RUSSIAN FORMALISM SUMMARY MADE FROM CON DAVIES AND SCHLEIFERS BOOK CONTEMPORARY LITERARY CRITICISM.

LITERARY AND CULTURAL STUDIES. PAGES 260-271. The following summary intends to describe the literary imageries used by the Russian Formalist groups, whose one representative was Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky in Moscow from 1916 to 1930. While these images are presented, some comparisons will be also mentioned in relation to the opinion that other literary group and writer have towards this issue. This description will be supported by the studies made from Con Davies and schleifer (1994). According to Con Davies and schleifer (1994). Russian Formalist group preferred to view literary works as collections of devices that interact in the text rather than a device which produces only an aesthetic effect, the latter was sustained from another group called Potebyan. Shklovsky proposed Art as Technique in 1917, which was one of the primary documents of Russian Formalism. Art as a Technique went against Aesthetic Theories (especially Potebyan) because they considered that a text does not have a prescribed effect. They favor Linguistic devices like metaphors and metonymy, to create a more complete image. Both Formalist and Potebyan Theories believed that images clarify thoughts but Potebyan did not consider them necessary for thought, but for the emotions. Shklovsky stated that images change little from century to century, from nation to nation, from poet to poet. He believed that a poet was most interested in arranging images than creating them. He maintained that although a poet could change the image, it did not affect the development of poetry. He gave as an example the technique of placing adjectives after nouns, which he considered also artistic. This led to the conclusion that a work can be considered artistry only from the perception we give to it. Another aspect Russian Formalism have against Potebyan was that they did not distinguish the Language of Poetry and the Language of Prose. Shklovsky said

that Potebyan omitted that there were two aspects of imagery: Imagery as a practical mean of thinking and imagery as poetic. Shklovsky gave as example in the word butterfinger, which could be either metonymic or poetic imagery. Shklovsky argued that apart from poetic imagery, as a device of poetic language, there was also The Prose Imagery, which was the means of abstraction but it had nothing to do with poetry. He also said about the importance of economizing the readers or hearers attention by presenting ideas to be apprehended with the least possible mental effort. For instance using the Method of Algebra in which people apprehend objects only as shapes and by recognition of the main characteristics. Shklovsky gave as an example the sentence: The Swiss Mountains are beautiful. He said that if we took only the first letters of this sentence T, S, M, A, B. We could make a prose perception that would not be easy to fade. According to Shklovsky, it permitted The Economy of Perception Effort. He insisted that the writer had to be aware of this because his job was to make the object unfamiliar. To make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the most important thing, according to Shklovsky was The art the object takes and not the object itself. Shklovskys point of view led him to remark that it did not matter if we had an object in front of us many times, we would not recognize it unless we saw the object several times. He emphasized that we could make something familiar unfamiliar only by changing or adding art to it. Con Davies and Schleifer (1.994) expanded Shklovsky s reasoning and they mentioned in their analysis Tolstoy (1897) who in his writings made known objects unknown for the reader. This process was called The Art of Defamiliarization, which means using familiar words or acts and make them unfamiliar, by describing and changing its form without changing its nature. According to these authors in some cases familiar words became complete new. They cited specifically Tolstoys novel War and Peace in which he made a familiar event, which is the case of a war, complete new to the reader. Con Davies and Schleifer present also examples taken from Erotic art. They think that the use of the image of Defamiliarization can also make a known object (in this case erotic)

unknown. They think that the purpose would be to lead out the reader from the recognition of the word. For example the sexual organs can be referred as if they were a lock and a key. This imagery can help writers use polite words instead of a direct one. This technique, according to the authors mentioned is called Euphemism and it is mostly used as riddles or a as a mysterious word that the reader has to figure out. To sum up, we can say that Russian Formalists (represented by Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky) used literary devises such as metaphors and metonymy, poetic imagery, etc, similar to others literary groups. However, their perception of these devices or techniques was that they can be used as literary devices as well as to defamiliarize our perception of reality and not only as an aesthetic device and in doing this, we are using these devices as Art as technique and not only as mere structures in a literary text. I stand by Shklovsky point of view when he said that The most important thing is the art the object takes and not the object itself