"formalists refuse to separate form from content". So this is essentially what Keesey used to define the formal critic. Ok, I'll take that. I like that. I like that they, the formal critic, argue that who cares what was going on around the time period, or the meaning of the word, or what the author was doing/going through. Look at the meaning in term of the work itself. I think that this theory allows for the reader(s) to come away with a more personal interpretation from the work itself. Maybe this one is more opinion based than others, but I like how it's also in a way more personal. You're looking at the text and explaing it throuth the text itself. It is allowed to stand alone, there are no background checks, ok, now the reader can interpret the work alone and get something from it. Maybe I'm being a little too liberal in this theory-I am sure I am-but I like that it allows the works to be independant and for the reader(s) to get something from it that isn't relying on more info to gain something from it. Hopefully.