Todorov

I remember thinking when reading Todorov for the first time that his ideas seemed like common knowledge. for example, the "action of the narrative" in which the plot moves from an "equilibrium to disequilibrium and concludes in a new equilibrium" seems to be something that even a high schooler would know (2098). However, this all seems to make sense when it is looked at with the understanding that Todorov's writings were "foundational." It makes me wonder if Todorov completely set the stage for this kind of thinking. If that is the case, than structuralism, however displaced it may seem, must have been very influential to current literary thought.

Despite the influence of structuralism, I still seem to be at odds with the whole thought process behind it. I am so used to thinking of literature and science as two very separate and distinct fields. It is very difficult to try and apply scientific thinking to the literary world. I think I struggle the most with trying to understand why you would want to make the study of literature more scientific in nature. The only conclusion I have come to is that it could be done with hopes of making literary study more respected. for whatever reason, science is a very respected field. This probably has something to do with its concreteness. There are facts in science and this allows for validity. Literature on the other hand, affords no such concrete facts. There is only theory, questions, conjectures. Science seems to be viewed as a more necessary field while literature is seemingly auxiliary and superfluous.

So why not make literature more scientific? It seems to make perfect sense. I still don't agree though. And perhaps my view of literature is too romantic for many people's tastes, but I do not think that is should be molded into something that it is clearly not. Todorov repeatedly uses language such as "theoretical" "external" "internal"and "descriptive" (2001). I just don't understand how this terminology even relates to the study of literature. Or why it has to.

If my understanding of Todorov is correct, then he is attempting to limit the subjectivity of literary study. Yes, subjectivity can be viewed as a negative thing, however, in the case of literature it can also add richness and meaning to a text. Different reader interpretations are what make a text a living thing, as Todorov calls it when he quotes Henry James.

In short, there is something singular about literature. It stands on its own and should not be molded to fit into something it was not made for. It seems almost demeaning to have to make literary study something it is not.