A Comparative Analysis of New Criticism and Russian Formalism

1755 Words8 Pages
A Comparative Analysis of New Criticism and Russian Formalism Every age has its theoretical definitions of the nature of literature and its theorized principles on which critical approaches to the analysis of literature are premised. Among many critical approaches, New Criticism and Russian formalism are the earliest and the most preliminary ones. Russian Formalism, mainly produced in the second two decades of the twentieth century, did not have widespread impact until the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was effectively rediscovered, translated and given currency by Western intellectuals who were themselves part of the newer Marxist and structuralist movements of that period. In this respect, the Russian Formalists belong to a later moment of their reproduction and were mobilized by the new left critics in their assault, precisely, on established literary criticism represented most centrally, in the Anglo-Saxon cultures, by New Criticism and Leavisism. Hence, students of literature brought up in the tradition of Anglo-American New Criticism with its emphasis on “practical criticism” and the organic unity of the text might expect to feel at home with Russian Formalism. Although, these two forms of criticism espouse what many call the “text and text alone” approach to literary analysis, they have some certain important differences in terms of critical theoretical ideology. Through a comparative analysis, this paper tries to discuss two major differences between New Criticism and Russian Formalism; New Criticism’s humanistic, and Russian Formalism’s scientific base as of their literary critical regard and the different evaluation of Literary Canon in their critical positions and practices. The most distinctive common feature of both kinds of criticism is their aim to explore what is specifically literary in texts, and both reject the limp

More about A Comparative Analysis of New Criticism and Russian Formalism

Open Document