Plot

Plot (pronounced plot)

A secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, describes especially as such if for some hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose.

(2) In fiction, the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work (play, novel short story etc) (also called storyline or plotline and a plat may include a number of subplots).

(3) A small piece or area of ground (often with a modifier: garden plot; burial plot et al); a measured piece or parcel of land.

(4) A plan, map, diagram or other graphic representation, as of land, a building etc (in US use synonymous with a surveyor's map.

(5) A list, timetable, or scheme dealing with any of the various arrangements for the production of a play, motion picture etc.

(6) A chart showing the course of a craft (ship or airplane).

(7) In military use, a graphic representation of an individual or tactical setting that pinpoints an artillery target (as a point or points located on a map or chart (often as target plot)).

(8) To plan secretly, especially something hostile or evil.

(9) To mark on a plan, map, or chart, as the course of a ship or aircraft.

(10) To draw a plan or map of, as a tract of land or a building.

(11) To divide land into plots.

(12) To determine and mark (points), as on plotting paper, by means of measurements or coordinates; to describe curve by means of points so marked; to represent by means of such a curve; to make a calculation by means of a graph.

(13) To devise or construct the plot of a play, novel etc.

(14) To prepare a list, timetable, or scheme of production arrangements for a play, motion picture etc.

Pre 1100: From the Middle English plot & plotte, (piece of ground) in the sense of “small area, patch, stain, piece of ground” and was often associated with actual legal title to the defined area.  This was an inheritance from the Old English plot (piece of ground) which may (it’s contested among etymologists) be from the Proto-Germanic plataz & platjaz (a patch), the origin of which is unknown.  It was cognate with the Middle Low German plet (patch, strip of cloth, rags), the German Bletz (rags, bits, strip of land) and the Gothic plats (a patch, rags).

In the 1550s it gained the sense of “ground plan, outline, map, scheme”, a variant of the Middle English plat & platte (flat part of a sword; flat piece of ground, plot of ground), itself partly a variant of the Middle English & Old English plot.  The sense of a “secret plan” emerged in the 1580s by association with the Middle French complot (crowd-, plot (ie a combined plan)) of an unknown origin but the Oxford English Dictionary notes the speculation it may have been a back-formation from compeloter (to roll into a ball) from pelote (ball).  The verb was a derivative of the noun.  Plot in the sense “a storyline or main story of a fictional work” dates from the 1640s while the now familiar phrase “plot-line” (main features of a story) seems not to have appeared in print prior to the 1940s although it may earlier have been in oral use as theatre slang in the sense of “a sentence containing matter essential to the comprehension of the play's story” since early in the century.  The noun marplot (one who by officious interference defeats a design) was from 1708 and was the name of a character in Susanna Centlivre's (circa 1669-1723) comedy The busie body.  The phrase sub-plot dates from 1812.  The specific idea of a small piece of land in a cemetery (described variously as “burial plot” or “funeral plot”) was an invention of mid-nineteenth century US English.

HP DesignJet (24 inch (610 mm)) A1 Studio Plotter Printer (steel finish; HP part-number HPDJST24ST).

In the context of (an often secret and for some unscrupulous purpose) plan or scheme, plot can be synonymous with conspiracy but while a plot can be devised by a single individual, a conspiracy by definition involves at least two.  To scheme is to plan (usually with an implication of subtlety) often craftily and typically for one's own advantage.  Words related to plot in this sense includes intrigue, cabal, conspiracy, brew, hatch, frame, design, maneuver, scam & trick.  In the sense of land it can be section, division, parcel, piece etc.  The meaning "to make a map or diagram of, lay down on paper according to scale" was a borrowing from the nefarious sense of scheming and dates from the 1580s while the intransitive sense of "to form a plan or device" is from circa 1600.  In the sense of the lines on a chart or map, there’s no exact synonym (although various shapes (lines, curves, arcs etc) may be describes as a part of a whole plot and the word was (as plotter) adopted as the name of the device (a plotter was previously an individual employed manually to draw) used to draw the lines and mark the points of plans, schematics, blueprints etc.  In idiomatic use, to “lose the plot” is to become confused or disorientated or (more commonly) to lose one's ability or judgment in a (usually stressful) situation.  Plot is really unique to English and other languages picked it up unaltered including French, Dutch, Albanian & Spanish while Czech gained it from the Old Czech which (like Serbo-Croatian), gained it from the Proto-Slavic plotъ; Indonesian picked it up from the Dutch.  Plot is a noun & verb, plotted is a verb, plotting is a noun & verb, plotful & plotless are adjectives and plotter is a noun; the noun plural is plots (the form often also used as a verb).  The verb outplot (to surpass in plotting or scheming) is rare, the derived forms being outplotted & outplotting.

A plot in progress: The Gunpowder Plotters (circa 1610), copperplate engraving conspiring by Crispijn van de Passe the Elder (circa 1564-1637)

Use of the word “plot” spiked suddenly once the “Gunpowder Plot” of 5 November 1605 became well-known.  The Gunpowder Plot was a conspiracy among English Roman Catholics to blow up the houses of parliament, killing, inter alia, King James (James Charles Stuart, 1566–1625; King of Scotland as James VI from 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I after the union of the Scottish and English in 1603 until 1625), his queen and eldest son.  Henry VIII’s (1491-1547; King of England 1509-1547) creation of the Church of England after breaking with Rome in 1534 meant the Roman Catholic Church vanished only in an institutional sense while many adherents to the denomination remained and in the years after Henry’s fiat, there had been many plots which aimed to restore Romish ways to the Isle.  The gunpowder plot was probably the most dramatic (and certainly the most explosive) and was induced by the anger of some zealous Roman Catholics (the most remembered of whom was Guy Fawkes (1570-1606) at the king’s refusal to extend more rights to Catholics.  Their probably not unreasonable assumption was that with the death of the senior royals and most of the members of the House of Commons and House of Lords, there would be such confusion the English Catholics would have their best chance to take back the government of the country and re-establish their Church.

The idea of killing the king was not new (England, like many of the nations of Europe enjoying something of a tradition of regicide) and prior to the Gunpowder Plot being put in train, there had been attempts to gain political and economic rights by negotiation but the authorities (thin-end-of-the-wedge theorists) remained intransigent and the Penal Laws (a body of laws with the practical effect of outlawing Roman Catholicism) remained in force.  Accordingly, the plotters assembled some dozens of barrels of gunpowder (an even now impressive 1½ tons (1400 kg)) and secured a lease on a vault which sat directly beneath the House of Lords, hiding the explosives beneath piles of sacks, coal and firewood.  The preparations in place, discussions were undertaken among the Catholic elite to allocate the positions in the government which would be formed once James’s daughter, the nine-year old Princess Elizabeth Stuart (1596–1662) was installed as queen.  If that seems now a strange choice (and the plot included having her brought-up as a Roman Catholic and at some tender age married off to a suitably Romish groom) it doubtlessly reflected the view the (exclusively male) plotters held of women.  Confident of their success, emissaries were dispatched to foreign courts likely to be sympathetic which included the Holy See in Rome.

Up to this point, the gunpowder plot flawlessly had evolved because the most vital part (secrecy between the conspirators) had been maintained.  However, shortly before the fuse was to be lit, one of the plotters suffered pangs of conscience at the idea of mass murder (which would include not a few Roman Catholics) and sent an anonymous letter to one member of the Lords with whom he was acquainted:

My lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation, therefore I would advise you as you tender your life to devise some excuse to shift your attendance at this parliament, for God and man have concurred to punish the wickedness of this time, and think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country, where you may expect the event in safety, for though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this parliament and yet they shall not see who hurts them, this counsel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm, for the danger is past as soon as you have burnt the letter and I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.

Alarmed, his lordship alerted the authorities and the decision was taken to search the premises but to wait until closer to the day when the members were due to convene so the plotters might reveal themselves.  At this point the plot was unraveling because the nature of the warning letter became known to the plotters but, upon discovering their gunpowder undisturbed, they assumed it had been dismissed as fake news and resolved to continue, placing a lookout to watch over the vault.  It was to no avail because on 4 November, a search was undertaken and the stash uncovered.  Guy Fawkes, linked to the lease taken on the vault was arrested and, under the torture for which the Stuarts were justly famous, named his fellow plotters and the extent of their participation.  The planned insurrection quickly collapsed and while a few of the plotters made good their escape to the continent, most were either killed while fleeing or captured and executed.

Guy Fawkes in effigy burning on a 5 November bonfire.

Their planed act of terrorism caused such revulsion in England that the cause of Catholic emancipation was set back centuries and laws against them were strengthened and to add insult to injury, in January 1606 the parliament established November 5 as a day of public thanksgiving.  Known as Guy Fawkes Day, it was a popular public festival celebrated throughout the land, the highlight of which was the creation of huge bonfires upon which sat an effigy called "a guy" which had been paraded through the streets.  It's from this use that the word "guy" evolved into the present form, losing gradually the negative connotations (especially in the US) and late in the twentieth century also the exclusively male identity (the male proper name originally the French and related to the Italian Guido.).  Guy Fawkes day is still celebrated in England with bonfires and fireworks but in most of the Commonwealth, where “cracker night” had also been a fond tradition, it has suffered the fate of much in the nanny state, the humorous bureaucrats thinking fun must be had without the annual toll of eyes and fingers for which Guy Fawkes nights had become noted, the injuries increasing as fireworks became more powerful.  Australians and others might be surprised if wandering Amsterdam’s streets on new year’s eve, children happily launching some quite impressive ordnance across the canals without apparent ill-effect.

Lindsay Lohan (with body double) on location in Westport, County Mayo, Ireland, for the shooting of Irish Wish.  Lindsay Lohan has (an admittedly remote) connection with the Irish, the surname Lohan an anglicization of the Irish Ó Leocháin, from Middle Irish uí Leochain, from the Old Irish úa Lothcháin (the modern alternative forms being O'Lohan, Loughan, Loghan & Logan).  Car is a Triumph TR4A (1965-1967).  Netflix have released the plotline of the upcoming Irish Wish (release slated for 2024):

When the love of her life gets engaged to her best friend, Maddie puts her feelings aside to be a bridesmaid at their wedding in Ireland. Days before the pair are set to marry, Maddie makes a spontaneous wish for true love, only to wake up as the bride-to-be. With her dream seeming to come true, Maddie soon realizes that her real soulmate is someone else entirely.

Guy

Guy (pronounced gahy)

(1) In informal use, historically, a man or boy; a fellow.

(2) In modern informal use, in the plural, people (especially if younger), regardless of their sex (although if the group referenced is mixed, it can be used exclusively of males (ie a term such as “guys & girls”).

(3) In historic UK Slang, a grotesquely dressed person; ) A person of eccentric appearance or dress.

(4) A grotesque, deliberately crude effigy of Guy Fawkes, made usually of old clothes stuffed with straw or rags, paraded through the streets and that is burnt on top of a bonfire on Guy Fawkes Day (5 November; the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot); now mostly UK use and often with an initial capita).

(5) A male given name, from a Germanic word meaning “woods” and used mostly in France or Francophone countries (in the French pronounced gahy); the use as a surname began as a patronymic.

(6) A rope, cable, or appliance used to guide and steady an object (widely used in nautical matters but also of radio transmission masts etc) being hoisted or lowered, or to secure anything likely to shift its position.  It’s often use as “guy wire”, “guy rope” etc.

(7) A guide; a leader or conductor (obsolete).

(8) To guide, steady, or anchor with a guy wire (or rope, cable etc) or guys.

(9) To jeer at or make fun of; to ridicule with wit or innuendo.

(10) In live theatre, to play in a comedic manner.

(11) As “give the guy to” a mostly UK slang form meaning “to escape from (someone): or “give (someone) the slip”.

(12) In international standards (ISO 3166-1) as the translingual GUY, the alpha-3 country code for Guyana. (GY the alpha-2).

1300–1350: From the Middle English gye, from the Old French guie (a guide (also “a crane, derrick”)), from guier (to guide), from a Germanic source (probably Low German or the Frankish witan (show the way), ultimately from the Proto-Germanic wītaną (know) or witanan (to look after, guard, ascribe to, reproach) and the source also of the German weisen (to show, point out), the Old English witan (to reproach) & wite (fine, penalty) and the Dutch gei brail & geiblok (pulley), from the primitive Indo-European root weid (to see) (although some etymologists maintain it’s not impossible it was from a related word in the North Sea Germanic.  The use to describe a “small rope, chain or wire” emerged in the 1620s in nautical use, replacing the mid-fourteenth century “leader”, from the Old French guie "a guide," also "a crane, derrick," from guier, from Frankish witan "show the way" or a similar Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic witanan "to look after, guard, ascribe to, reproach" (the source also of German weisen (to show, point out), the Old English witan (to reproach) & wite (fine, penalty).  Guy is a noun, proper noun & verb, guyed & guying are verbs; the noun plural is guys (the historic guies has long been listed as non-standard).

Promotional poster for an amateur production of Guys & Dolls (1950), West Genesee High School (Camillus, New York).

The uses referencing Guy Fawkes emerged in the first years of the nineteenth century (most sources cite 1806 or 1806).  The male given name Guy (cognate with the Italian Guido) was from the Old French Gui, a form of the Proto-Germanic Wido, a short form of names beginning with the element witu (wood), from the Proto-Germanic widuz (such as Witold & Widukind).  Guy is used mostly in France or Francophone countries (in the French pronounced gahy) and the use as a surname began as a patronymic.  Guy Fawkes (1570–1606) was an English Roman Catholic who maintained his allegiance to the pope.  He was hanged, drawn and quartered for his role in the Gunpowder Plot (5 November 1605), the more romantic (if misleading) label for which was “the Jesuit Treason” which was an act of attempted regicide against King James VI and I (1566–1625) and King of Scotland as James VI (1567-1625) & King of England and Ireland as James I (1603-1625).  The domestic terrorists (as they would now be called) considered their actions attempted tyrannicide, their object being regime change in England to end the decades of religious discrimination and persecution.  Experts long ago concluded that had the plot been brought to fruition, the 36 barrels of gunpowder placed directly under the debating chamber of the House of Lords would have been more than enough to destroy the building.  In England, the burning of bonfires on the anniversary became a tradition almost immediately after the plot was foiled but it wasn’t until the early nineteenth century it became the practice to burn Guy Fawkes in effigy, the figure constructed usually in a deliberately crude manner using rags and old clothes, stuffed with combustible dry straw.  The tradition became established in many parts of the British Empire but as fireworks became increasingly powerful ordnance, local authorities restricted their sale (for example most Australian jurisdictions have banned the once popular "cracker night") thereby saving many eyes and fingers of children) and beyond the UK, Guy Fawkes day persists only in parts of New Zealand, South Africa and Canada. 

The use of “guy" to describe “a grotesquely or poorly dressed man” began in England in the mid 1830s and came into use in the US about a decade later although there it seems either immediately or within a short time to mean “a man”, rather as “fellow” or “chap” might be used.  GK Chesterton (1874–1936) noted for English audiences that in the US to be called “a regular guy” was “the most graceful of compliments” although that meaning has by now shifted to mean “someone average; unexceptional”.  In mixed company, guys are male while women variously (depending on the region, social class etc) are girls, chicks etc but sometimes, in the plural, guys may not be completely gender-neutral but may refer to people of any gender in certain circumstances and forms (such as “hey guys”).  Indeed, so adaptable is the word that a group of guys may be wholly female.  Nor is guy always the preferred form for men, young generations often preferring “dude” and the companion feminine coining “dudette” is occasionally heard though unusually only when dude is used in the same context.  When used of animals, guy usually refers to either a male or one whose gender is not known; it is rarely if ever used of an animal that is known to be female (the matching term for a female being “gal”) and it’s often used as “little guy”, “big guy” etc.  The form in which the use of guy most annoys the pedants seems to be as “youse guys” which really seems to offend although, under the conventions of English plural constructions, “youse” should be correct.

Lindsay Lohan provides an authoritative ruling of meaning in context: When in a relationship, a “guy” is a man whereas her former special friend Samantha Ronson was not; she was a girl.

In idiomatic use, guy often appears including “… as the next guy” (indicating that one holds typical or mainstream views), “cable guy” (the technician who connects cable TV services to the home (or one who deals with cables in some way though probably not a professional who would usually be called a “cabler”)), “cis-guy” (a male (though this can’t be guaranteed in contemporary use because women may use the form) who uses the gender assigned at birth (ie conventional biological sex) and thus distinct from “trans guy”), one on use, “fall guy” (one who takes the blame for something). “family guy” (a conventional husband & father), “go to guy” (one who by virtue of knowledge, skills etc is the first sought for an opinion etc), “guy friend” (a nuanced term which varies in exactitude but always means some sort of platonic relationship), “nice guys finish last” (in life one needs to be ruthless to succeed), “you should see the other guy” (indicating the injuries one has suffered in a fight are minor compared with those inflicted on the opponent), “wise guy” (not exactly an ironic use but closer to “a smart-ass”).  General value modifiers are appended as needed including “good guy”, “bad guy”, “big guy” (which like “little guy” is often figurative), “nice guy”, “tough guy” etc.  Guy is handy because it’s pretty much neutral and can in most cases be used instead of buster, fella, man, bud, dude, fellow, bro, bloke, chap.  For women it can substitute for girl, woman or the many archaic forms (gal, broad, dame, jane, bird, sheila & chick).  Strangely, in colloquial use, it’s come to be widely used of things and the use is common in IT, among mechanics and others working with distinct bits & pieces.  While not overt, there is something of the anthropomorphic about this because as mechanics and IT techs know, one can have a dozen identical part-numbers which truly are functionally indistinguishable under any objective examination yet in use one or two might exhibit characteristics which will be described in terms used usually of personalities such as "troublesome", "inconsistent" or "un-cooperative".  Some guys are like that.   

Protagonist

Protagonist (pronounced proh-tag-uh-nist)

(1) The leading character or hero of a performance or literary work.

(2) A proponent for or a political or other cause (from an incorrect construction but now widely used).

(3) The leader or principal advocate of a political or other cause.

(4) The first actor in ancient Greek drama, who played not only the main role, but also other roles when the main character was off-stage and was thus first amongst deuteragonists and tritagonists.

1671: From the Ancient Greek πρωταγωνιστής (prōtagōnistḗs) (actor who plays the first part; principal character in a story, drama), the literal translation being “first combatant” and according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the word first appeared in English in 1671 in the writings of the English poet, literary critic, translator and playwright John Dryden (1631–1700).  The construct was πρῶτος (prôtos) (first) + ἀγωνιστής (agōnistḗs) (one who contends for a prize; a combatant; an actor), from the primitive Indo-European root per (forward (hence "in front of, first, chief")) + agōnistēs (actor, competitor), from agōn (contest), from the primitive Indo-European root ag- (to drive, draw out or forth, move).  The link between the two is the notion of one who contends for some prize in a contest (agōn).  The general meaning "leading person in any cause or contest" is from 1889. The mistaken sense of "advocate, supporter" (1935) is from misunderstanding of the Greek prōt- meaning the same as the Latin pro- (for; in favor of) (thus the comparison with antagonist).  The Deuteragonist "second person or actor in a drama", is attested from 1840.  The general meaning "leading person in any cause or contest" seems first to have been used only as late as 1889.  Linguistic sloppiness saw some, by 1935, add the sense of "advocate or supporter", probably from a misreading of the Greek prōt & prōtos, either equating or confusing it with the Latin pro (for).  More than tolerated, it seems in English to have become a standard meaning and is often used in sub-electoral politics.  The relatively rare silver medallist, the deuteragonist (second person or actor in a drama), is attested from 1840.

The protagonist’s opponent is the antagonist (from the Ancient Greek ἀνταγωνιστής (antagōnistḗs) (opponent)) and in classical Greek drama, the protagonist was the hero, the antagonist the villain.  A protagonist was central to the plot, although, there could be sub-plots, each narrative with its own protagonist.  There were plays with two protagonists tangled in one plot, but that happened where the first had died, the second then assuming the role.  Some playwrights would introduce false protagonists, soon to vanish.  Modern material (as opposed to the modernist), does not always adhere to the classical Greek form.  For content-providers, especially on screens, having multiple protagonists within the one plot is far from unusual.

In his highly recommended book The Surgeon of Crowthorne (1998), historian Simon Winchester (b 1944) noted the dispute between two of the great authorities in the matter of the English language: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Henry Watson Fowler (1858–1933), author of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926).  The OED quoted Dryden’s passage from 1671 (the first known instance in English of “protagonist”) in which the poet used the word in the plural whereas, as Henry Fowler well knew, in any Greek drama there could only ever be one protagonist.  It had of course always been possible for a critic to write about protagonists if comparing two or more productions but that was a function of syntax, not meaning.  Henry Fowler disapproved of much which was modern and in the matter of a play with two protagonists, he rules not only was that wrong but also “absurd” because, a protagonist being the most important figure in the text, there couldn’t be two: “One is either the most important person or one is not”.  So Fowler’s entry of 1926 and the OED’s of two years later stood for decades as contrary judgements, factions in support of one or the other presumably forms from the handful of earnest souls on the planet who care about such things.  When Sir Ernest Gowers (1880–1966) revised A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (the second edition published in 1965), he retained Fowler’s original condemnatory paragraphs but added a coda, noting the original sense from Antiquity but acknowledging that in a dynamic, living language like English, meanings can shift and words can be re-appropriated, adding that in the case of “protagonist”, it seemed “The temptation to regard protagonist as the antonym of antagonist seems irresistible…”  In 1981 when the OED published one of their supplements, it was made clear Fowler was correct if the word is used in the context of Greek theatre (for which it was coined) but that English had moved on and there had for at least centuries been works of fiction with two or more characters of equal importance and it was both convenient and well understood by all when they were so labelled.            

Lindsay Lohan, vampiric protagonist

Directed by Tiago Mesquita with a screenplay by Mark Morgan, Among the Shadows is a thriller which straddles the genres, elements of horror and the supernatural spliced in as required.  Although in production since 2015, with the shooting in London and Rome not completed until the next year, it wasn’t until 2018 when, at the European Film Market, held in conjunction with the Berlin International Film Festival, that Tombstone Distribution listed it, the distribution rights acquired by VMI, Momentum and Entertainment One, and VMI Worldwide.  In 2019, it was released progressively on DVD and video on demand (VOD), firstly in European markets, the UK release delayed until mid-2020.  In some markets, for reasons unknown, it was released with the title The Shadow Within.

It was Lindsay Lohan’s first film since The Canyons (2013).  In Among the Shadows, she plays a character married to an EU politician, a hint it’s somewhere on the horror continuum, the twist being she’s also a vampire.  Which makes sense.  When you think about it.  What unfolds is a murky mix of political intrigue and mass-murder in which the vampire and a woman with her own secrets are thrown together as protagonists struggling to stop the politician being horribly slaughtered by a pack of werewolves.

That may have been the flaw in the plot.  A film in which most of the members of the European Council, European Commission and (perhaps especially) the European Parliament are murdered by werewolves, preferably in the bloodiest ways imaginable, would probably have been a blockbuster.  Even without social distancing, from Bristol to Berlin, the queues outside cinemas would likely have stretched for blocks.  As it was, without the bodies of eurocrats piled high, critical and commercial reaction was muted, some interesting technical points raised about the editing and even the sequence of filming.  Still, it’s Lohan-noir, Lindsay as a vampire, gruesome killings, werewolves and a Scottish detective, just the movie for a first date during a pandemic.  There is a trailer.

Formalism

Formalism (pronounced fawr-muh-liz-uhm)

(1) Strict adherence to, or observance of, prescribed or traditional forms, as in music, poetry and art.

(2) In religion, a strong attachment to external forms and observances.

(3) In philosophy (ethics), a doctrine that acts are in themselves right or wrong regardless of consequences.

(4) In literary theory, an approach to the interpretation of texts focused on the structure rather than the content, context of its origin or reception.

(5) In mathematics (formal logic), a doctrine that mathematics, including the logic used in proofs, can be based on the formal manipulation of symbols without regard to their meaning (the mathematical or logical structure of a scientific argument as distinguished from its subject matter; the theory a statement has no meaning but that its symbols, regarded as physical objects, exhibit a structure that has useful applications).

(6) A scrupulous or excessive adherence to outward form at the expense of inner reality or content.

(7) In Marxist criticism, scrupulous or excessive adherence to artistic technique at the expense of social values etc; also a view adopted by some non-Marxist critical theorists).

(8) In performance art, theatre a deliberately stylized mode of production.

(9) In both structural engineering and computer science, the notation, and its structure, in (or by) which information is expressed.

1830–1840: The construct was formal + -ism.  Formal was from the Middle English formel, from the Old French formel, from the Latin formalis, from forma (form) of unknown origin but possibly from the Etruscan morma, from the Ancient Greek μορφή (morphḗ) (shape, fashion, appearance, outward form, contour, figure), dissimilated as formīca and possibly formīdō.  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek –ismos & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, often through the Latin –ismus & -isma, though sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Greek.  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Although actual use of the word formalism dates only from its adoption (1830s) in critical discourse, disputes related to the matter can be found in texts since antiquity in fields as diverse as agriculture, literature and theology.  Formalism is a noun, formalist is a noun & adjective, formalistic is an adjective and formalistically is an adverb; the noun plural is formalists.

The Russian Formalists

In literary theory, the term “form” is used of the “structure & shape” and the manner in which it is constructed, as opposed to the substance (theme, topic and such).  Form and substance are so intertwined as to be inseparable (although that hasn’t stopped some authors of “experimental” works trying to prove otherwise) but long before the post-modernists made deconstruction a thing, the two strands separately had been assessed and analysed.  The other way the word is used is as a synonym of genre (novella, essay, play et al).  Formalism was different; it was a literary theory with origins in the early Soviet Union of the 1920s, the practitioners and followers labelled “formalists”, a pejorative term which implied limitations.  In the way things then were done by the Bolshevists, Formalism as an identifiable entity faded quickly and fell into desuetude by late in the decade; movements which of which comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) didn’t approve had bleak prospects.

Influenced by the Moscow Linguistic Circle (1915) and The Society for the Study of Poetic Language (1916), Formalism was in 1917 founded by literary theorist, & writer Viktor Shklovsky (1893-1984) and author & political satirist Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884–1937) with the then novel assertion art primarily was a matter of technique, the style not merely a method of execution but also the object of the art.  In an example of the way political forces in the post-tsarist state evolved, although Formalism began in the year of revolutions as something with the obvious socialist theme of the artist as a “worker” or “artisan”, its credos came under suspicion in the Kremlin because it was thought to have been captured by authors, artists & composers who found intoxicating the idea their work could be an exercise in pure technique, sometimes of such intricacy that it was only their colleagues who could understand, the public left unmoved or baffled.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.

Reflecting what was going on in intellectual circles in Moscow, the Formalists were interested in applying to literary criticism what had come to be understood as the “scientific method” and were dismissive of the role of ideas, emotions, & actions (and “reality” in general) in defining what was specifically “literary” about a text.  What this meant was any distinction between form and content ceased to be relevant and the writer became a kind of cipher, re-working available literary devices and conventions, some practitioners even holding there were no poets or other literary figures, just the output, encapsulated in Shklovsky’s pithy definition of literature as “the sum total of all the stylistic devices employed in it”.  Shklovsky was the most influential figure in the early days of the movement and he was influenced by the Futurists who had been drawn to the speed and mechanical creations of modernity, something manifested in his concept of ostranenie (making strange, later to be called defamiliarization) which was an attempt to divorce art from conceptions such as beauty, elegance or other conventional benchmarks.

Despite the implications of that, Formalism was dynamic (and in the way movements tend to be) schismatic, a theory of narrative also developed which made a distinction between plot and story, the technique adopted reflecting the approach of the Futurists’ understanding of machinery.  Syuzbet (the plot) referred to the order & manner in which events were presented in the narrative while fabuh (the story) tracked the chronological sequence of events.  Another of the Formalists infused with the tenets of Futurism was the literary critic & theorist Boris Tomashevsky (1890–1957) who used the term modf to denote the smallest unit of plot and distinguished between “bound” & “free” motifs, the former one which the story absolutely requires while the latter was inessential; it was a model as familiar to engineers then as it would be to software developers now.  Formalists of course regarded content as subordinate to the formal devices used in its construction and this dependence on external “non-literary assumptions” was called “motivation”, and a text’s motivation was defined by Shklovsky as the extent to which it was dependent on non-literary assumptions, an example of a work totally without motivation cited as The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (in nine volumes, 1759–1767) by the Anglo-Irish novelist & Anglican cleric Laurence Sterne (1713–1768).  Whether or not one concurs with Shklovsky’s absolutism, in writing Tristram Shandy, Sterne used so many devices and techniques that had the term “mash-up” then existed, it would have been applied and it can be argued it was with that work the distinction between the techniques of plagiarism and sampling can best be identified.  Formalism’s life was brief but the churning of theory was constant and later the concept of “device” gave way to the notion of “function”, depending on the purpose or mode or genre; it was no longer the device per se which was defamiliarizing but its function in the work.  While comrade Stalin was content he’d killed off Formalism, its elements and deconstructive tools took root in the academic reaches of Western literary criticism and if not a fork, post-modernism is at least a cul-de-sac.

Comrade Stalin, comrade Shostakovich and Formalism

Comrade Shostakovich at his dacha.

Comrade Stalin (1878–1953; leader of the USSR, 1924-1953) didn’t invent the regime’s criticism of formalism but certainly made it famous after comrade Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975) was denounced in the Soviet newspaper Pravda (Truth) in January 1936, after the Moscow performance of his opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District.  Stalin didn’t like music he couldn’t whistle and the complex strains of Shostakovich’s opera, sometimes meandering, sometimes strident, certainly didn’t permit that; he labeled the composition формализм (formalism), "chaos instead of music", a self-indulgence of technique by a composer interested only in the admiration of other composers, an audience of no value in the school of Soviet realism.  It’s believed the Pravda article may have been written by Stalin himself and he used the word "formalism" in the sense it was understood English; formality being the observance of forms, formalism the disposition to make adherence to them an obsession.  To Stalin, the formal rules of composition were but a means to an end and the only legitimate end was socialist realism; anything other than that "an attack on the people".  Lest it be thought the defeat of fascism in the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) might have mellowed his views in such matters, Stalin at the 1948 party congress made sure the point was hammered home in the Communist Party's brutish way:  

"Comrades, while realistic music is written by the People's composers, formalistic music is written by composers who are against the People.  Comrades, one must ask why it is that realistic music is always written by composers of the People? The People's composers write realistic music simply due to the fact that being by nature realists right to their very core, they simply cannot help writing music that is realistic, while those anti-People composers, being by nature unrepentant formalists, cannot help... cannot help... cannot help writing music that is formalistic."

Comrade Stalin signing death warrants.

In the Soviet Union, producing or performing stuff hated by Stalin was not good career move.  Shostakovich completed his Fourth Symphony in C minor, Opus 43, in May 1936 and, even after the attack in Pravda, planned to stage its premiere in Leningrad December but found the orchestra unwilling to risk incurring the Kremlin’s wrath and almost as soon as rehearsals began, the orchestra's management cancelled the performance, issuing a statement saying comrade Shostakovich had withdrawn the work.  Actual responsibility for the decision remains unclear but it was certainly in accord with the views of the Kremlin and not until 1961, almost a decade on from Stalin’s death, was it performed.

All is forgiven: Soviet postage stamp issued in 1981 to honor 75^th anniversary of Dmitri Shostakovich’s birth.

Shostakovich became a realist, his response to denunciation the melodic Fifth Symphony in D minor, Opus 47.  Premiered in November 1937 in Leningrad, it was a resounding triumph, attracting a standing ovation that lasted more than thirty minutes.  The following January, just before its first performance in Moscow, an article, under the composer’s name, appeared in the local newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva in which he described the Fifth Symphony as "…a Soviet artist's creative response to justified criticism."  Whether Shostakovich actually wrote the piece isn’t known but there’s never been any doubt it’d never have been published without Stalin’s approval and the success of the Fifth Symphony re-personed Shostakovich.  Whatever it lacked in glasnost (openness), it made up for in perestroika (restructuring) and the party engineered his rehabilitation as carefully as it had his fall a couple of years earlier, anxious to show how those bowing its demands could be rewarded as easily and fully as dissidents could be punished.

Melodrama

Melodrama (pronounced mel-uh-drah-muh or mel-uh-dram-uh)

(1) A dramatic form (used in theatre, literature, music etc) that does not observe the laws of cause and effect and that exaggerates emotion and emphasizes plot or action at the expense of characterization.

(2) Loosely, (sometimes very loosely), behavior or events thought “melodramatic” (overly dramatic displays of emotion or behavior and applied especially to situations in which “things are blown out of proportion”).

(3) In formal definition (seventeenth, eighteenth & nineteenth centuries), a romantic dramatic composition characterized by sensational incident with music interspersed.

(4) A poem or part of a play or opera spoken to a musical accompaniment (technically, a passage in which the orchestra plays a somewhat descriptive accompaniment, while the actor speaks).

(5) A popular nickname conferred on highly-strung young women with a Mel*.* given name (Melanie, Melissa, Melina, Melinda, Melisandre, Melodie, Melody et al).

1784 (used in 1782 as melodrame): From the French mélodrame (a dramatic composition in which music is used), the construct being mélo- , from the Ancient Greek μέλος (mélos) (limb, member; musical phrase, tune, melody, song) + drame (refashioned by analogy with the Ancient Greek δρᾶμα (drâma) (deed, theatrical act) and cognate to the German Melodram, the Italian melodramma and the Spanish melodrama.  The adjective melodramatic (pertaining to, suitable for, or characteristic of a melodrama) came into use in 1789 (unrelated to political events that year).  Melodrama, melodramaticism, melodramaturgy, melodramatics & melodramatist are nouns, melodramatize, melodramatizing & melodramatized are verbs, melodramatic is an adjective and melodramatically is an adverb; the noun plural is melodramas or melodramata.

As late as the mid-nineteenth century “melodrama” was still used of stage-plays (usually romantic & sentimental) in which songs were interspersed, the action accompanied by orchestral music appropriate to the situations.  By the 1880s, the shift towards a melodrama being understood as “a romantic and sensational dramatic piece with a happy ending” and this proved influential, the musical element ceasing gradually to be an essential feature, the addition of recorded sound to “moving pictures” (movies) the final nail in the coffin.  Since then, a “melodrama” is understood to be “a dramatic piece characterized by sensational incidents and violent appeals to the emotions, but with (usually) a happy ending”.

The origins of melodrama lie in late sixteenth century Italian opera and reflect an attempt to convince audiences (or more correctly, composers and critics) that the form (ie opera or melodrama) was a revival of the Classical Greek tragedy.  It was a time in Europe when there was a great reverence for the cultures of Antiquity, something the result of the scholars and archivists (and frankly the publicists) of the Renaissance building a somewhat idealized construct of the epoch and the content providers noted the labels, the German-British Baroque composer Frederick Handel (1685–1759) using both for his works.  In the late eighteenth century French dramatists began to develop melodrama as a distinct genre by elaborating the dialogue and adding spectacle, action and violence to the plot-lines, a technique still familiar in the 2020s, sensationalism and extravagant emotionalism as effective click-bait now it was for ticket sales in earlier times.

The use of “melodrama” to refer to the life of a troubled popular culture figure represents a bit of a jump in meaning but it’s now well-understood.

The path of the musical form had earlier been laid in text, something becoming a more significant influence as the spread of the printing press made mass-market publications more accessible and they spread even within non-literate populations because as public and private readings became common forms of entertainment.  Although elements of what would later be understood as melodrama exist in the gloomy tragedies of the French novelist Claude Prosper Jolyot de Crébillon (1707–1777), more of an influence on the composers would be those who wrote with a lighter touch including the Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) whose Pygmalion (1775) and French theatre director and playwright René-Charles Guilbert de Pixerécourt (1773–1844) whose Le Pèlerin blanc ou les Enfants du hameau (The White Pilgrim (or The Children of the Village)) both came to be regarded as part of the inchoate framework of the genre.  Literary theorists still debate the matter of cause & effect between melodrama and the growing vogue of the Gothic novel, one of fiction’s more emotionally manipulative paths, many concluding the relationship between the two was symbiotic.

There was also the commercial imperative.  Literary historians have documented the simultaneous proliferation of melodramas produced for the English stage during the nineteenth century (notably adaptations of novels by popular authors such as Charles Dickens (1812–1870) and Sir Walter Scott (1771–1832)) and the paucity in original work of substance.  There are some who have argued the writers had “lost their ear” for dramatic verse and prose but it more likely they realized they had “lost their audiences” and these were people with bills to pay (the term “potboiler” was coined later to describe “books written only to provide food for the stove” but few authors of popular fiction have ever been far removed from concerns with their sales).  The reason the melodramas which flourished in the 1800s were so popular will be unsurprising to modern film-makers, political campaign strategists and other content providers for they can be deconstructed as a class of naively sensational entertainment in which the protagonists & antagonists were excessively virtuous or exceptionally evil (thus all tiresome complexities reduced for something black & white), the conflict played out with blood, thrills and violence (spectres, ghouls, witches & vampires or the sordid realism of drunkenness, infidelity or personal ruin used as devices as required).

The word “melodrama” appears often in commentaries on politics and that’s a trend which was probably accelerated by the presentation moving for most purposes to screens and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) revolutionizing the business by applying the tricks & techniques of reality TV (itself an oxymoron) meant the whole process can now be thought an unfolding melodrama, indeed, the Trump model cannot work as anything else.  The idea of “politics as theatre” was first discussed in the US in the 1960s but then a phenomenon like Mr Trump would have been thought absurdly improbable.

Because of the popularity of the form, melodrama has rarely found much favor with the critics and that old curmudgeon Henry Fowler (1858–1933) in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) noted (and, one suspects, not without some satisfaction) that the term generally was “…used with some contempt, because the appeal of such plays as are acknowledged to deserve the title is especially to the unsophisticated & illiterate whose acquaintance with human nature is superficial, but whose admiration for goodness and detestation of wickedness is ready & powerful.”  Henry Fowler moved among only a certain social stratum.  He added that the task of the melodramatist’s was to establish in the audience’s mind the notion of the dichotomous characters as good & wicked and then “…provide striking situations that shall provoke and relieve anxieties on behalf of poetic justice.”  One device once used to produce the desired effect was of course music and a whole academic industry emerged in the mid-twentieth century to explain how different sounds could be used to suggest or summon certain emotions and because music increasingly ceased to be an essential part of the melodramatic form, the situations, dialogue and events in purely textual productions became more exaggerated.