They argue that "literariness" has the capacity to overturn common and expected patterns (of grammar, of story line), thereby rejuvenating language. This doesn't mean that literature language is difficult language, but literature language lays emphasis on the process of experience. Then what can be done to achieve literariness'? They put forward the concept of "defamiliarization", to make objects unfamiliar, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.(from Art as Technique by Shklovsky). Eagleton could not accept the concept of estrangement. He says, that a piece of language was estranging doesn't guarantee that it is always and everywhere so; it is estranging only against a certain normative linguistic background and if this alters then the writing might cease to be perceptible as literature. As to literariness, Eagleton says that it is a function of the differential relations between one sort of discourse and another; it is not an eternally given property, and " it is in fact historically specific." The Formalists quite rightly thought that literary criticism was overburdened with socio-political issues. In the late nineteenth century literature was indeed one of the principal media of discussion for political and philosophical issues. Consequently literary criticism was almost exclusively the guarded territory of journalism. Literary criticism was not considered an academic activity. "Before the appearance of the Formalists, academic research, quite ignorant of theoretical problems, made use of antiquated aesthetic, psychological, and historical axioms' and had so lost sight of its proper subject that its very existence as a science had become illusory.