Review of Related Studies

of wine-making and party. This finding is motivated by the parallel characteristics of the two Gods to those of Summer and Smoke’s characters. As Pryor puts it, Dionysus, the god of the irrational and lack of control a person who is Dionesiac in the extreme is insane, since the rational has no part in the definition of the Dionesiac, symbolizes emotions, spontaneity, and inebriation, but also creativity. Apollo, the sun god, personifies logic, order, precision, conscious planning, and indirect rather than direct experience. Apollonian tend to be judges and lawyers, and in the extreme can be cruelly inhuman and rigid Pryor, 26 August 2014. Therefore, John who is depicted as the cavalier hedonistic character indeed resembles Dionysus whose tendency is to act based on his impulse and thus spontaneity. Meanwhile, Alma who is a very disciplined and high-strung spinster indeed shares the same qualities of Apollo since he is noted as one with “inhuman and rigid” tendency. In his further elaboration, Pryor also notes the contrast opposition between the two characters in t he play as he refers to Alma‟s, “…self-conscious mannerisms and excessiv e propriety” which is in contrast with “the carefree, uninhibited John” Pryor, 26 August 2014. Other than pointing out the parallelism between the two Greek Gods and the two characters and the distinction between the two characters, Pryor also introduces writer with three symbols used in the play, i.e. smoke and water lily in Chinese Lagoon. He states that sm oke is “a sign of death, of the soul leaving the body”, while in his exposition on water lily in Chinese lagoon he notes that “this image of this flower carries with it a reference to interior activity and to self- realization”, however, in the end of the play, it “can also refer to transmigration of soul” as Alma experiences a metamorphosis from Apollonian to Dionesiac self Pryor, 26 August 2014. The difference from the previous studies is that the three previous studies and this study apply different approach in analyzing the drama text. While the first study uses psychological approach based on Sigmund Freud‟s theory and the second applies formalistic theory while the third paper uses comparative strategy in its exposition, this study will apply structuralism theory. While there are many theories included in structuralism, this study will focus on one particular theory, i.e. Saussurian binary opposition. The reason for applying this theory of Saussure‟s is since this study is aimed at revealing the narrative structure of Summer and Smoke, as writer believes, is constructed based on binary opposition. Other than a difference, the two previous studies and this study also have a similarity other than the apparent fact that these three studies have Tennessee William‟s Summer and Smoke as their object of study. The similarity is in the very same steps applied in these three studies as they will start with the characters‟ identification and analysis in attaining the primary end of their studies. Thus, the three aforementioned studies are very useful for this study in terms of providing more profound and extensive perspectives on character analysis done from different point of view while the third study, Pryor‟s paper, also provides the three symbols used in the play. What make this study different from the others are then, the writer will analyze the characters through the symbols employed in the play. The last review is on a study using binary opposition as its interpretive strategy. The study, t itled “Binary Oppositions in Paradise Lost: A Structuralist Reading Strategy ”, is one of the journal compiled and written by Guo Chun An. In his study, he tells that In the reading process, it is common for the reader to think in binary terms, spot fundamental binary oppositions in a particular text, integrate them to form a framework, and decipher the meaning of the text suggested by such a structural system Chun An, 1995: 59. In his findings, Chun An identifies two major binary oppositions, i.e. first is between God and Satan and second is between Adam and Eve and thus he correlates the two binary oppositions into parallelism. In the first binary opposition between God and Satan, Chun An points out the distinct nature of the two entities in which God is benevolent and kind, Satan is malevolent and evil. Therefore, the two are opposites of each other because of their palpably distinctive nature. In his further elaboration on this first opposition, Chun An also introduces many other significant polarities generated from this foremost binary opposition, such as goodevil, heavenhell, light darkness, reason irrationality and lovehate Chun An, 1995: 64. In the second binary opposition of Adam and Eve, Chun An argues that this binary opposition is “the extended political arena of Satans treason against Gods order” 1995: 64. By this, he notes that while Adam represents God, Eve becomes the manifestation of Satan itself. This argument lies in the main fact that in “Paradise Lost”, Adam is created in God‟s image while Eve is created from Adam‟s rib and Adam‟s image of God. Thus, while Adam is the copy of God, Eve is only the “copy of the copy” emphasizing Eve‟s farther disparity towards God‟s image Chun An, 1995: 73. In his attempt to draw a conclusion from his study, Chun An makes correlation between the first binary opposition to the second. He notes the interrelation of the first and the second binary opposition which makes it easier for reader to keep trac t of “the epic subject matter”. He points out Eve‟s qualities resembling those of Satan‟s, i.e. darkness, evil, sin, narcissist obsession, corruption and transgression Chun An, 1995:73. With this parallelism, he explains that it is because of the similar qualities between Eve and Satan share that “Adam labels Eve as a repugnant serpent”. That is because once God transforms Satan into a hissing snake. He further exposes that it is not a coincidence that Eve plays the role of Satan that brings Adam into his first sin. That is because Eve indeed is the representative of Satan Chun An, 1995: 73. From this last study, a reading strategy by the use of a binary opposition is revealed. It is clear from this study that the discovery of binary opposition within a literary work brings significant attribution of meaning in the text. Not only that, by finding binary opposition which acts as the underlying framework of a text, it is easier for reader to account for possible arguments and points or to validate a theme or as he puts it “master concept” of a work. That‟s why finding binary opposition in a literary work as its underlying framework becomes one of the most practical interpretive strategy.

B. Review of Related Theories

1. Theory of Symbol

Symbol is one of many techniques available to authors to compress their works yet still leave resounding effect to the readers. The reason for this is noted in Arp and Johnson‟s explanation on Symbol, Allegory, and Fantasy. He noted the increase of “emotional force” and “resonance of a story” being accomplished by the use of the aforementioned techniques symbol, allegory, and fantasy Arp and Johnson, 2006: 274. As this study is concerned, only theory of symbols will be reviewed. According to Arp and Johnson, A literary symbol is something that means more than what it suggests on the surface. It may be an object, a person, a situation, an action, or some other element that has literal meaning in the story but that suggests or represents other meaning as well 2006: 274. Thus, it may be inferred that it is not an arbitrary or random task to determine certain things as symbols, as Arp and Johnson puts it, “the ability to recognize and identify symbols requires percept ion and tact” 2006: 279. He also points out the importance of the ability to interpret symbols that is essential for a full understanding on literature. Realizing this, he provides some guideline for readers to follow in attempt to identify symbols used in a literary text. The followings are the cautions Arp and Johnson suggested readers to pay attention to: a. “Symbols nearly always signal their existence by emphasis, repetition, and position” Arp and Johnson, 2006: 280. What are meant by “emphasis and repetition” is clear through the sense they give, which is numerous or continual mentions of an item may suggest that it is symbolic. The same goes for “position”, it means that for an item to be called a symbol, it might be “given prominence at the beginning of the story, the climax, or the e nd of the story” Arp and Johnson, 2006: 280. b. “The meaning of a literary symbol must be established and supported by the entire context of the story” Arp and Johnson, 2006: 280. Therefore, if the alleged symbols do not have meaning inside instead of outside of the story, one should be reluctant to say them as symbols. The pointers above suggest that in order for a detail to be taken symbolically, readers must render it by clues provided by the text itself. And thus, discovering symbols that are nonexistence is the same as perverting the meaning of a text. Both overstating and understating a significant detail are not suggested in the attempt of symbol identification and analysis.

2. Theory of Characters and Characterization

a. Character

As Abrams said in A Glossary of Literary Terms, characters are the persons presented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are interpreted by the reader as being endowed with moral and dispositional qualities that are expressed in what they say-the dialog-and by what they do-the action Abrams, 1999:32. This shows that to know the characteristics of the characters in this drama text, writer have to scrutinize the plot. This is an inevitable way for anyone who wants to decipher a character‟s personality. The reason behind this is because only through the p lot of the story can the author present the characters‟ action, thought, and dialogue or any exposition or analysis of that. This is true according to Gill‟s idea about character that it is someone in a literary work that has some sort of identity, which is made up by appearance, conversation, action, name and possibly thoughts going in his head” Gill 1995: 127. Other than conversation, action, and thoughts, there are some aspects that should not be overlooked in the attempt to scrutinize character in dramas. As Barranger puts it, drama is the literary work that shows the recent reality by using real human beings and thus characters in drama are “the images of active human beings” 1994: 338. Seeing this aspect, the attitudes and dress also should be put into consideration into their analysis, such as if they dress according to their period, place and social class or if the way they talk suit their age, personality, social class and circumstances. Barranger, 1994: 338.

b. Characterization

Characterization is the way the author presents the characters Reaske, 1966: 46. This creation of imagery persons in literary works does have a purpose. Like Arp and Johnson puts it: through the creation of character, an author can summon up a new personality, a new voice, and an entirely new and original way of seeing the world 2006: 165. It also provides readers the opportunity to have a closer look on human nature and to grow sympathy towards others that may not occur unless there is understanding like what read ers get from fictional work. This is because “author can show us exactly what is happening in a character‟s mind and emotions.” In contrast, readers may not be able to fathom real- life people‟s feelings and thoughts and can only guess from the external behaviors which sometimes conceal their true feelings and thoughts Arp and Johnson, 2006: 162. Furthermore, there are three principles that good literary works follow in characterizing their characters. First is consistency in the characters‟ behavior. Should be any changes in the characters‟ behavior, there should be “clear and sufficient reason for the change” Arp and Johnson, 2006: 163. Second is convincing motivations that explain the characters‟ words and actions. This is to ensure that readers can understand why the character behaves in certain ways. The understanding, however, does not need to come immediately as opposed to by the end of the story Arp and Johnson, 2006: 163. The last principle is the plausibility of the characters. As Arp and Johns on explains “they cannot be perfectly virtuous or monsters of evil; nor can they have some impossible combination of contradictory traits” 2006: 163. In presenting their characters, authors may have four devices of characterization Reaske, 1966: 46-48, i.e. a. Appearances It means how the character‟s outlook looks like. This includes how the character is dressed and what physical features he she gets. This physical attributes are usually described firstly in the prologue or the stage direction of the script. b. Ways of Thinking and Acts This means the process from how the character‟s mind work until the action heshe finally makes. Through this process, readers will know the true nature of the character since it tells how true is the character‟s intention seen through not only their action but their consideration thought behind their actions. c. Ways of Speaking and Language It means the way a character expresses their mind and the expression they use. Different expression may tell one‟s nature. For example, the use of more sophisticated term, clavicle, for the common word, collarbone, may tell the character‟s educational background or in what light heshe wants to be seen. d. Interaction Among Characters This means how the characters act together and respond to each other. As Re aske puts it, “Not only does the language of the characters speaking alone characterize him, but his language when speaking to others also sheds a great impact on showing his personality” 1966: 47.

3. Theory of Binary Opposition

Since binary opposition is under the grand roof of structuralism, the understanding of structuralism is paramount. Structuralism, as Barry puts it, “is the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation-they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of” 2002:39. In other words, when one studies one literary work from the perspective of structuralism, heshe will