introduction

The Geneva School was an important group in the French literary criticism community in the mid-20th century, and its critical practice is often considered intrinsic, identifying, and resistant to positivism and historicism, known as "consciousness criticism" or "identity criticism". However, there are differences within the school on the key issue of 'what is the nature of consciousness', especially in their understanding and attitude towards' form'. George Bly underestimated form, while Jean Rouse believed that form was crucial. Ruse's book "Form and Meaning" gained great fame through the study of Baroque literature. Its introduction emphasizes that "form" is the central concept that causes contradictions or differences in the nature of literary phenomena and the way works are understood. The "form" referred to by Rousseau is the internal, unique, and meaningful "structure" of a work, which is the condensation of the uniqueness of the work. He believes that literary works have both closure and openness, and their uniqueness and form always have some degree of connection with their external environment. The book "Form and Meaning" is divided into seven chapters. By analyzing a single author's work, the evolution of the epistolary novel genre, and multiple works by a single author, it demonstrates Rousseau's research method of constantly returning to the interior of the work, fully considering the closed and open nature of the work, and exploring the individuality of the work through reciprocating motion.

1、 From the 'anonymous' form to the internal form of the work

In depth exploration of the literary form concept proposed by Jean Rousseau in "Form and Meaning", distinguishing between the "anonymous" form and the internal form of the work. Ruse referred to collective, non deterministic literary forms as "anonymous" and proposed the term "style" to avoid confusion. He focuses on the collision and evolution between style and writer personality, such as the polyphonic narrative and monophonic narrative variants in epistolary novels. Through analyzing specific works such as Balzac's "Memories of Two Brides" and Madame de Lafayette's "Queen of Cleve", Ruse demonstrates how styles can be transformed into personalized forms, achieving the unity of form and meaning. In addition, Ruse's research method differs from Russian formalism and structuralism, as he focuses more on the use of styles in specific works rather than the system composed of styles themselves. Form and Meaning "is regarded as a practical" theoretical manifesto "that emphasizes that literary research should return to concrete works.

2、 The excavation of form and the origin of form

In depth exploration of the research methods proposed by Jean Rousseau in "Form and Meaning" emphasizes the close connection between form and meaning. Ruse believed that to truly understand the form of a work, it needs to be viewed as an organic whole, and the unity and constancy of the work can be discovered through repeated comprehensive reading. He metaphorically describes literary works as flowing pictures, emphasizing that critics need to reverse the natural inclination of the work while reading, presenting it under the gaze of thought. Meanwhile, Ruse pointed out that form should not be abstracted, but should bloom together with meaning, and art is the creation of forms that express meaning by humans.

3、 The deep openness of the work and the return towards the work

In depth exploration of Jean Rousseau's analysis of the deep openness of literary works and their regression with works in "Form and Meaning". Ruse believes that the "intention" of a work is not only derived from its form, but also closely linked to the author's personal experiences, aesthetic views, worldview, and religious views, making the work open in both technical and deep meanings. By studying the author's diary, letters, and literary criticism, clues to the form of the work can be discovered. Ruse used "Madame Bovary" and "Remembrance of Things Past" as examples to demonstrate how to explore the form of works by analyzing the author's personal letters and aesthetic views.

conclusion

Explored Jean Rousseau's research methods and his debate with French deconstructionist philosopher Jacques Derrida. Derrida criticized Rousseau for limiting literary criticism to the focus on the form of the work, neglecting the intrinsic movement and power of the work. Although Ruse emphasized that he was not a structuralist, Derrida still regarded him as an extreme structuralist. However, Ruse also realized the limitations of formal research in "Form and Meaning" and believed that commentary cannot replace direct contact with the work. Michel Jeanneret pointed out in his commemorative article that Rousseau's theory is not rigid, but flexible and profound. Ruse's formal research method demonstrated its guiding value in the theoretical wave of the 20th century, emphasizing the closed nature of works, the openness of surface and deep layers, and the in-depth exploration of both internal and external aspects of works.