2021Unpublished venueRequires access

Literary Criticism and Literary Theories

Глеб Струве

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century the dominant tendency in Russian literary criticism was towards the so-called “social” or “civic” criticism, towards estimating literary works by their social content and appeal. The beginning of Formalism as a school dates from the first years of the War, when a group of young students of literature organized in Petrograd the so-called Association for the Study of Poetical Language which issued its non-periodical publication. The extreme Formalists not only ban altogether the element of contents in the usual sense, and study the naked forms of literary works, but they have a tendency to deny all causal connection between literary facts and other facts that co-exist with them. Boris Eichenbaum denies just as emphatically all causal connection between art on one hand, and life, social environment, etc., on the other. Doubtless some of the Formalists, and especially Eichenbaum, realized the insufficiency, narrowness and futility of the purely formalistic method.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century the dominant tendency in Russian literary criticism was towards the so-called “social” or “civic” criticism, towards estimating literary works by their social content and appeal. The beginning of Formalism as a school dates from the first years of the War, when a group of young students of literature organized in Petrograd the so-called Association for the Study of Poetical Language which issued its non-periodical publication. The extreme Formalists not only ban altogether the element of contents in the usual sense, and study the naked forms of literary works, but they have a tendency to deny all causal connection between literary facts and other facts that co-exist with them. Boris Eichenbaum denies just as emphatically all causal connection between art on one hand, and life, social environment, etc., on the other. Doubtless some of the Formalists, and especially Eichenbaum, realized the insufficiency, narrowness and futility of the purely formalistic method.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century the dominant tendency in Russian literary criticism was towards the so-called “social” or “civic” criticism, towards estimating literary works by their social content and appeal. The beginning of Formalism as a school dates from the first years of the War, when a group of young students of literature organized in Petrograd the so-called Association for the Study of Poetical Language which issued its non-periodical publication. The extreme Formalists not only ban altogether the element of contents in the usual sense, and study the naked forms of literary works, but they have a tendency to deny all causal connection between literary facts and other facts that co-exist with them. Boris Eichenbaum denies just as emphatically all causal connection between art on one hand, and life, social environment, etc., on the other. Doubtless some of the Formalists, and especially Eichenbaum, realized the insufficiency, narrowness and futility of the purely formalistic method.

Key concepts: Literary criticism, Literary science, Literature, Criticism, Literary theory, Sociological criticism, Philosophy, Art

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Literary Criticism and Literary Theories — Research Paper | ScholarLens