Talk:Russian formalism
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Formalism in music
editThere does not seem to be anything in this article about the use of the term "formalism" in music, nor does there seem to be an article about formalism in music. I will try to piece together a stub but could someone who knows more about it than I do weigh in and make things better? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Fabula
editfabula should not link to a Danish electronica band, nor should searching for "fabula" take one to said Danish electronica band's article.
Flaw in "Flaw in Deviation View of Literature"
editThe section entitled "Flaw in Deviation View of Literature" seems conceptually clumsy to me. First of all, Shklovsky addressed just this question via a discussion of Pushkin in "Art as Technique," where he talks specifically about how "more realistic and naturalistic" language can equally achieve defamiliarization. Secondly, Hemingway is a complicated example to use in this light, since his prose, though not "flowery" (pov?), is certainly very mannered and stylized in other ways. Hemingway would provide no conceptual problem at all for Shklovsky, who would see the radically laconic voice as an excellent example of defamiliarization. Gossip Girl might be a tougher nut for him to crack. In other words, the basic question about the Formalists' dichotomous view of literature / non-literature is a valid one, but this description of it seems amateur. As I am an amateur myself, I will not suggest alterations, but wiser heads than mine might wish to revise. Nostalgicmodernist (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikification
editThis article is almost completely unwikified. I think our first priority is to generally wikify these citations and the page structure. Thomas1617 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Citation of Jakobson
editRoman Jakobson described literature as "organized violence committed on ordinary speech." The only source of this wonderfully witty phrase known to me is T. Eagleton 'Literary Theory' (1985). It is normally attributed to Jakobson but no source is ever given. I suspect that it is a mischievous mini-pseudepigraphon coined by Eagleton and foisted on Jakobson, but I would be happy to be proved wrong (Pamour (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)).