"You could replace father and son, pit and sun, with entirely different elements--mother and daughter, bird and mole--and still have the same story. As long as the structure of relations between the units is preserved, it does not matter which items you select." -Eagleton p 83
I'm sorry, I just can NOT agree with this. If you completely change words, you totally change the story! I understand that they are saying the structure doesn't change, but how can they say that the story isn't important enough to look at? If you couldn't tell, I don't really like structuralism. I understand that it is not as objective as the other schools of criticism, but I don't agree that it is the best way to analyze literature. Maybe I should be looking at each of the schools of thought separately, because if I think about criticism in general, I can not grasp the point of ONLY analyzing the structure of any written literature.
I don't believe that the author writes literature which structuralism as the only important aspect of the story. I'm almost positive an author would not appreciate us changing words here and there because they aren't important to the structure, therefore ruining the stories plot. Seriously, let's go through Eagleton's analysis and change a few words around. I bet he'd love that!
Phew...thanks for hearing me out.