Formalism is a very appealing method of literary analysis. According to this method, representation is based on formal structure and not content. Formalism is one of the many theoretical approaches used to study literature by understanding the role of the literary artist, the audience and how each of them contributes to the meaning of a literary work.

The main reason why formalism is appealing is that it is less vulnerable to frequent changes in ideology, unlike other theories such as post modernism and feminism and mythological approaches. As Bennett notes, formalism was introduced into the world of literary analysis after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (45). When it was started, formalism was more of a school of thought than a movement since it was conceptualized by like-minded colleagues who used to meet frequently in order to discuss the best approach to use in reading and interpretation of texts.

The key proponents of formalism include Roman Jakobson, Juri Tiniyanov and Viktor Shlovsky. All of these literary analysts were in support of a literary approach to literature that was scientific and formally ordered. They argued that literature should only be approached in its own unique terms, without any form of external influences. Formalists oppose any attempt to encompass personal characteristics, historical conditions or the sociopolitical atmosphere in which the work of literature has been written. In other words, things like a personal history of author or historical events at the time of literary composition are irrelevant details as far as literary analyses are concerned.

The name “formalism” was chosen by opponents of the literary movement who considered the approach controversially structured and formal. The critics wondered why the author’s sociopolitical positioning was ignored yet it was the main source of insights and motivation during composition. According to the formalists’ argument, formalism was an attractive approach since one could devise a methodology that was applicable across a wide cross-section of literary works, regardless of geographical or historical considerations.

Formalism arose out of opposition against Marxist literary theory because it was highly influenced by Marxist political thought, whose preoccupation was on the role of role of text in society and society in the text. Formalists wanted to move away from other psychoanalytic, historical and sociological theories as much as possible such that a text was allowed to stand alone as a creative piece. Shklovsky observes that towards this end, formalists embarked on the task of proposing a mechanism that would require that literary works be considered as machines whose functions could only be known if the component parts were identified and understood well (166).

Formalists believe that it is not possible to understand words without first understanding the relationship that exists between the object, emotion or experience and the symbol that signifies it. Similarly, it is the relationships that exist between words that make different interpretations of a sentence possible. Additionally different sentences make it possible for a text to be interpreted in different ways. At this juncture, it is worth noting that formalists were very interested in paying attention to the poetic attributes of language. They argued that poetic attributes of a language, if well used, could enable the reader perceive a familiar situation in a completely new way, thereby enhancing meaning while at the same time making the text more interesting.

The main reason why formalism remains an attractive theoretical approach to literary analysts is that it manages to destroy all common perceptions that readers always take for granted by automatically replacing them with fresh associations. Within the formalist way of thinking, it is possible to make dominant conceptions seem unfamiliar in order to rethink ideologies and historically placed themes in an objective manner. This explains why a reader can understand texts written in a far-away country whose cultural and sociopolitical lifestyles he does not understand.