1.9.1.1. Dickens and Austin’s Focus Additionally, the Dickensian style is giving a sort of distorting manner in the use of language in its different forms intertwining the latter with the numerous devices offered by literary aspect of the work, resulting in a figurative language of high level through the voice of the narrator, wherein another form of it seems to occur in the dialogic representation of characters and their expressed voices, something that is neither rule-based language, nor literary one but a sub-norm out of the standard.
In addition to the voice of the narrator and the realist approach that seems to prevail but it is not owing that to the various manners and techniques in displaying the characters. In a parcel of text from …show more content…
Shklovsky conceptualized of his most striking concepts as ‘ostranenie’ or ‘making strange’ and coined it ‘defamiliarization’. He argued that, “we can never retain the freshness of our perceptions of objects; the demands of ‘normal’ existence require that they must become to a great extent ‘automatized’ (a later term) (idem).
Thus, formalists were rather interested in the nature of devices than in the perceptions themselves, “from the automatic and practical to the artistic”(idem). Shklovsky, in his Art as Technique (1917), clarifies this in saying,
The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the concept of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important.
(Lemon and Reis, 1965, p12; Shklovsky’s emphasis) …show more content…
Aristotle defined the plot ‘mythos’, on the one hand, as “the arrangement of incidents”, and the plot for Widdowson et. al is “the artful disposition of the incidents which make up a story”. On the other hand, Russian formalists hassle that the plot (sjuzet) is uniquely literary compared to story (fabula) that is deemed to be “raw material awaiting the organizing hand of the writer”. In other words, plot is “actually the violation of the expected formal arrangements of incidents” (idem). Shklovsky perturbed the usual plot array to make it defamiliarized and the plotting thence is a literary object (ibid).
The Russian formalist narrative theory offers a supplementary model; “motivation”, within which Tomashevsky labelled the tiniest unit of plot a “motif”. He also distinguished between ‘bound’ and ‘free’ motif; a bound motif is compulsory for the story, wherein the free one is of lower importance vis-à-vis the story in its whole. Notwithstanding that from a literary perspective, the free motif is potentially “the focus of art”(idem). This perspective rises against the conventional subordination,
In addition to the voice of the narrator and the realist approach that seems to prevail but it is not owing that to the various manners and techniques in displaying the characters. In a parcel of text from …show more content…
Shklovsky conceptualized of his most striking concepts as ‘ostranenie’ or ‘making strange’ and coined it ‘defamiliarization’. He argued that, “we can never retain the freshness of our perceptions of objects; the demands of ‘normal’ existence require that they must become to a great extent ‘automatized’ (a later term) (idem).
Thus, formalists were rather interested in the nature of devices than in the perceptions themselves, “from the automatic and practical to the artistic”(idem). Shklovsky, in his Art as Technique (1917), clarifies this in saying,
The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the concept of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important.
(Lemon and Reis, 1965, p12; Shklovsky’s emphasis) …show more content…
Aristotle defined the plot ‘mythos’, on the one hand, as “the arrangement of incidents”, and the plot for Widdowson et. al is “the artful disposition of the incidents which make up a story”. On the other hand, Russian formalists hassle that the plot (sjuzet) is uniquely literary compared to story (fabula) that is deemed to be “raw material awaiting the organizing hand of the writer”. In other words, plot is “actually the violation of the expected formal arrangements of incidents” (idem). Shklovsky perturbed the usual plot array to make it defamiliarized and the plotting thence is a literary object (ibid).
The Russian formalist narrative theory offers a supplementary model; “motivation”, within which Tomashevsky labelled the tiniest unit of plot a “motif”. He also distinguished between ‘bound’ and ‘free’ motif; a bound motif is compulsory for the story, wherein the free one is of lower importance vis-à-vis the story in its whole. Notwithstanding that from a literary perspective, the free motif is potentially “the focus of art”(idem). This perspective rises against the conventional subordination,