Chapter 5 - 4

04 Literature

listen to a discussion in a literature class fill in the diagram with the information that you hear.

W: Think about some of the classic literary works.

Now, think about the plot Dennis story structure.

How many of them are actually very unique stories?

Not many of them. This was the point of an important literary movement called structuralism.

Structuralism wasn’t just predominant in literature, either.

It was actually a cultural movement that affected nearly all the arts and sciences − psychology, anthropology, mathematics, history, and of course, literature.

So what is structuralism, exactly? In literature, It’s the idea that the most important part of any literary work is, um, is its underlying structure, not the characters − even if dynamic, not the plot itself − even if it’s interesting, and not the writing style − even if it’s beautiful and clear.

Structuralism is looking for… well, for uniqueness.

So basically, if the structure of the work resembles previous works, even in the slightest way, It is considered noteworthy.

Let’s look at an example.

Can anyone think of a truly unique literary work.

M: How about Romeo and Juliet? Think of all those interesting and complicated plot twists.

That’s got to be unique.

W: Actually, Romeo and Juliet uses the classic theme: boy meets girl, falls in love, but there is a huge problem: their families can’t stand each other.

Thus, tragic ending.

This juncture is seen over and over again throughout history.

For that reason, the structuralists would criticize it.

A structuralists would say that it uses the “formula”. Understand?

M: OK, I guess I can see that.

W: All right, then… but what if the story were switched around, changed… would it be “unique” then?

For example, if the story were about two families that like each other, and then arranged for their kids to get married, that the kids didn’t like each other… and all this leads to a tragic end?

Would that satisfy our highly critical structuralists?

M: Hmm… it’s uh. it’s completely different, so it must be unique.

W: Sorry, no. It would not satisfy the structuralists.

It still has the same basic elements: love, animosity, and of course, the tragic ending.

The formula is still the same. And, uh, by the way, structuralists have a name for this… they call it an “inverse structure”.

M: Then what are structuralists looking for, exactly?

W: Like I said, something completely new and different, without any comparisons.

In structuralism, the whole goal is to reduce the story down to its… to it’s, um, its basic components − the most basic structure.

Then, if the structure is new and different, it becomes noteworthy.

Otherwise, it’s just another piece of literature.

The thing all structuralism has in common. I mean, whether it is in history, or psychology or anthropology or literature is that it looks for the meaning of things in the distinctiveness of its structure.

In literature, specifically, though, structuralism doesn’t see any value in the work unless it’s unique.

1) I was the professor’s lecture organized?

2) How does the professor begin her lecture?

3) Why does the student mentioned Romeo and Juliet?