Subscribe to DeepL Pro to edit this document.

Visit www.DeepL.com/pro for more information.

LITERARY CRITICISM THEORY PAPER

(NEW STREAM OF CRITICISM)

BY

AINUM FITRI SULISTIA: F041171003

NUR IFTITAH: F041171005
RAODAH NUR: F041171523
EUREKA ANABELLA ABBAS F21116331

ENGLISH LITERATURE
FACULTY OF CULTURAL SCIENCES
HASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY MACASSAR
2017
 FOREWORD

Praise be to Allah SWT who has given His grace and gifts to us so that we can successfully
complete this paper which, thank God, is on time entitled "The Theory of Literary Criticism
in the New Criticism School".

This paper contains information about literary studies or more specifically discusses a
summary or approach in literature. It is hoped that this paper can provide information to all of
us about the Theory of Literary Criticism, especially the New Criticism School. And
hopefully it can fulfill the value of the INTRODUCTION TO LITERARY SCIENCE course
assignment as expected.

We realize that this paper is far from perfect, therefore criticism and suggestions from all
parties of a constructive nature are always expected for the perfection of this paper.

Thus as an introductory word, with accompaniment and hope that this simple writing can be
accepted and useful for readers. For all this

We express our deepest gratitude, may all the help from all parties be rewarded with good
deeds given by Allah SWT.

Makassar, March 07, 2018

Author
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE.......................................................................................

FOREWORD....................................................................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................

CHAPTER I
..............................................................................................................................INTROD
UCTION.............

A. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................
B. PROBLEM FORMULATION ..................................................................................
C. OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER ..................................................................................

CHAPTER II
..............................................................................................................................DISCUSS
ION.............

1) .................................................................................................................................
2) .................................................................................................................................

CHAPTER III
..............................................................................................................................CLOSUR
E.............

A. CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................
B. ADVICE .................................................................................................................

LITERATURE ..................................................................................................................
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND
Literary criticism is one of the branches of literary science. Literary criticism
analyzes the text of the literary work itself. Criticism can be applied to all forms of
literary works, whether they are poetry, prose or drama. A critique is an essay that
describes the good or bad judgment of a literary work. Criticism usually ends with an
analytical conclusion.
The purpose of literary criticism is not only to point out the strengths,
weaknesses, truths and mistakes of a literary work based on a certain angle, but to
encourage writers to achieve the highest literary creation and better appreciate literary
works. The task of literary criticism is to analyze, interpret and assess a literary work.
The presence of literary criticism makes the literature that follows better and
weightier because literary criticism will point out flaws as well as provide
improvements.
There are many different schools of literary criticism, one of which is the
school according to the object of criticism. In this genre, literary criticism can take
poetry, prose, or drama as its object.

B. PROBLEM FORMULATION
1) What is New Criticism?
2) When and where was it introduced?
3) Who introduced this theory?
4) What characterizes this theory?
5) What are the principles of this theory?
6) How does this flow work?
7) What are the advantages of this theory?
8) What are the disadvantages of this theory?
C. OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER
1) To find out what is meant by New Criticism.
2) To find out when and where this theory was introduced.
3) To find out who introduced this theory.
4) To find out what characterizes this theory.
5) To find out what the principles of this theory are.
6) To find out what are the advantages of this theory.
 7) To find out what are the weaknesses of this theory.

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

1) New Criticism
New Criticism is literary criticism in the United States between 1920-1960, directing
attention to literary works themselves (ergocentric), apart from the influence of the author
(intentional fallacy), the history of occurrence and from the opinions of readers (affective
fallacy) and critics (heresy of paraphrase), (Hartoko, 1986: 94). This school is very
influential in the United States. This school agrees that only by analyzing the structure and
organization (structure) of a literary work can the work of art be shown in its true meaning. In
the United States this school developed, its figures were David Daiches, I.A. Richards, Renne
Wellek and Austin Warren, Alan Tate, T.S. Eliot, Cleant Brook and others (Teeuw, 1984:
133-134).
It emerged as a reaction to earlier literary criticism (Romanticism) that focused too
much on aspects of the author's life and psychology as well as literary history. It opposed
historical and biographical literary approaches and impressionistic criticism. Adherents of
New Criticism accuse science and technology of dehumanizing society and making it one-
sided. According to them, science is inadequate in reflecting human life. Literature and
especially poetry is a type of experiential knowledge that can reveal the human situation more
perfectly. The task of literary criticism is to show and maintain unique, unique and complete
knowledge as offered to us by great literature (authors). (Luxemburg, in Hartoko, 1988: 52-
54).
The New Criticism school was influential in the world of literature in the United
States from the twenties to the sixties. New Criticism views the literary text as a system, a
whole structure, so literature must be approached through structure. As a system/structure,
literary works are built by components of literary texts that are interrelated with each other to
form a form of meaning.
As an autonomous structure, the literary work must be understood intrinsically, apart from
the historical background, apart from the author's self and intentions. The elements that make
up a literary text and their relationship to form a system are what is discussed in this approach.
The New Criticsm school argues that literature is a finished entity, an objective
aesthetic phenomenon. Literature is very much avoided from subjective nature. According to
Wimsatt (in Hartoko, 1989: 52) rhymes should not be confused with the impression (affect)
obtained by the reader: if we follow the affect fallacy, then we fall into subjectivity and
impressionist criticism. American New Criticism is oriented towards structure with its totality,
more content-oriented, both towards ambiguity, irony, and new studies of the Pike and
Becker models that seek to apply linguistics and literary science in order to carry out literary
studies (Aminuddin, 1987: 53).
Although the new critics are not always united, they are unanimous in viewing the
literary work as a finished organic whole, an aesthetic phenomenon that has shed its
subjective condition by the time it is completed. Only by analyzing the structure and
organization of a work of literature can the true meaning of the work of art be revealed.
According to T.S. Eliot, a poem is first of all a poem, not something else, an autonomous and
complete object.
New criticism considers the various models of criticism that are oriented towards
aspects outside the literary work as a big mistake. Orientation to the author's intentions is
called misguided reasoning. The meaning of a poem should also not be confused with the
impression the reader gets because we can get lost in its syntactic and semantic structure. To
find out the meaning we must use our knowledge of language and literature. We can use the
author's life as far as it can explain the meaning of specific words used in his work. In
addition, understanding the context in which the language is used is emphasized.
According to them, the basic components of literature, whether lyrical, narrative or
dramatic, are words, imagery and symbols, not characters, thoughts or plot. These linguistic
elements are already organized around a central theme and contain tension or intent, irony
and paradox in their structure which is the meeting point of various opposing impulses and
forces. The views of the new critics, however, remain useful as they sharpen our
understanding of the sometimes elusive poetry. However, their overemphasis on poetry over
other types of literature means that their literary theories are seen as incomplete. They also
realize that it is not only the words on the page that drive their interpretations but also their
ideals and presuppositions (Van Luxemburg et al. 1986: 54).

2) Characteristics of the New Criticism school

The basis of New Criticism is the concept of structuralism, which cannot be separated
from psychological theory. Jean Piaget gave three kinds of characteristics of structure, (1) the
idea of the whole, (2) interinsic coherence, (3) the idea of transformation that allows the
formation of new interpretations, (4) the idea of self which means that the structure is
autonomous. (Hawkes, 1977:141).
Roland Barthes (in Damono, 1979: 40-49). Mentioning the characteristics of this
approach, namely (1) attention is focused on the whole in totality, (2) not only examines the
surface structure (outward), but also the inner structure, (3) structural is anti-causal, that is, it
does not relate literary works to something else. Furthermore, Propp (in Teeuw, 1984: 64)
said that there is a reciprocal relationship between one structural element and another in the
overall structure.
Maren Griscbach gives three characteristics of structure, namely: (1) in the structure
there is an interrelation of elements of a literary work which is a system of interaction
between the elements that form it, (2) in the structure there is an abstraction that unites
different things to obtain universal laws, (3) the structure does not concern historical review
(Junius, 1985: 17).
 3) Principles of the New Criticism school
Teeuw (1984: 123) calls the principles of structure: wholeness, unity, complexity, and
coherence. This definition shows that the elements in a structure form a totality and that
between the elements in a structure there is an intertwining of meaning. The meaning of one
element is determined by other elements and is also determined by the meaning of the totality.
The elements form a whole and rounded unity, meaning a unity whose elements are still
visible. The principles underlying the New Critcism analysis technique are (1) the structure
aims to uncover and explain as carefully, as thoroughly, as detailed and as deep as possible
the relationship and intertwining of the elements of literary works that form the overall
meaning, (2) the structure does not add up the elements, (3) the structure tries to harmonize
the structural relationships that exist in poetry. This structural relationship is usually
characterized by a cohesive relationship both at the level of morphological structure,
syntactic structure and semantic structure and (4) the structure considers that the overall
meaning of literary works is in total structural integration.

4) How the New Criticism school works

Although the thinkers and practitioners of new criticism are many, and there are
bound to be disagreements between them, the essence of their work is the same, namely:
 Close reading
This means looking at the literary work carefully and in detail, if necessary
line by line, word by word, and if necessary to the roots of the word. Without close
reading, small parts of the poem may go unnoticed, whereas, all parts, no matter how
small, will be an inseparable part of a wellwrought poem. Once a detail of a poem is
found to have no meaning and no function, the aesthetic quality of the poem cannot be
guaranteed.
 Empirical
The emphasis is on analysis and observation, not on theory. The figures of
new criticism have indeed stated that new criticism is a theory of literature, but
because new criticism has a systematic way of working as well as other theories of
literature, new criticism is inevitably recognized as a theory of literature. In the
history of literary theory and criticism, new criticism always ranks first.
 Autonomy
a. A work of literature is something that is independent and stands on its own,
independent of other elements, including the poet/writer himself.
b. The study of literature is an independent and stand-alone study, not dependent on
other studies, such as history, philosophy, biography, psychology, and so on.
Autonomy is an absolute characteristic of intrinsic studies. Although the
following theories are not closed to the possibility of considering extrinsic elements
of literary works, any study cannot be separated from the intrinsic values of literary
works themselves. For this reason, new criticism lives on, entering into various other
theories, even though it officially closed its book in the 1960s.
 One of the influences of new criticism on literary theory can be seen, for
example, in Russian formalism and structuralism. Both of these theories take up the
idea of the autonomy of new criticism even though one of the important features of
structuralism is its extrinsic studies. However, it is safe to predict that without the
pioneering work of new criticism, Russian formalism and structuralism would have
been born late, and would probably be different from Russian formalism and
structuralism today.
 Concreteness
When literature is read, it becomes concrete or alive. In the romantic poet John
Keats' ode to melancholy, for example, the line then glut thy sorrow on a morning
feels really alive. The word glut creates an impression of gluttony that is truly
concrete. Like the concept of autonomy, the concreteness of new criticism is also
taken up by Russian formalism and structuralism.
 Form
The focus of new criticism is on the form of literary works, namely the
success of poets or writers in diction (word choice), imagery (metaphor, simile,
onomatopoeia, etc.), paradox, irony, and so on. For new criticism, the form of the
literary work determines the content of the literary work. Because form plays an
important role, the focus of new criticism is on connotation, not denotation. The
denotative meaning of a chair, for example, is a chair, while its connotative meaning
may be position or power. The words scramble for a seat, for example, may have the
meaning of scramble or power, and not at all a scramble for a seat. Connotation, then,
gives currency to metaphors, symbols, etc. beyond the literal meaning of a word, set
of words, or sentence. The word glut, with its denotative meaning of gluttony, can
have other meanings according to its context in a particular set of words or sentence.
Poetry, indeed, is nothing less than a world of metaphors. New criticism's focus on
form was eventually also utilized by Russian formalism and structuralism. The term
form refers to form, and the form of literary works is also one of the important points
of the first formalism, which is none other than new criticism, although new criticism
does not name itself with the term form. Structure in structuralism also cannot
separate itself from the meaning of form, one of the focus points of structuralism.
 Diction (word choice)
Wafat, mangkat, meninggal, mati essentially have the same meaning,
but which word the poet/writer will choose depends on the poet/writer himself.
 Tone
Namely, the attitude of the writer, narrator, or lyricist towards (a) oneself, (b)
oneself towards the object or subject matter, and (c) oneself towards the interlocutor.
The sentence did your father die yesterday? Shows that the speaker does not consider
himself higher than the person he is talking to and the father he is talking to. If this
sentence is changed to is it true that your father died yesterday? It would appear that
the speaker feels superior to the person spoken to and the father of the person spoken
to. The literal meaning of these two sentences is actually the same, but because the
diction or word choice is different, the tone is also different. The diction shows that
 connotation is more important than denotation. With different word choices, the way
of speaking is also different.
 Metaphor
Comparing one object to another without the use of words such as, like, and
things like that.
"Hamidah is a rose."
(Hamidah is not a rose, but she is beautiful and graceful like a rose).
 Simile
It is a comparison of one object to another with the use of words such as,
like, and things like that.
"Hamidah is beautiful like a rose."
 Onomatopea / sound imitation
'There was a thudding of horses' hooves"
 Paradox
A paradox is the opposite of something and can be used to satirize, among
other things. If someone gets into a taxi and the taxi is going too fast, the passenger
can say to the driver:
"It would be nice if it was faster,"
The passenger meant "reduce the speed of the taxi".
Here too, it appears that connotation is more important than denotation.
However, paradoxes are not always satirical, as seen in juliet's words in William
Shakesspeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet when she meets romeo for the first time:
"Because saints have hands that pilgrims touch. And palm against palm is the sacred
kiss of palms"
A good paradox in a good work of literature usually has echoes in the minds
of other poets or authors. For example, William Shakepeare's paradox which two
centuries later entered a different version into the poetry of Coleridge, the Romantic
poet of the nineteenth century. Sometimes paradoxes also seem like mottoes even
though their meaning may not be a motto, as seen in John Donne's poem
"Canonization":
"He who would save his soul, must lose his soul first and the last shall be first."
 Irony
Everything in irony has the opposite meaning to the actual meaning or
denotation.
a. Verbal irony: the opposite of what is said and what is actually meant. The
sentence "Wow, you're so beautiful" is actually a tool to convey the real meaning,
which is "You're ugly". This irony is called verbal because the speaker only uses
certain words to convey the intended meaning.
actually. In itself, verbal irony has to do with diction, i.e. the choice of words from
ugly to beautiful. Certain diction also indicates tone, which is the speaker's attitude
towards the person being spoken to. With a certain tone, the speaker's tone is also
affected.
b. Dramatic irony: the opposite of what a character in a literary work, drama,
or movie does not know and what the reader or audience knows. In other words, the
 reader or audience knows, but the character in the literary work, drama, or movie
does not know. For example, the villain in the movie heads north with a rifle because
he believes the police are north, but the audience knows that the police are actually
south, behind him, not far from him.
c. Situational irony: the opposite or contradiction between an expectation or
prejudice and the outcome of that expectation or prejudice. A student, for example,
feels very happy because in the exam he was able to answer all the questions very
easily. He has great confidence that he will pass. The belief that he will pass is
nothing but an expectation. However, when the announcement of the exam results
came out, it turned out that he did not pass - a reality that was completely opposite to
his expectations.

5) Advantages of New Criticism

From a certain point of view, the New Criticism school has very satisfying results,
namely to analyze literary works on the basis of their structure. In addition, the structural
approach is preliminary work for any literary researcher. For every literary researcher, the
analysis of
The structure of a literary work to be examined from any perspective is also a priority task.
So before we can see the socio-cultural values in a literary work, we must first examine the
structure of the work.
First, the intrinsic structure that builds a literary work must be studied. Understanding literary
works structurally frees the researcher from various concepts of methods and techniques that
are actually beyond his reach as a literary expert, such as psychology, sociology, history,
philosophy, and others (Teeuw, 1991: 61). With the presence of this school, it also promotes
interest in the study of literature for the sake of literature itself, as well as improving and
increasing appreciation of literary works. Therefore, the New Criticism school became very
dominant. A work of fiction consists of several elements that build it using language as a tool,
thus forming a meaningful story. A complete understanding of meaning can only occur by
exploring the elements properly. The same is true of the story as a whole. This is the basis of
the New Criticism school (Hawkhes in Pradopo, 1985: 108).
The New Criticism school in analyzing literary works is more objective. Most of the
influence of the New Criticism school is directly or indirectly oriented towards structuralism
in language pioneered by De Saussure. The two twin notions of structuralist linguistics are:
signifiant-signifie and digma-sytagma. Signifiant means: that which gives meaning, so the
form aspect in the sign/symbol; signifie means that which is interpreted. A language sign
consists of a signifying element and an interpreted element; by combining the two elements
we can unify something about the things contained in the statement. The terms signifiant and
signifie are sometimes also used in a broader sense, namely the relationship between the
work of art and the object, the aesthetic audience.

6) Weaknesses of the New Criticism school

According to Teeuw (1984:140), there are four weaknesses of the New Criticim
school, namely:
 a. New Criticism in particular and structural analysis of literary works in general
are not yet literary theories, in fact, they are not based on a precise and
complete literary theory, in fact, they are a danger to developing a very
necessary literary theory;
b. Literary works cannot be studied in isolation, but must be understood within
the framework of a literary system with a historical background;
c. The existence of an objective structure in literary works is increasingly being
questioned; the role of the reader as the giver of meaning in the interpretation
of literary works is increasingly emphasized with all the consequences for
structural analysis;
d. An analysis that emphasizes the autonomy of the literary work also removes
its context and function so that the work is compared and loses social
relevance.

CHAPTER III

CLOSING

A. CONCLUSIONS
 New criticism is a school of literary criticism in the United States that developed
between 1920-1960. The term new criticism was first proposed by John Crowe Ransom in his
book The New Criticism (1940) and was supported by I.A. Richard and T.S. Eliot. Since
Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren published Understanding Poetry (1938), this model
of literary criticism received wide attention among American academics and students for two
decades. Other important writers of new criticism are: Allen Tate, R.P. Blackmur, and
William K. Wimsatt, Jr. (Abrams, 1981: 109-110).
New Critics view the literary text as a system, a whole structure, so literature must be
approached through structure. As a system/structure, literary works are built by components
of literary texts that are interrelated with each other to form a form of meaning. As an
autonomous structure, literary works must be understood intrinsically, apart from the
historical background, apart from the author's self and intentions. Only by analyzing the
structure and organization of a literary work can the true meaning of the work of art be
revealed.
The advantage of the New Criticism School is that it examines literary works on the
basis of their structure. New Criticism in analyzing literary works is more objective.
Understanding literary works structurally frees researchers from various concepts of methods
and techniques that are actually beyond their reach as literary experts, such as psychology,
sociology, history, philosophy, and others (Teeuw, 1991: 61).
While the weaknesses of the New Criticism school in particular and the analysis of the
structure of literary works in general are not yet a literary theory, in fact, they are not based
on a precise and complete literary theory, in fact, it turns out to be a danger to develop a very
necessary literary theory; Literary works cannot be studied in isolation, but must be
understood within the framework of a literary system with a historical background; The
existence of an objective structure in literary works is increasingly doubted; the role of the
reader as a meaning giver in the interpretation of literary works is increasingly emphasized
with all the consequences for structural analysis;

C. ADVICE

LITERATURE

 Abrams, M. H. 1981. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
 Adams, Hazard. 1971. Critical Theory Since Plato. New York: Harcout Brace
Jovanovich, Inc.
 Al-Mausu'ah al-syi'riyyah. tt. Abu Dabi: Al Majma' al Tsaqafiy lil Imarat al
Arabiyyah al Muttahidah. CD Version.
 Badawi, M. M. 1975. A Critical Introduction to Modern Arabic Poetry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 Bartens, Kees. 1985. Western Philosophy of the XXth Century, volume II, French.
Jakarta: Gramedia
 Beeston A.F.L. et al. 1983. Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Culler, Jonathan. 1981. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study
of Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
 Damono, Sapardi Djoko. 1977. Sociology of Literature. Jakarta: Dikti Depdikbud.
 Darma, Budi. 2004. Introduction to Literary Theory. Jakarta: Language Center,
Ministry of Education.
 Eagletton, Terry. 1983. Literary Theory: an Introduction. Great Britain: TJ Press.
 Fokkema, D.W and Elurd Kunne-Ibsch. 1977. Theories of Literature in the Twentieth
Century. London: C. Hurst & Company.
 Hartoko, Dick. 1982. "Aesthetic Appreciation in Indonesian Literature" in Basis,
XXXV January 1. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset.
 Hartoko, Dick. 1986. Popular Dictionary of Philosophy. Jakarta: CV Rajawali.
 Holland, Norman. 1968. The Dynamics od Literary Response. New York: State
University Press.
 Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The Act of Reading: a Theoru of Aesthetic Response.
 Balitmore and Londong: The John Hopkins University Press.
 Jauss, HR. 1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
 Juwairiyah. 2004. History of Arabic Literature of the Jahili Period. Surabaya: Faculty
of Adab IAIN Surabaya and Sumbangsih Publishers.
 Lesser, Simon O. 1962. Fiction and the Unconscious. New York: State University
Press.
 Mawardi, Muhammad Ja'far. 2003. A Comparison of the Poems of Jarir, Farozdaq,
and Akhtol. Surabaya: Faculty of Adab IAIN Sunan Ampel.
 Nasr, Muhammad Ibrahim. 1994. Al-Adab. Riyad: Jami'ah al-Imam Muhammad ibn
Saud al-Islamiyyah.
 Noth, W. 1990. Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
 Pradopo, Rachmat Djoko.1987. Poetry Studies. Yogyakarta: UGM Press
 Riffaterre, Michael. 1978. Semiotics of Poetry: Bloomington and London: Indiana
University Press.
 Santoso, Puji.2003. Bahtera Kandas di Bukit: A Semiotic Study of Noah's Poems.
Solo: Tiga Serangkai Pustaka Mandiri
 Sarhan, Muhammad. 1978. Al-Adab al-Arab wa Tarikhuhu fi al-Ashr al-Jahili. Beirut:
Dar al-Fikr.
 Selden, Rahman. 1991. A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory.
Translated by Rachmat D. Pradopo. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press.
 Suwondo, Tirto.2003. Literary Studies: Some Alternatives. Yogyakarta: Hanindita
Graha Widya.
 Taum, Yoseph Yapi. 1997. Introduction to Literary Theory. Flores: Nusa Indah.
 Teeuw, A. 1988. Literature and Literary Science: An Introduction to Literary Theory.
Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
 Teeuw, A. 1980. "Aesthetics, Semiotics, and Literary History" in Basis No. 301.
October.
 Teeuw, A. 1984. Literature and the Science of Literature. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
 Van Luxemburg, Jan, et al. 1986. Introduction to the Science of Literature. Translated
by Dick Hartono. Jakarta: Gramedia.
 Wellek, Rena and Austin Warren. 1993. Literary Theory. Jakarta: Gramedia.
 Yusuf, Kamal. 2009. Literary Theory: Lecture Module. Faculty of Adab, Department
of Arabic Language and Literature, IAIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
 Aminuddin. 1987. Introduction to the Appreciation of Literary Works.Bandung: CV.
Sinar Baru.
 Atar Semi, M.. 1988. Anatomy of Literature.Padang: Angkasa Raya Padang.
 Culler, Jonathan, 1975. Structuralist Poetics. Roudledge and Kegan Paul. London.
Damono Sapardi Djoko. 1984.
 Sociology of Literature. Jakarta: Center for Development and Faruk. 1994.
Introduction to the Sociology of Literature. Yogyakarta: Student Library.
 Hartoko, Dick, Rahmanto, B. 1986.Guides in the World of Literature.Yogyakarta:
Kanisius.
 Hawkes, Terence. 1977. Structurlism and Semiotics. Methuen and Co. Ltd.
London.Junius, Umar.1985. Literary Reception:An Introduction. Jakarta: PT
Gramedia.
 Luxemburg, Jan van, Miekel Bal, Willem G. Weststeijn.1982.Introduction to Literary
Science. Translation by Dick Hartoko.1989.Jakarta: Gramedia.
 Sumarjo, Jakob & Saini, K.M.. 1986.Appreciation of Literature. Jakarta: PT
Gramedia.
 Sudjiman, Panuti. 1992. Understanding Fictional Stories. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka
Jaya
 Tarigan, Hendry Guntur. 1984. Basic Principles of Literature.Bandung. Angkasa
 Teeuw. A. 1984. Literature and the Science of Literature. Jakarta: PT Pustaka Jaya.
 Teeuw. A. 1991. Reading and Judging Literature. Jakarta: PT Gramedia.
 Pradopo. Rahmat Djoko. 1985. Intertextual Relationships in Literature. Meeting
Committee
 Scientific Language and Literature VII Yogyakarta and Central Java.
 Waluyo, Herman J. 1991. Poetry Theory and Appreciation. Jakarta.Erlangga.
 Wellek, Rene, Werren, Austin. 1977.Theories of Literature. Translation by Melani
Budianta. 1989. Jakarta: PT Gramedia.