CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter will discuss background of the
study, statement of problems, objectives
of the study, scope and limitation, significance of the study, research method, and definition of key terms.
1.1 Background of the Study Literature is a medium of communication which
involves three components; author as the
message sender,work as the message, and audience as the message receiver (Budianta et al.,
2003:7). This statement shows that a literary work includes some components that support its
existence. Though those three components
are all important in a literary work, the audience is the aspect that might be forgotten.
In spite of the fact that the audienceis the
forgotten aspect, literary work has a
close relation to the audience or reader. Literary work is created to be read and enjoyed by the readers. Besides, the
readers are also the ones who will determine
the meaning and value of a literary work. So, it can be said that a text will be meaningless without the readers.
Literature is also assumed as a performative
art and reading as a performance
(McManus, http://www.library.utoronto.ca. Accessed on 3 March 2007). It means that literature existsonly
when it is read. This opinion progressively
supports an idea that readers have an important role in reading process, because a literary meaning iscreated
through the interaction of the readers
and the text. The text will not giveany meaning if the readers do not make an effort to interpret it. Thus, it can be
said that in reading process the reader is a producer rather than a consumer of meanings,
in which the meaning will be found via
interpretative process.
The reader as the producer of meaning is the
variable which follows along space,
time, and socio-cultural class. It means that literary work is different in the
process of reading, understanding, and
evaluation during the time in whole certain social classes. This fact is known by everyone
who is aware of the various interpretations
given by the readers to a literary work(Jabrohim, 2001:117).
Talking about reader and the way they make
sense of literature, people will talk
about Reader-Response Criticism, which claims that the meaning of a text is the experience of the reader (Culler,
1997:63). This criticism emerged as the
result of dissatisfaction on the previous criticism (especially Structuralism),
which focuses merely on the text.
Structuralism ignores the readers who have a role in accepting and giving a meaning.
Iser (in Lodge, 1988:211; Selden, 1993:120)
stated that reading gives the readers
the chance to formulate the unformulated. This statement indicates that there are some unformulated things in the
text, so the readers have to formulate it by themselves. In accordance with this
concept, reader-response criticism is developed
as a bridge for the text and the readers. Interpretative process carried outby the readers will be an interesting
discussion, because each reader has her or his own way to find the meaning of the text.
In reader-response criticism the discussion
will involve the text and its potency in
creating a manipulation of meaning. Literary work is a phenomenon which is concreted by the reader (Endraswara,
2003:116). The concreted form of meaning
is also influenced by some reasons that formulate the background of readers’ interpretation. Culler in Selden
stated that the readers might be different in giving meaning, they will constantly follow
the same interpretative process.
Interpretation is a subjective
experience of each reader (1993:127). So, there will be various interpretations from different
readers.
When the readers try to find the
meaning of a text, the differences of interpretations
might appear. This case isusually caused by some aspects. One of them is due to the text which is
multi-interpretable. There are some gaps or blanks in the text given bythe author. The
events and the characters may not be described
completely and give ambiguous information to the readers (Bressler, 1999:72-73). This problem finally creates
various interpretations to the readers.
A multi-interpretative text
sometimescreates an interesting phenomenon in a reading community, because it gives some
possibilities to the readers in getting
the meaning. This phenomenon also happened to Memoirs of a Geisha (MG). The novel, which was written by
ArthurGolden, can be categorized into a multi-interpretative
text, because it causesa polemic in readers’ interpretation.
Actually, there are different
interpretations about geisha that appear after the readers read the novel. In his novel, Golden
does not state clearly whether a geisha
is an artist or a prostitute. Even, there are some descriptions which indicate that geisha refers to a kept woman. “And in
fact, the “gei” of “geisha” means “arts”,
so the word “geisha” really means “artisan” or “artist”(MG, page 146).
The quotation has mentioned
directly thatgeisha means artist. However, though it has been mentioned that geisha is an artist,
it does not mean that artist is the only correct interpretation of geisha. The
quotation only describes the literal meaning of the word “geisha”; from the meaning of
Japanese term. The real meaning of geisha
in the novel is still ambiguous. Thiscase finally makes the readers interpret geisha differently.
Multiple-interpretation about
geisha that appears in Memoirs of a Geisha is an interesting phenomenon. In
thiscase the readers have their own interpretations;
it depends on their way in concreting the meaning of the text.
From all descriptions given in
the text, the readers should make a final conclusion which will become the final result of their
interpretation. Among many descriptions
given in the text, there will be a dominate description that will point the readers’ interpretation. However,it
totally depends on each reader’s understanding.
The different interpretations
about geisha also appear in UIN Malang.
There are some students who have
completely read the novel Memoirs of a Geisha.
After finishing a reading process, they have different perceptions about geisha portrayed in the novel. According to
the contexts of the novel, they, of course,
have some basic reasons that influence their interpretation. It is a pity to miss the above interesting phenomenon, which
does not happened to all literary works.
A study on Memoirs of a Geisha
has been conducted by Nikmal Azekiyah, a
student of UIN Malang. In her study, she has analyzed plot and theme of Memoirs of a Geisha. Unlike the previous
study, the researcher wants to analyze Memoirs
of a Geisha from another perspective, that is, the reader. If it is related to the above phenomenon, this study will be more
interesting because the object discussed
is not only the literary work, but also the reader. A reader-response study, on the other hand, has ever been
conducted by some researchers. Siti Hariyati
Sastriyani has conducted a study which focuses on the readers’ reception to Madam Bovary.On the contrary, Henry
Jenkinshas analyzed Susan Douglass’ Music
of the Night as a form of response to the film Thelma and Louise. Unlike the previous studies, the researcher focuses
this study on another form of response of
the readers; that is the readers’ interpretation. Hence, the researcher finally
decides to conduct a study entitled
Readers’ Interpretation about Geisha Portrayed
in Arthur Golden’s Memoirs of a Geisha.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar