Content deleted Content added
InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) Needless suffering, useless howevers and a general lack of precise cohesion (or what some might deem a deeper cohesive precision). |
Removed unnecessary indefinite article. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 7:
</ref> Therefore, it is more precise to refer to the "Russian Formalists", rather than to use the more encompassing and abstract term of "Formalism".
The term "formalism" was first used by the adversaries of the movement, and as such it conveys a meaning explicitly rejected by the Formalists themselves. In the words of one of the foremost Formalists, [[Boris Eichenbaum]]: "It is difficult to recall who coined this name, but it was not a very [[felicitous]] coinage. It might have been convenient as a simplified battle cry but it fails, as an objective term, to delimit the activities of the 'Society for the Study of Poetic Language'."<ref>Boris Eichenbaum, "Vokrug voprosa o formalistah" (Russian: "Вокруг Вопроса о Фоpмалистах", Around the question on the Formalists), ''Pechat' i revolucija'', no. 5 (1924), pp. 2-3.</ref> Russian Formalism is the name now given to a mode of criticism which emerged from two different groups, The Moscow Linguistic Circle (1915) and the Opojaz group (1916). Although Russian Formalism is often linked to American New Criticism because of their similar emphasis on close reading, the Russian Formalists regarded themselves as
==Distinctive ideas==
|