Beginning thoughts on structuralism

Today we talked about the formalists vs the structuralists, especially in terms of how they view literature, the author, and the reader. They both saw the poem as a separate entity, and the author as significant in and of herself, but not as a part of the poetic criticism. However, there is an interesting distinction between the two views, in that structuralists believe in an absolute artistic science, and that the poem helps us understand more about this system. The formalists, however, have not developed this scientific view, and for this reason, they have nothing but the poem to discuss. And it's because of a certain point they make clear that I have a wonder about them...they are quite clear on the fact that we DO NOT TALK about the author or about intent because that information is unavailable, is not public. Well. It made me wonder if some formalists long for that information. It's just that personally, when I am adamant about what I claim because of what information is available, I am adamant because I long for what is not there, because a certain desire is going unfulfilled.

However, I agree with the structuralists in that I do not talk about the author, not because the information is unavailable (with the research and technological access we have to certain records, we at least have enough information to make an educated guess that can be taken with a grain, or a spoonful, depending on your epistemological tastebuds, of skeptic salt), but because that information is irrelevant when you believe in the "artistic system." *takes a breath* The Inklings would have been proud of me for that sentence. No one else is. XD

Anyhoo, I at least mostly agree with the said system. I want to be careful, because there needs to be wiggle room for a mysterious subjectivity when it comes to art. But by and large, there is good and bad art, happy and sad poems, consistent and inconsistent themes, confusing and clear artistic statements. Yes. Art is its own biology. I think so anyway.