Is Formalism right?

Specifically, is the new criticism right?

I feel that no one can deny that literature is art and it should be examined as a piece of art with no subjectivity involved, but you can't just get rid of your biases and examine a piece of art purely objectively.

What are your thoughts on the new criticism Veeky Forums?
Would anyone disagree with formalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(literature)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_formalism
warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/first/en122/lecturelist-2015-16-2/shklovsky.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

bump

That pic always reminded me way too much of Goebbels. It isn't even nearly the same and neither do the two cripples look alike but everytime I see this I see Goebbels, everytime I see pic related I see Elliot.

Formalism is the richest way to read, but not the only way to read.

Today I had an exam from Intro to lit theory. I glossed over the chapter about the various theoretical schools so I can't really reply to your thread. Now I feel kind of guilty and dumb.

What is formalism?

Formalism is actually the pre-condition for all other forms of reading. You can stop at formalism or pursue it to extreme detail and/or you can link your formal interpretations to broader social and philosophical interpretations. Formalism isn't right, it's necessary

You should read Cleanth Brooks Community, Religion, Literature. The New Formalism was never meant to be a mutually exclusive theory, but a way of providing a solid foundation in the literature itself for other kinds of reading, providing the subject Literature with a proper identity rather than having it be a bastard amalgam of different disciplines.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(literature)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_formalism
warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/first/en122/lecturelist-2015-16-2/shklovsky.pdf

I was checking to see if those posters knew, you know, like in their own words.

Why? Who the fuck do you think you're? It's better explained in those links.

Are you a highschool teacher? Is this an exam? Fuck off

You made a thread discussing it. I thought everyone involved should know how informative they can expect this discussion to be.

Copy pasting information is not knowledge or understanding.

I repeat - are you a highschool teacher? Stop bossing around, you're pathetic.

I don't know why you're so angry and defensive if you hoped to learn something from this thread. If you expected to hear your assumptions echoed back to you, I'm sorry it's not working out.

I unironically think around 80% of Veeky Forums is formalist based on the quality of reading that generates the threads and posts here.

I'm not OP and I still see no purpose in your retarded question. I thought you legit didn't know and were curious, so I posted the links.

Formalism in terms of formal analysis is a valuable tool for literary criticism. It is probably the basis for all the other stuff we do in literary criticism and is incredibly important as a foundation for everything else. You can't really disagree with formalism, because formal analysis is the groundwork for all other criticism.

New Criticism is one of many ideological mindsets for criticism and isn't useful to anyone unless they buy into it. Unless it's 1970, New Criticism isn't helpful to anyone.

Ok then, I'll see if I can break it down.
>OP makes a thread about formalism
>I ask
I wanted to see if he knew. I also wanted to solicit an open request for any anons itt to give their take on the term so we could get a general idea of how widely our conceptions of it differ or how closely they resemble each other and what those points of difference or similarity tell us about formalism and us as individual anons. Get it?

>can't really disagree
Is it ok to remain a formalist all your life?

meant for sorry

Well then you could've formulated your question more appropriately, and I wouldn't have insulted you for no good reason.

It's one of many tools I think. A lot of people aren't strictly formalists but find formal analysis very useful in their work. To restrict yourself to just formalism is probably unsatisfying as a critic, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. That'd be my opinion.

I like Shklovsky's idea of alienation, but that's about the only thing I care for of Formalism. No, I don't think looking at a piece of art in a vacuum is a valid interpretation whatsoever.