Boris Echenbaum (Boris Eikhenbaum) | The Theory of the Formal Method | Formalism

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Boris Echenbaum (1886–1959) was a prominent Russian literary scholar, critic, and one of the key figures of the Russian Formalist school in the early 20th century. His work significantly influenced literary theory, particularly in the study of narrative structure and poetic language. He was a leading member of the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOYAZ). This group emphasized the scientific study of literature, focusing on form, technique, and linguistic devices rather than historical or biographical context. He analyzed narrative techniques in works by authors like Nikolai Gogol and Leo Tolstoy, exploring how literary devices shape meaning. He investigated poetry's rhythmic and phonetic aspects, contributing to the Formalist understanding of how sound structures influence meaning.

His major works include How Gogol’s "Overcoat" Is Made (1919) – A close analysis of Gogol’s narrative techniques; The Young Tolstoy (1922) – Examines Tolstoy’s early style and literary evolution; and Literature: Theory, Criticism, Controversy (1927) – A collection of essays defending Formalist approaches.

The Theory of the Formal Method:

Boris Echenbaum’s essay "The Theory of the 'Formal Method'" (1926) is a key defense and explanation of Russian Formalism, particularly in response to Marxist critics who accused the movement of being overly technical and disconnected from social reality. The essay clarifies the principles of Formalism, its evolution, and its methodological foundations. The essay serves as both a defense and a systematic exposition of Russian Formalism, positioning it as a dynamic, evolving discipline rather than a rigid doctrine. Unlike its Marxist critics, who dismissed Formalism as overly preoccupied with technical details at the expense of social context, Echenbaum argues that the movement was fundamentally a scientific approach to literature, akin to linguistics. He emphasizes that Formalists were not advocating "art for art’s sake" but were instead investigating how artistic effects are produced through form, whether in poetry (meter, sound patterns) or prose (narrative structure, plot devices). Central to his argument is the concept of "literariness" (literaturnost’), the distinguishing feature of literary texts that sets them apart from ordinary language. For Echenbaum, this quality emerges not from external factors like an author’s biography or historical setting but from the deliberate use of techniques such as defamiliarization, which forces readers to perceive language and narrative in fresh ways.

Echenbaum’s work is deeply connected to that of other key Formalists, particularly Viktor Shklovsky and Roman Jakobson, though his approach is more systematic and historically grounded. While Shklovsky famously explored defamiliarization in Art as Device (1917), Echenbaum expanded these ideas into a broader theory of literary evolution, showing how genres and styles transform over time through shifts in dominant techniques. His close readings of authors like Gogol (e.g., How Gogol’s "Overcoat" Is Made) demonstrate this method in action: instead of treating the story as a reflection of social conditions, he dissects its narrative strategies, such as the use of skaz (oral-style narration) and grotesque exaggeration, to explain its artistic impact.

Similarly, his study of Tolstoy (The Young Tolstoy) traces how the author’s early works experiment with perspective and syntax, laying the groundwork for his later innovations.

By the 1930s, the Soviet state enforced socialist realism, branding Formalism as "decadent." Echenbaum’s nuanced defense couldn’t withstand state censorship. Yet his ideas secretly influenced later thinkers (e.g., the Tartu-Moscow School) and resurfaced in Western structuralism. His work laid the foundation for structuralist and narratological theories in the West. Figures like Roland Barthes and Gérard Genette would later build on Formalist ideas, particularly the focus on narrative structures and the "how" of storytelling. Echenbaum’s legacy, therefore, lies in his rigorous demonstration that literature demands its own analytical tools—a principle that continues to shape literary theory today.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of the evolution of Literary theories. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!