Uncategorized
Reading Russia: Chapter 1 of Viktor Shklovsky’s Theory of Prose
And so, in order to return sensation to our limbs, in order to make us feel objects, to make a stone feel stony, man has been given the tool of art. The purpose of art, then, is to lead us to a knowledge of a thing through the organ of sight instead of recognition. By “enstranging” objects and complicated form, the device of art makes perception long and “laborious.” The perceptual process in art has a purpose all its own and ought to be extended to the fullest. Art is a means of experiencing the process of creativity. The artifact itself is quite unimportant.
I’m slowly working my way through Viktor Shklovsky’s Theory of Prose (translated by Benjamin Sher and published by Dalkey Archive Press). I’ve read the introduction by Gerald Bruns, the translator’s preface, and the first chapter so far and have been pleased with the result. Especially fascinating to me is this idea of ostraniene (Sher admits to having translated this neologism by coining the word ‘enstrangement’) and how it works in art, or rather prose (fiction, for me). It seems to me that ostraniene is a foundational piece of Shklovsky’s theory; therefore, it’s worth devoting some time to here.
Chapter one, titled ‘Art as Device,’ begins with a discussion of art as an image-based sort of production.
Shkolvsky takes several pages to prepare this concept; he quotes Potebnya (“There is no art without imagery, especially in poetry” and “Art is thinking in images”) and Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky (paraphrased in the chapter: “Poetry is a special mode of thinking – to be precise, a mode of thinking in images. This mode entails a certain economy of mental effort that makes us ‘feel the realative ease of the process.'”). Then Shklovsky goes about breaking down these two ideas: art as imagistic and art as economy of thought. He says:
The work of successive schools of poetry has consisted essentially in accumulating and making known new devices of verbal arrangement and organization. In particular, these schools of poetry are far more concerned with the disposition than with the creation of imagery. In poetry, where imagery is a given, the artist does not so much “think” in images as “recollect” them. In any case, it is not imagistic thinking that unites the different arts or even the differetn forms of verbal art. And it is not the changes in imagery that constitued the essential dynamics of poetry.
And:
If we examine the general laws of perception, we see that as it becomes habitual, it also becomes automatic. So eventually all of our skills and experiences function unconsciously – automatically.
I read this as a reaction to the idea of economic artistry. That is, the economic pursuit of art merely leads to automatization, which, according to Shklovsky, “eats away at things, at clothes, at furniture, at our wives, and at our fear of war.” Thus, “life fades into nothingness.”
His rejecting the Russian Symbolists leads to Shklovsky’s stating his own idea regarding the purpose of art, which I quoted at the beginning of this post. And, Shklovsky suggests, in order to “return sensation to our limbs,” we must first confront that which has been enstranged. Sher, in his introduction, explains a little bit about this term and why he coined it:
And so, after some reflection, I decided to coin the word “enstrange,” enstrangment,” built on the same congate root [my note: as “estrange” and “defamiliarization,” which Sher discusses earlier in the introduction]. While positive (see other en- prefix words such as “enthrall”), it is also strongly associated with the counterpointing “estrange,” “estrangement.”
Enstrangement, then, is a method by which the artist takes the mundane, the everyday and makes it new and exciting and weird and maybe a little scary to the viewer while simultaneously, perhaps, creating some sort of odd recognition, deja vu, whatever. I think, based on how I understood this chapter, for Shklovsky, enstrangement is the making of an object into an active textual object, a textual object that can interact, somehow, with the reader. According to Shklovsky, enstrangement is “the removal of [an] object from the sphere of automatized perception.” Shklovsky’s nearly constant examples of pleasing enstrangement come from Tolstoy’s writing:
In “Shame,” Tolstoi enstranges the idea of flogging by describing people who, as punishment for violating the law, had been stripped, thrown down on the floor, and beaten with switches. A few lines later he refers to the practice of whipping their behinds. In a note on this passage, Tolstoi asks: “Just why this stupid, savage method of inflicting pain and no other: such as prisking the shoulder or some such other part of the body with needles, squeezing somebody’s hands or feet in a vise, etc.”
After Tolstoy comes a discussion of riddles and how enstrangement plays a part in their success. I won’t quote any of his examples, as I’d like to move on to examples of successful enstrangement in things I’ve read recently; instead, think of any of your favorite riddles and how they rely upon the making strange some mundane situation through the undermining of your expectations.
Then Shklovsky closes the chapter with a look at plot construction:
All things considered, we’ve arrived at a definition o fpoetry as the language of impeded, distorted speach. Poetyic speech is structured speech. Prose, on the other hand, is ordinary speech: economical, easy, correct speech (Dea Prosae, the queen of correct, easy childbirth, i.e., head first). I shall speak in more detail of the device of impeding, of holding back, when I consider it as a general law of art in my chapter on plot construction.
***
So, back to enstrangement, where do we see it happening now? Is there a better term by which you could describe this effect (so as to avoid confusion with the term ‘estrangement’)? Do you find yourself perhaps disagreeing or resisting or wanting to shift a little Shklovsky’s concept? Is there a way you think of it in your head that is unique to how you learned to read? I’ve often found myself thinking that reading the stuff I like to read is similar to climbing an enormous wall (I first felt this while reading Kafka’s The Trial): it is both difficult and exhilirating, especially as I near the top and can look out over all of the text/story I have risen. And so I can’t help but think of some of my literary heroes when I think more about Shklovsky’s enstrangement. I see it happening in the stories of Christine Schutt, Gary Lutz, Barry Hannah, Diane Williams, Ben Marcus, and so on. I realize these are easy levers to pull here at HTMLGIANT, but I can’t help myself. I pull them all the time. If I’m not reading something new, chances are I’m revisiting a story by one of them (and others of their kind).
I imagine that many of those people that everyone puts on their lists of towering or amazing or influential or whatever authors in some way create that effect for their readers: this wonderful newness that we can ‘relate to’ or recognize or feel resonate in our brains/hearts in some way. It is a weird effect, this combination of newness and recognition, as though it shouldn’t even be possible, and yet I know it when I see it.
Tags: Viktor Shklovsky
Excellent post, Ryan!
Defamiliarization is a tricky concept given the necessity of contextualization. What strikes us as strange, especially in terms of form, depends largely on what we bring to the table, our history of reading, etc. For instance, someone may pick up Cortazar’s Hopscotch and get to chapter 34 and go: “what the fuck, how strange!” Whereas someone who had read Burroughs’s cut-ups might get to chapter 34 and go: “oh yeah, this isn’t strange, this is like Burroughs’s cut-ups.”
At any rate, I really wish The Slotch would’ve used better examples than Tolstoy, but we have to cut the guy some slack given that he doesn’t have the luxury of being privy to the concurrent trends of avant-gardism proliferating elsewhere in Europe. What I mean is, had he been formulating these concepts in say the 40s, he could have linked them to more obvious/interesting examples from the Futurists, Dadaists, Surrealists, Imagists, etc.
Anyway, I wish he would’ve known about Alfred Jarry. (I’m doing work on Jarry and ‘pataphysics right now, and this concept of defamiliarization is strikingly similar to Jarry’s ideas about the use of “surprise” – the aleatory)
I don’t know where I’m going with this comment. I just got excited after reading this post and wanted to respond. Maybe probably I’ll return when I’ve gathered my thoughts. I hope you will continue to post your thoughts as you read on.
Excellent post, Ryan!
Defamiliarization is a tricky concept given the necessity of contextualization. What strikes us as strange, especially in terms of form, depends largely on what we bring to the table, our history of reading, etc. For instance, someone may pick up Cortazar’s Hopscotch and get to chapter 34 and go: “what the fuck, how strange!” Whereas someone who had read Burroughs’s cut-ups might get to chapter 34 and go: “oh yeah, this isn’t strange, this is like Burroughs’s cut-ups.”
At any rate, I really wish The Slotch would’ve used better examples than Tolstoy, but we have to cut the guy some slack given that he doesn’t have the luxury of being privy to the concurrent trends of avant-gardism proliferating elsewhere in Europe. What I mean is, had he been formulating these concepts in say the 40s, he could have linked them to more obvious/interesting examples from the Futurists, Dadaists, Surrealists, Imagists, etc.
Anyway, I wish he would’ve known about Alfred Jarry. (I’m doing work on Jarry and ‘pataphysics right now, and this concept of defamiliarization is strikingly similar to Jarry’s ideas about the use of “surprise” – the aleatory)
I don’t know where I’m going with this comment. I just got excited after reading this post and wanted to respond. Maybe probably I’ll return when I’ve gathered my thoughts. I hope you will continue to post your thoughts as you read on.
which is why i think one could apply this concept to most anythign that one likes to and have another person respond the oppposite? i think it follows well sams post about relatability. i found myself worrying about these at odds concepts: defamilirazation and contextualization (acc. to you) and wondering how i could better explain my thoughts. seems like youve done a good job of doing it for me.
i agree. i wish there were other examples than tolstoy – paritally because i havent read all that much tolstoy and also because it would be cool to see this in action against a less traditional text. and while, yeah, he didnt have access, i wondered also: is there work out there that another has written that takes this and applies it to avantgardism and those other schools. my ignorance is showing.
which is why i think one could apply this concept to most anythign that one likes to and have another person respond the oppposite? i think it follows well sams post about relatability. i found myself worrying about these at odds concepts: defamilirazation and contextualization (acc. to you) and wondering how i could better explain my thoughts. seems like youve done a good job of doing it for me.
i agree. i wish there were other examples than tolstoy – paritally because i havent read all that much tolstoy and also because it would be cool to see this in action against a less traditional text. and while, yeah, he didnt have access, i wondered also: is there work out there that another has written that takes this and applies it to avantgardism and those other schools. my ignorance is showing.
I found this post really thought-provoking, though I’m not sure if I followed it entirely or not.
The estrangement vs. contextualisation thing made me think of Daniil Kharms. Though I know what he was writing was bizarro even within his given circumstances, it always seems to have more of a ‘logic’ when read taking them into account. And maybe sometimes we need to be estranged from writing in order to feel its full impact. (That’s kind of anti the idea of empathy, isn’t it?)
Though, I got the feeling with the Shklovsky he was more talking about allowing us some measure of comfort/familiarity, and -then- throwing in an element outside of our normal sphere of reference?
..Like, say, (does this work?) it raining mackerel (Murakami does this) or …. flowers? Marquez does that, or something familiar. But am I just citing the basics of magic realism, as opposed to fully getting what you were talking about, or do they intersect?
(I’m just waking up. Everything I say should have a ?)
One of the other things it made me think of are Hans Bellmer dolls. And they’re obviously not writing, but I think they appeal to that idea of defamiliarisation: of take an idea or concept with which we are familiar, and then subvert it.
And actually, I think dolls in general probably work quite well with that idea: the notion of inanimate made to echo the animate probably inherently does? I guess that notion comes out of the idea of mirroring/doubling and that’s all over lots of writing and art, particularly surrealist stuff. Which can work as a literary smack in the mouth, I guess: just as simple as take what we know and throw it back at us in a subtly distorted form.
I found this post really thought-provoking, though I’m not sure if I followed it entirely or not.
The estrangement vs. contextualisation thing made me think of Daniil Kharms. Though I know what he was writing was bizarro even within his given circumstances, it always seems to have more of a ‘logic’ when read taking them into account. And maybe sometimes we need to be estranged from writing in order to feel its full impact. (That’s kind of anti the idea of empathy, isn’t it?)
Though, I got the feeling with the Shklovsky he was more talking about allowing us some measure of comfort/familiarity, and -then- throwing in an element outside of our normal sphere of reference?
..Like, say, (does this work?) it raining mackerel (Murakami does this) or …. flowers? Marquez does that, or something familiar. But am I just citing the basics of magic realism, as opposed to fully getting what you were talking about, or do they intersect?
(I’m just waking up. Everything I say should have a ?)
One of the other things it made me think of are Hans Bellmer dolls. And they’re obviously not writing, but I think they appeal to that idea of defamiliarisation: of take an idea or concept with which we are familiar, and then subvert it.
And actually, I think dolls in general probably work quite well with that idea: the notion of inanimate made to echo the animate probably inherently does? I guess that notion comes out of the idea of mirroring/doubling and that’s all over lots of writing and art, particularly surrealist stuff. Which can work as a literary smack in the mouth, I guess: just as simple as take what we know and throw it back at us in a subtly distorted form.
im not sure i followed it entirely or not either, to be honest. i just woke up and must go tutor for a couple of hours; ill try to respond when i get back. i think, though, you’re ‘feeling’ (whatever you describe in your third paragraph) is what i was trying to get at, maybe? more soon.
im not sure i followed it entirely or not either, to be honest. i just woke up and must go tutor for a couple of hours; ill try to respond when i get back. i think, though, you’re ‘feeling’ (whatever you describe in your third paragraph) is what i was trying to get at, maybe? more soon.
re: enstrangement is “the removal of [an] object from the sphere of automatized perception.”
i think that the most valuable reading i’ve done has been not the removal of an object from the sphere of automatized perception but rather the recognition that automatized perception (or mental filters) exists, and then the strict non-removal of objects from that ‘sphere’, but instead a tedious repetition of all objects which eventually leads to a removal of the sphere in its entirety.
then you are like a little rock on the ground which might as well be dark black expanding space. if there is anything happening around you, you are in some way aware of it, but having no reaction at all
re: enstrangement is “the removal of [an] object from the sphere of automatized perception.”
i think that the most valuable reading i’ve done has been not the removal of an object from the sphere of automatized perception but rather the recognition that automatized perception (or mental filters) exists, and then the strict non-removal of objects from that ‘sphere’, but instead a tedious repetition of all objects which eventually leads to a removal of the sphere in its entirety.
then you are like a little rock on the ground which might as well be dark black expanding space. if there is anything happening around you, you are in some way aware of it, but having no reaction at all
The concept has been used in discussions of surrealism, modernism and postmodernism, satire and parody. Given the strong influence that Russian formalists had on subsequent schools of criticism it would have been surprising otherwise.
It has also been used in discussions of science-fiction. Darko Suvin called science-fiction the literature of cognitive enstrangement – that is, the form of literature that fuses together the enstrangement of the “novum” (what differentiates the world from the “real” one) with the plausibility derived from the fact that the roots of the variation are believed to be scientifically possible, and in so doing challenges automatized perception. An early classic example are feminist utopias like Herland or Sultana’s dream at the beginning of the Century.
E.T.A. Hoffmann’s novella Der Sandmann is probably the earliest major example of the theme Roberta alludes to – dolls and animate/inanimate confusion and contrast. The novella was the basis for Freud’s reflection on the uncanny – the feeling of cognitive dissonance we experience when something seems simultaneously familiar and foreign. The difference with estrangement is that these aspects – familiarity and strangeness -are inextricably linked. You could argue that there’s an overlap between the two concepts – but generally the effect of the uncanny is so primal that it persists even when/if we re-adjust our perceptions or we “learn the trick”.
The uncanny valley hypothesis attempts to describe human emotional responses to lifelike mechanical impersonators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
And of course, the blurring of the line between animate/inanimate is possibly the central theme of Thomas Pynchon’s work.
The concept has been used in discussions of surrealism, modernism and postmodernism, satire and parody. Given the strong influence that Russian formalists had on subsequent schools of criticism it would have been surprising otherwise.
It has also been used in discussions of science-fiction. Darko Suvin called science-fiction the literature of cognitive enstrangement – that is, the form of literature that fuses together the enstrangement of the “novum” (what differentiates the world from the “real” one) with the plausibility derived from the fact that the roots of the variation are believed to be scientifically possible, and in so doing challenges automatized perception. An early classic example are feminist utopias like Herland or Sultana’s dream at the beginning of the Century.
E.T.A. Hoffmann’s novella Der Sandmann is probably the earliest major example of the theme Roberta alludes to – dolls and animate/inanimate confusion and contrast. The novella was the basis for Freud’s reflection on the uncanny – the feeling of cognitive dissonance we experience when something seems simultaneously familiar and foreign. The difference with estrangement is that these aspects – familiarity and strangeness -are inextricably linked. You could argue that there’s an overlap between the two concepts – but generally the effect of the uncanny is so primal that it persists even when/if we re-adjust our perceptions or we “learn the trick”.
The uncanny valley hypothesis attempts to describe human emotional responses to lifelike mechanical impersonators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
And of course, the blurring of the line between animate/inanimate is possibly the central theme of Thomas Pynchon’s work.
matthew,
i like what youre saying, i mean the unique way you are thinking about it, but i am still confused a little, in that i think it might help me to read something that does what youre saying. what have you read that gave you that ‘little rock’ feeling? maybe i could try to read it?i dont nkow
matthew,
i like what youre saying, i mean the unique way you are thinking about it, but i am still confused a little, in that i think it might help me to read something that does what youre saying. what have you read that gave you that ‘little rock’ feeling? maybe i could try to read it?i dont nkow
i have yet to read the freud and jentsche essays on uncanny. ive only read burkes essay on submilne/unccanny.
i think that is the overlap, though, that i love so much in the writig i like.
thank you for the sciencefiction insight.
i have yet to read the freud and jentsche essays on uncanny. ive only read burkes essay on submilne/unccanny.
i think that is the overlap, though, that i love so much in the writig i like.
thank you for the sciencefiction insight.
Allegedly you read Freud on the Uncanny in senior sem. It’s in your good old Norton, if you want to take an hour, though.
Allegedly you read Freud on the Uncanny in senior sem. It’s in your good old Norton, if you want to take an hour, though.
When Tolstoi uses this device, it’s in the service of social criticism. So, to address the main question here, isn’t that one big difference from writers who use it for more purely aesthetic ends?
I know this book and it’s interesting and valuable, but when I read a sentence that begins “The purpose of art, then, is…” my attention drifts.
When Tolstoi uses this device, it’s in the service of social criticism. So, to address the main question here, isn’t that one big difference from writers who use it for more purely aesthetic ends?
I know this book and it’s interesting and valuable, but when I read a sentence that begins “The purpose of art, then, is…” my attention drifts.
yeah i didnt read it? i dont think she assigned it but could be wrong. im sure i could google it
yeah i didnt read it? i dont think she assigned it but could be wrong. im sure i could google it
i don’t entirely get ‘more purely aesthetic ends.’ how many writers really do write for purely aesthetic purposes, and wouldn’t it be imposing a bit of a singular interpretation upon them to presume they’d thrown it into the mix for mostly only that reason?
i found marco’s post interesting. am going to order a copy of the hoffman novella.
though i’m sure – certainly from what everyone’s saying – that there’s a zillion examples of defamiliarisation within writing (i do remember some really basic bits from undergrad intros to lit & film theory) when i was reading the OP, the zine sein und werden popped into my head. it’s an awesome publication anyway, but (it has a part-surreal bias,) the defamiliarising pivot is def one some of the stuff in it plays on.
….though i’m sure there’s enough other places/writers that do also.
i don’t entirely get ‘more purely aesthetic ends.’ how many writers really do write for purely aesthetic purposes, and wouldn’t it be imposing a bit of a singular interpretation upon them to presume they’d thrown it into the mix for mostly only that reason?
i found marco’s post interesting. am going to order a copy of the hoffman novella.
though i’m sure – certainly from what everyone’s saying – that there’s a zillion examples of defamiliarisation within writing (i do remember some really basic bits from undergrad intros to lit & film theory) when i was reading the OP, the zine sein und werden popped into my head. it’s an awesome publication anyway, but (it has a part-surreal bias,) the defamiliarising pivot is def one some of the stuff in it plays on.
….though i’m sure there’s enough other places/writers that do also.
^ those prob should have been two separate replies. only the first para is a response to the post above it.
^ those prob should have been two separate replies. only the first para is a response to the post above it.
Since it is in the public domain, it can be read and downloaded for free from various sites both in English and German
Since it is in the public domain, it can be read and downloaded for free from various sites both in English and German
Well, that’s a good point, and that’s why I wrote “more purely” rather than “purely,” because writers have various purposes, some more direct than others, and even so-called art for art’s sake has its social purpose. And Tolstoy’s effects are no less “aesthetic” for having a clear social aim.
So I’m sorry if it sounded like I was arguing that there were social writers and aesthetic writers. But I do think it’s worth pointing out that Tolstoy’s effects are subordinated to his own particular purpose, which are distinct from those of other writers. Whereas for Shklovsky, as a formalist, a device is a device is a device, independent of its function and context. I was responding to the idea that effects such as “enstrangement” are ends in themselves, and that art itself has an overall purpose that transcends the various aims it is put to.
Well, that’s a good point, and that’s why I wrote “more purely” rather than “purely,” because writers have various purposes, some more direct than others, and even so-called art for art’s sake has its social purpose. And Tolstoy’s effects are no less “aesthetic” for having a clear social aim.
So I’m sorry if it sounded like I was arguing that there were social writers and aesthetic writers. But I do think it’s worth pointing out that Tolstoy’s effects are subordinated to his own particular purpose, which are distinct from those of other writers. Whereas for Shklovsky, as a formalist, a device is a device is a device, independent of its function and context. I was responding to the idea that effects such as “enstrangement” are ends in themselves, and that art itself has an overall purpose that transcends the various aims it is put to.
fair enough – that explanation makes a lot of sense. (even if notions of ‘independent of context’ are always a little alien to me.) i wasn’t deliberately being argumentative – i’m never sure if i read that way..
marco – cheers for the heads-up but i think i’m going to order the copy anyway. i’ve got a bias towards print books rather than d/ls/print-outs – i already do so much reading on screen.
fair enough – that explanation makes a lot of sense. (even if notions of ‘independent of context’ are always a little alien to me.) i wasn’t deliberately being argumentative – i’m never sure if i read that way..
marco – cheers for the heads-up but i think i’m going to order the copy anyway. i’ve got a bias towards print books rather than d/ls/print-outs – i already do so much reading on screen.
I would be very curious to know more about the translator’s decision to use the term “enstrangement.” Because as far as I know, Shklovsky’s “ostranenie” is very closely related to the notion of “estrangement.” At least insofar as it’s related to Bertolt Brecht’s Verfremdungseffekt — Brecht literally translated the term. I think Brecht in some ways took the idea further and developed it more fully as a way of taking the reader outside of the familiar linguistic and social contexts and forcing.
Estrangement doesn’t have to be a property of the text, I think. We can read a very familiar text but ask very traditionally inappropriate questions of it. I’m thinking of S/Z, that this kind of reading is definitely “estranging” a text.
But then, of course, it’s always a problem with vaguely defined terms: when are we using them as terms, and when are we using them as metaphors?
I would be very curious to know more about the translator’s decision to use the term “enstrangement.” Because as far as I know, Shklovsky’s “ostranenie” is very closely related to the notion of “estrangement.” At least insofar as it’s related to Bertolt Brecht’s Verfremdungseffekt — Brecht literally translated the term. I think Brecht in some ways took the idea further and developed it more fully as a way of taking the reader outside of the familiar linguistic and social contexts and forcing.
Estrangement doesn’t have to be a property of the text, I think. We can read a very familiar text but ask very traditionally inappropriate questions of it. I’m thinking of S/Z, that this kind of reading is definitely “estranging” a text.
But then, of course, it’s always a problem with vaguely defined terms: when are we using them as terms, and when are we using them as metaphors?
From the intro:
“The Russian word ostraniene or ostranit’ is a neologism, a fact in itself of supreme importance in a critic as given to serious wit and punning as Shklovsky is. There is no such word in Russian dictionaries. It is clear that the o prefix (o-straniene), often used to implement an action (though this is only one of its many and even contradictory uses), may be understood to apply to two stems simultaneously, that is, to both stan (strange) as well as storon (side, which becomes stran in such verbs as otstranit’ [to remove, to shove aside]). It is a pretty fair assumption, then, that Shklovsky speaks of ostaniene as a process or act that endows an object or image with “strangeness” by “removing” it from the network of conventional, formulaic, stereotypical perceptions and linguistic expressions (based on such perceptions). This being the case, how should we translate this concept into English?
“The translation ‘estrangement’ is good but negative and limited. ‘Making it strange’ is also good but too positive. Furthermore, both are not new, that is, they require no extra effort of the imagination….
“And so, after some reflection, I decided to coin the word ‘enstrange,’ ‘enstrangement,’ built on the same cognate root. While positive (see other en- prefix words such as ‘enthrall’), it is also strongly associated with the counterpointing ‘estrange,’ ‘estrangement.’
“A final word on the subject: The Russians I talked to reacted to ostranit’ exactly the same way an American reader would react to ‘enstrange,’ that is, they immediately assumed it was a misprint for otstranit’ (‘estrange’).”
From the intro:
“The Russian word ostraniene or ostranit’ is a neologism, a fact in itself of supreme importance in a critic as given to serious wit and punning as Shklovsky is. There is no such word in Russian dictionaries. It is clear that the o prefix (o-straniene), often used to implement an action (though this is only one of its many and even contradictory uses), may be understood to apply to two stems simultaneously, that is, to both stan (strange) as well as storon (side, which becomes stran in such verbs as otstranit’ [to remove, to shove aside]). It is a pretty fair assumption, then, that Shklovsky speaks of ostaniene as a process or act that endows an object or image with “strangeness” by “removing” it from the network of conventional, formulaic, stereotypical perceptions and linguistic expressions (based on such perceptions). This being the case, how should we translate this concept into English?
“The translation ‘estrangement’ is good but negative and limited. ‘Making it strange’ is also good but too positive. Furthermore, both are not new, that is, they require no extra effort of the imagination….
“And so, after some reflection, I decided to coin the word ‘enstrange,’ ‘enstrangement,’ built on the same cognate root. While positive (see other en- prefix words such as ‘enthrall’), it is also strongly associated with the counterpointing ‘estrange,’ ‘estrangement.’
“A final word on the subject: The Russians I talked to reacted to ostranit’ exactly the same way an American reader would react to ‘enstrange,’ that is, they immediately assumed it was a misprint for otstranit’ (‘estrange’).”
alan thanks for posting more of that translator’s preface for everyone. i thought it was interesting that final bit when he talks about the assumption that it was a misprint.
alan thanks for posting more of that translator’s preface for everyone. i thought it was interesting that final bit when he talks about the assumption that it was a misprint.
as i read the first chapter, i got the sense that, like alan suggested in his comment @5:31, s. was interested in talking about the device as an artistic device, rather than a property of the text, or a way of reading a text.
as i read the first chapter, i got the sense that, like alan suggested in his comment @5:31, s. was interested in talking about the device as an artistic device, rather than a property of the text, or a way of reading a text.
this is not a fleshed out thought, but i am curious about the relation between enstrangement and something like minoritarian uses of language in deleuze & guattari/their discussion of ‘making foreign’ of language. there seem to be two distinct but connected processes– the enstrangement of the described object and the enstrangement of language from everyday use.
this is not a fleshed out thought, but i am curious about the relation between enstrangement and something like minoritarian uses of language in deleuze & guattari/their discussion of ‘making foreign’ of language. there seem to be two distinct but connected processes– the enstrangement of the described object and the enstrangement of language from everyday use.
From “Art As Device” over at Dalkey
Languagehat briefly looks at translating Shklovsky, especially ‘ostraniene.’ Some of the links at the top of the page are broken. Sadly, the translator’s site is broken, which has an essay called “Nature vs. Art: A Note on Translating Shklovsky” that might have been interesting to read.
You can read Sher’s introduction at Google books.
From “Art As Device” over at Dalkey
Languagehat briefly looks at translating Shklovsky, especially ‘ostraniene.’ Some of the links at the top of the page are broken. Sadly, the translator’s site is broken, which has an essay called “Nature vs. Art: A Note on Translating Shklovsky” that might have been interesting to read.
You can read Sher’s introduction at Google books.
Is there any consideration given in the introduction to an alternative translation as “defamiliarization”? This is the way Brecht’s term has been more commonly translated, and personally I prefer it to either estrangement or enstrangement. The prefix “de” conveys this notion of removal from familiar in a very direct way. I like that.
Is there any consideration given in the introduction to an alternative translation as “defamiliarization”? This is the way Brecht’s term has been more commonly translated, and personally I prefer it to either estrangement or enstrangement. The prefix “de” conveys this notion of removal from familiar in a very direct way. I like that.
Right. But I find it interesting to muse about to how his own reading of Tolstoy is a rather violent process of defamiliarizing Tolstoy :)
Right. But I find it interesting to muse about to how his own reading of Tolstoy is a rather violent process of defamiliarizing Tolstoy :)
Actually, I dropped the para discussing “defamiliarization” as an alternative translation. It follows my ellipses above and can be found on page xix of the text Ryan has linked to below @11:47.
Thanks to Ryan for the provocative post, btw.
Actually, I dropped the para discussing “defamiliarization” as an alternative translation. It follows my ellipses above and can be found on page xix of the text Ryan has linked to below @11:47.
Thanks to Ryan for the provocative post, btw.
“Defamiliarization” is dead wrong!”
I like that :)))
And I disagree. A word is not only important as a sum of its parts but very much as an entire word.
“Defamiliarization” is dead wrong!”
I like that :)))
And I disagree. A word is not only important as a sum of its parts but very much as an entire word.
Apologies for necroing, but I think it’s worth pointing out that, for Shklovsky, ostranenie was entirely a formal affair: “Art /as/ Device.” That is to say, a work of art consists of its devices, and those devices are traditional. The artist estranges/enstranges/defamiliarizes one or more of them by departing from the traditional use. That deviation is felt especially keenly when perceived against the remainder of the artwork (what S. calls “differential perception”). Anyway, the important point is that ostranenie is a formal effect. I wrote more about this here and here.
It’s also worth clarifying that Shklovsky devotes the first five or so pages of “Art as Device” to the concept that “art is thinking in images” in order to ultimately refute that argument.