Structuralism: Scientific Study of Narrative- I kind of like it

So, I think I’m a fan of structuralism mainly because I tend to be a realist and one whose reasoning generally flows rather logically. Perhaps this also relates to my perfectionist personality. I like formulas and knowing that there is an objective answer. I’m not particularly a fan of subjectivity. Perhaps given these truths it seems strangely odd that I am an English major, and I admit to finding it strange at times myself. However, I do also have the creative, imaginative brain. Much of my passion lies within the performing arts and I feel most alive when I am dancing, acting, singing, or playing my violin. The logical scientific part of me wants to embrace Tzetan Todorov, who is best know for advocating the scientific study of narrative, modeled in linguistics, for which he coined the term "narratology".

As a student studying English I have often cringed in light of how subjective the interpretation of literature is. For students like me, few and far in between as we might be, Todorov offers us a theory, or resource for objectively interpreting literature. Structuralists apply the scientific model of linguistics to other aspects of human culture, seeking to chart their underlying structures and rules. In Structural Analysis of Narrative Todorov quite interestingly designates the specific elements of each plot, on the model of the sentence, as subject, predicate, and adjective. He works to discern grammar rather than semantic meaning of narrative. In this essay he specifically focuses on that of the plot and suggests that, “there are a certain number of useful categories for examining and describing plots” (Todorov 2102). He then goes on to give examples of plots and a formula for interpreting or understanding the plots.

Though this will appear difficult to understand without having the plots in front of you, this is an example of his formula for interpretation:

X violates a law --> Y must punish X --> X tries to avoid being punished à

--> Y violates a law --> Y does not punish X

--> Y believes that X is not violating a law

I am definitely in love with the objectivity of this notion, though it seems to me that it is subjective in the sense that it seems as though it might only work if we are to entirely rid the work of its author. Structuralist doesn't leave room for authorship. I take issue with this ideology because without the poet we obviously wouldn't have the poem. That is an example of my logical flow of reason (haha). Seriously though, I don't understand how structuralists can comfortably rid a work of it's creator. Is it not apparent that something is missing. I'm uncertain as to how structuralists would respond to this other than to say they aren't concerned with the poet, that it is the text that matters. I beg to argue on behalf of the poet because we wouldn't even have a poem to interpret without the poet.