Fiction
War Dances
by Sherman Alexie August 10, 2009
(http://www.newyorker.com/fiction)
Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text
Print E-Mail Feeds Single Page
Keywords
Fathers;
Sons;
Cockroaches;
Hearing Loss;
Native Americans;
Seattle, Washington;
Brain Tumors
MY KAFKA BAGGAGE
A few years ago, after I returned home to Seattle from a trip to Los Angeles, I unpacked my bag and found a dead cockroach, shrouded by a dirty sock, in a corner. Shit, I thought. We’re being invaded. So I threw the clothes, books, shoes, and toiletries back into the suitcase, carried it out to the driveway, and dumped the contents onto the pavement, ready to stomp on any other cockroach stowaways. But there was only the one cockroach, dead and stiff. As he lay on the pavement, I leaned closer to him. His legs were curled under his body. His head was tilted at a sad angle. Sad? Yes, sad. For who is lonelier than the cockroach without his tribe? I laughed at myself. I was feeling empathy for a dead cockroach. I wondered about its story. How had it got into my bag? And where? At the hotel in Los Angeles? In the airport baggage system? It hadn’t originated in our house. We’ve kept those tiny bastards from our place for fifteen years. So where had this little vermin come from? Had he smelled something delicious in my bag—my musky deodorant or some crumb from a chocolate Power Bar—and climbed inside, only to be crushed by the shifts of fate and garment bags? As he died, did he feel fear? Isolation? Existential dread?
SYMPTOMS
Last summer, in reaction to various allergies I was suffering from, defensive mucus flooded my inner right ear and confused, frightened, and unmoored me. My allergies had never been this severe. I could barely hear a fucking thing with that side, so I had to turn my head in order to understand what my two sons, ages eight and ten, were saying.
“We’re hungry,” they said. “We keep telling you.”
I was embarrassed.
“Mom would have fed us by now,” they said.
Their mother had left for Italy with her mother two days before. My sons and I were going to enjoy a boys’ week, filled with unwashed socks, REI rock-wall climbing, and ridiculous heaps of pasta.
“What are you going to cook?” my sons asked. “Why haven’t you cooked yet?”
I’d been lying on the couch reading a book while they played and I hadn’t realized that I’d gone partially deaf. So, for just a moment, I could only weakly blame my allergies.
Then I recalled the man who went to the emergency room because he’d woken having lost most, if not all, of his hearing. The doctor peered into one ear, saw an obstruction, reached in with small tweezers, and pulled out a cockroach, then reached into the other ear and extracted a much larger cockroach. Did you know that ear wax is a delicacy for roaches?
I cooked dinner for my sons—overfed them out of guilt—and cleaned the hell out of our home. Then I walked into the bathroom and stood before the mirror. I turned my head and body at weird angles and tried to see deeply into my congested ear; I sang hymns and prayed that I’d see a small angel trapped in the canal. I would free the poor thing, and she’d unfurl and pat dry her tiny wings, then fly to my lips and give me a sweet kiss for sheltering her metamorphosis.
* from the issue
* cartoon bank
* e-mail this
When I woke at 3 A.M., completely deaf in my right ear, and positive that a damn swarm of locusts was wedged inside, I left a message for my doctor, and told him that I would be sitting outside his office when he reported for work.
This would be the first time I had been inside a health-care facility since my father’s last surgery.
BLANKETS
After the surgeon had cut off my father’s right foot—no, half of my father’s right foot—and three toes from the left, I sat with him in the recovery room. It was more like a recovery hallway. There was no privacy, not even a thin curtain. I supposed this made it easier for the nurses to monitor the post-surgical patients, but, still, my father was exposed—his decades of poor health and worse decisions were illuminated—on white sheets in a white hallway under white lights.
“Are you O.K.?” I asked. It was a stupid question. Who could be O.K. after such a thing? Yesterday, my father had walked into the hospital. Yes, he’d shuffled while balancing on two canes, but that was still called walking. A few hours ago, my father still had both of his feet. They were black with rot and disease, but they were still, technically speaking, feet and toes. And, most important, those feet had belonged to my father. Now they were gone, sliced off. Where were they? What had the hospital done with the right foot and the toes from the left foot? Had they been thrown into the incinerator? Were their ashes already floating over the city?
“Doctor, I’m cold,” my father said.
“Dad, it’s me,” I said.
“I know who you are. You’re my son.” But, given the blankness in my father’s eyes, I assumed he was just guessing.
“Dad, you’re in the hospital. You just had surgery.”
“I know where I am. I’m cold.”
“Do you want another blanket?” Stupid question. Of course, he wanted another blanket. He probably wanted me to build a fucking campfire or drag in one of those giant heat blasters that N.F.L. football teams use on the sidelines.
I walked down the hallway—the recovery hallway—to the nurses’ station. There were three women nurses there, two white and one black. I am Native American—Spokane and Coeur d’Alene Indian—and I thought my darker pigment might give me an edge with the black nurse, so I addressed her directly.
Senin, 31 Agustus 2009
Kamis, 13 Agustus 2009
Interpreting Poetry Through Music: A Attempt to Redefine Poetry Teaching
Asih Sigit Padmanugraha
Yogyakarta State University
(A paper presented in LIA, August 13, 2009)
Based on the decree of the Dean of the Faculty of Languages and Arts of Yogyakarta State University about the appointment of the skripsi consultant of the English Language and Literature Study Program on March 30, 2009, there were 60 students writing proposals for their final projects. Among those, there were only 14 students who choose literature or only 24% and, unfortunately, in this percentage no one analyzes poetry as the subject of their research. This empirical data show that there are imbalances among concentrations in this study program. In the long run, this situation is problematic since it influences the development of a particular science, which is literature especially poetry, compared to linguistics and translation.
That problem evidently involves the students, the teachers, and teaching-learning process. However, it appears that the last two aspects contribute more to that problem. Most students still think that poetry is ‘scaring’ because of its unfamiliar words, uncommon use of language, imaginative writings, connotative words, sophisticated use of words, etc. In turn, this will result in their poor comprehension and interpretation of poetry. For them, poetry is imaginative and its meaning is beyond their reach. This usually ends in the failure to realize those meanings in their own life or to experience those life values shared in poetry, which is in truth the essence of poetry interpretation. In fact, this is actually not the students’ failure but the teacher’s and the fruitlessness of the teaching leaning process.
Considering those complicated problems above, this paper offers an attempt to redefine the ‘ordinary’ teaching of poetry generally conducted hitherto. It will explore the possibilities of teaching ‘fun’ poetry through music, without losing its essence. Music, especially the everlasting one, is closely related to poetry and is very useful in helping students understand and interpret poetry. They will find it enjoyable at their first encounter and eventually be able to share the values of life offered by the poet, and realize those values into their own life. Truly, this approach is worth applying to have a fruitful teaching and learning process.
Key words: poetry interpretation, music, teaching and learning process
Minggu, 24 Mei 2009
Serious and Popular Fiction
INTRODUCTION TO
ENGLISH LITERATURE
SERIOUS AND POPULAR FICTION
SEMESTER : III
AIMS : Identifying the differences of popular and serious fiction
MATERIALS :
- Article
- Worksheet
- Key Answer
Source : Maxwell, Ann and Elizabeth Lowell. “Popular Fiction: Why We Read It, Why We Write It” 5th September 2007 <www.elizabethlowell.com/popfiction.htm>
Developed by : Asih Sigit Padmanugraha
SELF ACCESS LEARNING CENTER
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE STUDY PROGRAM
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF YOGYAKARTA
2007
I. ARTICLE
Popular Fiction: Why We Read It, Why We Write It
by Ann Maxwell/Elizabeth Lowell
My life's work has been popular fiction. Writing alone and with Evan, I have published more than sixty books. They range from general fiction to historical and contemporary romances, from science fiction to mystery, from nonfiction to highly fictional thrillers.
Through the years, I've discovered that most publishers talk highly of literary fiction and make money on popular fiction; yet asking them to describe the difference between literary and popular fiction is like asking when white becomes gray becomes black.
Some people maintain that, by definition, literary fiction cannot be popular, because literary equals difficult and inaccessible. Rather like avant-garde art: if you can identify what it is, it ain't art. Rather than argue such slippery issues as taste and fashion, I'll simply say that there are exceptions to every rule; that's how you recognize both the rule and the exceptions. As a rule, accessibility is one of the hallmarks of popular fiction.
In literary fiction, the author is often judged by critics on his or her grasp of the scope and nuance of the English language, and on the lack of predictability of the narrative itself. The amount of effort readers put into this fiction can be almost on a par with that of the authors themselves. In order for an author to be successful in literary fiction, positive reviews from important critics are absolutely vital. Indeed, in a very real sense, the critics are the only audience that matters, which explains why literary fiction often pays badly: critics get their books for free.
In popular fiction, the only critics who really matter are the readers who pay money to buy books of their own choice. Reviews are irrelevant to sales. Readers of popular fiction judge an author by his or her ability to make the common language uncommonly meaningful, and to make an often told tale freshly exciting. The amount of effort a reader puts into this fiction is minimal. That, after all, is the whole point: to entertain readers rather than to exercise them.
Critics are human. They don't like being irrelevant. They dismiss popular fiction as "formulaic escapism" that has nothing to do with reality. From this, I'm forced to conclude that critics view life (and literary fiction) as a kind of nonlinear prison.
This would certainly explain why the underlying philosophy in much literary fiction is pessimistic: Marx, Freud, and Sartre are the Muses of modernism. Life is seen as fundamentally absurd. No matter how an individual strives, nothing significant will change. Or, in more accessible language, you can't win for losing.
The underlying philosophy of much popular fiction is more optimistic: the human condition might indeed be deplorable, but individuals can make a positive difference in their own and others' lives. The Muses of popular fiction are Zoroaster and Jung, the philosphy more classical than to modern. Popular fiction is a continuation of and an embroidery upon ancient myths and archetypes; popular fiction is good against evil, Prometheus against the uncaring gods, Persephone emerging from hell with the seeds of spring in her hands, Adam discovering Eve.
In a word, popular fiction is heroic and transcendent at a time when heroism and transcendence are out of intellectual favor. Publishers, whose job is to make money by predicting the size of the market for a piece of fiction, are constantly trying guess where a manuscript falls on the scale of white to gray to black. Publishers to understand why readers read the books they do. Marketers give tests, conduct surveys, consult oracles, etc., and constantly rediscover a simple fact: people read fiction that reinforces their often inarticulate beliefs about society, life, and fate.
People who believe that life's problems can be solved through intelligence and effort are often attracted to crime fiction, which centers around the logical solution of various problems. People who believe along with Shakespeare that there are more things on heaven and earth than we dream, are attracted to science fiction of various kinds.
People who believe that a good relationship between a man and a woman can be the core of life are attracted to romances.
People who believe that absolute evil lurks just beneath the surface of the ordinary are attracted to horror. And so on.
Think about that the next time you hear someone dismiss what they (or usually other folks!) read as "escapism." Existentialists escape into their fictional world. We escape into ours. The fact that our world feels good and theirs feels bad doesn't mean theirs is always more valuable, much less more intelligent: I have known many intelligent people who need to be reminded of the possibility of joy; I have known no intelligent people who need to be reminded of the reality of despair.
Some things are worth escaping from. Despair is definitely one of them.
So much for escapism. What about the charge that popular fiction is formulaic?
The concept of formula has an interesting history as first a literary device and then a literary putdown. The Greeks divided literature into tragedy and comedy. A tragedy had a political, masculine theme and ended in death. A comedy had a social, often feminine theme and ended in marriage, the union of male and female from which all life comes. We have kept the scope of tragedy, of death and despair, but we have reduced the concept of comedy to a pottymouthed nightclub act. Perhaps that is why critics of popular fiction reserve their most priapic scorn for the stories called romances. Romances follow the ancient Greek formula for comedy: they celebrate life rather than anticipate death. In addition to being almost exclusively female in their audience and authorship, romances address timeless female concerns of union and regeneration. The demand for romances is feminine, deep, and apparently universal. Harlequin/Silhouette has an enormously profitable romance publishing empire in which the majority of the money is earned outside of the American market, in more countries and languages than I can name.
Even worse than their roots in ancient feminine concerns, romances irritate critics because they often have a subtext of mythic archetypes rather than modernist, smallerthanlife characters.
I have heard mystery authors complain that they don't get any respect from critics. As a mystery author, I agree. I have heard science fiction authors complain that they don't get any respect. As a science fiction author, I agree. But as a romance author, I have experienced amazing intellectual bigotry.
For example, mysteries, like romances, were once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. Then, about seventy years ago, the idea of class warfare came into intellectual vogue. Mysteries, particularly American mysteries, came to be viewed as politically correct (and therefore) wellwritten metaphors of class warfarethe downandout detective bringing justice to the little guy in a society that cares only for privilege and wealth.
That's a pretty heavy load to lay on Lew Archer's modernist shoulders, but I suspect the male academic types were tired of getting their thrills reading by flashlight in a closet. The fact that mysteries at the time were written by men for men did not hurt the genre's status at all.
Yet many authors continued to write mysteries in which brains, bravery and brawn mattered more than political commentary; these books were roundly disdained by critics...and avidly bought by readers. The division between mythic and politically correct mysteries still exists. You can usually tell which is which by the tone of the review.
Science fiction, like romance, was once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. Then, in the nineteen fifties, there was a rash of AftertheBomb science fiction books. Either directly or indirectly, these books criticized the course of modern civilization. Their stories predicted disaster for the human race. Endlessly.
Voila. The genre of science fiction became politically and intellectually correct, a wellwritten body of literature with a proper appreciation of man's raging greed, stupidity, and futility. Gone were the garish covers of little green men hauling busty blondes off to far corners of the galaxy for an eternity of slap and tickle. Gone were the heroic rescuers of said blondes. In their place were caring and despairing antiheroes who tried and tried and tried to make things right, only to finally fail, going down the tubes with a suitable Existential whimper.
The critics loved it.
The fact that science fiction at that time was largely written by men for men did not hurt the genre's status one bit. The retrograde authors who continued to write rousing galactic adventures in which bravery, brains and brawn saved the day were roundly disdained by critics...and avidly purchased by readers. Again, the tone of the reviews told you which was which.
Westerns were once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. Westerns are still often viewed that way, despite valiant efforts on the part of a few academics to push politically correct westerns (antiheroes, disease, cruelty, bigotry, degradation, despair and death). The readers were not fooled. They avoided these academic westerns in droves. The heart of the western's appeal is largerthanlife; it is heroism; it is people who transcend their own problems and limitations and make a positive difference in their own time and life. That is what made Louis L'Amour one of the bestselling authors in the English language—or any other language, for that matter. That is what readers pay to read.
That is what critics disdain. Heroism. Transcendence.
Romances were once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. They still are. I suspect they always will be. Their appeal is to the transcendent, not to the political. Their characters, through love, transcend the ordinary and partake of the extraordinary.
That, not bulging muscles or magic weapons, is the essence of heroic myth: humans touching transcendence. It is an important point that is often misunderstood. The essence of myth is that it is a bridge from the ordinary to the extraordinary. As Joseph Campbell said many times, through myth we all touch, if only for a few moments, something larger than ourselves, something transcendent.
Unfortunately, transcendence has been out of intellectual favor for several generations. Thus the war between optimism and pessimism rages on, and popular culture is its battlefield. Universities and newspapers are heavily stocked with people who believe that pessimism is the only intelligent philosophy of life; therefore, optimists are dumb as rocks.
How many times have you read a review that disdains a book because it has a constructive resolution of the central conflict—also known as a happy ending? The same reviewer will then praise another book for its relentless portrayal of the bleakness of everyday life.
This is propaganda, not criticism. What the critics are actually talking about is their own intellectual bias, their own chosen myth: pessimism. They aren't offering an intelligent analysis of an author's ability to construct and execute a novel.
Contrary to what the critics tell us, popular fiction is not a swamp of barely literate escapism; popular fiction is composed of ancient myths newly reborn, telling and retelling a simple truth: ordinary people can do extraordinary things. Jack can plant a beanstalk that will provide endless food; a Tom Clancy character can successfully unravel a conspiracy that threatens the lives of millions. A knight can slay a dragon; a Stephen King character can defeat the massed forces of evil. Cinderella can attract the prince through her own innate decency rather than through family connections; a Nora Roberts heroine can, through her own strength, rise above a savagely unhappy past and bring happiness to herself and others.
The next time you hear a work of popular fiction being scorned as foolish, formulaic or badly written, ask yourself if it is truly badly written, foolish and formulaic, or is it simply speaking to a transcendent tradition that emphasizes ancient hope rather than modernist despair?
In our society, popular fiction is story after story told around urban campfires, stories which point out that life is not a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. There is more to life than defeat and despair. Life is full of possibilities. Victory is one of them. Joy is another.
And that's why people read popular fiction. To be reminded that life is worth the pain.
Maxwell, Ann and Elizabeth Lowell. “Popular Fiction: Why We Read It, Why We Write It” 5th September 2007 <www.elizabethlowell.com/popfiction.htm>
II. WORKSHEET
INSTRUCTION:
Read the text carefully!
Identify some differences between serious and popular fiction based on the article available!
Fill in the table provided!
SERIOUS FICTION
DIFFERENCE ON
POPULAR FICTION
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
10.
III. KEY ANSWER
SERIOUS FICTION
DIFFERENCE ON
POPULAR FICTION
1. Pessimistic
1. Philosophy
1. Optimistic
2. Idealism
2. Goal
2. Profit
3. Varied and complex
3. Characters
3. Stereotyped
4. Complex
4. Plot
4. Formulaic
5. Critics
5. Valuable Criticism
5. Reader
6. Limited
6. Production
6. Mass
7. To exercise
7. Purpose
7. To entertain
8. No hero
8. The main character
8. Hero
9. Unpredictable
9. Ending
9. Happy ending
10. Inaccessible
10. Accessibility
10. Accessible
ENGLISH LITERATURE
SERIOUS AND POPULAR FICTION
SEMESTER : III
AIMS : Identifying the differences of popular and serious fiction
MATERIALS :
- Article
- Worksheet
- Key Answer
Source : Maxwell, Ann and Elizabeth Lowell. “Popular Fiction: Why We Read It, Why We Write It” 5th September 2007 <www.elizabethlowell.com/popfiction.htm>
Developed by : Asih Sigit Padmanugraha
SELF ACCESS LEARNING CENTER
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE STUDY PROGRAM
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF YOGYAKARTA
2007
I. ARTICLE
Popular Fiction: Why We Read It, Why We Write It
by Ann Maxwell/Elizabeth Lowell
My life's work has been popular fiction. Writing alone and with Evan, I have published more than sixty books. They range from general fiction to historical and contemporary romances, from science fiction to mystery, from nonfiction to highly fictional thrillers.
Through the years, I've discovered that most publishers talk highly of literary fiction and make money on popular fiction; yet asking them to describe the difference between literary and popular fiction is like asking when white becomes gray becomes black.
Some people maintain that, by definition, literary fiction cannot be popular, because literary equals difficult and inaccessible. Rather like avant-garde art: if you can identify what it is, it ain't art. Rather than argue such slippery issues as taste and fashion, I'll simply say that there are exceptions to every rule; that's how you recognize both the rule and the exceptions. As a rule, accessibility is one of the hallmarks of popular fiction.
In literary fiction, the author is often judged by critics on his or her grasp of the scope and nuance of the English language, and on the lack of predictability of the narrative itself. The amount of effort readers put into this fiction can be almost on a par with that of the authors themselves. In order for an author to be successful in literary fiction, positive reviews from important critics are absolutely vital. Indeed, in a very real sense, the critics are the only audience that matters, which explains why literary fiction often pays badly: critics get their books for free.
In popular fiction, the only critics who really matter are the readers who pay money to buy books of their own choice. Reviews are irrelevant to sales. Readers of popular fiction judge an author by his or her ability to make the common language uncommonly meaningful, and to make an often told tale freshly exciting. The amount of effort a reader puts into this fiction is minimal. That, after all, is the whole point: to entertain readers rather than to exercise them.
Critics are human. They don't like being irrelevant. They dismiss popular fiction as "formulaic escapism" that has nothing to do with reality. From this, I'm forced to conclude that critics view life (and literary fiction) as a kind of nonlinear prison.
This would certainly explain why the underlying philosophy in much literary fiction is pessimistic: Marx, Freud, and Sartre are the Muses of modernism. Life is seen as fundamentally absurd. No matter how an individual strives, nothing significant will change. Or, in more accessible language, you can't win for losing.
The underlying philosophy of much popular fiction is more optimistic: the human condition might indeed be deplorable, but individuals can make a positive difference in their own and others' lives. The Muses of popular fiction are Zoroaster and Jung, the philosphy more classical than to modern. Popular fiction is a continuation of and an embroidery upon ancient myths and archetypes; popular fiction is good against evil, Prometheus against the uncaring gods, Persephone emerging from hell with the seeds of spring in her hands, Adam discovering Eve.
In a word, popular fiction is heroic and transcendent at a time when heroism and transcendence are out of intellectual favor. Publishers, whose job is to make money by predicting the size of the market for a piece of fiction, are constantly trying guess where a manuscript falls on the scale of white to gray to black. Publishers to understand why readers read the books they do. Marketers give tests, conduct surveys, consult oracles, etc., and constantly rediscover a simple fact: people read fiction that reinforces their often inarticulate beliefs about society, life, and fate.
People who believe that life's problems can be solved through intelligence and effort are often attracted to crime fiction, which centers around the logical solution of various problems. People who believe along with Shakespeare that there are more things on heaven and earth than we dream, are attracted to science fiction of various kinds.
People who believe that a good relationship between a man and a woman can be the core of life are attracted to romances.
People who believe that absolute evil lurks just beneath the surface of the ordinary are attracted to horror. And so on.
Think about that the next time you hear someone dismiss what they (or usually other folks!) read as "escapism." Existentialists escape into their fictional world. We escape into ours. The fact that our world feels good and theirs feels bad doesn't mean theirs is always more valuable, much less more intelligent: I have known many intelligent people who need to be reminded of the possibility of joy; I have known no intelligent people who need to be reminded of the reality of despair.
Some things are worth escaping from. Despair is definitely one of them.
So much for escapism. What about the charge that popular fiction is formulaic?
The concept of formula has an interesting history as first a literary device and then a literary putdown. The Greeks divided literature into tragedy and comedy. A tragedy had a political, masculine theme and ended in death. A comedy had a social, often feminine theme and ended in marriage, the union of male and female from which all life comes. We have kept the scope of tragedy, of death and despair, but we have reduced the concept of comedy to a pottymouthed nightclub act. Perhaps that is why critics of popular fiction reserve their most priapic scorn for the stories called romances. Romances follow the ancient Greek formula for comedy: they celebrate life rather than anticipate death. In addition to being almost exclusively female in their audience and authorship, romances address timeless female concerns of union and regeneration. The demand for romances is feminine, deep, and apparently universal. Harlequin/Silhouette has an enormously profitable romance publishing empire in which the majority of the money is earned outside of the American market, in more countries and languages than I can name.
Even worse than their roots in ancient feminine concerns, romances irritate critics because they often have a subtext of mythic archetypes rather than modernist, smallerthanlife characters.
I have heard mystery authors complain that they don't get any respect from critics. As a mystery author, I agree. I have heard science fiction authors complain that they don't get any respect. As a science fiction author, I agree. But as a romance author, I have experienced amazing intellectual bigotry.
For example, mysteries, like romances, were once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. Then, about seventy years ago, the idea of class warfare came into intellectual vogue. Mysteries, particularly American mysteries, came to be viewed as politically correct (and therefore) wellwritten metaphors of class warfarethe downandout detective bringing justice to the little guy in a society that cares only for privilege and wealth.
That's a pretty heavy load to lay on Lew Archer's modernist shoulders, but I suspect the male academic types were tired of getting their thrills reading by flashlight in a closet. The fact that mysteries at the time were written by men for men did not hurt the genre's status at all.
Yet many authors continued to write mysteries in which brains, bravery and brawn mattered more than political commentary; these books were roundly disdained by critics...and avidly bought by readers. The division between mythic and politically correct mysteries still exists. You can usually tell which is which by the tone of the review.
Science fiction, like romance, was once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. Then, in the nineteen fifties, there was a rash of AftertheBomb science fiction books. Either directly or indirectly, these books criticized the course of modern civilization. Their stories predicted disaster for the human race. Endlessly.
Voila. The genre of science fiction became politically and intellectually correct, a wellwritten body of literature with a proper appreciation of man's raging greed, stupidity, and futility. Gone were the garish covers of little green men hauling busty blondes off to far corners of the galaxy for an eternity of slap and tickle. Gone were the heroic rescuers of said blondes. In their place were caring and despairing antiheroes who tried and tried and tried to make things right, only to finally fail, going down the tubes with a suitable Existential whimper.
The critics loved it.
The fact that science fiction at that time was largely written by men for men did not hurt the genre's status one bit. The retrograde authors who continued to write rousing galactic adventures in which bravery, brains and brawn saved the day were roundly disdained by critics...and avidly purchased by readers. Again, the tone of the reviews told you which was which.
Westerns were once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. Westerns are still often viewed that way, despite valiant efforts on the part of a few academics to push politically correct westerns (antiheroes, disease, cruelty, bigotry, degradation, despair and death). The readers were not fooled. They avoided these academic westerns in droves. The heart of the western's appeal is largerthanlife; it is heroism; it is people who transcend their own problems and limitations and make a positive difference in their own time and life. That is what made Louis L'Amour one of the bestselling authors in the English language—or any other language, for that matter. That is what readers pay to read.
That is what critics disdain. Heroism. Transcendence.
Romances were once scorned as badly written, formulaic, lurid escapist fare best read in closets. They still are. I suspect they always will be. Their appeal is to the transcendent, not to the political. Their characters, through love, transcend the ordinary and partake of the extraordinary.
That, not bulging muscles or magic weapons, is the essence of heroic myth: humans touching transcendence. It is an important point that is often misunderstood. The essence of myth is that it is a bridge from the ordinary to the extraordinary. As Joseph Campbell said many times, through myth we all touch, if only for a few moments, something larger than ourselves, something transcendent.
Unfortunately, transcendence has been out of intellectual favor for several generations. Thus the war between optimism and pessimism rages on, and popular culture is its battlefield. Universities and newspapers are heavily stocked with people who believe that pessimism is the only intelligent philosophy of life; therefore, optimists are dumb as rocks.
How many times have you read a review that disdains a book because it has a constructive resolution of the central conflict—also known as a happy ending? The same reviewer will then praise another book for its relentless portrayal of the bleakness of everyday life.
This is propaganda, not criticism. What the critics are actually talking about is their own intellectual bias, their own chosen myth: pessimism. They aren't offering an intelligent analysis of an author's ability to construct and execute a novel.
Contrary to what the critics tell us, popular fiction is not a swamp of barely literate escapism; popular fiction is composed of ancient myths newly reborn, telling and retelling a simple truth: ordinary people can do extraordinary things. Jack can plant a beanstalk that will provide endless food; a Tom Clancy character can successfully unravel a conspiracy that threatens the lives of millions. A knight can slay a dragon; a Stephen King character can defeat the massed forces of evil. Cinderella can attract the prince through her own innate decency rather than through family connections; a Nora Roberts heroine can, through her own strength, rise above a savagely unhappy past and bring happiness to herself and others.
The next time you hear a work of popular fiction being scorned as foolish, formulaic or badly written, ask yourself if it is truly badly written, foolish and formulaic, or is it simply speaking to a transcendent tradition that emphasizes ancient hope rather than modernist despair?
In our society, popular fiction is story after story told around urban campfires, stories which point out that life is not a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. There is more to life than defeat and despair. Life is full of possibilities. Victory is one of them. Joy is another.
And that's why people read popular fiction. To be reminded that life is worth the pain.
Maxwell, Ann and Elizabeth Lowell. “Popular Fiction: Why We Read It, Why We Write It” 5th September 2007 <www.elizabethlowell.com/popfiction.htm>
II. WORKSHEET
INSTRUCTION:
Read the text carefully!
Identify some differences between serious and popular fiction based on the article available!
Fill in the table provided!
SERIOUS FICTION
DIFFERENCE ON
POPULAR FICTION
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
10.
III. KEY ANSWER
SERIOUS FICTION
DIFFERENCE ON
POPULAR FICTION
1. Pessimistic
1. Philosophy
1. Optimistic
2. Idealism
2. Goal
2. Profit
3. Varied and complex
3. Characters
3. Stereotyped
4. Complex
4. Plot
4. Formulaic
5. Critics
5. Valuable Criticism
5. Reader
6. Limited
6. Production
6. Mass
7. To exercise
7. Purpose
7. To entertain
8. No hero
8. The main character
8. Hero
9. Unpredictable
9. Ending
9. Happy ending
10. Inaccessible
10. Accessibility
10. Accessible
Format Penulisan Skripsi Sastra: Metode Kualitatif
Skripsi kualitatif untuk Konsentrasi Sastra
Chapter I Introduction
A. Background : alasan memilih topik
B. Research Focus:
-Penjelasan pengertian judul
-Teori yang digunakan dan ahli yang menggagas teori tersebut
-Alasan pentingnya teori tersebut dalam penelitian
-Pembatasan topik
C. Research Objectives
D. Research Significance
Chapter II Literature Review
A. Theoretical Description
B. Previous Studies
C. Background (historical/social, etc): optional
D. Analytical Construct (kata-kata/chart) à bagaimana teori diterapkan dalam analisis (teori-karya-background)
Chapter III Research Method
A.Research Approach: content analysis/conversational analysis, etc.
B. Data Type: gambar/kata-kata
C. Data Source: film, novel, puisi, drama
D. Data Collection: interview/reading
E. Research Instrument: human instrument, additional instruments
F. Trustworthiness: reliabilitas dan validitas dicapai dengan pembacaan berulang
G. Data Analysis: data mau diapakan? deskriptif/kualitatif
Chapter IV Findings and Discussion
Chapter V Concluding Remarks
A. Conclusion
B. Suggestion (Optional)
References
-Printed Sources
-Interview
-Electronic Sources
Appendices
- Plot Summary (novel, short story, drama, paraphrase (poetry))
- Data Collection
- Charts/Pictures
Chapter I Introduction
A. Background : alasan memilih topik
B. Research Focus:
-Penjelasan pengertian judul
-Teori yang digunakan dan ahli yang menggagas teori tersebut
-Alasan pentingnya teori tersebut dalam penelitian
-Pembatasan topik
C. Research Objectives
D. Research Significance
Chapter II Literature Review
A. Theoretical Description
B. Previous Studies
C. Background (historical/social, etc): optional
D. Analytical Construct (kata-kata/chart) à bagaimana teori diterapkan dalam analisis (teori-karya-background)
Chapter III Research Method
A.Research Approach: content analysis/conversational analysis, etc.
B. Data Type: gambar/kata-kata
C. Data Source: film, novel, puisi, drama
D. Data Collection: interview/reading
E. Research Instrument: human instrument, additional instruments
F. Trustworthiness: reliabilitas dan validitas dicapai dengan pembacaan berulang
G. Data Analysis: data mau diapakan? deskriptif/kualitatif
Chapter IV Findings and Discussion
Chapter V Concluding Remarks
A. Conclusion
B. Suggestion (Optional)
References
-Printed Sources
-Interview
-Electronic Sources
Appendices
- Plot Summary (novel, short story, drama, paraphrase (poetry))
- Data Collection
- Charts/Pictures
Selasa, 12 Mei 2009
Jogja and Multiculturalism
It is evident that Jogja is one of multicultural cities in the world. It is the city of multi-etnics, multi-religion, and multi-social background. It can bee seen in the Universities spread all over Jogjakarta. Not only Indonesia students study in those universities but foreigner do too. Multiculturalism in Jogja is the best way out of so many problems, like terrorism, economic crisis, political crisis, and many other problems, like what happaen in 1998. In Solo or Surakarta, the riot became horrible destructive because the people are homogenerous, to be continued......
Senin, 27 April 2009
Apakah Sastra?
Apakah Sastra?
Asih Sigit P (Yogyakarta State University)
Ilmu sastra merupakan ilmu yang istimewa. Bahkan Teeuw (2003) menilainya sebagai keanehan yang tidak terdapat dalam cabang ilmu pengetahuan yang lain, karena menurutnya objek utama penelitiannya tidak tentu, malahan tidak keruan (Teeuw, 2003:19). Mungkin inilah yang menyebabkan belum (tidak) terjawabnya pertanyaan yang paling mendasar dan hakiki dalam ilmu pengetahuan (Teeuw, 2003:19), yaitu “apakah sastra?”: pertanyaan yang selalu muncul dari para mahasiswa di perguruan tinggi. Pertanyaan (manusiawi) yang selalu muncul ini seringkali tidak mendapatkan jawaban yang memuaskan, karenanya, dalam bab ini, beberapa definisi sastra akan diperbincangkan.Definisi pertama yang didiskusikan adalah pendekatan sastra dari sudut pandang sastra sebagai bahasa tulis. Dalam bahasa-bahasa barat gejala yang akan didefinisikan disebut literature (Inggris), literatur (Jerman), littérature (Prancis), dan semuanya berasal dari bahasa Latin litteratura. Kata litteratura sebenarnya diciptakan sebagai terjemahan dari kata Yunani grammatika; litterature dan grammatika masing-masing berdasarkan kata littera dan gramma yang berarti “huruf” (tulisan, letter) (Teeuw, 2003:20). Menurut asalnya litteratura dipakai untuk tata bahasa dan puisi. Literature dan seterusnya dalam bahasa Barat moderen umumnya berarti “segala sesuatu yang yang tertulis, pemakaian bahasa dalam bentuk tertulis (20). Definisi ini juga diuangkapkan oleh Barnett yang mengatakan bahwa The word ‘literature’ can be used to refer to anything written (1993:1).Dari sudut pandang ini, banyak pertanyaan yang muncul. Bagaimana dengan pemakaian bahasa dalam resep masakan misalnya. Apakah resep masakah bisa disebut sastra? Tentu saja tidak. Oleh sebab itu definisi ini bisa dikatakan tidak memuaskan, karena definisi tersebut bisa terlalu luas. Sastra sebagai sesuatu yang ditulis bisa juga terlalu luas, karena sebuah buku tentang psikologi ataupun hukum bisa saja dimasukkan ke dalam sastra. Dan pertanyaan yang muncul selanjutnya adalah di manakan posisi sastra lisan? Sastra dalam bahasa Indonesia berasal dari bahasa Sanskerta. Akar kata sãs-, dalam kata kerja turunan berarti “mengarahkan, megajar, memberi petunjuk atau instruksi.” Akhiran –tra biasanya menunjukkan alat, sarana. Maka dari itu sastra dapat berarti “alat untuk mengajar, buku petunjuk, buku instruksi atau pengajaran” (20-21).Dari definisi sastra dalam bahasa Indonesia tersebut, kita bisa mengambil kesimpulan bahwa bahwa diktat-diktat yang ditulis oleh para dosen di perguruan tinggi yang dipergunakan dalam kuliah bisa disebut sastra.Memang perdebatan mengenai “apakah sastra?” sudah berlangsung lama. Jawaban mengenai pertanyaan tersebut sebenarnya sudah berusaha untuk dijawab sejak jaman Yunani Kuno. Horare (65-8 BC), seorang penyair Yunani mendefinisikan sastra dari sisi tujuan utamanya. Ia mengatakan bahwa tujuan utama sastra adalah dulce et utile atau “to give either profit or delight, or to mix the giving pleasure with useful precepts for life” (Richard Dutton, 1991:25). Inipun tidak selalu memuaskan, karena apakah sastra selalu bertujuan untuk menyenangkan dan bermanfaat? Meskipun keberadaan sastra memang berawal dari “our inborn love of telling a story, of arranging words in pleasing patterns, of expressing in words some special aspect of our human experience” (Moody, H.L.B. (1987:2).Robert Frost, seorang penyair terkemuka Amerika menyebutkan bahwa sastra merupakan “performance in words.” (Barnett, 1963:1). Pendapat Frost mengindikasikan sastra harus memberikan kesenangan. Batasan yang diungkapkan Frost itu kemudian menjadi agak lemah ketika kita menghadapi puisi kotaknya Danarto yang berujud gambar sembilan kotak segi empat (Situmorang, 1983:72). Puisi Danarto ini juga melemahkan dikotomi sastra tulis dengan sastra lisan yang diungkapkan oleh Danziger dan Johnson yang mendefinisikan sastra secara umum sebagai “verbal art” (Danziger dan Johnson, 1961:1).Barnett lebih jauh menjelaskan bahwa sastra merupakan hal-hal yang berhubungan dengan imajinasi sehingga menjadi imajinatif (1963:1), seperti terlihat dalam genre sastra: puisi, fiksi dan drama, yang merupakan cerita rekaan. Pendapat Barnet yang mengatakan sastra sebagai hal yang imaginative seperti dalam fiksi-cerita yang tidak nyata - akan menimbulkan problematika tersendiri. Eagleton (1986:1) mengemukakan bahwa pembedaan antara “fakta dan fiksi” seringkali menimbulkan pertanyaan. Ia memberikan contoh, misalnya, Kesusastraan Inggris adab ke-17 tidak hanya memasukkan karya-karya William Shakespeare, Andrew Marvel ataupun Milton, tetapi juga esai-esai Francis Bacon, the khotbah-khotbahnya John Donne, ataupun Otobiografi spiritualnya John Bunyan. Contoh lain, misalnya sastra merupakan karya fiksi, maka “Ayat-Ayat Setan”nya Salman Rushdie tidak perlu dikutuk. Melihal hal tersebut, jelaslah bahwa membedakan antara mana yang nyata dan yang fiksi merupakan hal yang sangat sulit.Kesulitan dalam mengklaim karya sastra merupakan karya yang fiktif berangkat juga dari kenyataan-kenyataan bahwa banyak karya sastra yang ditulis berdasarkan fakta atau kenyataan, seperti: Julius Caesar karya Shakespeare dan Surapati karya Nur Sutan Iskandar. Eagleton juga menegaskan bahwa pembedaan antara kebenaran “sejarah” dan “artistic tidak dapat diberlakukan dalam Hikayat Islandia (Eaglton, 1986:1). Hal ini juga berlaku dalam ceritera Hikayat yang ada di Indonesia seperti Babad Tanah Jawa dan Pararaton, misalnya.Jika sastra didefinisikan sebagai sesuatu yang ‘kreatif’ atau ‘imaginatif’, hal ini masih menimbulkan perdebatan. Eagleton (1986:2) mempertanyakan apakah sejarah, philosophy dan ilmu-ilmu alam tidak kreatif dan imajinatif.Apabila sastra didefinisikan sebagai “any writing which has the power to move the reader’s heart and emotions”, definisi ini terlalu sederhana. Banyak tulisan-tulisan yang bukan masuk kategori sastra, seperti tulisan yang menceritakan kejadian bencana gempa bumi dan Tsunami yang melanda Aceh dan Sumatera Utara 26 Desember 2004 dan juga bencana alam gempa Bumi di Nias pada akhir Maret 2005, tidak menimbulkan emosi para pembacanya?Definisi yang lain mengatakan bahwa sastra adalah “the expression of beautiful thoughts and ideas in beautiful language.” Definisi ini tidak selalu dapat diterima. Pertama konsep mengenai keindahan yang jelas selalu menjadi relatif dan tidak tegas; kedua, tidak semua karya sastra berisikan pemikiran yangt besar. Contonya, puisinya Shakespeare yang berjudul Winter yang merupakan puisi pendek yang menggambarkan kehdupan sederhana dalam sebuah musim dingin di Inggris abad ke-16. Puisi ini hanya menggambarkan pemandangan yang sederhana. Contoh lain, sebuah novel The Glass Canoe, sebuah novel Australia berisaikan ekspresi keras dan kasar sorang laki-laki Australia. Bahasa yang digunakan dalam novel ini jauh dari kategori bahasa yang indah.Menurut Jakobson, sastra merupakan “a kind of writing which represents an organized violence committed on ordinary speech (and which) transforms and intensifies ordinary language and makes it deviate systematically fro everyday speech.” Jika pembatasan definfi sastra berdasar penyimapnag nbahasa yang ada, maka graffiti 9tulisanpada tembok-temob di tempat umum atau dalam toilet bisa diterima sebagai sastra, atau bentuk karta seni. Atau, ketika nilai karya sastra dilihat dari penggunaan bahasa yang orisinil, maka bahasa dalam iklamn bisa juga dimasukkan dalam kategori sastra.Meskipun berbagai macam ketidka jelasan, mungkin defifinsi terakhir ini bisa depetimbangkan. Sapardi Djoko Damono (2002:9-16) mengatakan bahwa “sastra merupakan produk busaya yang dalam masyarakat tertentu dan era tertentu dianggap sebagai karya sastra.” Pendapat ini berangkat dari kenyataan bahwa sastra bukan sesuatu yang “bebas”. Sastra terbatas pada masyarakat yabng mendukung keberadaannn6ya dan menjadi pembacanya juga. Peran dan fungsi sastra selalu diteima secara berbega menurut waktu atau jamannya dan masyarakatnya. Karya sastra masyarakat pribumi Australia, misalnya tidak mungkin dianggap sebagai karya sastra jika ditulis pada jaman Elixabeth dalam sejarah sastra Inggris. Bahkan. D>h, Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover dulu diangap sebagai karya yang jorok dan dilarang benerapa tahun. Moby Dick pada saat penerbitan awalnya sama sekali tidak dianggap karya sastra yang beras. Karya-karya Pramodya Ananta Toer, misalnya dilarang beredar ketika dalam pemerintahan Soeahrto karena dianggap sebagai huku yang subversive.
Asih Sigit P (Yogyakarta State University)
Ilmu sastra merupakan ilmu yang istimewa. Bahkan Teeuw (2003) menilainya sebagai keanehan yang tidak terdapat dalam cabang ilmu pengetahuan yang lain, karena menurutnya objek utama penelitiannya tidak tentu, malahan tidak keruan (Teeuw, 2003:19). Mungkin inilah yang menyebabkan belum (tidak) terjawabnya pertanyaan yang paling mendasar dan hakiki dalam ilmu pengetahuan (Teeuw, 2003:19), yaitu “apakah sastra?”: pertanyaan yang selalu muncul dari para mahasiswa di perguruan tinggi. Pertanyaan (manusiawi) yang selalu muncul ini seringkali tidak mendapatkan jawaban yang memuaskan, karenanya, dalam bab ini, beberapa definisi sastra akan diperbincangkan.Definisi pertama yang didiskusikan adalah pendekatan sastra dari sudut pandang sastra sebagai bahasa tulis. Dalam bahasa-bahasa barat gejala yang akan didefinisikan disebut literature (Inggris), literatur (Jerman), littérature (Prancis), dan semuanya berasal dari bahasa Latin litteratura. Kata litteratura sebenarnya diciptakan sebagai terjemahan dari kata Yunani grammatika; litterature dan grammatika masing-masing berdasarkan kata littera dan gramma yang berarti “huruf” (tulisan, letter) (Teeuw, 2003:20). Menurut asalnya litteratura dipakai untuk tata bahasa dan puisi. Literature dan seterusnya dalam bahasa Barat moderen umumnya berarti “segala sesuatu yang yang tertulis, pemakaian bahasa dalam bentuk tertulis (20). Definisi ini juga diuangkapkan oleh Barnett yang mengatakan bahwa The word ‘literature’ can be used to refer to anything written (1993:1).Dari sudut pandang ini, banyak pertanyaan yang muncul. Bagaimana dengan pemakaian bahasa dalam resep masakan misalnya. Apakah resep masakah bisa disebut sastra? Tentu saja tidak. Oleh sebab itu definisi ini bisa dikatakan tidak memuaskan, karena definisi tersebut bisa terlalu luas. Sastra sebagai sesuatu yang ditulis bisa juga terlalu luas, karena sebuah buku tentang psikologi ataupun hukum bisa saja dimasukkan ke dalam sastra. Dan pertanyaan yang muncul selanjutnya adalah di manakan posisi sastra lisan? Sastra dalam bahasa Indonesia berasal dari bahasa Sanskerta. Akar kata sãs-, dalam kata kerja turunan berarti “mengarahkan, megajar, memberi petunjuk atau instruksi.” Akhiran –tra biasanya menunjukkan alat, sarana. Maka dari itu sastra dapat berarti “alat untuk mengajar, buku petunjuk, buku instruksi atau pengajaran” (20-21).Dari definisi sastra dalam bahasa Indonesia tersebut, kita bisa mengambil kesimpulan bahwa bahwa diktat-diktat yang ditulis oleh para dosen di perguruan tinggi yang dipergunakan dalam kuliah bisa disebut sastra.Memang perdebatan mengenai “apakah sastra?” sudah berlangsung lama. Jawaban mengenai pertanyaan tersebut sebenarnya sudah berusaha untuk dijawab sejak jaman Yunani Kuno. Horare (65-8 BC), seorang penyair Yunani mendefinisikan sastra dari sisi tujuan utamanya. Ia mengatakan bahwa tujuan utama sastra adalah dulce et utile atau “to give either profit or delight, or to mix the giving pleasure with useful precepts for life” (Richard Dutton, 1991:25). Inipun tidak selalu memuaskan, karena apakah sastra selalu bertujuan untuk menyenangkan dan bermanfaat? Meskipun keberadaan sastra memang berawal dari “our inborn love of telling a story, of arranging words in pleasing patterns, of expressing in words some special aspect of our human experience” (Moody, H.L.B. (1987:2).Robert Frost, seorang penyair terkemuka Amerika menyebutkan bahwa sastra merupakan “performance in words.” (Barnett, 1963:1). Pendapat Frost mengindikasikan sastra harus memberikan kesenangan. Batasan yang diungkapkan Frost itu kemudian menjadi agak lemah ketika kita menghadapi puisi kotaknya Danarto yang berujud gambar sembilan kotak segi empat (Situmorang, 1983:72). Puisi Danarto ini juga melemahkan dikotomi sastra tulis dengan sastra lisan yang diungkapkan oleh Danziger dan Johnson yang mendefinisikan sastra secara umum sebagai “verbal art” (Danziger dan Johnson, 1961:1).Barnett lebih jauh menjelaskan bahwa sastra merupakan hal-hal yang berhubungan dengan imajinasi sehingga menjadi imajinatif (1963:1), seperti terlihat dalam genre sastra: puisi, fiksi dan drama, yang merupakan cerita rekaan. Pendapat Barnet yang mengatakan sastra sebagai hal yang imaginative seperti dalam fiksi-cerita yang tidak nyata - akan menimbulkan problematika tersendiri. Eagleton (1986:1) mengemukakan bahwa pembedaan antara “fakta dan fiksi” seringkali menimbulkan pertanyaan. Ia memberikan contoh, misalnya, Kesusastraan Inggris adab ke-17 tidak hanya memasukkan karya-karya William Shakespeare, Andrew Marvel ataupun Milton, tetapi juga esai-esai Francis Bacon, the khotbah-khotbahnya John Donne, ataupun Otobiografi spiritualnya John Bunyan. Contoh lain, misalnya sastra merupakan karya fiksi, maka “Ayat-Ayat Setan”nya Salman Rushdie tidak perlu dikutuk. Melihal hal tersebut, jelaslah bahwa membedakan antara mana yang nyata dan yang fiksi merupakan hal yang sangat sulit.Kesulitan dalam mengklaim karya sastra merupakan karya yang fiktif berangkat juga dari kenyataan-kenyataan bahwa banyak karya sastra yang ditulis berdasarkan fakta atau kenyataan, seperti: Julius Caesar karya Shakespeare dan Surapati karya Nur Sutan Iskandar. Eagleton juga menegaskan bahwa pembedaan antara kebenaran “sejarah” dan “artistic tidak dapat diberlakukan dalam Hikayat Islandia (Eaglton, 1986:1). Hal ini juga berlaku dalam ceritera Hikayat yang ada di Indonesia seperti Babad Tanah Jawa dan Pararaton, misalnya.Jika sastra didefinisikan sebagai sesuatu yang ‘kreatif’ atau ‘imaginatif’, hal ini masih menimbulkan perdebatan. Eagleton (1986:2) mempertanyakan apakah sejarah, philosophy dan ilmu-ilmu alam tidak kreatif dan imajinatif.Apabila sastra didefinisikan sebagai “any writing which has the power to move the reader’s heart and emotions”, definisi ini terlalu sederhana. Banyak tulisan-tulisan yang bukan masuk kategori sastra, seperti tulisan yang menceritakan kejadian bencana gempa bumi dan Tsunami yang melanda Aceh dan Sumatera Utara 26 Desember 2004 dan juga bencana alam gempa Bumi di Nias pada akhir Maret 2005, tidak menimbulkan emosi para pembacanya?Definisi yang lain mengatakan bahwa sastra adalah “the expression of beautiful thoughts and ideas in beautiful language.” Definisi ini tidak selalu dapat diterima. Pertama konsep mengenai keindahan yang jelas selalu menjadi relatif dan tidak tegas; kedua, tidak semua karya sastra berisikan pemikiran yangt besar. Contonya, puisinya Shakespeare yang berjudul Winter yang merupakan puisi pendek yang menggambarkan kehdupan sederhana dalam sebuah musim dingin di Inggris abad ke-16. Puisi ini hanya menggambarkan pemandangan yang sederhana. Contoh lain, sebuah novel The Glass Canoe, sebuah novel Australia berisaikan ekspresi keras dan kasar sorang laki-laki Australia. Bahasa yang digunakan dalam novel ini jauh dari kategori bahasa yang indah.Menurut Jakobson, sastra merupakan “a kind of writing which represents an organized violence committed on ordinary speech (and which) transforms and intensifies ordinary language and makes it deviate systematically fro everyday speech.” Jika pembatasan definfi sastra berdasar penyimapnag nbahasa yang ada, maka graffiti 9tulisanpada tembok-temob di tempat umum atau dalam toilet bisa diterima sebagai sastra, atau bentuk karta seni. Atau, ketika nilai karya sastra dilihat dari penggunaan bahasa yang orisinil, maka bahasa dalam iklamn bisa juga dimasukkan dalam kategori sastra.Meskipun berbagai macam ketidka jelasan, mungkin defifinsi terakhir ini bisa depetimbangkan. Sapardi Djoko Damono (2002:9-16) mengatakan bahwa “sastra merupakan produk busaya yang dalam masyarakat tertentu dan era tertentu dianggap sebagai karya sastra.” Pendapat ini berangkat dari kenyataan bahwa sastra bukan sesuatu yang “bebas”. Sastra terbatas pada masyarakat yabng mendukung keberadaannn6ya dan menjadi pembacanya juga. Peran dan fungsi sastra selalu diteima secara berbega menurut waktu atau jamannya dan masyarakatnya. Karya sastra masyarakat pribumi Australia, misalnya tidak mungkin dianggap sebagai karya sastra jika ditulis pada jaman Elixabeth dalam sejarah sastra Inggris. Bahkan. D>h, Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover dulu diangap sebagai karya yang jorok dan dilarang benerapa tahun. Moby Dick pada saat penerbitan awalnya sama sekali tidak dianggap karya sastra yang beras. Karya-karya Pramodya Ananta Toer, misalnya dilarang beredar ketika dalam pemerintahan Soeahrto karena dianggap sebagai huku yang subversive.
Woman’s Values in Society as reflected in Marge Piercy’s “Barbie Doll”
Woman’s Values in Society as reflected in Marge Piercy’s “Barbie Doll”
by Asih Sigit Padmanugraha
Faculty of Languages and Arts
State University of Yogyakarta
Abstrak
Boneka Barbie merupakan simbol kecantikan perempuan yang dibangun oleh kapitalis dan media demi meraih keuntungan. Akibatnya para perempuan tidak menyadari pengaruh negatif yang banyak ditimbulkan, seperti kesehatan, pembodohan, fantasi berlebihan, dan yang paling penting adalah eksploitasi perempuan. Pengaruh negatif inilah yang memicu berbagai kritik terhadap keberadaan Boneka Barbie. Marge Piercy adalah seorang penyair Amerika yang sangat keras mengkritik keberadaan boneka barbie lewat salah satu puisinya “Barbie Doll.” Dengan menggunakan perpektif feminisme, artikel ini mengekplorasi pengaruh sosial dan budaya yang melatar belakangi keberadaan puisi ini. Puisi ini dipengaruhi oleh gerakan feminisme di Amerika pada tahun 1960an.
Persona dalam puisi ini adalah seorang gadis kecil yang harus kehilangan kebahagiaan ketika ia memasuki masa pubertas dan masyarakat menganggapnya tidak cantik. Nilai-nilai masyarakat inilah yang membuatnya berjuang keras demi mencapai kecantikan yang sesuai dengan keinginan masyarakat, kecantikan seperti Boneka Barbie. Pengaruh masyarakat ini sangatlah besar sehingga bunuh diri menjadi akhir yang memilukan bagi tokoh tersebut, namun ironisnya membahagiakan bagi masyarakat.
Piercy berhasil membandingkan perempuan dengan Boneka Barbie dalam puisi ini dengan menggunakan perbandingan, simbolisme dan ironi. Akhir tragis seorang gadis yang ingin terlihat cantik seperti Boneka Barbie mengindikasikan bahwa kecantikan perempuan seharusnya tidak dinilai dari penampilan fisiknya saja, tetapi dari pemikirannya, pengalaman hidupnya, sifat-sifatnya dan juga kearifannya.
Kata Kunci: Marge Piercy, boneka barbie, perempuan, masyarakat
by Asih Sigit Padmanugraha
Faculty of Languages and Arts
State University of Yogyakarta
Abstrak
Boneka Barbie merupakan simbol kecantikan perempuan yang dibangun oleh kapitalis dan media demi meraih keuntungan. Akibatnya para perempuan tidak menyadari pengaruh negatif yang banyak ditimbulkan, seperti kesehatan, pembodohan, fantasi berlebihan, dan yang paling penting adalah eksploitasi perempuan. Pengaruh negatif inilah yang memicu berbagai kritik terhadap keberadaan Boneka Barbie. Marge Piercy adalah seorang penyair Amerika yang sangat keras mengkritik keberadaan boneka barbie lewat salah satu puisinya “Barbie Doll.” Dengan menggunakan perpektif feminisme, artikel ini mengekplorasi pengaruh sosial dan budaya yang melatar belakangi keberadaan puisi ini. Puisi ini dipengaruhi oleh gerakan feminisme di Amerika pada tahun 1960an.
Persona dalam puisi ini adalah seorang gadis kecil yang harus kehilangan kebahagiaan ketika ia memasuki masa pubertas dan masyarakat menganggapnya tidak cantik. Nilai-nilai masyarakat inilah yang membuatnya berjuang keras demi mencapai kecantikan yang sesuai dengan keinginan masyarakat, kecantikan seperti Boneka Barbie. Pengaruh masyarakat ini sangatlah besar sehingga bunuh diri menjadi akhir yang memilukan bagi tokoh tersebut, namun ironisnya membahagiakan bagi masyarakat.
Piercy berhasil membandingkan perempuan dengan Boneka Barbie dalam puisi ini dengan menggunakan perbandingan, simbolisme dan ironi. Akhir tragis seorang gadis yang ingin terlihat cantik seperti Boneka Barbie mengindikasikan bahwa kecantikan perempuan seharusnya tidak dinilai dari penampilan fisiknya saja, tetapi dari pemikirannya, pengalaman hidupnya, sifat-sifatnya dan juga kearifannya.
Kata Kunci: Marge Piercy, boneka barbie, perempuan, masyarakat
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)