ARC Essay_Oliinyk Kateryna Gr.2

 ‘Form’ versus ‘Content’

In the beginning of the XX century the question of ‘form’ as a base of the composition was advanced to the forefront in the literary studies. The leading role of this research was taken by the Russian formalism, which represented with two groups of scientist – Moscow Linguistic Circle founded by Roman Jacobson and Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOYAZ) founded in St. Petersburg by Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum, and Yury Tynyanov. This wave of literary studies called the attention to the question of a composition’s form. Obviously, new controversial opinion found its negation among the conservative ‘content-supporters’. Thus, to understand ideas of Russian Formalism in completeness it is worth to look on them through the extant criticism.

First thing of literary work’s formalists were stressing on is unity of each components. What is more, Russian scientists were denying the usual opposition of ‘form’ and ‘contents’. In the same time, they were subjected to criticism mostly because the priority of ‘form’. According to Svetlana Matviyenko: "Formalists were always criticized for an ignorance of the context while the awareness of 'form' in its contextuality was one of the highlights in their theoretical movement." [5, p. 24] But novelty of the reorientation from ‘what’ to ‘how’ contained in idea about ‘form’ as a starting point which creates the ‘content’ for itself.

On the other hand, there still were lots of scientists who pursued to learn the ‘content’ only. The idea about importance of ‘form’ was rejected as a mechanical and algebraical opinion without creative inspiration. Besides, only position based on ‘content’ allowed to be inserted into the literary studies with its orientation on the social and political value of a composition. For instance, Vladimir Hadzinsky states that the art is a "product of revolution" [2, p. 179]; in other words, he believed that an art is purely utilitarian. Thus, formalism as a new methodology in literary studies raised a question about the credibility of Marxism. Notoriously, the latter was promoted as the only possible method and the ‘end’ for a Soviet literature.

However, formalists doubted even the term of ‘content’ and offered to substitute it on ‘material’. According to their works, all the plots, motifs and artistic images had been already done and just can be used again: “The essential to represent was not the quality of what was combined, but to show how this was happened - “the labyrinth of the clutches”” [3, p. 233]. This means that individuality of the author can be described just in the building of ‘form’.

Therefore, literary studies with a works of Russian formalists were reoriented to the new idea of ‘form’ as a first point of the composition. Revising a major opinion of literary studies, which were attached by ‘content-supporters’, was a big step to creative individuality over the social and political servant.   

1. ACR paragraph. Oliinyk Kateryna. – http://fedoriv-writing.blogspot.com/2013/02/acr-paragraph-by-oliinyk-kateryna-in.html 

2.     Hadzinsky V. A Few Words to the Question of "Form and Content" / V. Hadzinskyy / / Red way. - 1923. - № 4-5. - P. 174-179.

3.    Hanzen-Leve O. A. Russian Formalism / O. A. Hanzen-Leve. – M. : Language of Russian Culture, 2001. – 672 p.

4.   Eikhenbaum B. M. Theory of the "Formal Method" / B. M. Eikhenbaum // About the Literature / B. M. Eikhenbaum. – M., 1987. – P. 375-408.

5. Matvienko S. A Discourse of a Formalism: the Ukrainian Context / S. Matvienko. - Lviv: Litopys, 2004. - 142 p.

6.  Shklovsky V. B. Connection of the Story Making Methods with a General Methods of Style / V. B. Shklovsky // About the Theory of Prose / V. B. Shklovsky. – M., 1983. – P. 26-62.