In our group discussion of structuralist criticism, I raised the question of whether or not one could create a full, developed argument about a literary work based solely on structuralist criticism. The group came to a consensus that structuralism is very limited in its usefulness to analyze the whole of a literary work, but could be more useful if used in conjunction with a different form of criticism. Since structuralist criticism is exclusively limited to the structure of a particular literary genre, one would ultimately be leaving out key details and points in an argument using a structuralist analysis on its own.

Structuralist criticism in terms of literature aims to simplify and categorize texts in an almost scientific way. Structuralist theory does prove to be useful in making sense of the texts we read, but can every text be as simple as boiling it down to a formulaic structure? Many works of literature such as Frankenstein for example, can contain multiple structures and allusions to multiple genres built into the text. When we get into works that are more complex, is it still always possible to break the text down into a single structure, or do other types of criticisms need to come into play?

We as readers tend to find movies, books, television shows, and events more exciting when typical structural norms are broken or reversed to create deeper interest. The same can also be said for things like WWE or television shows such as NCIS where each match or episode is based around the same structure and we as the audience know what’s basically going to happen. So what is it really then that captures our interest when it comes to the structure of a work of literature? Paradise Lost is a good example of a text that is aware of its own structure but still attempts to subvert it.

Everything must have some type of structure even if it attempts to destabilize it. In writing Paradise Lost, John Milton was aware that he was going to follow the structure of an epic poem, but also subvert it by taking the trope of the epic hero and flipping it on its head. Milton uses Satan as a character that resembles many of the same characteristics as an epic hero, but is ultimately still the villain of the story. Readers find the character to be extremely interesting because of the parts of the structure that stay intact and the component of evil tied into it are at odds with each other. Structuralist criticism is certainly limited when it comes to fully analyzing a work of literature, but can provide important uses in its simplification and categorization of genre, structural components, and sign systems. A work can ultimately not succeed unless it follows a certain structure and sequence of events, but that doesn’t mean it can’t still challenge those structures.