Tzvetan Todorov's "Structural Analysis of Narrative" essay seems to take a stab at the New Critics who only focus on the work itself. The New Critics only look at the internal things of the poem and nothing external like the author's life or reader response. Todorov reduces the work of the New Critics to a paraphrase of the original poem: "the result of his efforts will be a paraphrase of the work, which is supposed to reveal the meaning better than the work itself" (2100).

I think this may be a little harsh considering that the structuralist statements he's been making seem to not go much further. From how I'm understanding it, the structuralists look for common, universal links that connects works of literature. He seems to put a lot of emphasis on the science behind it. They concentrate on the methods behind the work. The example Todorov explores is the plot. But how does this bring more meaning to the text? Is this way of looking at things still valid for today's audiences? We always seem to put a lot of importance on what makes a work different or what makes it unique. Does structuralism address these things or does it only look for the common links behind works?