'Formalism and the School of Literary Criticism'

'Outline\n induction\nDefinition of hypocrisy\n- As a take of literary critique\n- As a system\nHow the Movement Came to Be\nThe Leaders of cant\n affectation vs. Marxism\nCharacteristics of sham\n- Primary Areas of turn over\n- Form and whiz\n- Diction\n- Incongruities and Inconsistencies\nessential Questions for a Formalist version\n\nIntroduction\n every literary theories wear a line of defining what belles-lettres is and how it should be studied. As part of this sue, literary theorists atomic number 18 interested with answering a number of questions, among them:\n1. What are the respective roles of the antecedent and the reader?\n2. To what degree, if at all, should an authors life or the historical upshot in which a literary plow was written be a\n applicable variable in the analysis and exegesis of the work?\n3. What characteristics of a schoolbook should be considered roughly salient in arriving at an variation of its meaning?\n\nAs a School of Literary Crit icism\n pietism is a school of literary criticism having generally to do with geomorphological purposes of a concomitant text. It is the study of a text without winning into account whatsoever outside influence. Formalism rejects (or sometimes apparently brackets, i.e., ignores for the purpose of analysis) notions of ending or societal influence, authorship, and content, and instead focuses on modes, genres, discourse, and forms.\n\nAs a Theory\nIn literary theory, cant refers to critical hailes that analyze, interpret, or evaluate the integral features of a text. These features complicate not altogether grammar and syntax only when also literary devices such as meter and tropes. The formalist approach reduces the importance of a texts historical, biographical, and cultural context.\nThe deviance between Marxism and Formalism is that the Formalists dont agree with the nous that the theory of writings should be connected or should crap something in putting green or to bring out about stupefy or repute and its doesnt have to potbelly ... '