Victor Shklovsky (b. 1893) was a Icading figurc in the school of literary and linguistic theory known as Russian formalism, which flourished in the immediately pre- and post-revolutionary period in Russia. Two groups of scholars and studcnts wcrc involvcd-thc Moscow 1 jllguistic Circlc, whosc most famous mcmbcr was R()man Jak()bs()n (scc bcl()w, pp. 31-61) and thc Opaya.z group bascd in St Pctcrsburg, which was m()rc intcrcstcd in litcrary criticism, and whose leader was Shklovsky. I3oth brroups wcrc c()mmittcd to thc study and support of experimental, avant-garde litcraturc and art. Shklovsky's 'Art as Technique', first publishcd in 1917, was dcscribcd by Horis f:ikhenbaum, another member of the ()p(~yaz gr()UP, as 'a kind ()f mallifcst() ()f thc I;()rmal Mcthod'.
Shkl()vsky's cssay bcgills with a p()lcmic against thc Symb()list sch()ol ()f poets and critics, cspccially thcir chicf thcorctical spokcsman Potcbnya. Russian symbolism was evidently not identical to the French symbolist movement ofthe late nineteenth century, which had such a profound effect on English and American modernist writing, though they clearly had a common origin in Romantic poetics. In any case, it is not necessary to be familiar with Russian symbolism in order to appreciate the more fonnal, less idealist character of Shklovsky's approach tq the question of what makes poetry poetic.
In a significant asidc, Shklovsky praiscs anothcr writcr, Jakubinsky, for producing 'onc of thc first cxamplcs of scicntiflc criticism'. This drcam (or mirage), of making the study of literature an exact science, inspired the tradition that ran from the Russian formalists, via the Prague School of the 1930s, to the exponents of 'structuralism' in Western Europe in the 1960s and 70s. It had its equivalent in England and America in the efforts of the New Critics, from I. A~ Richards to W. K. Wimsatt, to make literary criticism a more precise and objective discipline. There is an obvious parallel between Shklovsky's distinction between poetic and prose language and I. A. Richards' distinction between emotive and referential language (see I. A. Richards, 'The Two Uses of Language', Section 9 in 20th Century Ljterary Critjcism). c
Shklovsky's cruciaIly important concept of defamiliarization (ostranenje, 'making strange') is, however, essentiaIly structuralist in that it treats literary techniquet as Saussure had treated language, as a 'system of differences'. What startles üs into a new way of seeing is a new way of saying, and we can only appreciate the novelty of that against what is habitual and expected in any given context. "
The focus of Russian formalists upon the medium rather than the message of
r' . 'i::c:Cr Art as techniqut' I
Scc Ruma,n Jakubson, 'Ihc Mctaphoric and Mctonymic Polcs', bclow pp. 57-61. l:!ritish philusophcr(1820-1903).
Pott:bnya'~ c,()nclll~j()n, whi<.'h can b<.' t()rmlllale<.1 'r()t:lry t:quals imagery,' gave ri~c l() Ihc wh()lc th<..()ry thal 'i/\1agl.'ry l.'(IUal~ sy/\1boli~m,' lhallhc image may serve a~ Ihc invariabl<: (Jr<:Ji<.'atc ()r vari()lis subj<:<.'l~, ('l.hi~ c()nclusi()n, because it <:xrrcs~<:<.1 idca.'i si/\1il¡¡r t() th<: lhc()ri<:~ ()r tht: Symb()li~l~, inlrigut:d s()me of tht:ir l<:adil1g r<:prc~enl¡¡liv<:8.-A11Jrt:y llely, Mert:zhkov8ky a11J hi8 'ett:rnal c()mpanions' a11d, i11 tact, formcd the basis of the theory of Symbolism.) The c()nclusio11 st<:m~ p¡¡rtly trom tht: fact th¡¡l Potebnya did not disti11guish between the languagc of pOt:lry a11d thc languagt: of prosc. Consequently, he ignored the fact that (here are t\\.o aspects of imagery: imagt:ry as a practical means of thi11ki11g, as a means of placingobjects within ca(egories; and imagery as poetic, as a mea11s of rei11forcing an impression. I shall clarify with an example. I want (o attract the attention of a young child Who is ea(ing bread and butter and ge(ting the butter on her fi11gers. I call, 'Hey, butterfingers!' This is a fig\lre of speech, a clearly prosaic trope. NoW a diffcren( example. The child is playing wjth my glas~c~ ~íld'dri)rs-(I~m. [ call, 'Hcy, but(crfi11gers!'K This figure of ~pccch is ¡¡ P()~(i9,(!.~)-pc:. (Ill th<.' tir8! <:xample, 'bU(lerfi11gers' i~ /\1ct()nymic; in the scc()nd, meiáph()ric-bul this i~ 11()( whal I W¡¡l1l I() slrcss.)"
P()ctic im¡¡!1;cry i~ a mC¡II1~ ()f cr<:¡¡till!l; Ihc slr()l1g<:8l r()~siblc imrrcssion. .As a l'I("th()J il is, Jcr<:11Jillg lir(11l il,.. rllr(J()s<:, 11(,!ilil('.r m()r<: Il()r I<:s.\¡ (,.~~;~!} (¡lllcr r()<:ti(,. l<:ch11i4l1CS; il i.\¡ Ilcilhcr l'I()re 11()r I(".'i... l!ft'c(.:l¡V<: i1l;!I\ ()rJi11;tI)' ()r 11cg;iliv<: p¡¡r¡¡II<:li~m, c()mp¡¡ri.'i()II, r<:pl'tili()11, b¡¡I¡¡IlCCli ~trllclur<:, hypcrbol<:, thc c()mm()llly ¡¡(.:ccptcd rhet()ric¡¡1 tigllr(,.s. ¡¡11d ;III th()'it! mcth()J~ which cmrh¡¡siz<: lh<: cm()tÍ<)II¡¡1 etl"<:(.:1 ()f ¡¡Il cxrrcs~ioll {iIICIllJi11g w(),\ls (ir <:VC11 ¡¡rticlll¡¡t<:J s()u11ds).(1 13l11 p()<:(ic im¡¡gcry ()Illy <:xl<:r11ally rcscmble~ <:ither th<: ~t()ck i/\1¡¡g<:ry ()f fablt:s and b¡¡ll¡¡d~ or thi11ki11g i11 images-<:.g., the examplc i11 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky's Langual!e aJ/4 /Jrt i11 which a little girl calls a b,all a littlt: W!:1~.~!:!:!}eJQ!l,- Poeric imagery-ls.butol1e()f the dcvites ofpOC(ic languagt:. Prosc imagcry is a means of abstraction: a littlc watcr/\1elon in~tcad of a lamr~hadc, or a little watermelon insteaJ of ¡¡ he¡¡d, is ollly thc abSlr¡¡cti()11 of one ()f the objt:ct's ch¡¡racteristics, that of rol1ndllCSS. It i~ IlO (,litterel1t fr()m s¡¡yillg (hat th<: hcaJ ¡¡nd thc melo11 are bOlh r()und. 'l'hi." is wh¡¡t is m<:;¡llt, but il h¡¡s no(hillg t() do with p()etry.
I
, J 'hl: l;¡w ()r thc l:col1omy or crl:;¡tivl: l:t'I()rt is ;¡lso gel1l:ralJy accl:ptl:J. ll-lerbcrt] Spencerj¡ wrote:
On scckillg for somc cllle to thc law lIl1dcrlying these current maxims, wc may Sl:l: shaJowed torth in many or them, the importance of cconomizing the reaJer)s or the hearer's attention. To so present ideas
that they may be apprl:hendl:d with thc Icast possiblc mental cffort, is the dcsidl:ratllm t()w¡¡rds which m()~t ()r thl: rulc~ above quoted p()il1t. ...
11l:l1cl:, c¡¡rryil1g ()lIt thl: ml:t¡¡ph()r that 1¡¡l1gll¡¡gl: i:; thl: vl:hicll: of thought) thcrl: :;l:l:m:; rl:a~()11 t() think th¡¡t il1 ¡¡IJ casl::; thl: t'riction and incrtia of the vehicle deduct from it:; ctficicl1cy; and that in composition, the chief) if
not thc s()lc thin~ t() hc d(mc, is t() rcdllcc this tricti()n and inertia to the smallcst p()ssihlc am()lint.IO
And R[ichardl Avcnarills:
If a soul possess inexhaustihle strcngth, then, of course, it would be
indifferent to how much might be spent from this inexhaustible source; only the necessarily expended time would be important. But since its
forces are limited, one is led to expect that the soul hastens to carry out the apperceptive process as expediently as possible-that is, with comparatively the least expenditure of energy, and, hence, with comparatively the best result.
Petrazhitsky, with only one reference to the generallaw of mental effort, rejects [William] Jamcs's thc()ry ()f thc physical hasis ()f cmoti()n, a thc()ry which contra- dicts his own. Evcn Alcxandcr Vcscl()vsky acknowlcdgcd thc principlc of the economy of crcativc effort, a thcory espccially appealing in the study of rhythm, and agrced with Spcnccr: ' A satisfact(,ry stylc is prcciscly that style which dclivcrs thc ~rcatc.'il am()lillt ()f (h(,li~hl ill thc f"cwcst w()rds.' And Andrcy Bely, dcspitc thc 1:lct Ihat ill his hc(lcr pa~c.'i hc ~avc nllmcr()lis cxamplcs ()f 'rough- cncd' rhythm II and (particlilarly in thc cxamplc.'i fr()m I~aratynsky) showcd the difficultics inhcrcnt in poctic cpithcts, als() th()u~ht it ncccssary t() spcak of the law ()f thc CC()J1()my (J crcativc cf1()rt in his h()()k I z-a hcroic cff()rt t() create a thc()ry of art hascd (m linvcrificd tact.'i fr()m anti4l1atcd sourccs, on his vast knowledge of thc tcchniqucs of poctic crcativity, and on Krayevich's high school physics text.
These ideas about the economy of encrgy, as well as about the law and aim o~~~vity, are perhaps true in their application to 'practic~l~ langI,Jage~ ~e, however, cxtcnded to poetic langI,Jagc. Ilcncc thcy do not distingI,Jish p.r2P=- ~~-~een the laws of practicallangI,Jage and the laws o(po~tic langI,Jag~. The fact that Japancsc poetry has sounds not f()und in conversational Japancse was hardly thc first factual indication of thc dif1crcnccs bctwcen poctic and cveryday languagc. Lco Jakubinsky has obscrvcd that thc law of thc dissimilation of liquid sounds does not apply to poctic langI,Jagc.13 This suggestcd to him that ~ lan~~e tolerated the admission ofhard-to-pronounce conglomerations of similar s6.üñds.lnh¡s articl'1;:one of the first examples of~cientific ¿rlt-iCJsiñ,.hCTndicates
-¡;;ifüCt;;cly the contrast (I shall say morc about this point later) between the laws of poetic langI,Jagc and the laws of practical langtlage.14
We must, then, speak about the laws of cxpcnditure and economy in poetic langI,Jagc not on thc basis ()f an analobry with pr()sc, hut on thc basis of the laws of poctic languagc.
If we start to cxamine thc gcncrallaws of pcrccpti()n, wc sec that as perception becomes habitual, it becomes automatic. Thus, for example, all of our habits retreat into the area of the unconsciously automatic; if one remembers the sensations of holding a pen or of speaking in a foreign langI,Jage for the first time and compares that with his feeling at performing the action for the ten thousandth time, he will agree with us. Such habituation explains the principIes by which,
.t~ t~.~
~...,... """
I
Shklovsky Arias le,1mique
jn ordin¡¡ry spéech) wc Icavc phr¡¡scs unfinjsht.d ¡¡nd words half cxpressed. In this proccss, idc¡¡lly rc:aljzcd iJI al~.c:br¡¡, thil1gs arl.: rL'placc:d by symbols. Complcte words arc l1ot cxprcssc:d in rapid spc:cch; thcir initial sounds arc barcly perccjved. Alcxandc:r Pogodif1 ()O"crs thc cxamplc: of a boy cof1sidcring thc scntence 'The Swíss nl()Uf1lains arl. bL'¡llItiflll) ín thc: fl)ml of a sc:ril:s of Ic(tcrs: 1; S, m, a, b.15
'I.his ch.lr¡¡ctl:ri.,;lil. ()r lhollb'h( f1o1 ()nly suggcsts thl: mC(hod of algcbra, bu~ I:vc:f1 pr()mpts Ihc: choicc: of sYll1bols (Icttcrs, c:spccially il1i(ii11 l~ttcrs), -Hy-t-h~-.- 'algcbri1il.:' m~tholl of lhollght Wl. i1ppr~llcnd ol>j~ct., ()nly as shapcs with jmpre-~j-s~ cxtC:l1sions; wc do n()l SL'e lhcm in Ihcir entircty bu( rather rccognjze them by (hc:ir mi1in l.h¡¡r:lctl.:ri~lics. Wl: sce lh(' Objccl i1S lhollgh i( were enveloped jn a si1ck. Wc: know wh¡¡( jl i~ by í(s cOn(ig.llr¡¡(jon, bll( Wl' sl:e only jts silhouette. The objcct, pcrceivcd thllS jn the mal1ncr of prose perccp(jon, tades and does not leave cven a first impressjon; ultjmatcly eyel1 {hc essence of what it was js forgot~en. Such perceptjon explajl1s why we taij to hear the prose word in jts en(jrety (see Leo Jakubinsky's artjclcl6) ¡¡nd) hcllce) \\'hy (along wjth other sljps of [he [onguc) we tajl [O pronounce jt. Thc procc!)s of 'algebriza[jon,: [~~ oye!:~ automatization of an object, permj(s the greatest economy of perceptive effort. Ei{her objcc[s are assjgned only one proper feature-a number, for example= or cls~ th~y fllf1c[i()n ¡¡S thOllgh by f()rmllla anll do n()( ~vcn appcar in cognjtion:
I W¡¡S cl~¡¡nil1p; ¡¡ ro()m ¡¡l1ll, ml.:i1llllcring ¡¡bOlll, ¡¡pproachcd (hc djval1 al1d collllln't rcm~mbcr whcth~r ()r not I h¡¡d dUSICd jt. Since thcse
movemcn(s arc h¡¡bj[llal ¡¡nd lmC()nscjous) I collld not remember and felt (h¡¡t il W¡¡S impossibl~ to r~ml.mbcr-so (hat if I hall dlls(cd j( and
turgot-that is, h¡¡d ¡ICII:J lll11.:0l1SCiollSly, thcl1 it wa~ thc samc as if I had not. If some conscjous persol1 had bccn wa(ching, {hcn [he fac[ could be established. If, however, no one was looking, or looking on unconsciously, jf the whole complex lives of many people go 01} unconsciously, then such lives are as if they had never been.17
And so Ijfe is rcckoned as. nothing. Habitualization devours works, clothes, flIrnj{Ur~, one's wjf"c, ¡¡nd thc tcar of war. 'If the Wholc complex Ijves of many p~opll: b'() ()n lmC()J1Sl.iollsly, Ihcn SllCh livcs arc as if thcy h¡¡d f1cvcr bcen.' And ¡¡rt ~xísls th¡¡l ()'1C: 111¡¡y rl:c()Y~r lhl: ..'l.'ISi1tion of lifc; jl I:xists to makc onc fccl thin"rs, to m¡¡kc th~ stonc S(()I~y. 'l.h~ pllrp()SC ()f art is to impart thc scnsation of things as thcy are pcrceivcll and not as they i1re known. :Ih.t?-l~-<;.Qpiqy.e-oLarJ is to make objccts 'unfamili¡¡r " to m¡¡ke forms diffl.cult tQ increase.the-.1lifflculty and Icngth of pcrception b~caus~ thc proccss of perception is.an ae~tQ~-Uc end in i{sclf¡¡nd mllst bc prolongell. Ar( is a lpay ofexpL'ri,'11cing (hL' artfulness ofan objL".',. the object is n(J( imp()rtant.'
'rhe rangc ()f poctic (¡¡rtistic) work l'xtl.nds trom th~ sensory t() thc cognitive, from i)ol:try \o pros~, fi-Olll thl: CUlICrl.:lc to {hc ¡¡bstr,ll;l: from C.:I.:I"V;lntcs' Don
( Thc tr¡lIlslatiol1 of this crucial al1d {)ficl1 quotcd ~cl1tel1cc by Lel11on and Rcis has beel1 criticized by Robcrt Schotcs, who offcr~ his OWI1 vcrsiol1: 'III ¡¡rt, it i~ our cxpcricncc of thc proccs~ of col1structiol1 that COUl1ts. l1ot thc lil1ishcd product.. .).,rncluralism i/I,i4jerllluft (1974}.R~81"
,
\ II
Shklovsky A~ as t~~~.'l-~
Quixote-scholastic and poor nobleman, half consciously bearing his humiliation in thc court of thc dukc-to thc br()ad bllt cmpty I)on Quixote of Turgenev; tr()m (:harlemag¡lC t() thc namc 'king' lin Russian '(:harlcs' and 'king' obviously derive from thc samc root, ~.()r(¡{I. .I.hc mcaning ()f a work broadcns to the extent that arttlllness and artistry diminish; thlls a tablc symb()lizcs morc than a poem, and a provcrb m(Jrc than a tablc. (:(Jnsc4l1cntly, thc Icast sclf-c()ntradictory pa~. ()f Potcbnya's thc()I). is his trcatmcnt ()f thc t;lhlc, which, tr()m his point ofview, he investigatcd th(Jr()ughly. IJlIt sincc his thc(,ry did n()t pr()\'idc t()r 'ex'Pressive' works of art, he could not finish his h()(Jk. As wc kn()w, N()/es ()II /he Theory oJ Li/era/ure was published in 1905, thirtccn ycars attcr Potebnya's death. Potebnya himself completed only thc scction ()n thc tablc.lx
After we see an object several times, we begin to recognize it. The .-Qbiect is
-- in front of us and \\.e know about it, but we do not see itl9-hence we cannot -say--anYthing significant about it. Art removes objects from the automatism...g.f.
pel:~~Q!!.o!lin se\,eral ways. Here I want to illustrate a way used repeatedly by I~eo Tolstoy, that \\Titer \\'ho, for Merezhko\'sky at least, seems to present things as if he himself saw them, saw them in their entirety, and did not alter them.
IQIs!9Y makes the familiar seem strange by not naming the familiar objec.t~ He describes an objcct as if he werc sccing it ti)r the first timc, an event as if it..lVere happening tor th(.' first timc. In dcscrihin!-, s()mcthing he av()ids the accepted naiñ-es-of its parts and instcad namcs c<)rrcsp()nding parts ()f ()thcr ()bjccts. For example, in 'Shame' Tolstoy 'detamiliarizcs' the idea of t1ogging in this way: 'to ~trip people who have brokcn the law, to hurl them to the tloor, and to rap on their bottoms with switchcs,' and, ati(.'r a ti:w lincs, 't() lash ab()ut ()n thc naked buttocks.' Thcn hc rcmarks:
Just why precisely this stupid, savage means of causing pain and not any other-why not prick the shoulders or any part of the body with needles, squeeze the hands or the feet in a vise, or anything like that?
I apologize for this harsh example, but it is typical of Tolstoy's way of pricking the conscience. The familiar act ()f tlogging is made unfamiliar both Qy the dc~<,:~!ptjon and by thc pr()p()sal tl) chang(.' its ti)rm with()lIt changing its nal~ 'í'olst()y uscs this tcchni4l1c (,f 'd(.'f;lmili¡¡rizali(,n' c<mst¡¡ntly. .I.hc narrator of 'Kholstomcr,' ti)r cxamplc, is a h()rsc, and it is th(.' h()rs(."s p()int (If vicw (rather than a person's) that makes the content of the story sccm untamiliar. Herc is how the horse regards the institution of private pr()perty:
I understood well what thcy said about whipping and Christianity .But then I was absolutely in the dark. What's the meaning of 'his own,' 'his
colt'? From these phrases I saw that pc()ple th()ught there was some sort ()f c()nnccti()n bctwccn mc and thc st¡¡hlc. f\t thc timc I simply c()uld not undcrstand thc connectiun. Only much latcr, whcn thcy scparatcd me
from the other horses, did I begin to understand. Uut even then I simply could not see what it meant when they cal\ed me 'man's property.' The
words 'my horsc' rcfcrrcd to mc, a living h()rsc, and sccmed as strange to me as the words 'my land,' 'my air,' 'my water.'
Shklovsky Art as technique
But the words madc a strong impression on me. I thought about them constal1tly, and only aftcr the most diverse experiences with people did I understand, tlnally, what they meant. They meant this: In life pcople are guided by words, 110t by deeds. It's 110t so much that thcy 10ve the possibilily of doil1g or 1101 doil1g som(;thil1g as jt js th(; possjbiljt)' of speakil1g wilh words, agrecd on among themsclves, about various topjcs. SlIch ar(; Ihc word,'i 'my' al1d 'mil1c,' whicf¡ If¡cy apply to dificr(;llt th~~.. ~!(;alllr(;s, obj(;CI~, alld (;V(;ll I() 1.ll1d, p(;opl(;, al1d )1()r~~.~.:-'I'h(;y agr~J])al ()Jlly (;I1C may say \mil1c' ab()UI Ihis, thal, or the othcr thing. And the onc Who says 'mill(;' ab()UI thc grcatcst l1umbcr of thil1gs is, accordil1g t6thc gaml.: whicf¡ Ihl.:y'vc a~.rc(;d lo amol1g' thcmsclvcs, thc OI1C thcy consjder If¡~ (11()St l1appy. I dol1)1 know thc p()il1t ()f all this, but it's truc. l"or a
1()l1g limc I trícd lo (;xplain it lo mysclf in «.:rms of somc kind (;f -~eal gain, bllt I had 10 r<.:jcct (hal <.:xplanati()n becaus(; il was wrol1g.
l\1any of thosc, t()r instaI1Cl., Who called me thcjr own never rode on me-although others did. Al1d so wjth those who fed me. Then again, the coachman, the veterinarians, and the outsiders in general trcated me
kindly, yct thoSC Who callcd me th<.:ir own did not.-!!!~!-~~~~~g widel1cdthe SCopC of my observations, I satjsfied myself that the noti~!! '~'not on)y in relation to us horses, has no othcr b.~~is ~~n a n~rrow numan instjnct which is called a sense ofor right to prjvate prope!'tY. A man says 'this hous<.: is minc' al1d nevcr livcs in it; hc only worries.about its constructjol1 al1d llpk<.:ep. A mcrcf¡ant says 'my shop,' 'my dry goods sf¡or,' t'or il1stanc<.:, al1d docs no1 cv<.:n wcar clothes made trom the better clolh h<.: kc<.:ps ill his OWI1 shop.
'1'11l.r<.: arl. pcoplc wJ¡() call a Iracl of land thl.:¡r OWI1) but Ih<.:y ncvcr sct cycs ()n il ;¡nd 11l.Vl.:r (¡¡kl. ¡¡ s(r()ll ()11 it. '1'l1(;rl.: ¡¡rl.: pcoplc who call othcrs IJ¡(;ir own, y<.:1 I1(;VCr S(;(; IJ¡(;m. And Ihc wholc relationshir betwccn them is that the so-callcd 'own<.:rs' Ircat thc oth<.:rs uniustly.
Thrre are people who call Women their own, or their 'wjves', but their WomCI1 liv<.: with oth~r m~l1. f\l1d r~oplc slrivc 110t l'or th~ good il1 life, but for goods they cal1 call thcir own.
I am now convinccd that this is tJ1e essential difi'erence between people and Ollrselv<.:s. And tJ¡eret'ore, 1101 ~v<.:n consid<.:ril1g thc otJ¡cr ways in wJ¡ícf¡ wc ar<.: SUp(;rio'r, blll l"onsid<.:ril1g jUS( IJ¡¡S 011<.: virlu<.:, w~ can
" brav~ly claim to stal1d l1igl1er thal1 men on th<.: Jadd~r of living creatures.
j1'h~ actions of men, at least those with whom I have had dealings, are gujded by lvords-oUrs, by deeds.
The horse js killcd bcforc th<.: end of the story , bllt thc manner of the narrative, jt technjque, does not change:
Much latcr thcy rllt Scrrllkhovsky's body, whjch had experjenced the worlu) whicJ¡ hau (;at<.:n and drllnk, illtO thc groul1d. Thcy COllld
protitabty scl1d n(;ithcr his hiu~, l1or J¡is tlesh, nor hís bones anywhere.
But sjnce his dcad body, wJ¡ich had gone abol,tt jQ.~e wor!9.",f?r." twenty
Shklovsky Art as technique
years, was a great burden to everyone, its burial was only a superfluous ¡' embarrassment for the people. For a I()ng time no ()ne had needed him; for a I()ng time hc had been a burden ()n all. But ncvertheless, the dead