Tri P. & Y.B. Agung P. – Imagining

IMAGINING INDONESIA IN LEILA S. CHUDORI’S PULANG AND AGAM WISPI’S PULANG: AN INTERTEXTUALANALYSIS

Tri Pramesti YB Agung Prasaja

Abstract. Menjadi seorang exile dan kerinduan akan tanah air adalah tema yang di-ekspose oleh dua penulis yaitu, Agam Wispi dan Leila S. Chudori. Karena alas an politik Agam Wispi harus meninggalkan negara asalnya yaitu Indonesia dan hidup sebagai seorang eksil. Kerinduan akan tanah airnya diungkapkan dalam puisinya yang berjudul Pulang. Novel Leila S. Chudori yang berjudul Pulang, juga bercerita tentangkehidupan seorang eksil yang bernama Dimas Suryo. Latar belakang Pulang dimulai pada tahun 1965 dan berakhir pada tahun 1998. Dimas Suryo, dan rekan-rekannya yang menghadiri konferensi wartawan di Santiago, Chili, pada saat terjadiperistiwa G 30 S tidak bias pulang karena paspor mereka dicabut dan mereka tidak bisa kembali ke Indonesia. Pindah dari Cile ke Kuba kemudian ke , akhirnya berakhir menetap di Paris di mana mereka membuka restoran. Meskipun dipisahkan oleh jarak yang jauh dari tanah air mereka, kerinduan mereka untuk berhubungan dengan Indonesia adalah kunci dari novel tersebut.Tulisan ini mengeksplorasi hubungan intertekstual antara Pulang karya Agam Wispi dan Pulang karya Leila S.Chudori. Dengan menggunakan teoriinterteks yang diekspose oleh Roland Barthes dan Rifatterre, makalah ini berupaya untuk melihat bagaimana Pulang karyaAgam Wispi, seorang penulis eksil Indonesia, memiliki persamaan dan perbedaan dengan Pulang karya Leila S. Chudori, seorang penulis wanita Indonesia yang terkenal pada saat ini.

Keywords: intertextuality, exiles

INTRODUCTION was a writer and journalist. He was born in Intertextual relationship means the Pangkalan Susu, North Sumatra, December shaping of texts' meanings by other texts. It 31, 1930. His fate changed after the month can refer to an author’s borrowing and of May 1965, he was invited to for transformation of a prior text or to a several months and had met . reader’s referencing of one text in reading His poem entitled Pulang expressed his life another. The term intertextuality is as an exile living in Amsterdam and the proposed by Julia Kristeva, drawing on longing for what is lost as well as the desire Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism (“the to preserve cultural memory. A sense of a necessary relation of any utterance to other longing for home characterizes of his poem. utterances”) to indicate a text’s construction Leila S Chudori’s Pulang also tells from texts: a work is not a self-contained, the story of two generations that witnessed individually authored whole, but the political turmoil in Indonesia. Dimas Suryo, absorption and transformation of other an exiled 60s, stuckin Europe and could not texts, “a mosaic of quotations” (Kristeva, return to his homeland because even though 1967). he was not directly involved with the Two literary works that have Communist Party, but he was dealing with intertextual relationship are Agam Wispi’s people who were involved in the Pulang and Leila S.Chudori’s organization. Though he loved his Pulang.Agam Wispi, an Indonesian exile, homeland, he was not welcome back to his

* Dr. Tri Pramesti, MS. adalah dosen Prodi Sastra Inggris Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya ** Drs. Y.B. Agung Prasaja, M.Si. adalah dosen Prodi Sastra Inggris Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 33

Tri P. & Y.B. Agung P. – Imagining Indonesia

beloved country. He was married with a by what he has processed” (1978:163). As French woman, who later had a daughter suggested by Iser, reading is thus an named Lintang Utara. To complete the final asymmetrical process where a “text cannot task of her study, Lintang Utara flew to adapt itself toward each reader with whom Indonesia to interview the families of it comes in contact (1978:166). It is the political exile. At the same time Indonesia reader who should adapt toward the text, faced financial crisis that lead to political for it is the reader who moves, while the turmoil of 1998. Lintang witnessed the text stays the same. As reader of Agam tragedy of reform in May 1998. She also Wispi’s Pulang , Leila S Chudori absorbs caught up in a family drama and romance the printed material, appropriates and between the father and Surti Anandari, and transforms it into new ideas, and into new Surti youngest son, Alam. writings. There are seven narrators in Michael Riffaterre defines Pulang: Hananto Prawiro, Dimas Suryo, intertextuality as the reader’s perception of Lintang Utara, Vivienne Deveraux, Segara the relations between a text and all the other Alam, Bimo Nugroho, and the third person. texts that have preceded or followed it. He Except for the last narrator who only used states that all texts are transformations of Leila in Section Family Aji Suryo (pp. 329- small units of meaning, the hypogram is the 363), six narrators talk about themselves series of basic units upon which the text is and those around them personally. The built: ‘The hypogrammay be made out of most dominant voices in this novel are clichés, or it may be a quotation from Dimas and Lintang. Dimas as the another text, or a descriptive system’ representative of the Indonesian exiles, the (1978:63–4). Furthemore, hypogram is ‘the generation that relate directly to the event text imagined in its pre-transformational of 1965 and Lintang and Segara Alam state’ (Riffaterre 1978:63). represent for the second generation, the Roland Barthes (1915-1980), social generation that is affected by the past and and literary critic and theorist makes use of are required to bear the burden of history. intertextual theory. He proclaims the “death of the Author”, and views this situation as a Theory of Intertextuality liberation for readers. For him authors In reading a text, one cannot cannot be held responsible for the multiple separate what is read from the readers who meanings readers discover within literary read. One should not forget that the reader texts because the intertextual nature of is located within a set of circumstance, be literary works always leads readers on to the historical, social, political or cultural, new textual relations. He believes that all which result in a particular reading process literary productions take place in the and understanding of what has been read. In presence of other texts, and only through the reading of Agam Wispi’s Pulang, intertextuality are texts allowed to come Chudori acts not just as the reader, she is into being: also the interpreter, and whatever comes out of her reading process is the interpretation. “Any text is a new tissue of past Her position in socio historical context citations. Bits of code, formulae, becomes a matter of importance. Wolfgang rhythmic models, fragments of social languages, etc., pass into the Iser states that “reading is an activity that is text and are redistributed within it, guided by the text; this must be processed for there is always language before by the reader, who is then, in turn affected and around the text.

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 34

Tri P. & Y.B. Agung P. – Imagining Indonesia

Intertextuality, the condition of cultural systems. The author has the any text whatsoever, cannot, of role of a compiler, or arranger, of course, be reduced to a problem of pre-existent possibilities within the sources or influences; the intertext language system. Each word, is a general field of anonymous formulae whose origin can sentence, paragraph or whole text scarcely ever be located; of that the author produces takes its unconscious or automatic origins from the language system quotations, given without out of which it has been produced. quotation marks” (Barthes, Thus, the meanings are expressed 1981:39). in terms of the same system. The

view of language expressed by Writing is always an iteration Barthes in this way is what which foregrounds the trace of the various theorists have stated texts in both knowing and unknowing intertextual.(Allen, 2000:79-84). places. It is important to note that these elements of intertextuality need not be C. Discussion simply “literary.” One also has to take into 1. Titular Intertextuality in Agam Wispi’s account of historical and social Pulangand Leila S Chudori’s Pulang determinants which, she herself, transforms Titles play important roles since and change literary practices. Moreover, a “titles introduce the poem they crown, and text is constitutedonly in the moment of its at the same time refer to a text outside of it” reading. The reader’s own previous (Riffaterre, 1978:99). Riffaterre further readings, experiences and position within says that a title is a sign since it is supposed the cultural formation also form crucial to inform the reader to the text by stating its connections, and open new doors to subject, its genre or its code. intertextuality. The title invites readers to know Barthes emphasizes the role of the more about the content of a book so title reader in the production of meaning, and he has the same issue as the content, just in a distinguishestwo types of readers: on the more concentrated form in the title’s case. one hand, “consumers” who read the work A book’s title is less than a sentence — for stable meaning, and on the other hand, possibly as little as one word, but needs to readers who are productive in their reading, be memorable, indicates the genre/tone, which he called “writers of the text”. The gives and intrigues the reader. As Lodge readers that engage themselves in the said that title as part of the text, “has second kind of reading are, in Barthes considerable power to attract and condition words, doing “textual analysis,” in contrast the reader’s attention“ (1992:193). Since with the more traditional “criticism.” This the purpose is to attract the readers, a title practice of reading, seen as re-writing, is at should be unique enough to make the first the basis of Barthes theory of page. intertextuality. (Ibid: 62). Agam Wispis’s poem entitled Barthes suggests that the meaning Pulang and Leila Chudori’s Pulang have of the author’s words does not originate similarities in title and theme. Both express from: the life of Indonesian exiles. Their identities the author’s own unique as exiles are created through the articulation consciousness, but from the place of loss. Both share a sense of not belonging of those words within linguistic and

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 35

Tri P. & Y.B. Agung P. – Imagining Indonesia

to the nation one is exiled to and a longing 2. Hypogram for home. The hypogram in these two literary In the first stanza Agam Wispi works is the word “Pulang”. Chudori’s expresses his longing for the homeland, as Pulang is the receptive text of Wispi’s well as expressing his fears that his Pulang. From its narration, it is a story presence would not be known and familiar telling about the life of Indonesia exiles to many people. living in European cities: Amsterdam and Di mana kau Paris. Chudori’s Pulang is a receptive as Pohonku hijau? well as an adaptation text written by Agam Di sini aku Wispi. Before Chudori’s text was created, Sudah jadi batu Wispi’s text was recepted by the text entitled Pulang. As the titles of these two His loneliness living in a foreign country literary works are same, it is an evidence and his love for his homeland dominate the that Chudori’s Pulang has recepted the text themes that he exposed in this poem. At the of Pulang written by Agam Wispi. So end of the poem he gave up because of the Agam Wispi’s Pulang serves as the reality. He decided not to set foot in his hypogram text. homeland because he realized that his The other evidence can also be seen in homeland has changed a lot. His decision the individual responding text which shows to remain an exile shows in his last stanza. similarity in the way in which the stories are narrated as in the hypogram text. This Puisi, hanya kaulah lagi means that the text of Chudori’s Pulang tempatku pulang responds well to the hypogram text written Puisi, hanya kaulah lagi by Agam Wispi.The receptive process of pacarku terbang the text of Pulang written by Chudori is Puisi generasi baru bijak bestari only taken place in the levels of variants menerjang and version. With regard to the variants, Keras bagai granit cintanya laut during the receptive process, there are some menggelombang differences in the hypogram text written by Di mana kau Agam Wispi, and the responding text Pohonku hijau? written by Leila S. Chudori. With regard to Dalam puisimu, wahai perantau the version, additional narration was added Dalam cintamu jauh di pulau to the end of the responding text.

Pulang is Leila S. Chudori’s novel 3. Re-writing and Re-contextualizing published in 2012. The title is derived from Pulang Wispi’s Pulang (1996). Sets in 1965 to As Roland Barthes argues, “A text is ... 1998, in Pulang Chudori plays important a multidimensional space in which a variety role in transferring the message of Wispi’s of writings, none of them original, blend Pulang. She constructs meaning by using and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations. ready-made shared codes and conventions. ... The writer can only imitate a gesture She activates the text in the present that is always anterior, never original. His moment. Therefore, Chudori’s Pulang is only power is to mix writings, to counter the echo of Wispi’s Pulang. the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them” (1975:146). Reading may be the earliest

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 36

Tri P. & Y.B. Agung P. – Imagining Indonesia

form of intertextuality that readers considered singular objects. What has been encounter, to be familiar enough with clear from the discussion is that Chudori’s “prior” texts that readers can appreciate the Pulang implicitly and explicitly refers to ways references to them reappear in other Wispi’s Pulang. texts, allowing them to understand, for The connections that Chudori instance, the message of the author. established between Pulang and Wispi’s Unlike in Agam Wispi’s Pulang, Pulang should be analyzed in order to Leila S Chudori’s Pulang does not just tell discover their connotations. The writer the life of Indonesian exile, but his family argues that Chudori’s Pulang is a pastiche as well. The next difference between of Wispi’s Pulang in the sense that Wispi’s Pulang and Chudori’s Pulang is Chudori has taken the elements from setting. As stated by Barthes (image 160) Wispi’s Pulang and reconstructed them. and Michael Riffaterre (1984:142-143), that Chudori’s Pulang has made new intertextuality replaces the challenged connections and has added new elements to author-text relationships with one between the original one. On one hand, Chudori’s reader and text. As the reader of Wispi’s Pulang has made a faithful imitation, while Pulang, Chudori created Pulang after she on the other hand, the pastiche is more read his work. She repeats and echoes other subconscious, since Chudori’s Pulang text. Chudori’s Pulang can no longer be incorporated other texts and influenced into considered original, it would be only as a this new text. text in a form of re-contextualizing and re- Through the analysis, it can be writing. In Chudori’s Pulang the setting is stated that there are connections between between 1965 to 1998. As intertextuality Chudori’s Pulang and Wispi’s Pulang. offers a return to the past which means Chudori’s Pulang reconstructs Wispi’s intertextuality offers a sense of the Pulang. Chudori underscores her points of presence of the past which can only be view and elaborates on possible situations known from its texts (Assem, 1992:166), that Agam Wispi could not make happen. setting of time is the important part of the Rather than deconstructs his work, she discussion. Through the setting of time, the enhances it and thereby encourages readers readers can recognize the social and to also read Agam Wispi’s Pulang.. cultural backgrounds that influence the The differences in setting in these creation ofaliterary work. Chudori’s Pulang two literary works can be ascribed to the also displays the members of Dimas Suryo different time and place these works were family that support him and rehabilitate his written in and the subsequent differences in name. Dimas Suryo could return to his attitude the events are interpreted with. For homeland and be buried in the Karet all readers decode the texts differently, cemetery while in Agam Wispi’s Pulang, depending on their personal and literary buried in the Karet cemetery remains only backgrounds. Chudori elaborates on a dream that never come true. Through Wispi’s Pulang instead of replacing it. For Chudori’s Pulang the readers recognize the it is almost impossible to appreciate meaning and significance of Wispi’s Chudori’s Pulang to the fullest extent if one Pulang has not read Wispi’s Pulang. And this is why she considers the relationship among Conclusion these two works to be continuous. Barthes has said that all texts are potentially plural and that they cannot be

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 37

Tri P. & Y.B. Agung P. – Imagining Indonesia

References Approach to Literature and Art. Ed. Allen, Graham. 2000. Intertextuality. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: London & New York: Routledge. Columbia Up, 1980,64-91. - Also Assem, Al- Faress. 1992. Comparative in: Kristeva. The Kristeva Reader. Literature and Intertextuality: A Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: B. theoretical Study in Modern Blackwell, 1986, 34-61. European and American Literary Kristeva, Julia 1974. La revolution du Criticism. Indiana University Press. langagepohique: L'Avant-garde a Bakhtin, Mikhael. 1984. Problems of la fin du dix-neuviemesiede: Dostoevsky’s Poetics.University of Lautreamontet Mallarme. Paris: Minnesota. Seuil. - Eng!. tr. (excerpts): Barthes, Roland . 1975. The Pleasure of Kristeva. Revolution in Poetic the Text, Richard Miller (trans.), Language.New York: Columbia Hill and Wang, New York. Up, 1975. - Rpt. (excerpts): —— . 1977. Image – Music – Text, "Revolution inPoetic Language." In Stephen Heath (trans.), Fontana, Toril Moi, ed. The Kristeva London. Reader.Oxford: Basil —— . 1981.‘Theory of the text’ in Young Blackwell,1986, 89-136. (ed.) 1981, 31–47. Plett, Heinrich F. (ed.) .1991. ——. 1986. The Rustle of Language, Intertextuality: Research In Text Richard Howard (trans.). Oxford Theory. Berlin and New York: Basil: Blackwell. Walter de Gruyter. Chudori, Leila S. 2012. Pulang. Jakarta: PT Riffaterre, Michael. 1978. Semiotics of Gramedia. Poetry, Indiana University Press, Lodge, David.1992. The Art of Fiction. UK: Bloomington IN. Secker and Warburg. —— . 1983.Text Production, Terese Lyons Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in Language: (trans.), New York: Columbia A Semiotic Approach to Literature University Press. and Art. Ed. Roudiez, L. Translated —— . 1984.‘Intertextual representation: on by Jardine, A., Gora T. and mimesis as interpretive discourse’ Roudiez, L. New York: Columbia in Critical Inquiry 11 (1), 141–62. University Press; London: Basil Riffaterre, Michael. “Compulsory Reader Blackwell. Response: The Intertextual Drive.” Kristeva, Julia 1967 "Bakhtine, le mot, le Intertextuality: Theories and dialogue et le roman."Critique Practices.Ed. Michael Worton and 33/239, 438-465. - Rpt. in: Judith Still. Manchester: Kristeva. Semeiotike: Recherches Manchester UP, 1990. 56-78. pour unesemanalyse. Paris: Seuil, Wispi, Agam. 2002. “ Pulang” : Di Negeri 1969, 143 -173. - Engl. tr.: "Word, Orang : Puisi Penyair Indonesia Dialogue and Novel." In Kristeva. Eksil. Ed. Asahan Alham and Co. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Amanah- Lontar.

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 38