"The virtualities which make up the object of poetics (as of all other sciences), these abstract qualities of literature exist only in the discourse of poetics itself. From this perspective, literature becomes only a mediator, a language, which poetics uses for dealing with itself" (Todorov, Structural Analysis of Literature, 2105).

Interesting how scientific the discussion of literature becomes. I must admit that my eyes and mind were pleased when I read Todorov's excerpt from Henry James' "The Art of Fiction," where James comments on the scientifically-proned method of analysis, how "people often talk of these things [description, dialogue, and incident] as if they had a kind of internecine distinctness, instead of melting into each other at every breath, and being intimately associated parts of one general effort of expression" (2101). Personally, the thing I like about literature is that it's often a far cry from anything science-related. Things just work together without formula or measurable methods, literature is "melting into each other at every breath" (I just love that phrase).

But Todorov makes a good point. We can continue the discourse on literature as a whole by studying structuralism: "although it does aim at an understanding of concepts like 'description' or 'action,' there is no need to find them in a pure state" (2101). He writes that these concepts occur at the same time and do interrelate, as we see when he refers to the example of blood, nerves, and muscles all appearing in the same place in the body and working together, yet still being separate and distinct entities.

It was a new experience for me to look at this essay and try to think about approaching literature with a more scientific, methodical viewpoint.