What is structuralism? Simply (maybe too simply) put, it's the study of underlying structures and principles, BUT it's not just say, reading a short story and plotting out Freytag's triangle, or tracing the development of a character. No, no.
Structuralists don't really care about any one particular work. They care more about what the underlying (there's that word again) structures the work has reveals to us. In order to do this, you need context. One text is rarely enough. Think of it this way: if you are watching a baseball player bat, and you only ever see him the one time, and he strikes out, what can you really tell us? Baseball Hall of Famer Ted Williams, probably the best pure hitter in history and the last to hit .400, struck out 709 times in his career. If you based your assessment on this one unsuccessful at bat you had witnessed, you would be laughably incorrect. As you watch more and more at bats, patterns emerge, and truth is revealed. So sample size is important! It's also critical to develop the ability to go back and forth between the details we notice and the "big picture" that seems to be emerging. For instance, watching The A-Team (or any television show) brings with it certain expectations, things we might call out as "predictable." The team is hired by [insert distressed party here] to take on [insert villains here], has initial setbacks, creates a crafty plan to defeat the villains, wins, and moves on. We detect the underlying dramatic structure of the show by watching numerous episodes and detecting these (and many other) patterns. You've read (hopefully!) a number of Tyson's essays. What patterns have you noticed across the essays? Try to avoid the obvious (like "Tyson cites a lot" or some such fluff), but bring out something underlying that we wouldn't have noticed. Good luck!
2 Comments
|