Todorov’s Structural Strategy

Structuralists seek a system of codes they believe to convey the meaning. For them what really matters is how a text convenes meaning rather than what meaning is conveyed. This is the center of the structuralists’ methodology. For example, we usually assume that white color refers to purity, innocence or peace, but a Structuralist would question what is the sign system or the code that allows readers to interpret white color as “purity’ or ‘innocence’. In short, a structuralist has to find out how language works to convey the meaning. This takes place by explaining the relations among various components of the language.
Todorov follows the same strategy; he states that the purpose of his approach “is not to articulate a paraphrase but a theory of the structure and operation of the literary discourse.” 2100.
Furthermore, when Todorov analyzes the plot of Decameron tales, he resorts to the stylistics of the text to figure out the stream of the dramatic action: he examines the minimal schema of the plot, analyzes the narrative clause, showing the verbs that refer to actions, categorizes modality…….etc.
Through these items, Todorov tries to discover how language functions to convey the meaning. This is the essence of structuralism..

Strauss’s Matrix Structural Analysis Method

In his essay, “The Structural Study of Myth,” Strauss’s uses the matrix structural method of analysis that is usually used to analyze complex structures of meaning. Unlike the classical method of analysis that depends on providing answers by means of analytical beam formulation [paradigmatic relations (horizontal)], the matrix method examines the interrelations between parts of meaning [Syntagmatic relations (Vertical)] on the level of sentences, or between parts of meaning and other parts (defining larger unites like context). The use of the matrix method doesn’t make things easier to grasp for those who don’t like mathematics like myself, on the contrary it might make things more difficult to understand. But, I have to admit that it tries to show the logical relations between different parts of meaning. To give an example, the grouping of events in the matrix of Oedipus myth, made it easy to me to trace the overrating and underrating of blood relations as two binaries on one hand, and the denial and persistence of the autochthonous origin of man on the other. But I wonder how a classical method would be able to analyze the meaning as intended by Strauss himself.

The Significance of Theory

The difficulty of theory, as elaborated by Eagleton, was not extensively discussed in class and I would like to shed light on that idea which I find appealing to me. Eagleton states that theory is difficult, not only because of its sophistication and discourse, but mainly because of “its demand that we return to childhood by rejecting what seems natural and refusing to be fobbed off with shifty answers from well-meaning elders.” (Eagleton 35) ‘Natural’ in the previous quotation refers to “ our routine social practices” as he explains on page 34 and since theory is “a social practice” (p 24) the first quotations implies rejecting the theory itself because they are not familiar with the social practices of the elders. I find that the major source of difficulty in Theory is that it stands alone as a subject away from literature. In other words the subject of literature “fades out” and self-reflexivity becomes more important than the subject of literature itself. The function of theory is mainly to develop a systematic sense of appreciation and understanding to literature, but when it become more important than literature itself, I prefer to be a child rejecting the practices of the elders.