/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3374226]

What is the difference between the Russian Formalism and the Prague School (Prague Linguistic Circle)?

[Anonymous No.3374228]

the ways their dicks bend

[Anonymous No.3374260]

>>3374228
Another quality post.

[Anonymous No.3374263]

You can only multiclass into Russian Formalism if you have 10 specs in postmodernism and 2 specs in post-trotskyism. You can only dual class into Prague School, but it allows you to cast buzzwords as a Heideggerian Chomskite of the same level.

[Anonymous No.3374268]

Relevant to my interests.

Been reading Troubetzkoy and shit is really interesting.

Never heard of that "Russian formaism" tho...

[Anonymous No.3374287]

>>3374263
You can't make jokes like this if you don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

[Anonymous No.3374288]

Prague School = functionalism
Russian Formalism = formalism

function v. formation

[Anonymous No.3374419]

>>3374268
OP, here. First I would like to apologize if I make any mistakes in the English grammar, as it is not my native language. Russian Formalism is a school of literary criticism that began in 1910 until around 1930, time when the formalists had to cease their activities due to their ideals that would go against the Social Realism litterature. I know that in the rest of the world this movement was completely unknown untill Torovov translated the texts of formalists (from Jakobson, Shklovsky, Tynianov, Eikhenbaum,etc) which supposedly influenced French Structuralism.
It proposed an outer-look of Literature as an object itself (different from all the other orders of facts), oposed practical to poetic language (once again based on oppositions rather than certainties, poetic language as a complex, obliquous and difficult, causing stangeness and therefore destroying the automatization of the daily life language perception), defended the concept of "literarity" as the main subject of a literary science, etc.

Roman Jakobson then brought this theory to Prague, but there there were already proto-structuralism concepts which didn't accept the Russian view that Literature should not have non-literary elements.
First, I would like you to discuss about it and correct me if I made any lapse whatsoever. Second, Is the Prague linguistic school a development of the Russian theory with the introduction of a way more mature and stable psycoanalytical theory of Lacan? Is the literarian concept (change that can be seen in Jakobson's own discussion) the only change of the new literarian criticism?

[Anonymous No.3374461]

>>3374287
Fuck you, faggot. I'm a transcendental neo-kantian technobarbarian.

[Anonymous No.3374466]

>>3374461
go back to /b/ faggot

[Anonymous No.3374467]

>>3374461
Sorry dude, but you still look like a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.3374474]

>>3374467
>implying I didn't train under the best Bloomian post-jejune noisecore critics
>implying I can't find all the trans-jingoism motifs in Infinite jest

Get a real education and stop playing postmodern Scrabble, pleb

[Anonymous No.3374481]

>>3374474
this is embarrasing

[Anonymous No.3374491]

>>3374481
Only in the James Foster Joyce wing of the Lacanian Gallerie de L'Absurde Theatre du Ideé. In the real world, where real ideas are important, people are embarrassed to hear your motley collection of pseudointellectual interests.

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you.

[Anonymous No.3374502]

>>3374491

[Anonymous No.3374505]

>>3374419
>Prague linguistic school

Never heard of it. Who belongs there? When were they active?

[Anonymous No.3374509]

>>3374502

[Anonymous No.3374521]

>>3374419
what is your native language, bro?
The Prague circle were survivors of the formalism purge; while the Russian formalists tried to define the literariness of a text in a way favourable to the futurist brainfuck their Praha bretheren were confronted with the confusing discovery that none of their definitions, crafted basing on Japanese, German, English, French et al tongues, worked for the newly-codified language of Czechoslowakia. That made them shift their emphasis from art to text in general.
>structuralism
They were the first to drop the word.

[Anonymous No.3374529]

>Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible --- he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven't met, because I am very remote from from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far broader ones --- the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I've dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish.

[Anonymous No.3374535]

>>3374226

try r/literature on reddit instead. i'm serious. 4chan is full of highchoolers and autists. i still check in here once in a while but serious discussions are miracles.

[Anonymous No.3374537]

>>3374529
This is the best argument to get back to the roots. Shklovsky and Jakobson write pretty clearly.

[Anonymous No.3374545]

>>3374535
you're right about highschoolers, about autists. but that is a common malaise of the internets; better find someone who likes futurism irl, add her on facebook and marry her.

[Anonymous No.3374550]

>>3374535
>that uncomfortable feel when someone gets assmad at a thread and posts a self-centered diary entry no one asked for or cares about describing how bad 4chan has gotten and how he hates it here

[Anonymous No.3374561]

>>3374545
>better find someone who likes futurism irl, add her on facebook and marry her.
Careful man, Redditors take that shit seriously.

[Anonymous No.3374562]

>>3374550
but he's perfectly right. this place is for rejects and kiddies which isn't bad at all. it's just that reddit isn't any better.

[Anonymous No.3374586]

the guy that recommended reddit here. didn't mean to derail thread, which looks possible now. please just consider it and either do or don't act on it.

try and and actually prove me wrong and talk seriously with the op.

[Anonymous No.3374617]

>>3374521
Portuguese.
I think that Formalists started their theory because of the innumerous incongruences of the literary criticism of the XIX century. Literary criticism that was focused more on Historical, Political, Social features on the text that would be dependent on the author's life. Then later came the huge amount of psychoanalitical critics (based solely on Freudian theories) of the author and the reader, where they tried to find reasons why they wrote what they wrote and trying to explain why people felt attracted to a certain text (the vision that literature contained a comuncable masked unconciousness put in a favourable way), but correct me if I am wrong. So, in what way did the Prague School went appart in this subject? Didn't they both try to concentrate on the object of literature alone? On the linguistical and then semiotic parts of the literature?

[Anonymous No.3374830]

>>3374521
>>3374419
Question: So it looks like structuralism can be tracked back to the Prague school if not to the Russian formalism right? so, Where does de Sassure fit in there and why is he and his "Cours" reputed as the founders of structuralism?

[Anonymous No.3374878]

>>3374830
I think you are confusing the person "Saussure" and the ideals of him. First, living before these movements, its impossible that he was part of them. Yet, being the "father" of Linguistics, a more scientifical way to study the language, he opened the doors so that new thinkers would develop theories with this new perspective. Therefore, Saussure is considered a founder because his ideals led to the creation of Formalism and Structuralism, even if the most famous one, French Structuralism, only started 50 years after his death.

[Anonymous No.3374919]

>>3374617

You live in Lisbon? If so pretty sure I know you.

[Anonymous No.3374929]

>>3374919
Nop. Gaia

[Anonymous No.3375283]

bump

[Anonymous No.3375525]

for fuck's sake, Portugal, just read their essays
http://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfs.nju.edu.cn%2Fedit%2FUploadFile%2F2006124162821688.doc&ei=ZC_7UMeAMcbptQaI9oHIDw&usg=AFQjCNF8FQM1HDUbHSlHooWSn-QSLlOCGQ&bvm=bv.41248874,d.Yms

[Anonymous No.3375548]

>>3375525
If you also read what I wrote along the thread you would realise I already read their essays and also a study of David Robey and Ann Jefferson about the subject. My questions are legit doubts and can be discussed about. But thanks for the link anyways, even though I dont know if the source is legitimate, information is never too much

[Anonymous No.3376032]

>>3375548
meh it should have been Salaza0073

[Anonymous No.3376086]

>>3376032
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.3376156]

>>3376086
Francisco was Spanish not Portuguese

[Anonymous No.3376181]

Oh fuck why am I too drunk to participate in this thread? But nevertheless I'm pretty sure that Mukarovsky is all that remained of the Prague circle, Russian Formalists actually stopped neglecting the diachronic axis. See Tynyanov yo.

[Anonymous No.3376217]

Just begin reading Theory of Literature (2012) by Fry. Would recommend this as a nice introduction to the field if anyone is interested.

[kaightheguy No.3376233]

Since there is a lack of almost any discussion I would just like to point out that while you belittle high schoolers etc many of the posters who here seem to me as if they are just as if not more pathetic than those who you mock. There has been very little discussion actually regarding the topic at hand, and what has been said is fairly vague and generalized. Spewing names of those who may have been founders of a certain movement does not necessarily answer the questions at hand.
> These people are faggots.
>english formalism although faggots is a fairly abstract idea
> idk putting dicks in each others asses is concrete
plz essplain if that was a lewd essample of formalizm or fucksiunalisms

[kaightheguy No.3376241]

faggots whilst using poetic language i need not use faggot ass grammar as i seek to have the validity of my statements challenged so that poontards can feel all warm inside
Captcha: aftur esteprob
yul nebr cry aggn faggstits

[Anonymous No.3376273]

Fry uses the book "Tony the Tow Truck" (16 pages), to explore different theories of literary criticism. [Not to be confused with Meet Tony the Tow Truck,(2001); it appears that the 1985 edition of Tony the Tow Truck is no longer in print].

The video lecture series upon which the book is based is available online – search YouTube. However, I found the video and audio series difficult follow because Fry speaks very rapidly.