CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Poetry Poetry is an adapted word from Greek which its literal meaning is making. The art made up of poems, texts with charged, compressed language (Drury, 2006, p. 216). The word poetry is more generally used than the word poem (which refers to a particular made thing in words). Poetry applies to texts which contain critical concepts, vivid impressions, compressed language, etc. Also in the same book, Graves (2006) asserts that poetry is not an art, but a way of thinking (p. 216). It is a way of thinking which blends of contradictory ideas. That is why Wordsworth also defines poetry as the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in traquility. 2.2 Reader-Response Theory Reader-Response criticism is different from other literary critcism. It has no rules to be remembered specifically by learners. But before generating the interpretation, readers-response criticism must also be combined with a methodology. Selden (2005) argues that the human mind does not perceive things in the world as unrelated bits and pieces but as configurations of elements, themes, or meaningful, organized wholes (p. 47). When facing something, the influence of the molecules in human mind are affecting every thought. These molecules have insisted human understanding is active in the act of perception. The act of perception has an 7

emphasis which is very well-known but it needs enough consideration. Many learners claim to be engaging in reader-response analysis which are not truly focusing on analysis at all, but rather in expressive personal reactions. Meanwhile, in Literary and Cultural Theory, Hall (2001) believes that each person has impressionistic personal responses to texts, and it is enticing to think that there might be a critical approach that would validate every reaction (p. 43). But, there is the main problem in this case. It is believed that none of two individuals read the same text in exactly the same way. Thus, rather than declaring one interpretation correct and the other mistaken, readerresponse criticism recognizes the mass of readings. Instead of trying to ignore the contradiction which is inherent in this situation, it examines them. According to Jakobson s model of linguistic communication: ADRESSER -> CONTEXT; MESSAGE; CONTACT; CODE -> ADRESSER, it is the way of modern emphasis observers an active role that affect literary theory (Selden, 2005, p. 47). Jakobson believes that literary discourse is different from other kinds of discourse by having a set to the message, a poem is about itself (its form, its imagery, its literary meaning) before it is about the poet, the reader, or the world. Also in the same book, Iser (p. 55) argues that literary text always contains blanks which only the reader can fill. Those blanks may appear in any stanzas of the poem. It also creates a relationship to each other. Then, the ways how respondents interpret are required to fill the blank. While the main problem of the theory is located in the questions. The questions must trigger respondents interpretations or perhaps respondents have their own solutions or strategies upon the problems thrown up by text. Moreover, Eco argues that some texts are open and invite the reader s collaboration in the production of meaning, while others are closed (Selden, 2005, p. 50). He also 8

believes that close texts are comics, detective fictions, etc. He also considers that there are codes which are available to the reader to figure what the text means as it is read. One literary work has many diversities of interpretation, also supported from reader s real experiences that concern to text. Each reader has different experiences of life and types of assumption based on their knowledge, gender, age, and others. Thus, the results of one reader may be different from the other. It also recognizes the text s interpretation which often depends on the time when the work is read. This theory suggests that text is impossible to exist without a theory. This is entirely different to the theories of formalism and New Criticism where there is a little role of the reader. There is also an influence about the relationship between writers and readers. Many writers of literary works produce their text based on their readings of their predecessors. So, it is also not easy for any efforts to draw the real definition of what reader-response criticism is. The analysis is still active on the split subject in explaining the theory involved. The wide variety means that the reader-response label is often used very loosely until it has been showed almost meaningless through simplification. Reader-response criticism provides models for understanding the reading process also with a structure for exploring the ways in finding the development of literary works shared in the production of meaning. People used to create an impact of the text based on their identification of basic understanding that cling to the text. Reader-response criticism has a function as a response that focuses on the material of the text, not on the external powers such as history or biography. Reader-response also tries to create assumption from how the readers respond out of their beliefs, knowledge bases, ethnic, gender, class background, and among other factors. 9

Misreadings might happen directly in reader-response analysis. It happens directly out of what the author intended and different from what have been approved as a critical response. Reader-response analysis is investigating tightly of the response process itself, and it has a wide variety of possible analytical focusing: on the presuppositions that the reader brings to the text, on the fragile contract of trust established between the writer or narrator and the reader, on the linguistic challenges posed by a text to a reader or set of readers, and so forth (Hall, 2001, p. 45). Thus, reader-response is not simply an interpretation of the text, but it is always an interpretation of the act of interpretation. Because only the reader can actualize the amount rules to be rejected or questioned. So, the reader experience of reading is the main focus on the literary process. The readers also observe the text into their consciousnesses and make it as their own experience and formulation. 2.2.1 Reader-Response According to Edmund Husserl According to Husserl, the proper object of philosophical investigation is the contents of human s consciousness and not objects in the world. This is a modern philosophical tendecy known as phenomenology, a philosophy which stresses the preceiver s central role in determining meaning (Selden, 2005, p. 51). Consciousness is something that appears in human. It is also truly real for human. Things which appear in consciousness are called as phenomena, in Greek, meaning things appearing. This approach is not supporting enough as a pure subjective concern in literature. This criticism is trying to enter and understand the writer s work based on writings toward reader s consciousness. 10

2.2.2 Reader-Response According to Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer Meanwhile, Husserl s pupil; Heidegger argues a rejection of Husserl s theory. He believes that there is a distinction about human existence which is Dasein, which means gift (Selden, 2005, p. 52). Heidegger says that human s consciousness is influenced by the very nature of existence in the world, because human does not choose where and when to be born. And according to Gadamer, a literary work does not pop into the world as a finished and neatly parcelled bundle of meaning; the meaning does not depend on the historical situation of the interpreter. This point of view influences Jauss reception theory (Selden, 2005, p. 53). 2.2.3 Reader-Response According to Hans Robert Jauss Jauss borrows from the philosophy of science (T. S. Kuhn) the term paradigm which refers to the scientific framework of concepts and assumption operating in a particular period. Jauss uses the term horizon of expectations to describe the criteria readers use to judge literary texts in any given period (Selden, 2005, p. 53). These criteria that Jauss finds, help readers to judge poems. In general, this way will be concerned as literary as it is contradicted to non-literary uses of languages. According to Jauss, literary work is not an object which can stand by itself. And it also offers new images to each reader in each period. It is not a monument which reveals its timeless meaning in a single address. So, it is wrong to say that one literary work is universal and its meaning is fixed forever. But it is open to all readers in any periods. 2.2.4 Reader-Response According to Wolfgang Iser Iser presents the text as a potential structure which is concretized by the readers in relation to their extra literary norms, values, and experience. He decontextualizes and 11

dehistoricizes text and reader. In Iser s view the critic s task is to explain not the text as an object but rather its effects on the reader. There are two terms that can be divided in terms of reader. There are implied readers and actual readers (Selden, 2005, p. 55-56). The implied readers are people who create the text for themselves and make other read the text in certain ways based on amounts of response structures. While actual readers are people who receive images in the process of reading. However, the images will surely be coloured by their stock of experiences. Both of Iser and Jauss use phenomenology and investigation as their main approach to draw a process of responding a text based on reader s consciousness. 2.2.5 Reader-Response According to Stanley Fish Fish is well known with his developed perspective called as effective stylistics. It is also similar to Iser. He concentrates on the adjustments of expectation to be made by readers as they pay along the text. But, he also considers this at the immediately local level the sentence (Selden, 2005, p, 58). Fish focuses directly on the responses of the reader in relation to the words of sentences, as he separates his approach from all kinds of formalism. Fish believes that reader is a person who possesses a linguistic competence, has internalized the syntactic and semantic knowledge required for reading (p. 59). In this case, Fish does not explain about the nature of reading, but an understanding of his own reading experience. Fish also tries to persuade readers to adopt a new assumption. So, when the readers read, they would do the same thing like what Fish does. Fish seems to leave all the possibilities of variant interpretation to the norms which control acts of interpretation. In other word, Fish s approach can be assumed that readers response to the sequence of words in sentences is whether the sentences are about literature or not. 12

2.2.6 Reader-Response According to Michael Riffaterre Riffaterre shows that the linguistic features they discover in the poem could not possibly be perceived even by an informed reader (Selden, 2005, p. 61). According to Riffaterre, regular language is used to refer to reality while poetic language focuses on the message inside itself. Competent readers are not limiting their attention to only the meaning which is corresponding to other information. He adds that a true response starts by noticing signs in a poem or a text which appear apart from normal grammar. The poem seems to be establishing significance only indirectly and in doing so threatens the literary representation of reality (p. 61). His approach is dedicated to readers who have specific literary competence. 2.2.7 Reader-Response According to David Bleich. Knowledge is not found because someone observes the object which appears an act of observation, but it is created by people. It is believed that people may have knowledge before they observe the object. This assumption is also supporting the subjective criticism, an approach by Bleich which describes that each person has an urgent motivation to understand themselves that creates knowledge (Selden, 2005, p. 63). Based on that assumption, Bleich leads people to distinguish between spontaneous response to the text and the way how readers contribute the meaning of it. Selden s explanation supports Bleich that interpretation of particular texts will normally reflect the subjective individuality of personal response. It can be said from Bleich that reading process is influenced by the subjective of the reader. 2.3 Key Principles Hall realizes in analysing reader-response criticism, people should carefully examine the clues appeared to create interpretations about the text offered to readers, and carefully examine why readers reject those clues. But there are analytical steps that help people to 13

analyse reader s immediate response towards the text. And below are the key principles in analytical steps to reader s response (Hall, 2001, p. 46-51). 2.3.1 The meaning of a text is not wholly intrinsic to the text An intrinsic meaning is well known in the formalist critics that the meaning in the text is not wholly the same as what the author delivers. Text has single authority in constructing and delivering the meaning to the reader. So, the possibility of misreading also may happen, but by understanding such misreading makes the textual meaning always involve multiple parties. Without denying what authors do in delivering certain meaning, reader-response actually changes from the analytical focus onto the actual receiver of the textual meaning in how the message is interpreted, figured out, and used. It can be said that reader-response is not limiting the readers, but is highly focusing on the response of real readers with all their deficiencies and complexities. 2.3.2 The reading experience may be intensely private and subjective. Understanding the ways in which texts construct and circulate values and meanings is one important objective of literary and cultural analysis because all aspects are parts of construction that bear investigation. Investigating the roots of differing and variant responses and interpretations can be an important critical exercise that must be done carefully. While reader-response also provides a case in one point. Readers without knowledge of readerresponse critics sometimes use category to approve expressive reckless work. 2.3.3 Texts often presuppose an ideal reader. Real readers have their own idiosyncratic background, context, expectations, and interpretive strategies. That is why reader-response analysis often probes how human s individualistic, sometimes wildly variant, interpretations and responses come into being. Reader-response analysis also recognizes that while successful and sophisticated 14

interpretation requires an attention to detail and nuance in texts, not all responses to texts are generated with such care. Readers may read and respond the text. They process the language they encounter and look for clues within the text to help them understand and render judgments. Since there is no text exists within a vacuum, practitioners of reader-response analysis often both textual and extratextual source of meaning and information as their analysis proceeds, so does a response will not be existed without a text to help generate it. 2.3.4 The investigations suggested above may lead to research in psychology, social history, gender studies, or other fields. Critics wish to investigate the powerful social, historical, and psychological forces that affect readers. Depend on reader s study and methodology, those forces demands also some understanding of the fields devodted to it. In combining a reader-response emphasis with attention to the intricacies of the reader s sociocultural position, the critic will often be able to complicate a reading and offer multiple insights into the process of textual communication and interpretation. A successful essay depends on a well-chosen and consistently applied methodology or combination of methodologies, and start with a sophisticated premise and analytical intent are always important for the literary and cultural critic. A reader-response analysis must be rigorous and well-grounded in appropriate theory and textual evidence. 2.3.5 As readers proceed through a text, they make choices and engage in interpretive processes that may be traced and analyzed. The reader-response emphasis contends that reading is not a simple process of opening oneself up to a text or of passively allowing it complete control over one s 15

consciousness. The words and images that appear on the text are certainly awares and affects readers, but readers also make choices and engage in active processes of interpretation while reading. An exploration of these moment-by-moment processes may also serve as the basis of reader-response analysis of the phenomenological variety. Meanwhile, the reader s mind is never fixed solely and securely on the present moment in the text; it always moves backwards and forward in time and narrative. In focusing intensely on the microprocess of reading and response, the phenomenological critic often seeks to understand some of the smallest units that comprise the experience of reading, thus helping to illuminate the full impact. It can be concluded that this microstudy of the reading process represents the other extreme: the study of the many disruptions, alterations, and variations that characterize an ongoing encounter with the text as many interconnected parts. 2.3.6 The success of reader-response analysis depends on critic s meta-theoretical approach. This analysis depends largely on the sophistication of the critic s meta-theoretical approach to the reading process and the quality of the evidence presented to support any conclusions or generalizations. The reader-response critics must keep their own reader in mind and present the evidence necessary to sway the reader. Readers may reject or misunderstand what they read; their biases and hasty or subjective responses may be difficult to challenge, so it can be learned from those approaches to understand how an why to get such a wide range of responses to work. The possibility of misreading or ill-considered response is part of the exciting and unpredictable expreience of being a writer and critic. Learner s responsibility is simply to present argument as clearly and forcefully as possible. Salden (2005) also says the reader-response theories have no single or predominant philosophical starting-point; the writers whom have been considered belong to quite different 16

traditions of thought; and there are few common terms or positions among them. Whatever else one may take from these reader-response theories, there is no doubt that they fundamentally challenge the predominance of the text-oriented theories associated with New Criticism and Formalism: it is can not be discussed any longer about the meaning of a text without taking into account the reader s contributions to it (63-64). 2.4 Response and Analyse. There is one big mistake that most reader usually do in responding the text. Instead of responding the text, they analyse it. Just like what has been discussed above, one of the main factors that influences reader s response is their educational background. Thus, there are also some readers who have ability in analysing literary works because of their educational background. So they give more critical interpretations as their response which is cannot be considered as responding the text. These are the definitons between respond and analyse based on Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary 8th Edition (2010). Respond is to give a spoken or written answer to somebody or something; to do something as a reaction to something that somebody has said or done; and to react quickly or in the correct way to something or somebody (p. 1258). While analyse is to examine the nature or structure of something, especially by separating in into its parts, in order to understand or explain it (p. 46). 17