1. UNIVERSIDAD PEDAGÓGICA EXPERIMENTAL LIBERTADOR
INSTITUTO PEDAGÓGICO DE CARACAS
SUBDIRECCIÓN DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y POSTGRADO
SUBPROGRAMA DE MAESTRIA EN EDUCACIÓN
MENCIÓN ENSEÑANZA DE LA LITERATURA EN INGLÉS
ENFOQUES LITERARIO
ALUMNO: ORLANDO VIVAS
PROFESORA: AUDY CASTAÑEDA
RUSSIAN FORMALISM SUMMARY MADE FROM CON DAVIES AND
SCHLEIFER´S BOOKCONTEMPORARY LITERARY CRITICISM. LITERARY
AND CULTURAL STUDIES.PAGES 260-271.
The following summary intends to describe theliterary imageriesused bythe
Russian Formalist groups,whose one representative wasViktor
BorisovichShklovskyin Moscow from 1916 to 1930. While these imageries are
presented, some comparisons will be also mentioned in relation to the opinion that
another literary group and writer have towards this issue.This description will be
supported by the studies made from Con Davies and schleifer (1994).
According to Con Davies and schleifer (1994). Russian Formalist
grouppreferred to view literary works as collections of devices that interact in the
text rather than a device which produces only an aesthetic effect, the latter was
sustained from another group calledPotebnyan.
Shklovsky proposed “Art as Technique” in 1917, which was one of the
primary documents of Russian Formalism. “Art as a Technique” went against
Aesthetic Theories (especially Potebnyan) because they considered that a text
does not have a prescribed effect. They favor Linguistic devices like metaphors
(comparison between two unlike things that have something in common) and
metonymy (one word or phrase that is substituted for another that is closely
associated, for example: crown for royalty), to create a more complete image. Both

2. Formalist and Potebyan Theories believed that images clarify thoughts but
Potebyan did not consider them necessary for thought, but for the emotions.
Shklovsky stated that images change little from century to century, from
nation to nation, from poet to poet. He believed that a poet was most interested in
arranging images than creating them. He maintained that although a poet could
change the image, it did not affect the development of poetry. He gave as an
example the technique of placing adjectives after nouns, which he considered also
artistic. This led to the conclusion that a work can be considered artistry only from
the perception we give to it.
Another aspect Russian Formalismhad against Potebyan was that they did
not distinguish the Language of Poetry and the Language of Prose. Shklovsky said
thatPotebyan omitted that there were two aspects of imagery: Imagery as a
practical mean of thinking and imagery as poetic. Shklovsky gave as example in
the word butterfinger, which could be either metonymic or poetic imagery.
Shklovsky argued that apart from poetic imagery, as a device of poetic
language, there was also The Prose Imagery, which was the means of abstraction
but it had nothing to do with poetry. He also said about the importance of
economizing the reader´s or hearer´s attention by presenting ideas to be
apprehended with the least possible mental effort. For instance using the Method
of Algebra in which people apprehend objects only as shapes and by recognition of
the main characteristics. Shklovsky gave as an example the sentence: The Swiss
Mountains are beautiful”. He said that if we took only the first letters of this
sentence T,S, M, A, B. we could make a prose perception that would not be easy
to fade. According to Shklovsky, it permitted The Economy of Perception Effort. He
insisted that the writer had to be aware of this because his job was to make the
object unfamiliar. “To make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of
perception” because the most important thing, according to Shklovsky was “The art
the objecttakes and not the object itself”.Shklovsky´s point of view led him to
remark that it did not matter if we had an object in front of us many times, we would

3. not recognize it unless we saw the object several times. He emphasized that we
could make something familiar unfamiliar only by changing or adding art to it.
Con Davies and Schleifer (1.994) expandedShklovsky´s reasoning and they
mentioned in their analysis Tolstoy (1897) who in his writings made known objects
unknown for the reader. This process was called The Art of Defamiliarization,
which means using familiar words or acts and make them unfamiliar, by describing
and changing its form without changing its nature. According to these authors in
some cases familiar words became complete new. They cited specifically Tolstoy´s
novel War and Peace in which he made a familiar event, which is the case of a
war, complete new to the reader. Con Davies and Schleifer present also examples
taken from Erotic art. They think that the use of the image of Defamiliarization can
also make a known object (in this case erotic) unknown. They think that the
purpose would be to lead out the reader from the recognition of the word. For
example the sexual organs can be referred as if they were a lock and a key. This
imagery can help writers use polite words instead of a direct one. This technique,
according to the authors mentioned is called Euphemismand it is mostly used as
riddles or a as a mysterious word that the reader has to figure out.
To sum up, we can say that Russian Formalists (represented byViktor
BorisovichShklovsky) used literary devices such as metaphors and
metonymy,poetic imagery, etc, similarto others literary groups. However, their
perception of these devices or techniques was that they can be used as literary
devices as well as to defamiliarize our perception of reality and not only as an
aesthetic device and in doing this, we are using these devices as Art as technique
and not only as mere structures in a literary text. I stand byShklovsky point of view
when he said that “The most important thing is the art the object takes and not the
object itself”