Russian formalism, as a movement, emerged into prominence in a period of great artistic change, where experimentation and the avant-garde rose to the forefront of literature and introduced a new narrative structures and styles. Russian formalism can therefore be interpreted as a reaction to the chaotic literature of its time, the early twentieth century, especially in the way it attempted to define the notion of literariness through a more modernized scientific method. Formalists attempted to contain literature, to provide it, through a more objective and scientific method, with pre-established rules and parameters that gave it order and form. Literariness, for the Formalists, was something achieved through the use of a certain method in a text, and was not an innate quality given to any piece of fiction, prose, or poetry. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIt could be argued, however, that although Russian formalism provided an orderly method through which to understand the chaotic literature of its time, this method is incapable of fully understanding literariness. By identifying literature through a fixed definition, Russian formalism ignores several genres of what is considered canonical literature and makes literature an art form based exclusively on abstract methods and obscure styles. In his "Introduction to the Formal Method", Boris Eichenbaum wrote: «that the object of literary science, as a literary science, should be the investigation of the specific properties of literary material, of the properties that distinguish such material from any other material»1 . Eichenbaum, considered by many to be the representative of Russian formalism, thus defines literary science as the investigation of what makes a piece of matter literary. What elements of a text make it literary and separate it from another text that is not? We can safely assume that, since Eichenbaum introduces this idea in an essay entitled "Introduction to the Formal Method", Russian formalism can be called a literary science, and therefore Russian formalism becomes a method used to distinguish the literary world. from the non-literary. Eichenbaum writes that Russian formalism distinguished the literary from the non-literary by recognizing “the opposition between 'poetic' language and 'practical' language.” (250) Practical language, as defined by formalists, is simply language that “has no independent value and [is] simply a simple means of communication.” (250) Practical language is therefore a language whose sole purpose is to convey information; it is a communication tool. The conversation of our daily life ("Hi, how are you?" "I'm fine.") is an example of practical language in that it is simply a communication from one person to another, consisting exclusively of the exchange of information and pleasantries, and not has no symbolic meaning. Furthermore, everyday conversation is not literary due to its lack of autonomy. Conversation, the formalists suggested, is not independent of the linguistic precedent of the person conversing; it is recognized and elaborated by them without being truly appreciated for its complexities and nuances. Practical language, the formalists argued, does not make a text literary. Textbooks, non-fiction magazines, brochures and recipe books are therefore classified as non-literary texts as they exclusively convey information and have no independent value; there is no symbolic meaning in a recipe, it is just a means by which to convey the steps on how to cook a tasty meal, and the language it uses does not putthe reader's perception of the meal is questioned. The opposite of practical language is poetic language, something that according to Eichenbaum is created through the process of estrangement. Estrangement, for Eichenbaum, is the process of distorting the familiar into the unfamiliar, making the ordinary extraordinary. A recipe, in its clear and simple form, is a non-literary text since it consists exclusively of practical language. However, if we were to write a recipe using different techniques and expedients (metaphor, allegory, diaspora, etc.) then we could make the recipe literary as it has been estranged and made poetic, the reader is forced by the unknown mix of images and descriptions to understand the meal differently. This is, for the formalists, what makes a text literary, and therefore places it in the sphere of art. As Eichenbaum writes, “Art is conceived as a way to break the automatism in perception, and the purpose of the image is believed not to make a meaning more accessible to our understanding, but to provoke a special perception of a thing , paying attention to 'seeing', and not just 'recognising' it." (251) A text becomes literary, therefore, when its language becomes estranged and thus forces the reader to perceive the content differently, allowing him to become more aware of its meaning.This definition of literariness can easily be applied to modernist texts, such as James Joyce's Ulysses. In Ulysses, Joyce used a variety of techniques to record the way in which human consciousness perceives reality accurate, these techniques include interior monologue, free indirect speech, and, most importantly, stream of consciousness. These techniques clearly alienate the language and force the reader to perceive the text differently. Take, for example, Joyce's description of his hero, Leopold Bloom, who had a sexual fantasy set in a bathhouse: washed up. He saw his trunk and limbs undulating and supported, lifted slightly upward, lemon yellow: his navel, sprout of flesh: and he saw the dark, tangled curls of his bush floating, floating hair of the stream around the limp father of thousands, a languid floating flower." It is clear to see how Joyce estranges the image of Bloom masturbating in a bathhouse, disconnecting his physiology and using metaphorical objects to represent body parts. Formalists would argue that this is a good example of poetic language, that Joyce wrote something inherently literary because it forces the reader to perceive the image differently than they would if they were actually at the bathhouse with Bloom. Perhaps, then, the formalist definition of literature is correct the literariness is achieved through a process of estrangement, of distortion of perception. If this definition of literature can be easily applied to the most experimental and avant-garde works of the early twentieth century, it is instead more difficult to apply to literature. as a whole. It is possible that Russian formalism is a form of criticism that is best suited to certain genres and styles, but when applied to literature over time it can become irrelevant. If a text is made literary only by "breaking down the automatism of perception", then several areas of conflict emerge. The genre of realism, for example, offers a challenge to this definition, realism being the attempt to record everyday life as accurately as possible, convincing the reader of its reality and attempting to relate as faithfully as possible to their experiences through language that he uses. they are used to it. Mary Barton by Elizabeth Gaskell is seen as a great example of a novelindustrial, a form of realism specifically designed to relate to the everyday experiences of the Victorian working class. In the novel, Gaskell makes no attempt to distort the reader's perception, instead his goals are to record the plight of the Manchurian workers. This section, from the novel's opening chapter, shows a definitive attempt to accurately convey the physiology of John Barton, the titular heroine's father: “He was of less than average height and slightly built; there was almost a stunted expression about him; and his pale and colorless face gave you the idea that in his childhood he had suffered from the meager life resulting from difficult times and sudden habits. His features were strongly marked, though not irregular, and their expression was of extreme seriousness; resolute in both good and bad, a sort of severe latent enthusiasm.” In many ways this passage can be read as an example of practical language. Gaskell makes no explicit attempt to alienate the image of John Barton, instead presenting a man who we, as readers, can easily picture in our imaginations. Metaphor and simile are not used to describe his body, as they are for Bloom's, and we are not forced to perceive human anatomy differently than we already do in our daily lives. Gaskell simply communicates to the reader the objective aspect of John Barton. This passage is representative of the style of the novel as a whole, and thus the question arises whether the novel can be, from a formalist perspective, considered literary. Realism is generally considered one of the major literary genres and many writers thought to be among the best in history at writing realist novels, Gaskell included among the likes of Charles Dickens, George Eliot and Gustave Flaubert. Dickens, Eliot, and Flaubert are generally considered important figures within the literary canon, but if they adhere to a genre that challenges the formalist method, two possibilities open up. First, if one assumes that the formalist method is the correct way to judge whether a text is literary or not, then realism, through its explicit use of practical language and its lack of estrangement, is a genre of literature that it's not literature. Instead, it is simply the transfer of imagined information, imaginary images that have no symbolic value and do not differ in any way from the reader's daily life. The second possibility is opposite to the first and is perhaps the most feasible. of the two: the method adopted by Russian formalism is impractical and cannot be applied to literature as a whole. If literature can only be defined as an art form in which the normal is estranged, then much of what counts as literature should be ignored and stripped of the label “art.” There have been efforts on both ends of a spectrum of styles to write with opposing intentions, to make literature as unfamiliar as possible on the one hand and as close as possible to human experience on the other. Often the two attempts are distorted and confused; Joyce's use of stream of consciousness may alienate the reader due to its abrasiveness, intensity and estrangement, but Ulysses is often considered by critics to be as close to a realistic depiction of human consciousness as has ever been attempted, perhaps making it as familiar as humanly. possible to what the reader actually experiences on a consistent basis. On the other hand, while Gaskell simply communicates John Barton's physiological information to the reader, she distances herself from realistic human experience by consciously omitting an infinite quantity.