37:08.910
The subject matter itself
becomes the dominant device,

37:08.909 --> 37:13.789
and it implies in your
imagination a way to construct

37:13.786 --> 37:15.886
it,
but the way to construct it is

37:15.887 --> 37:16.807
not the dominant.

37:16.809 --> 37:19.959
The way to construct it is
something that's up to you.

37:19.960 --> 37:24.140
What's the dominant in the text
is just the stuff,

37:24.137 --> 37:28.057
the stuff in his knapsack
listed with as little

37:28.061 --> 37:30.451
implication as possible.

37:30.449 --> 37:34.109
So that's an instance of the
way in which you can see the

37:34.108 --> 37:37.698
relationship between plot and
story as a relationship of

37:37.699 --> 37:40.099
devices,
even though it's awfully

37:40.097 --> 37:42.757
tempting to say,
"Oh, the story's just the

37:42.764 --> 37:44.774
content and the plot's the
form"--

37:44.769 --> 37:46.389
but no.

37:46.389 --> 37:50.539
The formalists don't want to
keep that distinction for the

37:50.536 --> 37:53.806
reasons that I have been trying
to develop.

37:53.809 --> 37:59.369
Any device can be the dominant
at a given moment in the

37:59.369 --> 38:02.869
development of literary history.

38:02.869 --> 38:04.839
Any device can be the dominant.

38:04.840 --> 38:08.210
In Hiawatha,
Longfellow's Hiawatha,

38:08.208 --> 38:10.198
meter is the device.

38:10.199 --> 38:13.059
You know how it goes.

38:13.059 --> 38:20.179
Well, in Tennyson sound is the
device, "the murmurous

38:20.184 --> 38:26.314
haunt"--oh,
I have no memory at all today.

38:26.309 --> 38:29.029
I'm mixing it up with a line of
Keats, and I'm going to say

38:29.030 --> 38:30.390
something else about Keats.

38:30.389 --> 38:33.099
I'll just tell you that
Tennyson thought the two most

38:33.103 --> 38:36.033
beautiful words in the English
language were "cellar

38:36.025 --> 38:39.045
door" and that audible
beauty was his preoccupation in

38:39.050 --> 38:40.460
the making of poetry.

38:40.460 --> 38:44.860
So we can say that the dominant
device in Tennyson's poetry,

38:44.860 --> 38:47.850
as in much Victorian
poetry--certainly Swinburne's--

38:47.849 --> 38:53.139
is sound, and in Keats we can
say that the dominant device is

38:53.139 --> 38:56.129
imagery,
with his famous emphasis on

38:56.132 --> 39:00.862
synesthesia and the way in which
the various senses merge in the

39:00.856 --> 39:02.576
evocation of images.

39:02.579 --> 39:06.049
In other words,
of course the academicians and

39:06.054 --> 39:09.534
the Symbolists were obsessed
with imagery,

39:09.530 --> 39:12.700
but that's not to say that a
Russian formalist can't deal

39:12.699 --> 39:13.549
with imagery.

39:13.550 --> 39:17.570
In a certain poet,
the image, the image patterns,

39:17.574 --> 39:22.024
can certainly be recognized as
the dominant device.

39:22.018 --> 39:24.378
That would probably be the
case, for example,

39:24.382 --> 39:25.082
with Keats.

39:25.079 --> 39:29.719
In Gertrude Stein,
the dominant is repetition

39:29.722 --> 39:31.202
undoubtedly.

39:31.199 --> 39:36.849
In Wordsworth or Joyce or
Woolf, the dominant is perhaps

39:36.853 --> 39:38.193
not formal.

39:38.190 --> 39:42.750
Think of the feeling that
Wordsworth's blank verse just

39:42.748 --> 39:45.448
kind of disappears into prose.

39:45.449 --> 39:48.369
I don't think that's quite
true, but there's a general

39:48.367 --> 39:50.347
feeling that,
as Matthew Arnold said,

39:50.347 --> 39:51.887
Wordsworth has no style.

39:51.889 --> 39:55.729
In Wordsworth or Joyce or
Woolf, the dominant is the

39:55.730 --> 40:01.220
interiority of consciousness--
that is, the way in which what

40:01.219 --> 40:07.269
we call stream of consciousness
or the inwardness of thought

40:07.273 --> 40:11.353
motivates--
this is another word that you

40:11.349 --> 40:13.599
encounter in Eikhenbaum's
essay--

40:13.599 --> 40:17.879
motivates everything else that
goes on in the text.

40:17.880 --> 40:21.720
In other words,
an enormous variety of aspects

40:21.715 --> 40:24.015
of literature,
understood as

40:24.016 --> 40:28.616
"literariness,"
can become the dominant.

40:28.619 --> 40:33.909
Now as soon as we start talking
about things like the dominant,

40:33.905 --> 40:38.335
we are also aware of the
evanescence of dominance.

40:38.340 --> 40:42.150
What is culinary in one
generation--

40:42.150 --> 40:47.070
and here I'm alluding to a
passage quoted by Eikhenbaum--

40:47.070 --> 40:49.520
for example,
the devices of crime fiction

40:49.516 --> 40:51.716
prior to the work of
Dostoyevsky,

40:51.719 --> 40:54.019
become absolutely central.

40:54.018 --> 40:56.328
He's thinking primarily of
Crime and Punishment,

40:56.329 --> 41:00.149
but this is true of other
works of Dostoyevsky as well,

41:00.150 --> 41:05.140
so that the devices of the
dime-store detective novel

41:05.141 --> 41:09.751
actually then become the
motivating dominant of a

41:09.750 --> 41:14.830
mainstream literary form,
but then they in turn run their

41:14.827 --> 41:18.227
course and are replaced by some
other dominant.

41:18.230 --> 41:20.720
In other words,
once you start thinking about

41:20.715 --> 41:23.815
the evanescence of dominance,
you're also thinking about

41:23.822 --> 41:25.012
literary history.

41:25.010 --> 41:28.280
One of the most false
charges--and it was a charge

41:28.284 --> 41:31.964
leveled by Trotsky among many
others against the Russian

41:31.960 --> 41:34.800
formalists--
is that they ignore history,

41:34.800 --> 41:38.470
the same charge so often
leveled against the New Critics.

41:38.469 --> 41:40.389
They don't at all ignore
history.

41:40.389 --> 41:43.439
Almost from the beginning,
but increasingly during the

41:43.438 --> 41:46.658
twenties,
they turned their attention to

41:46.655 --> 41:50.185
the problems of literary
historiography,

41:50.190 --> 41:53.620
and they said some rather
bracing things about it.

41:53.619 --> 42:01.329
In your text on page 012,
the left-hand column--

42:01.329 --> 42:04.609
I'll keep referring to those
stamped numbers,

42:04.610 --> 42:06.950
the left-hand side of your Tyco
[copy center]

42:06.952 --> 42:09.952
text--
we find Eikhenbaum evoking an

42:09.949 --> 42:15.349
exchange of opinion between the
ethnographic critic Veselovsky

42:15.353 --> 42:18.303
and Victor Shklovsky:
He [Shklovsky]

42:18.297 --> 42:20.427
[Eikhenbaum says,
a third of the way down]

42:20.427 --> 42:22.557
had encountered Veselovsky's
formula,

42:22.559 --> 42:26.469
a formula broadly based on the
ethnographic principle that

42:26.465 --> 42:30.505
"the purpose of new form is
to express new content [new

42:30.509 --> 42:32.549
content,
in other words,

42:32.547 --> 42:36.377
being those social and
historical and environmental

42:36.378 --> 42:41.048
forces that oblige literary
techniques to change]…

42:41.050 --> 42:42.430
That's the
"ethnographic"

42:42.431 --> 42:42.881
position.

42:42.880 --> 42:44.830
That's the word used.

42:44.829 --> 42:47.349
It is obviously also the
materialist, or,

42:47.353 --> 42:48.493
social position.

42:48.489 --> 42:54.399
History produces literature;
and not just literary history,

42:54.400 --> 42:58.750
but social history,
produces literature.

42:58.750 --> 43:03.410
Shklovsky disagreed and he
decided to advance a completely

43:03.413 --> 43:05.543
different point of view.

43:05.539 --> 43:10.109
The work of art arises from a
background of other works and

43:10.108 --> 43:12.628
through association with them.

43:12.630 --> 43:16.670
The form of a work of art is
defined by its relation to other

43:16.668 --> 43:19.968
works of art to forms existing
prior to it…

43:19.967 --> 43:23.717
Not only parody [parody,
by the way, is a very,

43:23.717 --> 43:27.557
very broad term in Russian
formalist thought,

43:27.559 --> 43:30.249
in a way simply meaning
change--that is to say,

43:30.250 --> 43:35.570
the way in which one text
inevitably riffs on another text

43:35.567 --> 43:41.257
in elaborating its own devices
and emphases and in search of a

43:41.257 --> 43:46.077
new kind of dominance],
but also any kind of work of

43:46.081 --> 43:50.901
art is created parallel to and
opposed to some kind of form.

43:50.900 --> 43:55.190
The purpose of new form is
not to express new content,

43:55.190 --> 43:59.240
but to change an old form which
has lost its aesthetic

43:59.239 --> 44:02.979
quality [that is to say,
lost its power to

44:02.983 --> 44:06.623
defamiliarize,
lost its power to take the film

44:06.621 --> 44:08.481
away from our eyes].

44:08.480 --> 44:12.610
Now this--as you think about
it, you say to yourself,

44:12.612 --> 44:17.462
That's all very bracing and
daring but Veselovsky is right.

44:17.460 --> 44:17.890
>

44:17.889 --> 44:21.339
We know literature is produced
by historical forces.

44:21.340 --> 44:24.530
What does it mean,
a new form comes about only to

44:24.530 --> 44:28.190
replace an old form which has
ceased to be aesthetically

44:28.188 --> 44:28.918
viable?

44:28.920 --> 44:30.180
How does that happen?

44:30.179 --> 44:35.099
You know, you've got to appeal
to social forces if you're going

44:35.096 --> 44:36.916
to talk about change.

44:36.920 --> 44:40.160
That really does seem to me to
be the spontaneous conclusion we

44:40.164 --> 44:41.374
are inclined to draw.

44:41.369 --> 44:44.699
That's why I gave you (to
offset this conclusion) the

44:44.701 --> 44:47.201
extraordinary passage on your
sheet,

44:47.199 --> 44:52.899
the end of Tynjanov's "On
Literary Evolution,"

44:52.902 --> 44:56.002
written also 1927,
written also,

44:56.003 --> 44:58.783
in other words,
in response to Trotsky's

44:58.779 --> 45:01.339
Literature and
Revolution.

45:01.340 --> 45:05.400
This is what Tynjanov says:
In formalist historiography,

45:05.400 --> 45:10.080
the prime significance of major
social factors is not at all

45:10.079 --> 45:11.109
discarded.

45:11.110 --> 45:13.910
[In other words,
we're not just playing a game

45:13.905 --> 45:14.335
here.

45:14.340 --> 45:17.830
We, too, understand the
relevance of what we call

45:17.827 --> 45:20.217
"the society
function."]

45:20.224 --> 45:24.444
Rather it must be elucidated in
its full extent through the

45:24.440 --> 45:27.710
problem of the evolution of
literature.

45:27.710 --> 45:31.200
This is in contrast to the
establishment of the direct

45:31.197 --> 45:34.617
influence of major social
factors [and here comes the

45:34.619 --> 45:39.319
amazing part of this utterance,
which I think is truly

45:39.324 --> 45:43.364
remarkable]
which replaces the study of

45:43.355 --> 45:49.715
evolution of literature with the
study of the modification of

45:49.721 --> 45:53.861
literary works,
that is to say their

45:53.864 --> 45:55.114
deformation.

45:55.110 --> 45:56.320
You see the distinction.

45:56.320 --> 46:00.460
In natural selection,
certain things happen.

46:00.460 --> 46:02.380
There is mutation.

46:02.380 --> 46:10.550
New genes emerge as dominant,
no longer recessive or latent,

46:10.552 --> 46:13.742
and organisms change.

46:13.739 --> 46:17.869
That's evolution,
but organisms change against a

46:17.869 --> 46:21.909
backdrop--you know,
organisms are changing like

46:21.911 --> 46:22.791
crazy.

46:22.789 --> 46:26.799
In comes the prehensile thumb,
and the next thing you know you

46:26.795 --> 46:30.205
get a colossal earthquake,
and the possessor of the

46:30.206 --> 46:33.026
prehensile thumb disappears from
the earth--

46:33.030 --> 46:36.660
which is to say,
very possibly the human species

46:36.664 --> 46:38.294
will never develop.

46:38.289 --> 46:40.499


46:40.500 --> 46:44.380
That's the modification
of a form.

46:44.380 --> 46:48.830
It strikes me that it's a
remarkable distinction.

46:48.829 --> 46:53.669
You will get in any period
spontaneously the sorts of

46:53.672 --> 46:58.052
impulses that bring about
socialist realism,

46:58.050 --> 47:03.220
but if you have a ukase
from above telling you that if

47:03.224 --> 47:07.704
you're going to write,
it has to be socialist realism,

47:07.699 --> 47:09.419
that's a modification.

47:09.420 --> 47:14.520
That is the modification of
what would and does evolve in

47:14.518 --> 47:18.888
and of itself within an
understanding of literary

47:18.889 --> 47:20.619
historiography.

47:20.619 --> 47:23.549
The distinction,
it seems to me,

47:23.554 --> 47:25.074
is compelling.

47:25.070 --> 47:28.710
The only objection to be made
to it perhaps indeed is that

47:28.708 --> 47:31.518
much of the time,
it's just more trouble than

47:31.518 --> 47:33.368
it's worth to enforce it.

47:33.369 --> 47:38.569
It would drive us into such
baroque circumlocutions and

47:38.565 --> 47:42.025
avoidances of the obvious to
say,

47:42.030 --> 47:44.110
"Oh, social factors have
nothing to do with this,"

47:44.112 --> 47:44.962
>

47:44.960 --> 47:48.220
that we might as well just sort
of--not give the distinction up,

47:48.222 --> 47:51.072
because I think it's very
important always to have it in

47:51.072 --> 47:52.422
the back of our minds.

47:52.420 --> 47:56.460
It's important in Darwinian
terms to have it in the back of

47:56.463 --> 48:00.233
our minds, and that's what
Tynjanov is insisting on.

48:00.230 --> 48:02.850
That's why he calls his essay
"On Literary

48:02.853 --> 48:04.453
Evolution,"
not literary

48:04.452 --> 48:06.392
"revolution"
but literary

48:06.391 --> 48:07.991
"evolution."

48:07.989 --> 48:11.439
I think it's terribly important
to keep the distinction in the

48:11.443 --> 48:13.713
back of our minds even if we
find it,

48:13.710 --> 48:16.890
in practical terms,
well nigh impossible and

48:16.887 --> 48:21.537
possibly even in many contexts a
waste of time to be perpetually

48:21.543 --> 48:22.803
enforcing it.

48:22.800 --> 48:27.340
It is nevertheless a
distinction that does exist,

48:27.340 --> 48:30.450
once you think about it,
that deserves to exist and

48:30.449 --> 48:34.119
deserves to be remembered when
we think about the variety of

48:34.119 --> 48:37.229
ways in which literary history
can be written.

48:37.230 --> 48:38.790
Now I'm going to stop there.

48:38.789 --> 48:39.659
Time's up.

48:39.659 --> 48:41.809
There is a little more to say,
I think,

48:41.809 --> 48:47.199
and certainly the possible ways
in which Russian formalism is

48:47.199 --> 48:52.409
subject to critique need quickly
to be passed in review.

48:52.409 --> 48:56.319
We'll do all this next time
before we get into Saussure.

48:56.320 --> 49:02.000