Paradox and Formalism

The Language of Paradox

“Paradox is the language of sophistry, hard, bright, witty; it is hardly the language of the soul […] Our prejudices force us to regard paradox as intellectual rather than emotional, clever rather than profound, rational rather than divinely irrational” (8).

“paradoxes spring from the very nature of the poet’s language: it is a language in which the connotations play as great a part as the denotations” (11).

The poet’s “terms are continually modifying each other, and thus violating their dictionary meanings […] He must work by contradiction and qualification” (11).

The Formalist Critics

“The poem has its roots in history, past or present. Its place in the historical context simply cannot be ignored” (20).

“The formalist critic, because he wants to criticize the work itself, makes two assumptions: (1) he assumes that the relevant part of the author’s intention is what he got actually into his work; that is, he assumes that the author’s intention as realized is the “intention” that counts, not necessarily what he was conscious of trying to do, or what he now remembers he was then trying to do. And (2) the formalist critic assumes an ideal reader: that is, instead of focusing on the varying spectrum of possible readings, he attempts to find a central point of reference from which he can focus upon the structure of the poem or novel” (21).