Lecture
The content of a literary work as a whole can be defined as that personal, ideological-emotional
attitude of the creator toward the object of his depiction, which is realized with exhaustive fullness
only in the course of the depiction itself, and partly outside it (in readers’ assessments,
scholarly interpretations, the writer’s own statements), and is perceived
by the reader in the form of a more or less objectively given «picture of life», arising in the subjective
consciousness of the person conducting the narration.
The content of a literary work thus has a two-level, objective-subjective structure
of its expression. The objective basis of a work’s content is formed by the range of
life phenomena reflected in it, the generalized ideational essence of which is disclosed and given concrete form, on the one
hand, in those event-lines (one or several) that unfold in the work into a more or less
complete story or fragment of the life of certain human individualities (one or more),
and, on the other hand, in those universal human types which the characters of the work embody with greater or lesser certainty. The range of life phenomena reflected in a work
is usually referred to as its theme, that is, the object of reflection; the concrete events that,
as it were, unfold the conflict hidden within it, are properly called the fabula, which
constitutes the subject of narration in the work; by universal human types, meanwhile, one most often (though not
exclusively) understands human characters — given objectively, that is, in life itself, and creatively elaborated by the author —
or their individual psychological states, insofar as they are, in a social or
personal sense, generalized and clearly outlined types of human behavior, appearing in the work as the object
of artistic cognition. The totality of the objectified elements of content that constitute, in the work,
the object of its direct depiction, simultaneously serves as the form in which
its mediated subjective content — that is, the creator’s personal, ideological-emotional
evaluative attitude toward the object of his depiction — is manifested and disclosed.
The basis of a work’s subjective content is that emotional mood, that feeling (of joy,
sorrow, and so on) which, as it were, envelops what is depicted and, by characterizing the evaluative
attitude (positively approving or negatively critical) of the author toward what is depicted, is involuntarily
communicated to the reader, prompting him to become aware of and emotionally experience his own
assessment, his own personal stake in what the work is about. This element of content
is customarily denoted by the term pathos. Pathos, in turn, appears in the work as a distinctive
form in which an intellectual-logical thought manifests itself and exists — a thought that serves as a kind of
generalizing conclusion drawn from everything depicted in the work and expressing a definite conception
of the world and of man, professed by the author in accordance with his worldview convictions and
the particularities of his own outlook. This intellectual-logical kernel, which, as it were,
grows out of the determinacy of the emotional assessment, is called the idea of the work. Let us analyze the structure
of the substantive organization of a literary-artistic work using a concrete example. The theme of T. Shevchenko’s well-known
poem «The Poplar» can be defined as «unhappy love».
This generalized life situation is given concrete form through the fabula of the work, which is
a narration (told from the author’s perspective) about a girl who fell in love with a Cossack. Her beloved, evidently,
died abroad, and the girl’s mother was preparing to marry her off to a man she did not love. The unhappy girl went to
a fortune-teller to learn from her the fate of her beloved. Having drunk the potion given to her by
the witch, the girl turns into a poplar.
The fabula of the work also promotes the artistic disclosure and cognition of the psychological state
of the heroine’s character as a generalized probable type of human (female) behavior,
distinguished by the particular outline of her world of thoughts and feelings. The pathos of the work is defined by the feeling
of piercing sorrow evoked by the young woman’s dramatic situation, by her psychological
state bordering on madness. The idea of the work, evidently, is connected with the thought of the power
of true feeling, of the fidelity and sincerity of a loving heart which, in its tragic devotion,
is capable of anything, even self-sacrifice. The generalized structure of the substantive organization
of a literary work is given concrete form, that is, acquires certain distinctions depending on the generic
(to a greater extent) and genre features of the work. The contrast between the content of lyric poetry and that of epic
and dramatic works as a whole rests on the opposition characterizing the
relationship between individual elements of the objectified content of a work, namely — the fabula and
the characters (psychological states), and finds its manifestation in the fact that the interest of a work,
as a rule, is carried by one of these elements.
Thus, a weakening of the fabula, that is,
the fragmentary, disjointed nature of the events traced in the work, brings to the
fore, accentuates and heightens the significance of the characters outlined in it (as a whole, or their
individual psychological states). And conversely, a weakening, a dim expression of the individual-personal principle draws the reader’s attention to the general picture of the course of events, which, as a
rule, in such cases is sharper (there are also works in which the opposition between
fabula and characters is more or less balanced). This opposition may occur in
any composition, regardless of its genus and genre, given a clear outline of its
objectified content. However, it most fully characterizes not the theoretical but the historical
specificity of literature. At earlier historical stages of its development, literature is characterized
by a comparatively greater objectification of the content of its works and, as a consequence, an insufficiently clear
manifestation in it of the world of the characters’ personal experiences. With the growth, in human
society, of the role of individuality and the personal principle — the theoretical basis for which was laid
by German idealist philosophy (Schelling, Hegel, and others) — and with the spread of the romantic (with its
cult of individualism) worldview, the relationship between fabula, event, and
characters and psychological states gradually shifts in favor of the latter.
Further literary development is characterized by peculiar oscillations in the content
of literary works, from an emphasis on eventfulness and fabula to a heightened attention to
human characters, which is due not least to the predominance of event or
«inaction» at various stages of a given historical epoch’s progress, the appearance of new social types,
and public interest in various as-yet-unexplored psychological states of
man, and so on.
Thus, plot [siuzhet] is the term for the course of action and the sequence of its development, which serves in
the work as the form of unfolding and concretizing its fabula.
The category of plot arises out of the need to somehow designate the specificity
of the object of depiction in the verbal art, which, unlike the spatial arts,
is given not in stasis but in dynamics, in action.
Closely connected with the basic functions of plot are its types, whose classification
is established according to the character of the internal relationship and interconnection of the events, arranged and realized through their fabular course. The type of plot in which events
are linked only through temporal connection is called chronicle-type [khronikal’nyi]. The type of plot in which
events are joined by cause-and-effect connections is called concentric. At the basis of
the internal organization of the plot, as a definite sequence in the flow and unfolding of the action, lies
the conflict, that is, a definite contradiction in the relations between the characters, a problem that is defined by the
theme of the work and, requiring resolution, motivates this or that development of the action.
The fabula — the event-based foundation of the content, the course of the main events unfolding the conflicting
situation outlined by the theme of the work — appears in it as the object of the narration, which
is perceived by the reader in the form of a more or less integral picture or fragments of the life of certain
persons.
Content and form. The categories of content and form, superbly elaborated already within Hegel’s system, became important categories of dialectics and have repeatedly been successfully applied in the analysis of the most diverse, complexly organized objects. The application of these categories in aesthetics and literary studies also forms a long-standing and fruitful tradition. Nothing prevents the application of such well-proven philosophical concepts to the analysis of a literary work as well; moreover, from a methodological standpoint this is only logical and natural. But there are also special grounds for beginning the dissection of a work of art with the isolation within it of content and form. A work of art is not a natural but a cultural phenomenon, and this means that at its basis lies a spiritual principle which, in order to exist and be perceived, must necessarily acquire some material embodiment, a mode of existence within a system of material signs. Hence the naturalness of defining the boundaries of form and content in a work: the spiritual principle is the content, and its material embodiment is the form.
We can define the content of a literary work as its essence, its spiritual substance, and its form as the mode of existence of this content. Content, in other words, is the writer’s «utterance» about the world, a definite emotional and intellectual reaction to this or that phenomenon of reality. Form is the system of means and devices in which this reaction finds expression and embodiment. Somewhat simplified, one might say that content is what the writer said with his work, and form is how he said it.
The form of a work of art has two basic functions. The first is carried out within the artistic whole, and can therefore be called internal: this is the function of expressing content. The second function is manifested in the work’s effect on the reader, and can therefore be called external (with respect to the work). It consists in the fact that form exerts an aesthetic effect on the reader, because it is precisely form that serves as the bearer of a work’s aesthetic qualities. Content in itself cannot, in the strict, aesthetic sense, be beautiful or ugly – these are properties that arise exclusively at the level of form.
From what has been said about the functions of form, it is clear that the question of convention, so important for a work of art, is resolved differently with respect to content and to form. If we said that a work of art is, in general, a convention compared to primary reality, then the degree of this conventionality differs for form and for content. Within a work of art, content possesses unconditionality; with respect to it one cannot pose the question «why does it exist?» Like the phenomena of primary reality, content exists in the artistic world without any conditions, as an immutable given. It cannot be a conventional-fantastical, arbitrary sign behind which nothing is implied; strictly speaking, content cannot be invented – it comes into the work directly from primary reality (from the social existence of people or from the author’s consciousness). Form, on the contrary, can be as fantastical and conventionally implausible as one likes, because the conventionality of form implies something; it exists «for the sake of something» – for the embodiment of content.
Modern scholarship proceeds from the primacy of content with respect to form. Applied to a work of art, this holds true both for the creative process (the writer seeks a form appropriate to a content that, though still vague, already exists, but never the reverse – he does not first create a «ready-made form» and then pour some content into it), and for the work as such (the particularities of the content determine and explain to us the specificity of the form, but not the other way around). In a certain sense, however — namely, in relation to the perceiving consciousness — it is precisely form that acts as primary, and content as secondary. Since sensory perception always precedes emotional reaction and, all the more so, the rational comprehension of an object, and indeed serves as the base and foundation for them, we perceive in a work first its form, and only afterward, and only through it, the corresponding artistic content.
It follows from this, incidentally, that the direction of analysis of a work – from content to form or the reverse – is of no fundamental significance. Either approach has its justification: the first in the determining character of content with respect to form, the second in the laws of readerly perception.
From everything said, a clear conclusion suggests itself: in a work of art, form and content are equally important. In isolating form and content within a work, we thereby liken it to any other complexly organized whole. However, the relationship of form and content in a work of art also has its own specificity.
First of all, one must firmly grasp that the relationship of content and form is not a spatial but a structural relationship. Form is not a shell that can be removed to reveal the kernel – the content. If we take a work of art, we will find ourselves powerless to «point a finger»: here is the form, and here is the content. Spatially they are fused and indistinguishable; this fusion can be felt and shown at any «point» of an artistic text. The second thing to note is the particular connectedness of form and content within the artistic whole. This is perhaps best manifested in the following regularity: any change in form, even one that seems minor and particular, inevitably and immediately leads to a change in content.
For a precise and full understanding of a work’s content, the closest possible attention to its form is absolutely necessary, down to its smallest particulars. There are no «trifles» in the form of a work of art that are indifferent to content; as the well-known saying goes, «art begins where the «ever so slightly» begins».
Substantive form. The specificity of the relationship between content and form in a work of art has given rise to a special term, specifically meant to reflect the inseparability, the fusion of these two sides of a single artistic whole – the term «substantive form» [soderzhatel’naia forma]. This concept has at least two aspects. The ontological aspect asserts the impossibility of a contentless form or an unformed content existing; in logic, such concepts are called correlative: we cannot think one of them without simultaneously thinking the other. For works of art, however, another, axiological (evaluative) aspect of the concept of «substantive form» is more important: here what is meant is the lawful correspondence of form to content.
However substantive one or another formal element may be, however close the connection between content and form, this connection does not pass over into identity. Content and form are not one and the same thing; they are different sides of the artistic whole, singled out in the process of abstraction and analysis. They have different tasks, different functions, and, as we have seen, a different degree of conventionality; between them there exist definite mutual relations. It is therefore inadmissible to use the concept of substantive form, or the thesis of the unity of form and content, in order to blend and lump together formal and substantive elements. On the contrary, the genuine substantiveness of form is disclosed to us only when the fundamental differences between these two sides of a work of art have been sufficiently recognized, when, consequently, the possibility opens up of establishing between them definite correlations and lawful interactions.
Speaking of the problem of form and content in a work of art, one cannot fail to touch, at least in general terms, on one more concept that is actively current in contemporary literary scholarship. This is the concept of «inner form». This term in effect presupposes the presence, «between» content and form, of elements of the work of art that are «form in relation to elements of a higher level (the image as a form expressing ideational content), and content – in relation to the lower-standing levels of structure (the image as the content of compositional and speech form)». Such an approach to the structure of the artistic whole appears doubtful, above all because it disrupts the clarity and rigor of the initial division into form and content as, respectively, the material and spiritual principles in a work. If some element of the artistic whole can be simultaneously both substantive and formal, this deprives the very dichotomy of content and form of meaning and – which is not unimportant – creates significant difficulties for the further analysis and comprehension of the structural connections between the elements of the artistic whole.
Thus, in our view, it is fruitful to draw a clear distinction between form and content in the structure of the artistic whole. It must, however, immediately be said that one must guard against the danger of dissecting these sides mechanically, crudely. There are artistic elements in which form and content, as it were, touch one another, and very subtle methods and very close observation are needed in order to grasp both the fundamental non-identity and the closest interconnection of the formal and substantive principles.
1. In what does the unity of content and form of a work of art consist? Show this using the example of any
literary work.
2. How does the philosophical comprehension of the categories of content and form occur in the literary-theoretical
aspect?
3. Give a definition of the substantive elements (theme, thought, problematics, pathos).
4. Disclose the concept of plot as a substantive-formal element.
5. Manner and style as the content and form of a literary phenomenon.
6. What is the theme of a work of art? How is it defined?
7. Why does the ideational-thematic basis of a work constitute a complex concept?
8. Which themes of a work are primary, and which are secondary?
9. Must a literary work always have a topical theme? How is the topicality
of a theme determined? (Illustrate with examples)
10. What does the ideational content of a work of art consist of? In what does its complexity consist?
(Illustrate with examples)
11. What predetermines the theme and idea of a work of art? How is this connected with the historical epoch and
the social situation?
12. Determine the theme and idea of a specific literary work (of your choice)
Comments