“Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

“Definition of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov was first published in 1981 as part of the collection Introduction to Poetics. Translated into English in the same year, the work holds immense importance in literature and literary theory. It serves as a foundational text, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of literary language and its functions. Todorov’s exploration of narrative structure, genre, and the relationship between literature and reality has significantly influenced subsequent critical and theoretical discussions.

Summary of “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

• Two Attitudes in Literary Studies: Divergence Between Interpretation and Scientific Analysis: Todorov identifies two primary approaches in literary studies: one that treats the literary text as “a sufficient object of knowledge” and focuses on interpreting its meaning, and another that views each text as “the manifestation of an abstract structure” and seeks to understand the underlying laws governing literature. The first approach, which Todorov refers to as “interpretation,” aims to extract and articulate the meaning inherent within the text itself, considering the literary work as “the ultimate and unique object” of study (Todorov, p. 87). In contrast, the second approach inscribes itself within a scientific framework, where the goal is not merely to describe the particular work but to “establish general laws” that transcend individual texts (Todorov, p. 87). These two approaches, while distinct, are not necessarily incompatible, as they represent complementary perspectives on understanding literature.
• Interpretation: The Pursuit and Limitations of Extracting Meaning: Interpretation, which encompasses activities such as “exegesis, commentary, explication de texte,” and “close reading,” is defined by its pursuit to “name the meaning of the text examined” (Todorov, p. 87). The ideal of interpretation is to “make the text itself speak,” striving for fidelity to the object of study, which necessitates an “effacement of the subject”—the interpreter’s own biases and preconceptions (Todorov, p. 87). However, Todorov highlights the inherent drama in this approach: interpretation can never fully realize the text’s meaning but can only arrive at “a meaning subject to historical and psychological contingencies” (Todorov, p. 87). Moreover, pure interpretation risks becoming a mere “word-for-word repetition” of the work, as it must occasionally “project [the work] elsewhere than upon itself” to offer meaningful insights (Todorov, p. 87).
• Scientific Approach: Transcending the Particular to Discover General Laws: The second attitude in literary studies aligns itself with scientific inquiry, where the focus shifts from the particular text to the general principles it embodies. This approach sees the literary work not as an autonomous entity but as a “manifestation of laws that are external to it,” whether those laws pertain to psychology, sociology, philosophy, or other fields (Todorov, p. 88). The objective is to “transpose the work into the realm considered fundamental,” deciphering it as an expression of “something” beyond the text itself (Todorov, p. 88). This “labor of decipherment and translation” positions literary analysis within various scientific disciplines, aiming to uncover the broader laws that govern the creation and reception of literary works (Todorov, p. 88).
• Poetics: An Abstract and Internal Study of Literary Discourse: Todorov introduces poetics as a distinct approach that breaks down the dichotomy between interpretation and scientific analysis. Unlike interpretation, which seeks to name the meaning of individual works, poetics “does not seek to name meaning” but rather aims “at a knowledge of the general laws that preside over the birth of each work” within the literary domain (Todorov, p. 88). Unlike scientific analyses that look to external factors, poetics seeks these laws “within literature itself,” making it an “abstract” yet “internal” approach (Todorov, p. 88). The focus of poetics is not on the literary work itself but on the properties of “literary discourse,” specifically the concept of “literariness,” which Todorov defines as the “abstract property that constitutes the singularity of the literary phenomenon” (Todorov, p. 88). Thus, poetics is concerned with the theoretical structures and functions of literature as a whole, rather than with the specificities of individual texts.
• Structuralism and Poetics: Examining the Relationship and Distinctions: Todorov addresses the relationship between poetics and structuralism, acknowledging that poetics is “structural” in a broad sense because it deals with “an abstract structure (literature)” rather than individual literary works (Todorov, p. 89). However, Todorov distinguishes poetics from certain structuralist approaches that reduce literature to a system of communication or social codes. He argues that poetics, as he presents it, is not bound by the “limited corpus of hypotheses” associated with early structuralism, which often offered “instrumentalist conceptions of language” (Todorov, p. 89). Instead, poetics maintains a broader, more flexible relationship with structuralism, focusing on the inherent properties of literary discourse itself.
• Poetics and Linguistics: The Integral Role of Language in Literary Analysis: Finally, Todorov explores the connection between poetics and linguistics, asserting that literature is “a product of language,” and therefore, any study of literature must inherently engage with linguistic theories (Todorov, p. 89). While poetics may draw insights from linguistics, its scope is broader, encompassing “all the sciences of languages,” including disciplines such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, and philosophy of language (Todorov, p. 89). Poetics finds its closest allies in disciplines that study discourse, collectively forming the field of rhetoric, understood “in the broadest sense as a general science of discourses” (Todorov, p. 89). Thus, poetics positions itself at the intersection of literary theory, linguistics, and semiotics, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of literature as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

Term	Definition	Example
Interpretation	The analysis of a literary text to determine its meaning.	A close reading of a poem to understand its symbolism.
Science	The study of general laws governing a particular phenomenon.	A sociological analysis of a novel to understand its social context.
Poetics	The study of the general laws governing the creation of literary works.	Investigating the structure of a sonnet to understand the form.
Literariness	The specific qualities that distinguish literary language from ordinary language.	The use of metaphor and imagery in poetry.
Structuralism	The study of underlying structures in language, culture, and society.	Analyzing the narrative structure of a short story.
Semiotics	The study of signs and symbols and their meaning.	Interpreting the symbolism of colors in a painting.

Additional Notes

• Interpretation and science represent two contrasting approaches to literary study.
• Poetics bridges the gap between these two approaches by focusing on the internal structure of literary works.
• Literariness is a key concept in poetics, as it defines the unique characteristics of literary language.
• Structuralism and semiotics provide theoretical frameworks for analyzing literary texts.

Contribution of “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

Literary Work	Todorov’s Concept	Critique	Reference
James Joyce, Ulysses	Structuralism	Joyce’s novel can be analyzed through a structuralist lens by examining the underlying patterns and repetitions, such as the cyclical structure of a day, mirroring the mythical journey of Odysseus.	Todorov, T. (1981). Introduction to Poetics.
Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse	Stream of Consciousness	While not directly addressed by Todorov, Woolf’s novel challenges the notion of a linear narrative structure, prompting a reconsideration of the limits of structuralist analysis.	Woolf, V. (1927). To the Lighthouse.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude	Magical Realism	Marquez’s blend of realism and fantasy complicates the application of traditional literary analysis, forcing a re-evaluation of the boundaries between different genres and literary modes.	Marquez, G. G. (1967). One Hundred Years of Solitude.
Toni Morrison, Beloved	Historical and Cultural Context	Morrison’s novel highlights the importance of considering historical and cultural factors in literary analysis, challenging the purely formalist approach advocated by some proponents of Todorov’s work.	Morrison, T. (1987). Beloved.

Additional Considerations

• Interdisciplinary Approach: Todorov’s work can be combined with other theoretical frameworks to offer more comprehensive analyses. For example, a feminist or postcolonial reading of Beloved could be enriched by considering the novel’s formal elements.
• Limitations of Structuralism: While Todorov’s structuralist approach provides valuable insights, it is essential to recognize its limitations, particularly when analyzing complex and innovative literary works.
• Reader Response: Todorov’s emphasis on the text itself might be challenged by reader-response theories, which prioritize the reader’s interpretation.

Criticism Against “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

• Overemphasis on Abstract Structures: Todorov’s focus on abstract structures and general laws may neglect the unique qualities and nuances of individual literary works. By prioritizing the abstract over the specific, there is a risk of reducing the richness of literary texts to mere instances of broader theoretical concepts, which can diminish the value of the literary experience.
• Detachment from Historical and Cultural Contexts: The approach Todorov advocates for poetics might be criticized for its detachment from the historical and cultural contexts in which literary works are produced and interpreted. By seeking to uncover universal laws of literature, poetics might overlook the ways in which texts are deeply embedded in and shaped by their specific social, political, and cultural environments.
• Potential for Reductionism: Todorov’s method could be seen as reductionist, as it attempts to fit the complexity of literature into predetermined theoretical frameworks. Critics might argue that this approach oversimplifies the diverse and multifaceted nature of literary works, reducing them to mere exemplifications of literariness or literary discourse.
• Neglect of Reader’s Role and Subjectivity: Todorov’s emphasis on the objective and scientific aspects of literary analysis may neglect the importance of the reader’s role and the subjectivity involved in interpreting texts. By focusing on abstract structures, his approach might overlook how individual readers bring their own experiences and perspectives to bear on their understanding of a text.
• Limited Engagement with Interdisciplinary Approaches: While Todorov acknowledges the relationship between poetics and other disciplines like linguistics and rhetoric, his approach could be critiqued for not fully engaging with interdisciplinary methods. Critics may argue that a more integrative approach, which combines insights from psychology, sociology, history, and other fields, would provide a richer and more comprehensive understanding of literature.
• Abstractness vs. Practical Application: The abstract nature of Todorov’s definition of poetics may be seen as impractical for actual literary analysis. Critics might argue that while theoretical rigor is important, it should also be balanced with practical tools that can be applied to the analysis of specific texts, something that Todorov’s approach might lack.
• Structuralist Limitations: Although Todorov attempts to distinguish poetics from structuralism, some critics might argue that his approach is still too closely aligned with structuralist thinking, which has been critiqued for its rigidity and failure to account for the dynamic and evolving nature of literature and language.
• Potential for Exclusion of Certain Literary Forms: Todorov’s framework may exclude or marginalize certain literary forms that do not easily conform to his model of literary discourse. For example, experimental literature or works that deliberately subvert traditional literary conventions might be difficult to analyze within the confines of Todorov’s poetics.
• Inaccessibility to Non-Specialists: The complex and abstract nature of Todorov’s theoretical framework might make it inaccessible to those who are not specialists in literary theory. This could limit the practical utility of his ideas for educators, students, and general readers who seek to engage with literature in a more straightforward and intuitive way.

Suggested Readings: “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

1. Todorov, Tzvetan. Introduction to Poetics. Translated by Richard Howard. University of Georgia Press, 1981.
2. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose. Translated by Richard Howard. Cornell University Press, 1977.
3. Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Translated by Wlad Godzich. University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
4. Frow, John. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 41, no. 1, 1982, pp. 112–13. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/430834. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
5. LAUX, CAMERON. “The Other Todorov: Anthropology and Critical Humanism.” Paragraph, vol. 18, no. 2, 1995, pp. 194–209. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263467 . Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
6. Zbinden, Karine. “Todorov and Bakhtin.” Tzvetan Todorov: Thinker and Humanist, edited by Karine Zbinden and Henk de Berg, NED-New edition, Boydell & Brewer, 2020, pp. 109–26. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvrdf17k.10. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Interpretation, which is sometimes also called exegesis… is defined… by its aim, which is to name the meaning of the text examined.”	This quotation captures Todorov’s definition of interpretation as a process focused on extracting and articulating the meaning of a literary text.
“It is impossible to interpret a work, literary or otherwise, for and in itself, without leaving it for a moment, without projecting it elsewhere than upon itself.”	Todorov emphasizes the inherent limitation of interpretation: to fully understand a text, one must consider it in relation to external contexts or frameworks.
“Poetics… does not seek to name meaning, but aims at a knowledge of the general laws that preside over the birth of each work.”	This quotation defines the core objective of poetics as the study of the abstract, general principles that govern the creation of literary works, rather than specific meanings.
“Literature is, in the strongest sense of the term, a product of language.”	Todorov highlights the intrinsic connection between literature and language, underscoring that any analysis of literature must involve linguistic considerations.
“The goal of this study is no longer to articulate a paraphrase… but to propose a theory of the structure and functioning of literary discourse.”	Todorov clarifies that poetics is concerned with theoretical understanding, aiming to establish a comprehensive framework for how literary discourse operates.
“Each work is therefore regarded only as the manifestation of an abstract and general structure, of which it is but one of the possible realizations.”	This quotation encapsulates the structuralist perspective in poetics, where individual literary works are seen as specific instances of broader, underlying structures.