It has been very interesting to read about the Formalist approach to literature as ‘art’. The idea that literature is an art in its own right and merits its very own study I find appealing. I read about the defamiliarizing nature of literature I was reminded of the Dadaist approach to art which I have always found fascinating. In Dadaism reason and logic are evacuated from the scene and the viewer is left to choose whether to interpret the piece in whichever way appeals to them, or to flounder and guard this sense of defamiliarization and remain on the outside of the work.

I actually agree that “literature changes when the world changes” (4), whereas the Formalist approach does not bow to this idea. Literature for the Formalists is independent and free from the influences of the evolving world, it seems to me. According to the Formalist approach, “for literature to be literature, it must constantly defamiliarize the familiar” (5), yet the ‘familiar’ is the world which is evolving and changing around us. It is the stimulus which provokes the reaction, therefore with no provocation to action what is there for literature to ‘defamiliarize’? Again, I refer back to the Dadaist movement which came as a reaction to the horror and needlessness of World War I, yet had there never been a war who is to say whether the movement would have ever been instigated or even endured? I feel that it is the same with literature. For one to react against something there must be a basis from which to start. Similarly the writer must have some concept of what a certain culture’s readers consider familiar in order to defamiliarize them. It seems there is a similarity here with Structuralism, which asserts that “if human actions or productions have a meaning, there must be an underlying system of distinctions and conventions which makes this meaning possible” (56).

I definitely agree with Culler’s notion that language and culture are intricately linked. The meaning that one assigns to actions or words comes about because of the culture that one has grown up in. Sometimes I even experience differences between the North American culture and my own English one, in that some things that are said or done do not have the same significance and therefore the meaning is not reciprocated in one or other of the cultures, and consequently actions or words are inferred differently. I find it fascinating nonetheless.

Hello everyone

My name is Sinead and I am very excited to be sharing my first blog with you all!

I am in my second semester of the first year of my masters in French here at UBC. I studied at The University of Birmingham in the UK where I completed my BA in French Studies.

My background in literary theory is fairly limited, which is the reason for me taking this course.  I am somewhat familiar with Vladimir Propp’s theory on the structure and sequence of fairy tales. I am also interested to learn more about psychoanalytic literary theories and have touched briefly upon Freud in some courses, though not in any great depth.

I am intrigued to discover new insights and different approaches to literary criticism and to share ideas with everyone. I am excited about the blogging component of the course as often so many things are left unsaid in class just due to time restraints. It will be enlightening I’m sure to continue debates and discussions outside the walls of the classroom. I hope that by the end of the course I will have gained access to a deeper understanding of theories and critics which in turn will hopefully help me enrich and further my own studies and interpretations.