Literature Definition and Abram’s Critical Theories

8

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Theoretical Background

This section consists of some theories that support the research. Those theories include literature definition and Abram’s critical theories, objective theory, poetry, language elements in poetry, and John Donne’s “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning” and “The Sun Rising”. Firstly, the researcher presents the definition of literature and its relation to Abram’s critical theories, as well as objective theory, as one of Abram’s four critical theories. Secondly, the researcher presents the explanation about poetry, which is followed by its language elements such as diction, imagery, and figurative language. Lastly, the researcher describes John Donne’s “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning” and “The Sun Rising” in a brief explanation.

1. Literature Definition and Abram’s Critical Theories

It takes some times to define what literature is and what kind of composition counted as literature is . Many questions and attempts wander through people’s mind in order to find a precise definition of literature. Earlier, the confusion emerges to distinguish whether certain writing is literature or not, a phone book for example. People question whether literature is simply a linguistic composition or it must be fictional. Then, it comes to conclusion that literature is either spoken or written composition of imagination that takes the form of drama, metrics, or prose Childs and Fowler, 2006: 129. 9 However, the confusion about literature still goes on. The literary experts question whether literature can be ‘factual’ and whether or not literature is derived from historical, sociological, and philosophical reflection. Thus, Eagleton 1996: 2 argues that certain composition can be defined as literature because it uses “peculiar language”, not because it is a fiction or a reflection. The only way to recognize literature is through the use of deviation language that draws attention to itself. To decide whether a certain literature is a reflection of other elements or not, maintains Eagleton, the critics need to employ a certain critical theory to approach it. Critical theory provides some methodologies to answer the long debated questions. It allows the critics to examine a literary work from different point of view and articulate their own hypothesis toward the work. Each critical theory launches different standards that enable the readers to authenticate and explain their analysis and judgment of the work’s aesthetic value. Each critical theory also allows the exploration of the work to define what literature is. Thus, the definition of literature is not limited to the use of peculiar and imaginative language, but it can be broaden based on the theory that is used to define it Brussler, 1999: 11- 12. However, the diversity of critical theories creates a chaos instead. Those varied theories cannot be either measure or compare to one another because they are different in terms and significances. Abrams 1971: 5 argues that the chaos among those theories is “because they lack a common ground on which to meet and clash.” Those theories have no something in common that can unite them at 10 all. There is no even one simple reference to relate the definition of literature from one theory to another one. Seeing this chaos, thus, Abrams proposes the “orientation of critical theories” that can simplify those varied theories. Abrams claims that almost all critical theories, basically, show an orientation toward one of four main elements in art criticism. Those four elements are the work itself as the product of art, the artist who creates the work, the universe from which the work is derived, and the audience to whom the work is contributed. Therefore, to afford ground analysis of literary work, Abrams distinguishes the critical theory into four categories: mimetic, pragmatic, expressive, and objective theory based on their orientation toward each element Abrams, 1971: 6. The first category is mimetic theory. Abrams consider this theory as “the most primitive” theory because its initial appearance has been noted since Plato era. The main belief of this theory is that a literary work is the imitation of the universe. For this theory, poetry and other works of art exist only to represent the appearance of the universe. Thus, the way it analyzes the literary work is by judging its accurateness of the copy Abrams, 1999: 51. The second category is pragmatic theory. This theory believes that the creation of a work only aims the audiences. Sydney in Abrams, 1971: 14 argues that poetry’s chief purpose is to move the readers by giving them certain effects, such as emotion and edification. This theory judges a work based on its success in achieving the readers’ response. It puts emphasis on the strategy that the author uses to move the readers’ response Abrams, 1999: 51. Thus, to evaluate a 11 literary work using this theory, literary critics also need to assess the responses given by the readers toward the work. The third category is expressive theory. This theory highlights the relationship between a literary work and the author. For this theory, a literary work is the product coming from the author’s feeling, thought, and imagination. Wordsworth, as one of the initiators of this theory, declares in Abrams 1971:21 that poetry is the poet’s “spontaneous of overflow feeling.” Therefore, to evaluate a literary work using this theory, literary critics need to observe the authors’ personal life in order to relate their feeling and perspective to their work. The last category of Abram’s critical theory is objective theory. This theory exists to object the principle of mimetic, pragmatic, and expressive theory. For this theory, a literary work is an independent entity that is able to empower itself without being interfered by the universe, audience, or author. This criticism appreciates a literary work as the center of analysis that controls itself, not being controlled by other elements outside the work. Hence, literary critics must emphasize their analysis solely on the work and ignore its extrinsic elements since biographical, cultural or historical origins have nothing to do with the text Abrams, 1999: 51.

2. Objective Theory