Winterson argues that poetic fiction “is not an artificial language […] but it is a heightened language” (37), indicating that it is slightly above everyday language (ibid.). This claim corresponds with a definition of art as metaphor, as explained by the etymology of the word “metaphor” as meta (above) and pherein (to carry), suggesting that art is something “carried above the literalness of life” (66). Shklovsky’s theory of defamiliarization has similar preconceptions, as he proposes that writers distort syntax on purpose and heighten diction so as to “make their subjects more extraordinary or unsettling” (The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory 6).
←23 | 24→
Winterson’s claims about her “new way with words” (53–54) also elaborate on the notion of “literariness”. In Literature and the Brain, Norman Holland describes the reading process and its reliance on defamiliarization, which is inextricably linked with form (qtd. in Oatley 246). He claims that language may become literary only if it is surprising to us, which is dependent on the reader, not only on the writer,
it’s the reader whose attention is drawn by unusual juxtapositions of words, or unusual ways of seeing, who then brings the idea alive, in him- or her-self. The issue can, I think, be illuminated by the following idea about the relation of verbal expressions to their meanings.
It is also worth noticing that “[t];he only rule that can be formulated is that defamiliarization works by way of contrast, of difference” (Bertens 40). To illustrate this claim, Bertens gives the example of a poem written in heroic couplets in which non-rhyming lines appear at some point (41). As a result, the reader is made to stop reading and reflect on the strangeness of it. Bertens arrives at a conclusion, “whether a certain poetic technique serves as a defamiliarizing device depends on the larger background”. Thus, the surprising language can be defined in these terms only when set in juxtaposition with the rest of the text.
In Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery, Winterson describes her approach to literature and art in general. She emphasizes the role of art in humans’ “capacity of feeling” (7) and highlights its transformative power, which stimulates us in such a way that it can “coax out of us” (108) emotions which are not experienced by us in everyday life. The feelings which appear during an encounter with a work of art can test us, and the reality of art, which is different from our own, “challenges the I that we are” (12); by engaging with new stories, we may also perceive our own lives as rewritten stories. In this context, we can see the connections of Winterson’s ideas with defamiliarization and its role in the feeling which is evoked by stylistic devices that “emphasize the emotional effect of an expression” (12).
According to Shklovsky, phonetic and lexical analysis of poetic speech may lead to the discovery of “the artistic trademark – that is, we find material obviously created to remove the automatism of perception” (“Art as Technique”). The critic argues that artistic creation of the work results in “the slowness of the perception” (ibid.). Thus, Winterson’s works seem to become engaged in a dialogue with Shklovsky’s theory in the discussion of whether art represents or transforms reality and our perception of it (The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory 177). This debate clearly refers to Robinson’s claim that “the Romantic aesthetics ←24 | 25→of William Wordsworth and the modernist aesthetics of William Carlos Williams articulate the defamiliarizing power of literary language” (177).
Winterson also argues that when reading a familiar story, we may realize that “it is quite unlike our mental version of it” (26). Thus, the familiar may turn out to be unfamiliar. However, the author notes the tendency for readers to make works of art as familiar as their own reality, leading them to misquote well-known texts in such a way that suits their own perception (ibid.). Thus, changing the words is equal with changing the meaning. This process constitutes an opposition to the essence of real art which is supposed to re-define and expand language. Similarly, Shklovsky argues that the most important element of poetry is the poet’s skillful control of language (Stamiris 147). Literary prose, however, is based on syuzhet (plot) which is its main component and it is distinguished from the story (147).
Michael Berube sets out some interesting views regarding defamiliarization in his publication titled Rhetorical Occasions: Essays on Humans and the Humanities (2006). He argues that the theory of literature is in general “an ostranenie-o-rama” (313). Berube enumerates well-known schools of criticism including feminism, psychoanalysis, Marxism and deconstructionism, and he concludes that “[w];hether they sought to reveal the workings of patriarchy, of ideology, of the unconscious, or of language itself, they were engaged in the Shklovskian task of laying bare the device” (313). Subsequently, he gives the example of Hans Robert Jauss’s “reception aesthetics”, which is inextricably linked with the notion of defamiliarization as it defines the value of a work of art according to its stretching the “horizon of expectations” of its readers (313). Another theory which illustrates Berube’s argument concerning the all-embracing idea of defamiliarization is gender performativity; he states, “Drag denaturalizes, disidentifies, and defamiliarizes!” (313).
Hans Bertens also discusses defamiliarization in a broader context and he argues that the novel’s development from realism to modernism and postmodernism can generally be described as defamiliarization. He proposes,
[l];iterature as a whole renews itself through the development of, for instance, new genres, while genres defamiliarize (and thereby change) themselves through, for example, parody – a defamiliarizing strategy because it invariably focuses on peculiarities – and through the incorporation of new materials and techniques taken from other genres or from popular culture. (42)
Subsequently, he gives examples of such writers as Kurt Vonnegut, William Burroughs, Thomas Pynchon and Angela Carter who play with science fiction or with fairytales (ibid.). Bertens highlights that much as each literary work is a structure, all literature can be defined as a system of interconnected elements ←25 | 26→(ibid.). Thus, each text refers to other texts and the genre it is assigned to (ibid.). One of Bertens’ conclusions reads, “even the most innovative devices will with the passage of time lose their capacity to catch our attention. The idea that an everlasting dynamic between an inevitable process of familiarization and acts of defamiliarization is the driving mechanism behind literary change” (42–43).
2.1 Winterson’s Prose and Poetry
It has been observed that the idea of defamiliarization which is indispensable in determining “literariness” is perfectly applicable in the case of poetry but is not easily noticed in prose (Wolfreys 35). Although there are some examples of prose works which demonstrate a high level of defamiliarization (e.g. Russell Hoban’s Riddley Walker), such novels are rather scarce, and normally “we have to look pretty closely to find real deviations from ordinary language”. It can be concluded that the more poetic a prose work is, the more defamiliarization can be found in it. Robert B. Jones argues that “[s];tylistic defamiliarization is seen in Toomer’s technique of collapsing poetry and prose to create hybrid forms like the prose poems […] and the lyrical narratives” (115). An author whose prose may also be defined as “poetic” is Malcolm Lowry who implemented the rhythm of jazz music in his novels (Filipczak 9). Similarly, Jeanette Winterson’s oeuvre can be characterized by defamiliarization in its undermining and blurring the boundary between poetry and prose.
Jeanette Winterson’s prose has often been described as “poetic” by critics and she herself admits that her works employ poetic techniques that make her prose, as she defines it, “agile” and “quick” (Reynolds and Noakes 152). Onega claims that Winterson’s prose is “experimental” (13) because of its “generic and formal ambiguities” and she uses the term “poetic prose”, comparing her texts with Woolf’s Waves claiming that Winterson “may be said to materialize Woolf’s prophetic dream of a new novelistic form created by women with the intellectual and material freedom to express their own sensibility and worldview”.
What draws critics’ attention to Winterson’s style is her