Deconstructive Analysis on the Characterization of Nils Krogstad
(a play of Henrik Ibsen “A Doll’s House” – 1879)
Written by Zubaidi
A student of Semarang State University
Literary works are divided into fiction and non-fiction. Fiction then is divided into some kinds. They are; poetry, novel, prose, short story, and drama or play. Each f them has special characteristic in its form. Poetry for example, it is concern with lyrics and stanzas, novel and short story are in form of paragraphs, while a play is more special one because most of its form is written in a form of dialogue. The other characteristic of a play is it is written not only to be read, but also to be performed by actors before audiences.
The elements of play are similar with other fiction’s elements. They are; theme, plot, setting, character, point of view, style, mood and tone, etc. If we are talking about a play, it is impossible to discuss only one elements of it because those elements are kinds of structure which relate each other as a totality bigger structure. Even, the meaning of a play will not be achieved if we do not pay attention to all of the elements that structured the play itself.
In this essay, I will not discuss about all elements of the play entitled “A Doll’s House”, but I will try to expose one of the characters within it. The focus will concern toward Nils Krogstad, a character that play a role as antagonist. I will deconstruct the character as people will be sure that he is certainly is a bad character. In this analysis I will try to show whether it is right or wrong.
Character
There are people and things in a story. Things are included because we often find the characters in the form of animals, plants, or even strange creatures. Roberts (1969:11-12) defines character in literature as the author’s creation, through the medium of words or personality and consistent with it.
The characters in a story (including a play) can be divided into two groups. Koesnobroto (1988:67) says that in the basis of importance, we can distinguish two types of characters, main or major character and minor character. Major character is the most important character in a story, while minor character is character of less important than those of the main character.
Character may be delineated in four ways. First, character is delineated by appearance. The actor physical qualities give an immediate stimulus to the audiences. A playwright sometimes has a specific image in describing the character’s appearance in considerable detail. The second, character is revealed by speech. The kind of language employed by the person, his manner of speaking can reflect the characterization of him. Third, character is reflected by action, while the fourth is concern with what others say about him.
Characters on “A doll’s House”
Major Characters
Major characters are those who play important role in the play. In the play A Doll’s House, there can be found five major characters. They are Torvald Helmer, Nora, DR. Rank, Mrs. Linde, and Nils Krogstad.
1) Torvald Helmer
He is Nora’s husband. He works as a lawyer and then change into a manager of a bank. He loves his wife very much, even that he knows his wife is a spendthrift.
“very well. But now, tell me, you little spendthrift, what do you want for Cristmast?”
2) Nora
She is Torvald’s wife. She is very kind to everyone, loves her husband and children, a very charming woman, but a spendthrift.
“yes, yes, off course I will. But come over here, I want to show you everything I’ve bought. And so cheaply!
Look, here are new clothes for Ivar- and a sword. And a horse and a trumpet for a Bob. And a doll and a candle for Emmie- they are nothing much, but she will pull them apart in a few days. And some bits of material and handkerchiefs for the maids. Old Anne-Marie ought to have had something better, really.”
3) DR. Rank
He is an old doctor. He is a best friend of Nora and Helmer. He usually visits them everyday. As he become a best friend for them, Nora usually talks much about her old friend to him that her husband does not want to hear it. He is very close to them.
4) Mrs. Linde
She is Nora’s old friend. She is a widower. She comes to the town where Nora is living in for seeking a job. When she told about it to Nora, then Nora asked her husband to look for a job for Mrs. Linde. He will get a job in a bank where Helmer becomes a manager ther to change the position of Krogstad as Helmer would like to kick him off the job for doing a crime there.
5) Nils Krogstad
He is an old friend of Helmer. He works in a minor position in a bank where Helmer becomes a manager there. He will be hired from his job because he does a crime, a conspiration with Nora. He struggle for his job very much.
Minor Characters
There are six minor characters in the play A Doll’s House. They are Helmer’s three children, Helen. Anne-Marie, and a porter.
1) Three of the minor characters are Helmer’s children. They are Emmie, Bob, and Ivar.
2) Helen
She is a maid in Helmer’s house.
3) Anne-Marie
She is an old nurse working in to care helmer’s children.
4) A Porter
He is a porter which only stated in the beginning of the play helping Nora to carry her stuff from shopping.
Characterization of Nils Krogstad
1) He is morally sick
(act one)
Rank: “you bet I do. However miserable. I sometimes feel, I still want to go on being tortured for as long as possible. It’s the same with all my patients; and with people who are morally sick, too. There is a moral cripple in with Helmer at this moment.”
Mrs. Linde: (softly). “Oh!”
Rank: “oh, a lawyer fellow Krogstad- you wouldn’t know him. He is crippled all rights; morally twisted. But even he started off by announcing, as though it were a matter of enormous importance, thet he had to live.”
2) A good struggling man for his right
Krogstad: (more controlled) “now, listen to e, Mrs. Helmer. If I am forced to I shall fight for my little job at the bank as I would fight for my life.”
3) He is sly
Krogstad: (changes his tone) “Mrs. Helmer, will you have kindness to use your influence on my behalf?”
4) He is a liar
Helmer:”men often succeed in re-establishing themselves if they admit their crime and take their punishment.”
Nora:”Punishment?”
Helmer:”but Krogstad didn’t do that. He chose to try and trick his way out of it; and that’s what has morally destroyed him.”
5) He is a humble man
Nora:”I’ve learned more than you could ever teach me.”
Krogstad:”yes, a bad lawyer like me.”
6) Ambitious man
“I’ll tell you. I want to get on my feet again, Mrs. Helmer. I want to get to the top. And your husband is going to help me. For eighteen months now my record’s been clean. I’ve been in hard straits all that times; I was content to fight my way back inch by inch. Now I’ve been chucked back into the mud, and I’m not going to be satisfied with just getting my job. I’m going to get to the top, I tell you. I’m going to get back into the bank, and it’s going to get back into the bank, and it’s going to be higher up. Your husband’s going to create a new job for me.”
Nora:”he’l never do that!”
Krogstad:”oh, yes he will. I know him. He won’t dare to risk a scandal. And once I’m in there with him, you will see! Within a year I’ll be his right-hand man. It’ll be Nils Krogstad who’ll be running that bank, not Torvald Helmer.”
7) An over-careful man
“and life has taught me to distrust fine words.”
8) He is a threatener
“have you forgotten that then your reputation will be in my hands? Well, I’ve warned you. Don’t do anything silly. When Helmer read my letter, he’ll get in touch with me. And remember, it’s your husband who forced me to act like this. And for that ‘ll never forgive him. Goodbye, Mrs. Helmer.”
Deconstructive Analysis on the Character Nils Krogstad
The play deals with the opposition of the good and bad characterization of Nils Krogstad. As we see that he role as antagonist in the play. After pay attention to his characterization, we find that he is a bad man rather than a good man for his bad characteristics are much more than the good side.
He is an ambitious man, liar, sly, and morally sick. And the most bad side of him is when he threatened Mrs. Helmer with a letter of their conspiration that finally made Mrs. Helmer went away from Mr. Helmer and her children. That he does that seems to because of the condition in which he is forced to do. He does not intend to do that. But since the crime that he does to help mrs. Helmer will make him will be fired from his job, he try to struggle and defense his self.
“have you forgotten that then your reputation will be in my hands? Well, I’ve warned you. Don’t do anything silly. When Helmer read my letter, he’ll get in touch with me. And remember, it’s your husband who forced me to act like this. And for that ‘ll never forgive him. Goodbye, Mrs. Helmer.”
The main thing here is his threat to Mrs. Helmer. But, before we discuss that, it is stated that he is also an ambitious man. In the fact it is not as bad as people think because he behaves like that because as his children grows up he want to be in respectable position. It is common for a dad to be a respectable man in order to his children will also behave to be a respectable man. Because his position in a bank is a minor, he has prepared it as well as possible for about eighteen months and his record is well till he do a crime by helping Mrs. Helmer to borrow money as signed by her father, but because her father had died and the signature is not her dad, but she does, it become a problem of being hired Nils from the bank.
He want to get respectable position by promotion, but it is impossible since the crime happened. So he tries to threat Mrs. Helmer in order to help him so that her husband will not kick him off the bank. It is not fault since he does the crime with motivation to help Mrs. Helmer that at the time she need money to rescue her husband to go to Italy for recovery from his very worst ill. So, we can say that he does the crime not forhis self, but for other who needs his help. Is it a crime? I don’t think so. It is such kind of he becomes a victim of birocration that does not see the motive, but only see it is as a crime. If we take a look at a thief who steal stuffs to give food to his starving family, is it a crime? certainly not. But if we take the case to the court (birocration) it keeps become a crime and the thief should be tke into the jail.
The character of Nils is also stated that he is an ambitious. If we look at what he has done, off course because he want to get a promotion he will keep his record working in the bank as clean as possible and does not want to help Mrs. Helmer. Because an ambitious person usually behaves as selfish person. In the fact, he is not a selfish and wants to help Mrs. Helmer even though in the time goes by it will threat him to e hired from the job.
The play seems to state Nilsas a bad character an role as antagonist, but if we look at his motifs to do the crime is not for his self rather to help other who needs his help, we cannot say that he is a bad person. He is a good person.
Everybody was born with the good side and bad side. However, the good wins over the bad. In this case, the bad side of Nis has defeated his good side. But he does it because of the condition and situation which force him t do so. Sometimes the situation does not tolerate to ourselves.
Te other fact to show Nils’ goodness is actually he works as a clerk, then a lawyer and finally a minor position in the bank. He want to get respectable position in the bank is because of he does it for his family as he is a single parent who earning living for his children. So, he is a good father. A responsible father.
In the last paragraph I ask you to see somebody not only by his appearance or his behaving, but let’s take a deeper look at him what his motives to behaving like that. The deconstructive analysis of Nils prove that he is not bad man. He is a good man. He does a crime a s he becomes a victim of hierarchy of law which seems does not care about feeling in right thing. Helping other show that Nils is not a selfish person.
That is the analysis by using deconstruction approach. Thank you.
Selasa, 31 Agustus 2010
analisis dengan metode strukturalisme
Desire under the Elm
what kind of structure can we found on the play?
Structurulism approach toward Desire Under the Elms.
To come to the meaning of any literary work, we need a tool for doing analysis of the text. There some tools or approaches can be used to find the meaning of literary works. one example is expressivism which concerns on author’s biography. Then formalism, structuralism, feminism, psychology, reader’s response, sociology etc also are used to analyzing literary works. In this analysis I will use structuralism to come to the meaning o desire under the elm by Eugenne O’neill . I choose this analysis because there some good aspect in using structuralism. Structuralism approach seems more interesting since it only use the literary text as the main source to find the meaning.
Structuralisms avoid mimetic theory which places a literary works as ultimate reality. This approach also avoid the expressivism theory which see the literary works as reflection of author’s personality and feeling, and avoid that literary works is a medium of communication between author and reader. It can be said that structuralism try to do literary research otonomically.
The structure of literature is similar to the structure of language. Like language, literature is a self-enclosed system of rules that is composed of language. And also like language, literature needs no outside referent but its own rule-governed but socially constrained system (Bressler:1998). A literary text is a like a structure which contains so many sub-structure that has each function, but totally the function is related one anther that build a meaning. The analysis will consider all of sub-structure in the text and try to find the meaning in totality. The totality here has been governed by the rule or system in language.
Because of the literary works is the only and main source in finding meaning, the other aspect outside literature is not to be talked or considered. The researcher only concern with the literature itself in order to can gain objectivity in the analysis. The focus on literary text will make th researcher to analyze all structure or component of the literature. The subjectivity of researcher like the feeling of like or dislike towards the story or author must be avoided.
So it will raise a question here about what are the structures of literature itself? If we analyze poem, we ill find the structures within that must be considered are diction, connotation, imagery, figurative language, rhetoric. In prose, they are characters, setting, point of view, theme, and plot. In drama or play, we will consider the dialogue, character, plot, and theme.
In this analysis of a play Desire under the Elms, it will be discussed about the elements of the play like characters, theme, dialogue, plot, etc as a totality. It means that those elements have a function as one structure, a play.
*************
Synopsis
The play entitled ‘Desire under the Elms’ is about an old man, Ebraim Cabot who has a farm and three sons. He married first wife and had two sons, Simeone and Peter. His wife died because he treated her to overwork. He married again and has a son, Eben. His wife died again and he went from house. In the house lived his three sons. He comes back home with bringing his new wife, Abbie. Peter and Simeone went for their desire of gold in California. Eben wants to inherit the farm after his father’s death. When he knows his father has married again he proposed his two brother to sign away their right to the farm to him and he gives 300$ for each. Old Cabot come home with Abbie and live in the house. Abbie and Eben become attracted each other. They were making love behind Cabot. They have a child, but because of the child caused Cabot to give his farm to the child as he believes that the child is his. Eben and Abbie try to do infanticide. The irony is that Abbie murdered the child for Eben and Eben imputes altogether different motives to her and misunderstands her love. When Cabot awakes Abbie tells Cabot the child is not his but Eben’s. Ultimately Sheriff arrives and then Eben realizes her love and confesses to the Sheriff his share in the crime and both are taken away, kissing and embracing. Old Cabot is then destined to live and work loneliness on the unlucky farm.
**************
Analysis
In the play we see that most of the characters are greedy. We can see through the central point which becomes the stuff that all characters want to own. It is the farm. The farm becomes the central point, even the theme of the play that will turn to GREED. Before talking about any symbols, codes or signs in the play let’s pay attention to the central character EBEN. He in the family is the youngest son. In the story stated about an inharmoniously family life. Just imagine that Cabot has married twice and both of his wife dead because of his hardly treat to overwork to his wife.
He got two sons from first wife and a son from second wife. The inharmonious life become very obvious as all of his three sons are really hate him and wish his death comes soon. It is also supported by the setting of the play in ungodly looking house.
Exterior of the Farmhouse. It is sunset of a day at the beginning of summer in the year 1850. There is no wind and everything is still. The sky above the roof is suffused with deep colors, the green of the elms glows, but the house is in shadow, seeming pale and washed out by contrast.
The setting of the house really supports the appearance of inharmoniously life of the owner. In shadow seems to be in unclear condition. This condition is what they are facing, being hate each other among dad and sons. The setting has function which is to show reader about how their life in the family is really unhappy. By reading the first narration in the front of the play will turn the reader to see about sadness and loneliness because of the appearance of the house.
The theme ‘greed’ as a central theme is built by many motifs or sub themes that finally become a unity as they have relation each other and functioned to support the central theme. In the inharmoniously life in the family will make each character to look for their happiness by themselves. All characters become so individually to seek it and even they are competing each other as if they are not a family. just look at Eben, that declares the farm is his, while his brothers have no right for it.
--(jumping to his feet) Ye've no right! She wa'n't yewr Maw! It was her farm! Didn't he steal it from her? She's dead. It's my farm.
When Eben said that, the two brothers of course admit that they also have right of the farm, as stated in this dialogue:
SIMEON--(after a pause) We've a right.
PETER--Two thirds belongs t' us.
The ironic is found here since Peter and Simeone do not try as hard as Eben to own the farm as if they only place the farm only as inheritance from father to his son. So the greed for farm is only showed by Eben, Cabot and his last wife, Abbie.it becomes irony because usually the struggle to obtain the inheritance in a family happen among the child, but I this play it seem unnatural since the father also want to have the wealth till he die and not allow anyone to have it. The greed of other brothers, we can see that Simeone and Peter also show their greed as they want to go to California for searching gold. Gold, here means about wealth.
The two characters, Simeone and Peter as if have role to attract reader or viewer to conclude that they only characters which make Eben’s desire to have the farm raises. And after they go, there is no any story again related with them. It become strange since they also a part of the family, but the story only focuse on Eben that finally do revenge for his mom against his dad by making affairs to his step mom, Abbie.
Abbie, as new comer in the family seems to be avoided by all sons. But since Simeone and Peter went to California, the avoiding of her is only done by Eben. It is common as a relationship between step mother and child always difficult to be gained. The child will always avoid the step mother except the step mother is very good and treat the child as her own, but Abbie here is not. She places herself to be enemy because of her greed for having the wealth of Cabot.
The same mission of Eben to do revenge to his dad for treating bad his mom and Abbie’s mission that she marry only for wealth, not for loving Cabot raises bad action that they make affairs and having a child. What they have done seem to be a reward for Cabot as he treated his wife and sons hardly in this life. It is natural that a good thing will be rewarded by good deeds and bad things by bad deeds. Finally, Old Cabot lives lonely.
But in this story seems that the author do not want to show about good or bad thing and its reward, because all characters seem to have bad behavior. The concentration is turned into Greed again that what Eben and Abbie have done is as motif of their greed towards farm.
The old Cabot seems fit as a central character which relates one character and other since his position is as a head of the family. He is a very hard worker, but why does he not know the affairs of his wife with Eben? It shows that he is like a workaholic and do not pay attention much to his family. It is a motif again which make inharmonious life in the family.
The other element that has function in building the story is the symbols on the play. First, The Elms symbolizes the spirit of Eben’s mom that still lives in the house as if Eben always feels that his mom is really near with him and make Eben always struggles for the farm that the farm for he believes it is his mother’s.
The land (farm) is placed as the only wealth which make the farmer proud. That is why all of the characters want to have the farm. Being farmers is their livelihood and a source of pride to the farmer the land is tangible, while emotions and personal relationships may seem immaterial. Throughout history, land has been a source of greed and power in many civilizations, and it can create social status, as it is a limited commodity.
*****************
That is the analysis using structuralism that make every element of the play relates each other and make totality meaning for the literary works.
.
what kind of structure can we found on the play?
Structurulism approach toward Desire Under the Elms.
To come to the meaning of any literary work, we need a tool for doing analysis of the text. There some tools or approaches can be used to find the meaning of literary works. one example is expressivism which concerns on author’s biography. Then formalism, structuralism, feminism, psychology, reader’s response, sociology etc also are used to analyzing literary works. In this analysis I will use structuralism to come to the meaning o desire under the elm by Eugenne O’neill . I choose this analysis because there some good aspect in using structuralism. Structuralism approach seems more interesting since it only use the literary text as the main source to find the meaning.
Structuralisms avoid mimetic theory which places a literary works as ultimate reality. This approach also avoid the expressivism theory which see the literary works as reflection of author’s personality and feeling, and avoid that literary works is a medium of communication between author and reader. It can be said that structuralism try to do literary research otonomically.
The structure of literature is similar to the structure of language. Like language, literature is a self-enclosed system of rules that is composed of language. And also like language, literature needs no outside referent but its own rule-governed but socially constrained system (Bressler:1998). A literary text is a like a structure which contains so many sub-structure that has each function, but totally the function is related one anther that build a meaning. The analysis will consider all of sub-structure in the text and try to find the meaning in totality. The totality here has been governed by the rule or system in language.
Because of the literary works is the only and main source in finding meaning, the other aspect outside literature is not to be talked or considered. The researcher only concern with the literature itself in order to can gain objectivity in the analysis. The focus on literary text will make th researcher to analyze all structure or component of the literature. The subjectivity of researcher like the feeling of like or dislike towards the story or author must be avoided.
So it will raise a question here about what are the structures of literature itself? If we analyze poem, we ill find the structures within that must be considered are diction, connotation, imagery, figurative language, rhetoric. In prose, they are characters, setting, point of view, theme, and plot. In drama or play, we will consider the dialogue, character, plot, and theme.
In this analysis of a play Desire under the Elms, it will be discussed about the elements of the play like characters, theme, dialogue, plot, etc as a totality. It means that those elements have a function as one structure, a play.
*************
Synopsis
The play entitled ‘Desire under the Elms’ is about an old man, Ebraim Cabot who has a farm and three sons. He married first wife and had two sons, Simeone and Peter. His wife died because he treated her to overwork. He married again and has a son, Eben. His wife died again and he went from house. In the house lived his three sons. He comes back home with bringing his new wife, Abbie. Peter and Simeone went for their desire of gold in California. Eben wants to inherit the farm after his father’s death. When he knows his father has married again he proposed his two brother to sign away their right to the farm to him and he gives 300$ for each. Old Cabot come home with Abbie and live in the house. Abbie and Eben become attracted each other. They were making love behind Cabot. They have a child, but because of the child caused Cabot to give his farm to the child as he believes that the child is his. Eben and Abbie try to do infanticide. The irony is that Abbie murdered the child for Eben and Eben imputes altogether different motives to her and misunderstands her love. When Cabot awakes Abbie tells Cabot the child is not his but Eben’s. Ultimately Sheriff arrives and then Eben realizes her love and confesses to the Sheriff his share in the crime and both are taken away, kissing and embracing. Old Cabot is then destined to live and work loneliness on the unlucky farm.
**************
Analysis
In the play we see that most of the characters are greedy. We can see through the central point which becomes the stuff that all characters want to own. It is the farm. The farm becomes the central point, even the theme of the play that will turn to GREED. Before talking about any symbols, codes or signs in the play let’s pay attention to the central character EBEN. He in the family is the youngest son. In the story stated about an inharmoniously family life. Just imagine that Cabot has married twice and both of his wife dead because of his hardly treat to overwork to his wife.
He got two sons from first wife and a son from second wife. The inharmonious life become very obvious as all of his three sons are really hate him and wish his death comes soon. It is also supported by the setting of the play in ungodly looking house.
Exterior of the Farmhouse. It is sunset of a day at the beginning of summer in the year 1850. There is no wind and everything is still. The sky above the roof is suffused with deep colors, the green of the elms glows, but the house is in shadow, seeming pale and washed out by contrast.
The setting of the house really supports the appearance of inharmoniously life of the owner. In shadow seems to be in unclear condition. This condition is what they are facing, being hate each other among dad and sons. The setting has function which is to show reader about how their life in the family is really unhappy. By reading the first narration in the front of the play will turn the reader to see about sadness and loneliness because of the appearance of the house.
The theme ‘greed’ as a central theme is built by many motifs or sub themes that finally become a unity as they have relation each other and functioned to support the central theme. In the inharmoniously life in the family will make each character to look for their happiness by themselves. All characters become so individually to seek it and even they are competing each other as if they are not a family. just look at Eben, that declares the farm is his, while his brothers have no right for it.
--(jumping to his feet) Ye've no right! She wa'n't yewr Maw! It was her farm! Didn't he steal it from her? She's dead. It's my farm.
When Eben said that, the two brothers of course admit that they also have right of the farm, as stated in this dialogue:
SIMEON--(after a pause) We've a right.
PETER--Two thirds belongs t' us.
The ironic is found here since Peter and Simeone do not try as hard as Eben to own the farm as if they only place the farm only as inheritance from father to his son. So the greed for farm is only showed by Eben, Cabot and his last wife, Abbie.it becomes irony because usually the struggle to obtain the inheritance in a family happen among the child, but I this play it seem unnatural since the father also want to have the wealth till he die and not allow anyone to have it. The greed of other brothers, we can see that Simeone and Peter also show their greed as they want to go to California for searching gold. Gold, here means about wealth.
The two characters, Simeone and Peter as if have role to attract reader or viewer to conclude that they only characters which make Eben’s desire to have the farm raises. And after they go, there is no any story again related with them. It become strange since they also a part of the family, but the story only focuse on Eben that finally do revenge for his mom against his dad by making affairs to his step mom, Abbie.
Abbie, as new comer in the family seems to be avoided by all sons. But since Simeone and Peter went to California, the avoiding of her is only done by Eben. It is common as a relationship between step mother and child always difficult to be gained. The child will always avoid the step mother except the step mother is very good and treat the child as her own, but Abbie here is not. She places herself to be enemy because of her greed for having the wealth of Cabot.
The same mission of Eben to do revenge to his dad for treating bad his mom and Abbie’s mission that she marry only for wealth, not for loving Cabot raises bad action that they make affairs and having a child. What they have done seem to be a reward for Cabot as he treated his wife and sons hardly in this life. It is natural that a good thing will be rewarded by good deeds and bad things by bad deeds. Finally, Old Cabot lives lonely.
But in this story seems that the author do not want to show about good or bad thing and its reward, because all characters seem to have bad behavior. The concentration is turned into Greed again that what Eben and Abbie have done is as motif of their greed towards farm.
The old Cabot seems fit as a central character which relates one character and other since his position is as a head of the family. He is a very hard worker, but why does he not know the affairs of his wife with Eben? It shows that he is like a workaholic and do not pay attention much to his family. It is a motif again which make inharmonious life in the family.
The other element that has function in building the story is the symbols on the play. First, The Elms symbolizes the spirit of Eben’s mom that still lives in the house as if Eben always feels that his mom is really near with him and make Eben always struggles for the farm that the farm for he believes it is his mother’s.
The land (farm) is placed as the only wealth which make the farmer proud. That is why all of the characters want to have the farm. Being farmers is their livelihood and a source of pride to the farmer the land is tangible, while emotions and personal relationships may seem immaterial. Throughout history, land has been a source of greed and power in many civilizations, and it can create social status, as it is a limited commodity.
*****************
That is the analysis using structuralism that make every element of the play relates each other and make totality meaning for the literary works.
.
american's naturalism of literature
Crane’s Humorous Style in ‘A Dark brown Dog’
Study about Naturalism
Introduction
That americans’ writer consist of so many kinds style and theme concern in their writing, it is very interesting to study literary text not only as thing to be enjoyed, but also to see the society of the works. We must place the literary works as a perspective, advice, and respond of author toward their environment.
American’s literatures are catagorized into some kinds according decades as it move from one type into another types. At 19th century for example, the literary movement tend to see the society from dark side that we recognize it later as naturalism. It is the literary movement from romanticism, then changed into realism and finally become naturalism. While realism is seeks only to describe subjects as they really are and focuses on details of everyday existence as an expression of the social milieu of the characters, naturalism also attempts to determine scientifically the underlying forces (eg. The environment or heredity) influencing the action of its subjects.
Naturalistic works often include uncoth or sordid subject matter. Naturalistic works exposed the dark harshness of life, including poverty, racism, sex, prejudice, disease, prostitution, and filth. As a result, Naturalistic writers were frequently criticized for being to blunt.
This paper will try to look at one of the naturalist in America from one of his works. I choose Stephen Crane to be analyzed since in his short age, because he died in 28 years old, he could write a great and many literary works. In other side he is also a journalist that his works often to cover the reality as a journalist does always presenting facts. So, it is very interesting if we look at crane in his fiction. He has written some fiction like poem and story. One of his story that will be discussed here is ‘A Dark brown dog’. This story seems to be humorous in naturalism.
Summary
The short story I read was " A Dark Brown Dog" By: Stephen Crane. It was about a little boy and a dark brown dog. The boy was outside just kicking his feet around in the gravel and a little dog came up. He held out his hand and the dog came over. When he came over the boy drew back his hand and hit the dog on the head. The dog fell to the ground around the boy's feet as if he had done something wrong. He really didn’t noticed the boy hit him for no reason. Later in the story when the boy was taking the dog home he would turn and strike the dog to make him walk. As they reached the door of the house the boy just drug the dog up the step because he was too short to go from step to step. But the dog just kept holding strong. When they got to the top of the steps they sat down and the boy talked to the dog like he was another person. They got in a vicious fight and the child came out on top. Then he kept dragging the dog up the steps to the door. When they arrived at the door they went up some ore stairs to the boy’s room. The dog and the boy sat down in his floor and became very good friends. the parents of the kid came to the room after they heard the noises the child was making. The dad scolded the child because the dog was in the house. So they examined the dog for anything unusual. Still the father was feeled with anger. The father of the family, it appears, was in a particularly savage temper that evening, and when he perceived that it would amaze and anger everybody if such a dog were allowed to remain, he decided that it should be so. Then the child lived happy after that he nourished the dog back to health. They became very close.
Analysis
This beautifully written, yet sad story tells of a young boy, who lives in a tenement apartment with his lower class family and the dog he finds. Or, rather, the dog finds him. He resists the dog's advances at first, but the dog follows him home anyhow, and eventually wins his affection.
"Down in the mystic, hidden fields of his little dog-soul bloomed flowers of love and fidelity and perfect faith."
The story does not have a happy ending, nor is it very uplifting. What I love about it, though, is the wonderful contrast between Crane's language and the dark subject matter. For instance, there is a scene in which he describes the parents of the little boy arguing. They are low class people: dirty and drunk, in an unkempt tenement apartment. One imagines sepia-toned poverty.
But to describe this scene, Crane writes:
"They had a lurid altercation, in which they damned each other's souls with frequence."
The contrast between the words and the scene they describe only point out all the more how terrible a situation it was for that little boy. In this way, Crane was truly a master of story-telling.
This story seems to very strange that Crane concern with dark subject matter. In this story the concern of dark subject do not be shown as many as it has to be, since the story sometimes is funny that the central character is a dog and a boy. A dog which behaves as if he could do something pleaded the child and it never reject the violence from the child. The dark matter can be seen only through the child’s father that is a drunken and has savage temper. This is common that the family of the child is poor. It is usually a head of poor family become a drunken.
The story is written when Stephen Crane moved to New York around 1890. In the fact Crane comes from wealthy family. Since he lived in New York among the poor he probably saw this kind of family there. As we know the father of many poor family usually is a drunken. So the background of the story is the poor society in New York in around 1890.
The contrary thing is that Crane sees the dark matter from humorous side. From the first story that a child who was alone in the street without parents and friend is fine and did not feel sad.
“the child stood dreamily gazing”
A dog comes and confronting with him. The strange thing happened again that the child did not allow the dog but the dog keep struggle to be with him and pursued him like assassin.
“his manner grew so very guilty that he slunk like an assassin.”
If we pay much attention the child must feel sad because of loneliness in the street, show about loneliness that his parents (father) is a drunken and does not pay attention to him, but in the fact the child seems to be usual in that manner and when the dog comes for becoming a friend, he avoid that. The dog keep pursued he child to his house and act like an assassin is very funny that the dog is underpowered of the child. It is funny as if the dog is struggle and have desire to be a friend with the child, in the fact it is an animal.
Beginning with Maggie, Crane satirized the genteel child, writing a series of tales about Maggie’s young brother, Tommie, including two brilliant ones, an Ominous Baby and a dark Brown Dog, about the savage cunning child. (Martin:1967). This statement state the story satirized the genteel child by the opposite side.
It is true that in the story full of humorous especially the central character, a dog. We can see through:
“After a time, a little dark-brown dog came trotting with an intent air down the sidewalk. A short rope was dragging from his neck. Occasionally he trod upon the end of it and stumbled.”
And the other paragraph;
“ He became so agitated with shame when he again confronted the child that he forgot the dragging rope. He tripped upon it and fell forward.”
The dog is always difficult and feels hard with the rope. As he try to walk he often fells. The funny scene can be seen through his father and mother when coming home, they hold a family council to decide the dog’s fate whether it will live with them or not. It is as if a big problem that the dog come in the house.
Conclusion
• This story is naturalistic works that concern on the reality of poor family and violence toward an animal, a dog.
• The style used is a funny that in seeing the dark matter Crane prefer to use this style in this story. It will make the readers not focusing on pessimism as many naturalists wrote.
• The focus of this story is a dog that seems not to see as much as possible of dark matter, whereas if the concern on the family of a drunken father, it will be clear the naturalism way in the story.
• In naturalism we can find the funny story too.
References:
Baym, Nina. The Norton anthology of American Literature volume 2. 1985. W.W. Norton & Company. New York
Martin, Jay. Harvest of Change; American literature 1865-1914. 1967. Prentice hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs. New jersey
Bassan, Maurice. Stephen Crane; a collection of critical essais. 1967. Prentice hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs. New jersey.
Major American Writers
Study about Naturalism
Introduction
That americans’ writer consist of so many kinds style and theme concern in their writing, it is very interesting to study literary text not only as thing to be enjoyed, but also to see the society of the works. We must place the literary works as a perspective, advice, and respond of author toward their environment.
American’s literatures are catagorized into some kinds according decades as it move from one type into another types. At 19th century for example, the literary movement tend to see the society from dark side that we recognize it later as naturalism. It is the literary movement from romanticism, then changed into realism and finally become naturalism. While realism is seeks only to describe subjects as they really are and focuses on details of everyday existence as an expression of the social milieu of the characters, naturalism also attempts to determine scientifically the underlying forces (eg. The environment or heredity) influencing the action of its subjects.
Naturalistic works often include uncoth or sordid subject matter. Naturalistic works exposed the dark harshness of life, including poverty, racism, sex, prejudice, disease, prostitution, and filth. As a result, Naturalistic writers were frequently criticized for being to blunt.
This paper will try to look at one of the naturalist in America from one of his works. I choose Stephen Crane to be analyzed since in his short age, because he died in 28 years old, he could write a great and many literary works. In other side he is also a journalist that his works often to cover the reality as a journalist does always presenting facts. So, it is very interesting if we look at crane in his fiction. He has written some fiction like poem and story. One of his story that will be discussed here is ‘A Dark brown dog’. This story seems to be humorous in naturalism.
Summary
The short story I read was " A Dark Brown Dog" By: Stephen Crane. It was about a little boy and a dark brown dog. The boy was outside just kicking his feet around in the gravel and a little dog came up. He held out his hand and the dog came over. When he came over the boy drew back his hand and hit the dog on the head. The dog fell to the ground around the boy's feet as if he had done something wrong. He really didn’t noticed the boy hit him for no reason. Later in the story when the boy was taking the dog home he would turn and strike the dog to make him walk. As they reached the door of the house the boy just drug the dog up the step because he was too short to go from step to step. But the dog just kept holding strong. When they got to the top of the steps they sat down and the boy talked to the dog like he was another person. They got in a vicious fight and the child came out on top. Then he kept dragging the dog up the steps to the door. When they arrived at the door they went up some ore stairs to the boy’s room. The dog and the boy sat down in his floor and became very good friends. the parents of the kid came to the room after they heard the noises the child was making. The dad scolded the child because the dog was in the house. So they examined the dog for anything unusual. Still the father was feeled with anger. The father of the family, it appears, was in a particularly savage temper that evening, and when he perceived that it would amaze and anger everybody if such a dog were allowed to remain, he decided that it should be so. Then the child lived happy after that he nourished the dog back to health. They became very close.
Analysis
This beautifully written, yet sad story tells of a young boy, who lives in a tenement apartment with his lower class family and the dog he finds. Or, rather, the dog finds him. He resists the dog's advances at first, but the dog follows him home anyhow, and eventually wins his affection.
"Down in the mystic, hidden fields of his little dog-soul bloomed flowers of love and fidelity and perfect faith."
The story does not have a happy ending, nor is it very uplifting. What I love about it, though, is the wonderful contrast between Crane's language and the dark subject matter. For instance, there is a scene in which he describes the parents of the little boy arguing. They are low class people: dirty and drunk, in an unkempt tenement apartment. One imagines sepia-toned poverty.
But to describe this scene, Crane writes:
"They had a lurid altercation, in which they damned each other's souls with frequence."
The contrast between the words and the scene they describe only point out all the more how terrible a situation it was for that little boy. In this way, Crane was truly a master of story-telling.
This story seems to very strange that Crane concern with dark subject matter. In this story the concern of dark subject do not be shown as many as it has to be, since the story sometimes is funny that the central character is a dog and a boy. A dog which behaves as if he could do something pleaded the child and it never reject the violence from the child. The dark matter can be seen only through the child’s father that is a drunken and has savage temper. This is common that the family of the child is poor. It is usually a head of poor family become a drunken.
The story is written when Stephen Crane moved to New York around 1890. In the fact Crane comes from wealthy family. Since he lived in New York among the poor he probably saw this kind of family there. As we know the father of many poor family usually is a drunken. So the background of the story is the poor society in New York in around 1890.
The contrary thing is that Crane sees the dark matter from humorous side. From the first story that a child who was alone in the street without parents and friend is fine and did not feel sad.
“the child stood dreamily gazing”
A dog comes and confronting with him. The strange thing happened again that the child did not allow the dog but the dog keep struggle to be with him and pursued him like assassin.
“his manner grew so very guilty that he slunk like an assassin.”
If we pay much attention the child must feel sad because of loneliness in the street, show about loneliness that his parents (father) is a drunken and does not pay attention to him, but in the fact the child seems to be usual in that manner and when the dog comes for becoming a friend, he avoid that. The dog keep pursued he child to his house and act like an assassin is very funny that the dog is underpowered of the child. It is funny as if the dog is struggle and have desire to be a friend with the child, in the fact it is an animal.
Beginning with Maggie, Crane satirized the genteel child, writing a series of tales about Maggie’s young brother, Tommie, including two brilliant ones, an Ominous Baby and a dark Brown Dog, about the savage cunning child. (Martin:1967). This statement state the story satirized the genteel child by the opposite side.
It is true that in the story full of humorous especially the central character, a dog. We can see through:
“After a time, a little dark-brown dog came trotting with an intent air down the sidewalk. A short rope was dragging from his neck. Occasionally he trod upon the end of it and stumbled.”
And the other paragraph;
“ He became so agitated with shame when he again confronted the child that he forgot the dragging rope. He tripped upon it and fell forward.”
The dog is always difficult and feels hard with the rope. As he try to walk he often fells. The funny scene can be seen through his father and mother when coming home, they hold a family council to decide the dog’s fate whether it will live with them or not. It is as if a big problem that the dog come in the house.
Conclusion
• This story is naturalistic works that concern on the reality of poor family and violence toward an animal, a dog.
• The style used is a funny that in seeing the dark matter Crane prefer to use this style in this story. It will make the readers not focusing on pessimism as many naturalists wrote.
• The focus of this story is a dog that seems not to see as much as possible of dark matter, whereas if the concern on the family of a drunken father, it will be clear the naturalism way in the story.
• In naturalism we can find the funny story too.
References:
Baym, Nina. The Norton anthology of American Literature volume 2. 1985. W.W. Norton & Company. New York
Martin, Jay. Harvest of Change; American literature 1865-1914. 1967. Prentice hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs. New jersey
Bassan, Maurice. Stephen Crane; a collection of critical essais. 1967. Prentice hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs. New jersey.
Major American Writers
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)