Plagiat Merupakan Tindakan Tidak Terpuji

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

NATIONALISM IN MARIO VARGAS LLOSA’S LIFE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE SETTING AND MAIN CONFLICTS IN THE STORYTELLER

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters

SAVERIN PUNKAS

Student Number: 084214023

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2013 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

NATIONALISM IN MARIO VARGAS LLOSA’S LIFE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE SETTING AND MAIN CONFLICTS IN THE STORYTELLER

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters

SAVERIN PUNKAS

Student Number: 084214023

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2013

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ccc

‘Human is condemned to be free;

because once thrown into the world,

he or she is responsible for everything he or she does’

Jean-Paul Sartre

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

for You to whom I owe the life,

for Bapak, Ibu, and Mas, who are depicted to understand me as a character

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Considering the process I underwent to do this thesis, I must say that I owe much to some people who have contributed their supports in various ways. I address my first gratitude to my advisor, Dr. F. X. Siswadi, M. A., for he is very helpful in terms of not only academic advice but also motivation. His ‗don‘t-get- down-hearted‘ and ‗do-your-best‘ phrases always came along with his advice on my undergraduate thesis. My gratitude also goes to my co-advisor, Harris

Hermansyah S., S.S., M.Hum., for his corrections and notes on my undergraduate thesis. I also thank Mbak Ninik for her help during my study in

English Letters Department and especially during my thesis making.

I admit that in terms of academic learning, I benefit much from everyone in LSR (Lembaga Studi Realino) especially Romo Budi Susanto who has introduced some confusing abstract things that help me learn to see the world not only from my point of view but also from others‘. In terms of spirituality, I owe much to everyone in YSC (Youth Spirituality Center), SLP (Service Learning

Program), and Cana Community. I thank them for the love, the conflicts, and, of course, the learning of life.

My gratitude then goes to my friends in the English Letters Study

Program: Sisil, Rania, Lando, Ellysa, Arin, Yeyen, Putrie, Winda, Momon,

Topan, Ajeng, and Acen. I thank them for the togetherness, tears, and laughter that come along with our study.

My undergraduate thesis would not be finished without a long-learning process with Diana Meirawati. I thank her for sharing many things and

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

sometimes for fighting in ‗cold war‘. I also thank Ari Kristianto for supporting me in his patience and silence.

I understand that I owe much also to many names that I cannot mention one by one. Thus, I deliver my big gratitude for their supports and understanding during my study in Sanata Dharma and especially during my undergraduate thesis making.

Saverin Punkas

vii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ...... i APPROVAL PAGE ...... ii ACCEPTANCE PAGE ...... iii MOTTO PAGE ...... iv DEDICATION PAGE ...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... viii ABSTRACT ...... x ABSTRAK ...... xi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background of the Study ...... 1 A. Problem Formulation ...... 6 B. Objectives of the Study ...... 7 C. Definition of Terms ...... 7

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW ...... 8 A. Review of Related Studies ...... 8 B. Review of Related Theories ...... 11 1. Theory of Setting ...... 11 2. Theory of Plot and Conflict ...... 12 3. Theory of Nationalism ...... 15 a. Definition and Description ...... 15 b. Nationalism in a Novel...... 19 C. Mario Vargas Llosa‘s Life Background ...... 20 D. Review on Peruvian Society ...... 23 E. Theoretical Framework ...... 26

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ...... 28 A. Object of the Study...... 28 B. Approach of the Study ...... 29 C. Method of the Study ...... 30

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ...... 32 A. Setting of The Storyteller ...... 32 1. Setting of Place ...... 32 a. Setting of Place outside Peru...... 33 i. Firenze ...... 33 ii. Madrid and Paris ...... 36 b. Setting of Place inside Peru...... 37 i. Lima ...... 37 ii. Quillabamba...... 41 iii. Alto Marañón ...... 43

viii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

iv. Yarinacocha ...... 46 2. Setting of Time ...... 48 3. Setting of Social Circumstance...... 55 a. The Whites and Mestizos ...... 55 b. Indigenous People ...... 59 i. The Aguarunas and Huambisas ...... 60 ii. The Shapras ...... 62 iii. The Machiguengas ...... 64 B. Main Conflicts in The Storyteller ...... 66 1. The Conflicts Related to Saúl‘s Experience Encountering Indian Community ...... 67 a. The Narrator‘s Conflicts with Himself Related to Saúl‘s Experience 69 b. The Narrator‘s Conflicts with Saúl Zuratas Related to Saúl‘s Experience ...... 70 2. The Conflicts Related to The Narrator‘s Experience Encountering Indian Community ...... 73 a. The Narrator‘s Conflicts with Himself Related to the Narrator‘s Experience ...... 74 b. The Narrator‘s Conflicts with Saúl Zuratas Related to the Narrator‘s Experience ...... 76 3. The Conflicts Related to the Subject of Hablador ...... 78 C. Mario Vargas Llosa‘s Nationalism in The Storyteller ...... 85 1. Setting of Peru as Llosa‘s Nationalistic Imagination ...... 86 2. Ironies in the Setting and Main Conflicts Related to Nationalism ...... 89 3. Mario Vargas Llosa‘s Nationalism ...... 93

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ...... 99

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 102

APPENDIX ...... 104

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ABSTRACT

SAVERIN PUNKAS. Nationalism in Mario Vargas Llosa’s Life as Reflected Through the Setting and Main Conflicts in The Storyteller. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2012.

The understanding of nationalism always develops. It used to be an abstract thing which could lead people to do violence just to struggle for such a national imagination. Nowadays, some people still extremely express their nationalism while some have already thought that this idea should not be taken too strictly. This study analyses how Mario Vargas Llosa through The Storyteller articulates his understanding nationalism to solve shortsighted imagination. There are three objectives in this study. The first one is aimed to get the depiction of setting in the story. The second one is to figure out conflicts. The third one is to see how setting and conflicts in The Storyteller articulate Mario Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism. This undergraduate thesis applied a library research. The main data were collected from a novel entitled The Storyteller written by Mario Vargas Llosa. To support the analysis, some books and references from the internet were borrowed. The intrinsic and extrinsic data then were analyzed through a framework of biographical approach for it dealt with the relation between The Storyteller and Mario Vargas Llosa as its author. This research resulted in some findings related to Mario Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism. The first one was a national imagination depicted from the setting of place and social condition in Peruvian context. Some places in Peru such as Lima, Quillabamba, Alto Marañón, and Yarinacocha, along with the societies mentioned such as whites, mestizos, and Indians gave a national imagination of Peru. However, the findings in the setting of time and conflicts precisely seemed to present new understanding of nationalism. The time was not independence era but in the era when Peru underwent economic growth. The conflicts also presented economic gap between the upper class (whites and mestizos) and the lower class (Indians). The way Llosa created some national imagination about Peru along with the ironies about economic gap was his way to criticize shortsighted nationalism. That nationalism could turn to be extreme and made people do many violence. However, a matter of nationalism was only abstract thing that could be imagined by only certain people in his nation. He underlined that many people talked about nationalism while some other people in their nation (such as Indians) were still being marginalized. Meanwhile, Llosa offered his way to understand nationalism by not taking it too extreme. Moreover, through the setting of place inside and outside Peru, he delivered an understanding that nationalism could be felt even by people who were far away from his country.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ABSTRAK

SAVERIN PUNKAS. Nationalism in Mario Vargas Llosa’s Life as Reflected Through the Setting and Main Conflicts in The Storyteller. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2012.

Pemahaman terhadap nasionalisme selalu berkembang. Nasionalisme dulu menjadi hal abstrak yang mampu membuat orang-orang melakukan kekerasan hanya untuk memperjuangkan imajinasi nasional mereka tersebut. Di masa kini pun beberapa orang masih secara ekstrem mengekspresikan nasionalisme mereka. Sementara, yang lain telah berpikir bahwa hal ini tidak seharusnya dipikirkan sebagai harga mati. Studi ini menganalisis cara Mario Vargas Llosa mengartikulasikan pemahamannya tentang nasionalisme untuk memberi solusi atas banyaknya imajinasi yang sempit akan hal tersebut. Ada tiga tujuan dalam kajian ini. Tujuan yang pertama adalah untuk mendapatkan penggambaran mengenai latar dalam cerita. Tujuan yang kedua adalah untuk mengungkap konlik-konflik dalam cerita. Tujuan ketiga adalah untuk melihat bagaimana latar dan konflik-konflik dalam cerita dapat mengartikulasikan nasionalisme Mario Vargas Llosa. Skripsi ini menerapkan penelitian studi pustaka. Data pokok diperoleh dari novel berjudul The Storyteller karya Mario Vargas Llosa. Beberapa buku dan referensi dari internet juga dipakai untuk menunjang analisis. Bingkai kerja untuk menganalisis data dan referensi dalam studi ini adalah dengan pendekatan biografi karena pendekatan ini menunjang pemahaman tentang hubungan novel The Storyteller dan Mario Vargas Llosa, penulisnya. Studi ini menghasilkan beberapa temuan tentang nasionalisme Mario Vargas Llosa. Temuan yang pertama adalah tentang imajinasi nasional yang digambarkan melalui latar tempat dan kondisi sosial dalam konteks orang Peru. Beberapa tempat di Peru seperti Lima, Quillabamba, Alto Marañón, dan Yarinacocha, yang digambarkan bersama kelompok sosial seperti orang kulit putih, mestizo, dan Indian memberikan imajinasi nasional akan Peru. Akan tetapi temuan-temuan di latar waktu dan konflik-konflik justru seakan menawarkan pemahaman baru akan nasionalisme. Latar waktu tidak diletakkan dalam perang kemerdekaan tetapi pada masa pertumbuhan ekonomi di Peru. Konflik-konflik juga menunjukkan kesenjangan ekonomi antara kalangan (orang-orang kulit putih dan mestizo) atas dan bawah (orang-orang Indian). Cara Llosa meletakkan imajinasi nasional tentang Peru bersamaan dengan ironi-ironi kesenjangan ekonomi menjadi caranya untuk mengkritik nasionalisme sempit. Nasionalisme yang demikian bisa menjadi ekstrem dan menuntun orang melakukan kekerasan. Padahal, nasionalisme hanyalah hal abstrak yang bisa dipahami orang-orang tertentu saja di bangsanya. Dia hendak menggarisbawahi bahwa banyak orang membicarakan tentang nasionalisme sementara beberapa yang lain dalam bangsa mereka justru terpinggirkan. Llosa menawarkan pemahamannya bahwa nasionalisme tidak perlu dianggap terlalu ekstrem. Dia bahkan berpendapat bahwa nasionalisme bisa dirasakan oleh orang yang jauh dari negaranya.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

On April 26, 2012, one of websites named www.foxnews.com posted a report about a young American rising star, Justin Bieber. The site responded to

Justin Bieber‘s comments on Indonesia. According to the site, Bieber mentioned that his new tracks were recorded in some ―random country.‖ He also said, ―I recorded it in a studio. Some little place," Bieber continued. "They didn't know what they were doing.‖ Apparently, his manager told him that it had been done in

Indonesia. His words, for some people, were considered as a mockery to

Indonesia.

Many people thought that his comment was somehow irritating. However,

Bieber‘s words precisely stimulated a kind of ‗supporting response‘ from one of

Indonesian local singers, Syahrini. On an article in hiburan.kompasiana.com,

Syahrini‘s response was discussed. Syahrini, on Twitter, surprisingly argued that

Justin Bieber‘s saying, no doubt, described how Indonesia was. She criticized the corruption, the governments, and also the Sea Games held in Indonesia in 2011.

Syahrini even let people judge her as a person lacking nationalism but she confidently argued that she had more nationalism than they had.

The article was followed by some comments from the readers. It, then, became a discussion on nationalism. Syahrini might argue that she was a nationalist by admitting the weakness of her own country. One of the readers

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

giving comment to that article might also show his or her nationalism by saying,

―He [Justin Bieber] may not say that way to my country because, whether bad or good Indonesia is, this is still my beloved country.‖ Some people uphold the pride of their country or even their nation beyond their own lives. Some others prefer the way of ‗criticizing‘ to manifest their ‗love‘ to their country and nation. Those imply that that the understanding of nationalism has always been changing and perceived differently since its emergence in Europe.

In Benedict Anderson‘s Imagined Community, European continent is believed as the place in which nationalism was first born. Language and print- capitalism are two of some important keys to showing that people began learning about nationalism. In this era, having Biblical texts translated into their mother- tongue was such a revolution to build their pride (1991: 37-40).

The understanding of this term also developed as well as Europeans‘

‗dynastic expansionism.‘ Their effort to colonize other people in other places later stimulated resistances that apparently brought new understanding of nationalism for the non-Europeans (1991: 45-46). Thus, the understanding of nationalism developed from the pride only among Europeans into the pride of the colonized people revolting for their independence from colonialization. This era offers some figures to notice such as Soekarno and Mahatma Gandhi who was confronting against the European colonialization (Kennedy, 1968: 38-51). Those names were nationalist for their own people. They burned their people‘s spirit to be conscious to their ‗nation‘ and revolt against European power.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Up to now, the meaning of nationalism for every person is still in the process of redefining. As time goes by, circumstances will always influence how people understand nationalism. There is also an understanding that nationalism is not exclusively a matter of pride of one‘s country or nation. Even for someone living outside the place where he or she comes from is not an obstacle to have nationalism. In this case, nationalism is perceived in universal context or cosmopolitanism. In Imagined Communities, Anderson seemed to accommodate this kind of nationalism understanding. Firstly, he placed the understanding of the term nation as the basic step to know how people can realize their nationalism. He then offered his own definition that a nation is ‗an imagined political community

– and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign,‘ (1991: 4-6). In his definition he said, ‗It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion,‘ (Anderson, 1991:

6).

Through that explanation, it can be concluded that learning to imagine a nation helps people to understand nationalism. Their capability to imagine their nation then enables them to feel the communion although they are separated miles away. Later on, they will manifest their nationalism to make their nation accepted as a political community which is sovereign and different from other communities. As Anderson quoted from Gellner, ‗Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist,‘ (1991: 6). This implies that nationalism built after being able to imagine a

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

nation encourages people to figure out the existence of their imagination as a real political community. The emphasis of this understanding of nationalism then lies on the freedom of people to experience their nationalism from wherever and whenever.

To see how the concept of nationalism develops, especially the one in universal context, people can learn not only through the record of history but also through literature. The Storyteller can be one of many considerations to learn about nationalism. This novel seems to present new understanding of nationalism in universal context.

Written by Mario Vargas Llosa, The Storyteller seems to bring nationalism put in the context of Peru, Latin America. With El Hablador as its original version, this novel creates atmosphere of nationalism through its setting and main conflicts. It is interesting to notice that although The Storyteller is considered as a novel of nationalism, its author, Mario Vargas Llosa, during his giving Nobel lecture ever said this.

I despise every form of nationalism, a provincial ideology – or rather, religion – that is short-sighted, exclusive, that cuts off the intellectual horizon and hides in its bosom ethnic and racist prejudices, for it transforms into a supreme value, a moral and ontological privilege, the fortuitous circumstance of one‘s birthplace (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

Another interesting fact about this novel is that its setting took place in

Peru around 1950s until 1980s. That period was more than a century after the independence of Peru in 1821.

What interested him in life? He himself didn‘t know yet, doubtless. He was finding out gradually during the months and years of ours friendship, the fifties, in the Peru that, as Mascarita, myself, and our generation were

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

reaching adulthood, was moving from the spurious peace of General Odría‘s dictatorship to the uncertainties and novelties of the return to democratic rule in 1956, when Saúl and I were third-year students at San Marcos (Llosa, 1991: 12).

That quotation from The Storyteller shows that the narrator told that it happened during General Odría‘s dictatorship in 1956. Peru, under General

Manuel A. Odría‘s regime, was still on its ‗sustained capitalist development.‘

Political stability invited many investments to this country. It affected the growth of the economy. However, this condition did not satisfy all Peruvians. Apparently, it caused new gap (http://motherearthtravel.com, May 24, 2012).

The two interesting things stimulate a question of what concept of nationalism the author tried to put in The Storyteller if he, himself, despised some forms of nationalism he had mentioned in his giving Nobel lecture. The fact that this novel takes place in Peru more than a century after its independence also raises the same question. It must have something significant since most of nationalistic novels such as Noli Me Tangere by José Rizal and Rumah Kaca

(Glass House) by Pramoedya Ananta Toer were written or, at least, its setting took place during independence war in colonial period (Anderson, 1998: 229-234)

& (Anderson, 1991: 184-185). Different from those novels, The Storyteller is depicted in 1950 until 1980, more than a century after Peru‘s independence era.

The key to answering the question of what concept of nationalism that has been put in The Storyteller must be found in its author‘s life, Mario Vargas Llosa.

Mario Vargas Llosa, himself, is a Peruvian writer. He is also well-known as a politician for his becoming the candidate for president of Peru in 1990. During his life, Mario Vargas Llosa spent years for his education in Peru. Later he began

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

living in other places far from his hometown like Madrid and Paris. Now, he lives in London (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

His life in politics and his concerns to social and cultural subjects are the things that decorate his works in literature. Those themes mostly appear in his works as a part of his reflections of personal life and a way for criticizing historical calamities especially the ones related with Latin America (The New

York Times, October 7, 2010).

From the brief description about Mario Vargas Llosa, it is quite clear that some aspects of his life must have influenced the description of certain concept of nationalism in The Storyteller. He must have his own understanding of nationalism. Thus, in this analysis, the writer wants to figure out how the author‘s understanding of nationalism is reflected in The Storyteller through the setting and main conflicts. The topic is chosen since it is eternal and debatable issue and also can be put in the context of Indonesia. Moreover, it can give another perspective of understanding nationalism.

A. Problem Formulation

To analyze how Mario Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism reflected in The

Storyteller, three problems are formulated.

1. How is the setting in The Storyteller described?

2. How are the main conflicts in The Storyteller presented?

3. How do the setting and main conflicts in The Storyteller articulate Mario

Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism?

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

B. Objectives of the Study

Considering the purpose of this study that is to figure out nationalism in

Mario Vargas Llosa‘s life, the analysis is aimed to identify, first, the setting and main conflicts presented in this novel. Secondly, the findings in setting and main conflicts will be used to identify nationalism in Mario Vargas Llosa‘s life.

C. Definition of Terms

There is a terms related to the topic of this thesis and the analysis that follow that need to be defined. As the key concept of this study, the definition of this term is worthwhile to clarify any misunderstanding that may arouse. The term is nationalism.

There are a lot of definitions of nationalism. The one used in this topic refers to Benedict Anderson‘s idea that nationalism is the result of certain people‘s capability to imagine which community (nation) they belong to. They might be separated miles away from one to another but they can imagine or they can consider that they belong to the same nation as an imagined community (1991:

5-6). This definition is chosen since it can cover the presentation of the idea of nationalism in The Storyteller.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

A. Review of Related Studies

Regarding the need to get more information about The Storyteller and the author, Mario Vargas Llosa, the writer uses some related studies. The significance of these related studies is to provide the writer not only more information about

The Storyteller and Mario Vargas Llosa but also to give other perspectives related to the topic.

Juan E. de Castro in of his journal entitled Mario Vargas Llosa Versus

Barbarism discussed that Llosa, according to him, is a neoliberalist whose works deal with rearticulation of the opposition between civilization and barbarism.

Although Llosa, himself, refused to be called a neoliberalist, his works show many new understanding about certain issues. Related to civilization and barbarism, one of the footnotes in Castro‘s journal described Llosa‘s understanding in one of his novels, The Storyteller.

A similar lack of individuality as characteristic of non-Westernized indigenous communities is found in Vargas Llosa‘s description of the Amazonian Machiguenga, in The Storyteller (2001b), first published in 1987, one year after the original Spanish edition of The Other Path. The lack of a proper name, replaced by the name Tasurinchi, originally that of their creator deity, shared by all male Machiguenga, represents this nonindividuation. As Kerr (1992, 209n35) notes: ―The name ‗Tasurinchi,‘ which the hablador [storyteller] uses to identify his different interlocutors (i.e. the members of the tribe with whom he has spoken and from whom he learns the stories he tells), functions as a provisional tag for every member of the tribal community, none of whom has a proper name,‖ (Castro, 2010).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

That footnote explains that through The Storyteller, Llosa tried to say that he is against racial discrimination. He put that through the depiction of God in the word Tasurinchi. It implies that different people in different places have their ways of naming God. Besides, he wanted people to respect local tribe like

Machiguenga.

Upashana Salam gave another perspective related to the discussion about

Llosa‘s The Storyteller. Salam wearing glasses of postmodernism wrote this.

Mario Vargas Llosa‘s El Hablador or The Storyteller presents the postmodern emphasis on diversity quite effectively as the story itself is based on the lifestyle of an indigenous tribe of Amazonian forests. Llosa‘s novel gives an unbiased look into the customs and traditions of the Machiuenga tribes, providing the readers with the myths and legends of the tribes instead of stating an objectives history that could not possibly encompass their various cultures as the tales of the storyteller do. The hablador or the storyteller, thus, becomes a narrative of their history, a source through which their culture is kept alive (2009: 5).

Salam revealed postmodernism issue in The Storyteller by looking at how

Llosa put culture, especially the local one, in a position where people will see it as the way it is. It means no matter how illogical a certain culture is, it still should be respected. The rejection of hegemonic power in The Storyteller was used by

Salam as the key to reveal the postmodernism issue.

Another study about The Storyteller also came from Benedict Anderson.

In The Spectre of Comparisons, he argued that The Storyteller is novel of nationalism. ‗That El Hablador is a nationalist novel is beyond doubt,‘ (1998:

356). He figured it out by focusing on how Llosa put the description of Peru from its society and some conflicts.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The rest of this long chapter proceeds anonymously in this manner, and in the process the reader begins, as it were, to enter into the cosmology, the history, the terrors, and the everyday lives, of the Machiguenga. At fitful intervals, images of the penetration of their wolrd by the dark external force of ―unfortunate/damned Peru‖ appear: for example, there are references to the terrible time of the ―tree-bleeding‖ (which the reader can read as the brief rubber boom of 1900-18), and to the ―white fathers,‖ who are evidently missionaries (1998: 341).

This quotation became one of the keys for Anderson to uncover how Llosa defined nationalism. Llosa tried to show the condition of his country whatever it is. He even used the word ―unfortunate/damned Peru‖ to describe his country in

The Storyteller. Thus, nationalism is not only a matter of pride of country or nation but also realizing that his country also consists of bad facts.

The three studies mentioned are helpful to give the writer more information about The Storyteller and Mario Vargas Llosa. However, the most significant thing is that they become the stand point for the writer to put the position of her thesis. Both Castro and Salam spotlighted how Llosa, in The

Storyteller, brought redefinition or rearticulation of certain ideas related to

Peruvian cultures. They used opposing dichotomy, such as civilization and barbarism; and also old and new cultures to explain Llosa‘s concerns put in The

Storyteller. This thesis also works with the term ―redefinition‖ but the subject is on nationalism. It is different from Castro‘s and Salam‘s on the way that it does not focus on rearticulating two opposing ideas about culture but on how many description about Peruvian cultures, including civilization, barbarism, inspired

Llosa‘s redefining nationalism. This thesis is a contribution to Anderson‘s work which tried to analyze The Storyteller as a nationalistic novel. While Anderson

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

explained this as a nationalistic novel through the art of storytelling as a way to preserve history and culture of a tribe, the focus of this study is to analyze The

Storyteller as Llosa‘s way to show as well as to question nationalism itself. Thus, the writer considers the setting and the conflicts in this novel worthwhile for the study.

B. Review of Related Theories

1. Theory of Setting

The use of setting in a literary work is very significant since it brings the readers or the audience‘s mind to imagine the description of where, when, and how a story happens. Roberts and Jacobs in Fiction: An Introduction to Reading and Writing said ‗Setting refers to the natural and artificial scenery or environment in which characters in literature live and move, together with the things they use,‘ (1987: 229). What they meant by natural setting is the location that refers to the real condition inspired by nature such as sea and forest. Different from the natural one, artificial setting refers to location or any objects created by human. Despite the difference, both natural and artificial setting are chosen and created with intension to provide stage for a story but also to deliver certain message related to the condition of a character (1987: 229-230).

While Roberts and Jacobs focused on defining setting as an element of places and objects in a story, Abrams in A Glossary of Literary Terms contributes more description to the theory of setting. Setting is not only a depiction of place in a story, but also depiction of time and historical background.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The overall setting of a narrative or dramatic work is the general locale, historical time, and social circumstances in which its action occurs; the setting of a single episode or scene within such a work is the particular physical location in which it takes place (Abrams, 1999: 284).

In that quotation, Abrams mentioned that setting covers three elements including the one explained by Roberts and Jacobs. He said that setting consists of the depiction of location or place, time, and social circumstance that inspire the story. The additional elements, time and social circumstance, are important to support the explanation about setting of place since it makes the readers or audience of literary work find it easier to imagine certain story.

2. Theory of Plot and Conflict

When talking about conflict in a literary work, it is always connected with a discussion about plot. Two theories about plot from Roberts and Jacobs, and

Abrams stated that plot is dealing with what-so-called chronological order of actions. Roberts and Jacobs said, ‗A plot is a plan or groundwork of human motivations, with the actions resulting from believable and realistic human responses. In a well-plotted work, nothing is irrelevant; everything is related,‘

(1987: 98). There are two important things in that quotation. The first one is their mentioning about ‗groundwork of human motivations‘. It indicates that the arrangement of plot is a result of human motivations. From the first until the last sequence, there are human motivations that set logical order. This explains the second important thing that a well-plotted work follows a relevant connection between sequences. They are related.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Abrams focused his explanation about plot not only on order of actions but also the difference between a plot and a story. He said that

Narratologists, accordingly, do not treat a narrative in the traditional way, as a fictional representation of life, but as a systematic formal construction. A primary interest of structural narratologists is in the way that narrative discourse fashions a story—the mere sequence of events in time—into the organized and meaningful structure of a literary plot (1999: 173).

It can be understood that plot is made from several stories that are constructed to build a meaningful narrative. Each story occupies different part in the plot. It can be in the beginning, in the middle, or in the last.

There are many ways to understand construction of plot. One of them is introduced by Gustav Freytag. In Glossary of Literary Terms, Abrams explained about Freytag‘s design of a plot which is known as Freytag‘s Pyramid. This design divides the order of plot into three levels. The conflicts introduced occupy the first level called rising action. When the development of the conflicts reaches the highest point, it becomes the second level called climax. The climax then will be followed by the third level called falling action. In falling action, a story reaches its conclusion as a result of all conflicts presented (1999: 227).

From the explanation of plot, there is a significant question of how several stories develop into a plot. This answer might be answered by the previous quotation about ‗groundwork of human motivations.‘ In a narrative, human motivations become the sources of plot development.

Human motivations lead certain stories develop into a chronological order.

Roberts and Jacobs gave further explanation that the important thing is not how a sequence occurs after another but more about causative issue of how certain thing

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

causes another thing happen. In response to that, they said, ‗It is response, interaction, causation, and conflict that make a plot out of a simple series of actions‘ (1987: 98).

In their explanation, Roberts and Jacobs also signified the importance of conflicts as a result of human motivation in developing the organization of stories in a plot. They even said, ‗The most significant element, the essence, of plot is conflict.‘ Conflicts, according to them can happen between two people or between a person with many people. The point is that conflicts require the existence of certain characters. Even when it is only one character, the conflict may arise.

When a person is confronting with himself or herself, it can be categorized as conflict. To make the term ‗conflict‘ understandable, Roberts and Jacobs concluded that to notice conflict is to be aware of certain discord of ideas in stories which can develop into a plot (1987: 99).

Harmon and Holman in A Handbook to Literature emphasized that conflicts are not only the presence of two or more opposing ideas but also how the clash between them grows the story. ‗The struggle that grows out of the interplay of two opposing forces,‘ (2009: 123). As they remarked, Harmon and Holman categorized conflicts into at least five different types depended on what the character faces: ‗(1) a struggle against nature, (2) a struggle against another person, (3) a struggle against society, (4) a struggle for mastery by two elements within the person, (5) a struggle against Fate or destiny,‘ (2009: 123). Harmon and

Holman also added their explanation that it could be possible that conflict presents not only a moment when a character fights against ‗someone or something‘ but

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

also when he or she faces something abstract such as his or her own motivations.

In this case, conflict is categorized as inner conflict (2009: 123).

3. Theory of Nationalism a. Definition and Description

Nationalism, since its emergence in Europe, has been understood, described, and defined differently by people all over the world. This understanding has kept changing along with the development of human thought and various problems in many parts of the world. Benedict Anderson, in Imagined

Communities, offered a way to understand nationalism. He, firstly, proposed an understanding that people can understand nationalism if they can understand what a nation is. Anderson himself gave his definition that a nation is an imagined community.

In an anthropological spirit, then, I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion (Anderson, 1991: 5-6).

Thus, his definition implies that a group of certain people believing that they and certain other people are in a unity, though they may not know each other, is called a nation. He further explained that it is not only a matter of ‗imagining‘ certain people as a unity but also a matter of how they also understand that their community is different from other communities (other nations). Anderson characterized that point with the word limited. It is not about territory. Limited

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

means no matter how big the number of the members of certain community; they are still limited to particular characteristics showing that they belong to certain community (nation) (1991: 6-7).

The last thing he identified about the term nation is sovereign. The word sovereign is to identify that when the members of a community (nation) have understood that they are limited and tied each other in their group, and then they realize the need for sovereignty. Sovereignty is the key of a nation to show its existence among many other nations in the world. Moreover, it guarantees its freedom from being intervened by other nations (Anderson, 1991: 7).

The three characteristics, of what-so-called a nation, proposed by

Anderson imply that a nation is in the minds of its members. It builds comradely relationship among the members. Then it can be understood why certain people feeling that they belong to a certain nation sometimes make irrational acts or even killings because of their nation. ‗Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings,‘ (Anderson, 1991: 7).

The willingness or awareness of certain people for their nation is how to describe nationalism. Such a feeling or spirit, later, manifests many different actions. The actions are usually led by a leader, or to be easier people call him or her a nationalist. As mentioned previously, the names such as Soekarno, Mahatma

Gandhi, and José Rizal are considered as nationalists. They brought with them nationalism for their nations. They manifested nationalism in different ways.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Snyder‘s The Meaning of Nationalism exemplifies another way of how people show their nationalism. He explained how nationalist movements were sometimes irrational and they triggered hatred toward the foreigners among their people. He took a case of Lolito Lebrón, a member of terrorist nationalist party from Puerto Rico, who brutally shot the chamber of the House of Representatives and caused five Congressmen from United Stated bleeding and wounded (1968:

3).

Those examples of nationalism or nationalists‘ manifestation are to give understanding that a deep love to a country or a nation is perceived and carried out differently by some figures.

It is no doubt that nationalism is the impetus for a nation or a country in developing itself or, at least, releases itself from hegemony. Not only is the spirit of nationalism needed but also a figure of leader. This leader or someone called nationalist stands in the front line of nationalism movement and also burns his or her people spirit.

It is important to notice Anderson‘s point that the thing that stimulates a person‘s willingness to do whatever for his or her nation, or maybe country, is, like mentioned previously, the power of imagining the community. However, again, the deeper questions about how this consciousness is formed in people‘s mind and how it can influence other members in a community rise. To respond that, it seems important to notice at three factors playing roles in the movements.

As proposed by Anderson in Imagined Community, the three factors are cultural roots. By noticing the cultural roots, people can understand the things that

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

drive nationalism. The first one is ‗a particular script-language‘ in religious community. This script somehow unites certain members in a community although they do not know each other. He exemplified the case when a

Maguindanao and a Berber meet in Mecca. They might not recognize each other, not even have a talk. But they are connected due to the sacred texts written in classical Arabics. They are Muslims that understand the written language inherited in their sacred texts (1991: 12-19). What he means with this example is that the script with certain language can connect people in a nation so that they imagine who their brothers and sisters are.

The second cultural root is that certain people can understand from which monarch they inherit. They then will show their loyalty to their ancestor. This means that nationalism can emerge from people‘s understanding that they are from certain dynasty that bear their brothers and sisters (Anderson, 1991: 19-22).

To explain the third cultural roots, the case of Maguindanao and Berber is borrowed. In the case of Maguindanao and Berber, people in ‗stable‘ circumstance can understand the communion with other members in their community. In other parts of the world, lots of people that are still in ‗under pressure‘ circumstance can also feel their communion. In this case, he explained about the importance of simultaneity of time in the analogy of the word meanwhile. He, first, took an example of Christian people who prepare in this present time for the end of life (in the future) by learning from the past. It is certainly difficult to understand the simultaneity of time in the case of Christian life to answer the understanding about nationalism as he also noticed ‗but it is a conception of such fundamental

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

importance that, without taking it fully into account, we will find it difficult to probe the obscure genesis of nationalism.‘ However, the main learning from that case is that people from different time or era with their own conditions can feel nationalism because the previous generation had taught about this spirit to their children (Anderson, 1991: 22-30). b. Nationalism in a Novel

Anderson continued the explanation about simultaneity in the word meanwhile by exemplifying through literature. He explored how José Rizal‘s novel Noli Me Tangere clearly describe that simultaneity of events in different time can create nuance of nationalism (1991: 22-30). In Spectre of Comparisons, he also described how Noli Me Tangere can create the imagination The

Philippines people. The author put several characters in different settings to create a story containing series of events that seem separated but actually are closely related to each other. By looking at the description of different events put in Noli

Me Tangere, the readers‘ minds are brought to the imagination of what-so-called

The Philipinos.

Yet the geographical space of the novel is strictly confined to the immediate environs of the colonial capital, Manila. The Spain from which so many of the characters have at one time or another arrived is always off stage. This restriction made it clear to Rizal‘s first readers that ―The Philippines‖ was aa society in itself, even though those who lived in it had as yet no common name. That he was the first to imagine this social whole explains why he is remembered today as the First Filipino (Anderson, 1998: 230).

Thus, Anderson exemplified how nationalism is created by imagining series of events in a novel. Characters coming from ‗every stratum of late colonial

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

society, from liberal-minded peninsular Captain-General down through the racial tiers of colonial society−creoles, mestizos, chinos (―pure‖ Chinese) to the illiterate‘ and limited with the place named Manila, he described as the beginning of imagining a nation of The Philippines. Noli Me Tangere finally brought other people in The Philippines to realize that they are in one community and have a communion until later they reached their sovereignty.

All this examples are to explain that nationalism is coming from the ability to imagine that certain people in certain places and in whatever circumstances belong to a certain community. The analogy of the word meanwhile is to emphasize that the communion is also built in diversity. Some may realize that they are connected with other members in a community because of certain similarities but the example of Noli Me Tangere gives an understanding that a nation may also contain of ‗different‘ people as long as they can imagine their communion.

C. Mario Vargas Llosa’s Life Background

Jorge Mario Pedro Vargas Llosa or known as Mario Vargas Llosa is well- known as Peruvian novelist. He was born in Arequipa, Peru, 1936, but spent his childhood in Cochabamba, Bolivia. During his childhood, Llosa lived only with his mother since she hid him from knowing his father because of their separation.

However, it was ten years after he was born that he finally met his father. Llosa was then brought by his father to live in Lima, Peru (http://www.centrorisorse.org,

July 23, 2012).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

After leaving Cochabamba, he continued his fifth grade in Lima. In his adolescence, Llosa had ever entered military school for two years but then continued his high school in Piura. In 1953, he went back to Lima and took Law and Literature in San Marcos University. It did not please his father though

(http://www.centrorisorse.org, July 23, 2012).

Despite the fact that his father did not agree with his studying Law and

Literature, it would finally be revealed that he could make a living from what he had learned in San Marcos. He experienced several jobs that were not too far from law and literature. He used to write news for in Peruvian local radio. In the early of 1960, he began ‗travelling‘ in some European countries. He went to Madrid in

1959 and then encountering quite difficult life in Paris a year after. Fortunately, he got an opportunity to teach Spanish in that city. His speaking in the French ORTF and his being journalist in France Press, apparently made his relation to literature was getting closer and closer. One of his starting points might be his writing a play entitled The Flight of the Inca. Later, he went back to Peru to get data about

Amazonians, travelled to Havana and Cuba, and in 1967 he started living again in

Europe with his family from the secondary marriage until 1971

(http://www.centrorisorse.org, July 23, 2012).

Although he travelled a lot, he has been making so many writing until now. Some of his works are The Time of the Hero (1963), The Green House

(1966), Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter (1977), The Storyteller (1987), and The

Dream of the Celt (2010). Despite the fact that his works are like autobiographical writings, he has articulated his concerns in politics especially the things related to

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Latin America. He used to encounter with socialism world by supporting Cuban revolution. Later, when the movement showed authoritarian characteristics, he started exposing his own views by leaving Fidel Castro‘s ways. Llosa put ‗liberal pluralism, democracy, and free market‘ as the things he struggled for the people.

This turning of view was remarked ‗His changing political inclination brought with it a new way of understanding Latin American problems.‘ In 1990, he was the candidate for the President election in Peru but apparently it was Alberto

Fujimori who won it (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

In 2010, Mario Vargas Llosa was awarded a Nobel Prize in Literature. His works are considered as his reflections on problems in Latin America and his upholding democracy for the people. It is not only about political issues that have decorated his works but also his concerns to the inhabitants in Amazon.

Moreover, his different perspectives on reflecting the problems might be another reason why he deserved to get the award (Stavans, 2010).

His decision to get Spain citizenship and to live only three years after he failed the presidential election might be one of the ways he articulated his ‗own views‘ on problems. This decision, no doubt, became a controversy. He was considered as a traitor to his own country. Another case is showed in the below quotation.

He also analyzed the case of Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Fujimori's right-hand man, whose own corruption, when revealed, helped bring down his mentor by showing the Peruvian people the extent of Fujimori's political excesses. In Vargas Llosa's reflections, Montesinos's actions, outrageous as they were, offered a precious opportunity for Peruvian democracy "to cleanse and reform" itself (Stavans, 2010).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Those cases showed that Llosa tried to reveal his different views on things.

Sometimes people question his nationalism and also loyalty to his own country.

However, he argued in this way.

I never felt like a foreigner in Europe or, in fact, anywhere. In all the places I have lived, in Paris, London, Barcelona, Madrid, Berlin, Washington, New York, Brazil, or the Dominican Republic, I felt at home. I have always found a lair where I could live in peace, work, learn things, nurture dreams, and find friends, good books to read, and subjects to write about. It does not seem to me that my unintentionally becoming a citizen of the world has weakened what are called ―my roots,‖ my connections to my own country – which would not be particularly important – because if that were so, my Peruvian experiences would not continue to nourish me as a writer and would not always appear in my stories, even when they seem to occur very far from Peru (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

His different view on things is, no doubt, influenced by his experiences living across his city, even across his country. The experiences have enabled him to be aware that there are several perspectives to see a problem that should be respected even in the case of showing his loyalty and nationalism to his country.

Thus, many people consider him as a cosmopolitan. One of them is Geordie

Williamson, Australian's chief literary critic, who argued in this way. ‗Vargas

Llosa is a cosmopolitan figure, a man whose political conservatism is almost at odds with his liberated fiction. He's a radical Tory with an amazing imagination,‘

(Romei, 2010).

D. Review on Peruvian Society

Peruvian society is so multicultural. This is a result of its historical background and also geographical conditions. There were at least two big

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

civilizations, the Incas and the Spaniards, which contributed their inheritances and systems among Peruvian people.

The Incas used to place their capital in ancient Cuzco mostly in high

Andean terrain where jungles and highlands. After the Spaniards‘ coming to Peru, they remained stable dwelling in highlands for the geographical condition could protect them from Spanish civilization. While the Incas dwelled in high terrain, the Spanish conquerors, who used to place their capital in Lima, occupied coast areas and lowlands for there were the entrance to this island (Garcia, 1985: 402).

That historical background brought many impacts for the Peruvian people nowadays. The Incas seemed to contribute some remains of their civilization in highland. However, they could not cover all areas of the Andean sierra due to its ruggedness. As a result, there are still many natives (Indians) that remain living in their traditional ways and far from civilization until now. One of them is

Matsigenka (or Machiguenga) community that dwells in upper part of Amazon jungle surrounded by Andes Mountains, Urubamba River, and Madre de Dios

River, in Cuzco region, southeastern part of Peru as a result of the Incas civilization and also the Spaniards civilization which disturbed their areas.

However, as time went by, they could be touched by modernization. Some of them nowadays are educated in Pucallpa where Summer Institute of Linguistics trains literacy to the natives (Johnson, 1996).

Compared to the Incas who affected the highland natives, the Spaniards seemed to bring quite big impacts to rest of Peruvian societies nowadays. Their coming had forced other inhabitants to move to the highland for they applied

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

what-so-called: caste system. It forced others inhabitants in this land even the natives to work for them as slaves. It is explained in this way.

Having conquered the Incan homeland, the Spaniards proceeded to assault the culture of the people and created a complex, multilayered caste system—which lasted for four centuries—in which Indians provided what amounted to slave labor for white masters (Garcia, 1985: 402).

Although it is not applied anymore among the people, it seems that the impacts affect Peruvian people nowadays. Peruvian society, conscious or unconsciously, is structured economically into three layers: upper class, middle class, and lower class. The upper class is a group of landowners and entrepreneurs; the middle class is a group of workers managing the upper class‘ companies including hiring employees; while the lower class is group of some workers, farmers, and also rural people including the Indians hired for the upper class‘ companies (Garcia, 1985: 412). From this condition, it reflects that caste system, which was inclined to gave benefits to white masters (the Spaniards), has been prolonged into an economic structure which gives burdens especially to the native Indians nowadays. They are still treated as if they are slaves in Spanish colonialization era.

It is not only the human resources that have been raped by the whites from the Indians but also their culture. To strengthen the economics, the whites even take the culture as commodities for economic. It is explained in this way.

The cultural destruction occurred at an extremely rapid pace: A magnificent tradition of artistic pottery production, some of it (Nazca, Chavin, Chimu, Mochica) among the most aesthetically pleasing ever produced within half a century after conquest to a pitiful, shriveled parody of what it had once been (Garcia, 1985: 402-403).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Not only economic had the Spaniards influenced Peru but also they had made new generation born. A generation of mixture between Indian and Spanish: mestizos. Although this generation is mixed, mestizos people still had their dominant role like what whites do. They are mostly considered as upper class.

This phenomenon sometimes contributes certain argument that considers that

Peruvian nation consists of mestizos while the Indians are only workers. This is explained in this way.

Almost by definition, most Indians work for, but are not a part of, the Peruvian nation. The vast majority live in the sierra and are employed as farm workers, peasants, or small merchants. The rest of the people are considered mestizos, or of mixed Indian and Spanish lineage (Garcia, 1985: 412).

The fact that Peruvian society is so multicultural precisely reveals the phenomenon that the people are structured economically. This structure, of course, gives much more benefits to the upper class (whites and mestizos). The rest is inequality for the natives of Peru.

E. Theoretical Framework

The above theories are used to help figuring out Mario Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism in The Storyteller. To answer the first research question, the writer uses Abrams‘ theory of setting. His theory categorizes setting into three elements.

They are setting of location or place, time, and social condition. Thus, the analysis of the setting in The Storyteller is divided into three elements of setting.

For the second problem, the writer uses Roberts and Jacobs‘ theory of conflict as a result of human motivation. The writer focuses on the conflicts

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

between two main characters (the no-name narrator and Saúl Zuratas) and the conflicts between the no-name narrator with himself.

To answer the third problem, the writer uses the description of setting that has been answered in the first problem formulation and the depiction the main conflicts. This step is to analyze the relation between setting and main conflicts in

The Storyteller and Mario Vargas Llosa‘s life background combined with

Anderson‘s theory of nationalism.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Object of the Study

The object of this study was a novel entitled The Storyteller. It was written by a Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa. The Storyteller was first published in

Spanish in 1987 with El Hablador as its original title. The novel used in this study was the English version published by Picador in 1989, with 246 pages including 8 chapters. The author of this novel, Mario Vargas Llosa is also well-known for his works such as Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter (1977), The Feast of the Goat

(2000), and The Bad Girl (2006).

The Storyteller is a story representing several problems faced by the

Amazonian inhabitants, specifically those in Peru. The novel whose setting put in the era of 1950s-1980s, actually represented not only about problems in

Amazonian inhabitants but also some other problems in Peruvian society. It began with a no-name narrator whose mind brought back to his country, Peru, when he visited a gallery in Firenze, Italy. The photographs displayed in that gallery described about one of tribes in Amazon called Machiguenga. One of the photographs really reminded him of his friend, Saul Zuratas whom he knew for his total dedication for natives in Peruvian jungle, especially Machiguenga. The story then revealed the memory of the narrator when he was with Saul in college and their conflicting, arguing about Machiguenga. Saul Zuratas seemed to be the main discussion even among the narrator and his lecturers due to his insisting on

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

arguing that a study about Machiguenga is a kind of immoral act. He considered that as ‗destroying‘ their culture. The main conflict, then, rose when the narrator got a question about an important figure among Machiguenga community who liked sharing stories. This figure was called ‗storyteller‘ or hablador. Hablador apparently became a big mystery for the narrator since he was told that this figure made his or her listeners fall asleep before his or her story ended. The mystery was not easy to solve though. It made him curious and keep finding out if this figure really existed since the Machiguengas kept silent whenever they were asked about it. During the quest of this figure, later, the narrator felt suspicious that hablador was his friend, who disappeared from them several years. He tried to figure out if hablador was Saúl‘s way to emerge with Machiguengas and preserve their inhabitants.

B. Approach of the Study

Considering expressive criticism in Abrams‘ A Glossary of Literary Terms that tries to place a work of literature as a significant result of author‘s expression, the writer worked with this point of view for this study. Abrams‘ explanation about expressive criticism states that a work of literature is a product of its author‘s feelings, thoughts, and even psychological conditions. Thus, people can get a description about what kind of person the author is from his or her work. It can be understood from this quotation.

… it tends to judge the work by its sincerity, or its adequacy to the poet's individual vision or state of mind; and it often seeks in the work evidences of the particular temperament and experiences of the author who, consciously or unconsciously, has revealed himself or herself in it (Abrams, 1999: 51-52).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Expressive criticism that sees a work of literature from its relation with the author has led the writer to choose historical-biographical approach from Guerin for this study. This approach is chosen since it is appropriate with the objective of this study that is to reveal nationalism in the author of The Storyteller. Historical- biographical itself according to Guerin ‗sees a literary work chiefly, if not exclusively, as a reflection of its author‘s life and times or the life and times of the characters in the work,‘ (Guerin, 1999: 22).

To figure out Mario Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism, the history of the circumstance surrounding him and also his own life-history are needed. Thus, it makes the historical-biographical approach suitable because treats a work of literature from its relation with the author and his or her circumstance.

C. Method of the Study

The method mostly used in this study was library research. It means that the data and theories collected were mostly taken from books and references in the library. Besides, the second important method was through finding other significant sources from the internet.

This study was conducted through a framework structured into three main ways. The first one was getting familiar with the text. This was aimed to help the writer to be familiar with the literary work chosen and to propose a topic for this study. This way covered some steps. They involve choosing the literary work, reading it several times, proposing a topic, and formulating three problems. A step

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

that was important after formulating was to note some important points from the object related to the topic.

The second main way was to find related studies and theories. Related studies put in this study were aimed to provide other perspectives for the same object and a chance for the writer to decide her position toward her study. The theories in this study were chosen and organized according to the problems formulated.

The third main way was to answer the problems. To answer the problems, the writers applied the theories chosen and used the points or data collected from the object framed according to the problem formulations. For the final step, the writer generated conclusion after all problems have been answered.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

Regarding the problems formulated, this chapter is divided into three sections. The first section is the analysis about the setting of place, time, and social circumstance in The Storyteller. Then, in the second section, the focus of the analysis is on the main conflicts in the plot. The last section is meant to figure out Mario Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism through the depiction of setting and main conflicts.

A. Setting of The Storyteller

The first problem is discussed in this section. The answer of the problem is based on the setting of the novel The Storyteller. It is divided into three parts; they are setting of place, time, and social condition.

1. Setting of Place

Abrams remarked that every single thing describing ‗general locale, historical time, and social condition‘ in which a literary work takes place is considered as setting (1999: 284-285). In this part, the focus is on setting of place or location where the story in The Storyteller occurs. Since Peru is the main locale in this story yet there are also other places significant, the writer divides the analysis of this part into two: setting of place outside and inside Peru. All locations in the story are not discussed though. The writer only picks places which are important for the discussion.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

a. Setting of Place outside Peru i. Firenze

Several places outside Peru are mentioned in The Storyteller. One of them is Firenze. Firenze becomes a significant setting in this novel since it opens the story by its appearance in the first chapter and it finishes the story for it appears again in the last chapter. The placement of Firenze in the beginning and the last of the story seem to cover the whole story because the two chapters are put in present time which wrap a flashback part in the middle of the story.

The first chapter of The Storyteller directly mentions Firenze when a (no- name) narrator stated that he went to that place so that he could release his mind for a while from thinking about his country, Peru. ‗I came to Firenze to forget

Peru and the Peruvians for a while, and suddenly my unfortunate country forced itself upon me this morning in the most unexpected way,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 3).

Firenze as the setting of place in the earliest part of The Storyteller can be seen not only from the direct mentioning but also from the description of some places belongs to this city. This can be understood when the narrator, who seemed to have a trip in this city, stated that he visited some places explaining the details of Firenze. The places were Dante‘s restored house, Church of San Martino del

Véscovo, and Via Santa Margherita.

I had visited Dante‘s restored house, the little Church of San Martino del Véscovo, and the lane where, so legend has it, he first saw Beatrice, when, in the little Via Santa Margherita, a window display stopped me short: bows, arrows, a carved oar, a pot with a geometric design, a mannequin bundled into a wild cotton cushma (Llosa, 1989: 3).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The description of Firenze as the setting of place in the first chapter is developed by a moment when the narrator visited a gallery. This gallery somehow describes Firenze in terms of art. It can be seen from the below quotation when the narrator was between feeling doubt and curious to enter the gallery since it had something to do with his knowledge about Renaissance works.

Naturally, I went in. With a strange shiver and the presentiment that I was doing something foolish, that mere curiosity was going to jeopardize in some way my well-conceived and, up until then, well-executed plan−to read Dante and Machiavelli and look at Renaissance paintings for a couple of months in absolute solitute−and precipitate one of those personal upheavals that periodically make chaos of my life. But, naturally, I went in (Llosa, 1989: 3-4).

Another description of Firenze is found in the conversation between the narrator and a girl watching over things in the gallery. The narrator asked the girl and she replied in Italian language.

The gallery was minute. A single low-ceilinged room in which, to make room for all photographs, two panels had been added, every inch of them covered with pictures. A thin girl in glasses, stting behind a small table, looked up at me. Could I visit the ―Natives of the Amazon Forest‖ exhibition? ―Certo. Avanti, Avanti,‖ (Llosa, 1989: 4).

Still, the description about Firenze in the first chapter is shown from language used. In almost the last of this chapter, the narrator asked the girl if he could buy one the paintings or meet the photographer. The girl replied that he could not since the photographer had already passed away. She replied this in

Italian language as quoted below.

Making an effort to contain my excitement, I asked if the photographs were for sale. No, she didn‘t think so. They belonged to Rizzoli, the publishers. Apparently they were going to appear in a book. I asked her to put me in touch with the photographer. No, that wouldn‘t be possible, unfortunately: ―Il signore Gabriele Malfatti ѐ morto,‖ (Llosa, 1989: 6).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

As mentioned previously, the use of Firenze as the locale in The

Storyteller is to begin and to end the story. Firenze is described also in the last chapter of The Storyteller. If in the first chapter a part of Firenze precisely recalled his memory of his country, in the last chapter the narrator retold about that place in a way of making comparison to his own country, Peru. He compared the place, society, and also the atmosphere.

In the below quotation, the narrator seems to ask the reader to imagine

Firenze in a way he understood some parts of his own country. He described the great number of tourists coming to Firenze is like the vast area of Amazonian river. ‗Florentines are famous, in Italy, for their arrogance and for their hatred of the tourists that inundate them, each summer, like an Amazonian river,‖ (Llosa,

1989: 235).

Despite the description of Firenze as a setting of place in which the narrator recalled his memory of his country, the most significant role of this setting is that this city is a locale in which the narrator rearranged his flashback story. The story was opened and ended with the description of Firenze. Besides, the most important proof is that at the last chapter, the narrator, himself, confessed that he wrote the story in this city.

It means being, in the most profound way possible, a rooted Machiguenga, one of that ancient lineage who―in the period in which this Firenze, where I am writing, produced its dazzling effervescence of ideas, paintings, buildings crimes, and intrigues―roamed the forests of my country, bringing and bearing away those tales, lies, fictions, gossip, and jokes that make a community of that people of scattered beings, keeping alive among them the feeling oneness, of constituting something fraternal and solid (Llosa, 1989: 244).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The quotation explained where story is arranged. In addition to that, it has explained the setting of place in which the story was retold in a form of written text. Thus, Firenze as a setting of place is functioned not only as a locale in which some parts of the story happen but also as the location where the whole story is arranged. It is known from the description of this city in the first and the last paragraph and also the confession of the narrator who wrote it in Firenze. ii. Madrid and Paris

Madrid and Paris are other places outside Peru described in the story.

These places take only a little part in the story. Yet, they are still important for the discussion since those places are the setting in which the narrator still recalled his memory of Peru. The writer put the description of these places together because both of them are connected with the time the narrator spent after he graduated from bachelor degree.

Madrid is a place where the narrator finally decided to take a scholarship for postgraduate degree. He first gave a sign that it was to Spain. ‗I had finally managed to obtain the fellowship to Europe I‘d coveted and was to leave for

Spain the following month,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 70). It is revealed specifically that the scholarship was to Madrid when he said goodbye to his best friend, Saúl. ‗I was afraid I‘d be off to Europe without having said goodbye to Saúl when, on the eve of my departure to Madrid, I ran into him as I got off a bus on a corner of the

Avenida España,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 94).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The narrator took his postgraduate degree in Madrid. Yet, he did not directly return to his country. He continued living in Madrid or once in Paris. It is described in the below quotation when he explained that parts of Peru were still in his mind after spending four years living outside from his country.

Four years went by without any news of him. None of the Peruvians who came through Madrid or Paris, where I lived after finishing my postgraduate studies, was ever able to tell me anything about Saúl. I thought of him often, in Spain especially, not only because of my liking for him but also because of the Machiguengas (Llosa, 1989: 103).

The overall description of Madrid and Paris as setting of places is about several years he spent his study for postgraduate degree and several years he stayed in those cities after finishing postgraduate program. b. Setting of Place Inside Peru i. Lima

The Storytelller puts its setting of place mostly in Peru. Several regions, cities, districts, and also other small places in this country become the main locales in the story. One of them is Lima, the capital city.

Lima was first mentioned in the second chapter. It appeared when the narrator introduced a friend of him named Saúl Zuratas. Lima became significant here since it was a main place in which they first encountered until they became quite close. The narrator and Saúl met for the first time in San Marcos. It was a university they shared their first becoming freshmen (Llosa, 1989: 8-9). San

Marcos itself was a national university located in Lima.

Lima as setting of place was also elaborated when the narrator had a chance to know Saúl Zuratas personally. Saúl came from and used to live in

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Talara, another city in Peru. ‗He came from Talara and was on familiar terms with everybody,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 9). But then due to successful business, his father, Don

Salomón, decided to bring the family move to Lima. It can be understood from the below quotation.

His problem, he said, was that his father had made too much money with his general store back home; so much that one fine day he‘d decided to move to Lima. And since they‘d come to the capital his father had taken up Judaism (Llosa, 1989: 9).

Saúl and his father lived in Breña, a district in Lima. ‗They lived in Breña, behind the Colegio La Salle, in a depressing side street off the Avenida Arica,‘

(Llosa, 1989: 9). The narrator explained that when one fine day he was invited to have lunch with Saúl‘s father. He went there and found that Saúl and Don

Salomón had a maid with them who also came from Talara. The maid worked not only with the housework but also with things in Don Salomón‘s store he had opened in Lima. And apparently there was one more creature living in their house.

It was a talking parrot accompanying this family in a house decorated with old furnishings (Llosa, 1989: 9-10).

Saúl‘s house in Breña was one of silent witnesses in which he spent his college life. Saúl and the narrator shared their togetherness in San Marcos until

Saúl finally graduated after five years struggling for his bachelor degree. ‗The work Saúl did in the summer of ‘56 among Machiguengas later became, in expanded form, his thesis for his bachelor‘s degree. He defended it in our fifth year at San Marcos,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 30).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The description of Lima as the setting of place was more on its function as a place in which the narrator met Saúl and they shared their college life. They often spent time to have a discussion or even just for hanging out. However, their togetherness in Lima implies something significant to the description of Lima as a setting of place. The buildings and some places in which they usually go for hanging out reveal the atmosphere of modernity of a big city. It seems so because later in the description of the other places in Peru, the circumstances are quite different with the things described in Lima.

In addition to the description of the atmosphere of education and business describing modernity in Lima, some places to hang out or to have amusement are mentioned in the story. One of them is a bar Saúl and the narrator visited on a break between classes. ‗Every so often, between classes, we used to go over to a run-down billiard parlor, which was also a bar, on the Jirón Azángaro, to have ourselves a game,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 13). The bar is somehow described as a place for them to have entertainment during the class break. It is located on the street named Jirón Azángaro.

Another place depicting Lima is café. It is described in the fourth chapter that the narrator and Saúl were having farewell time before the narrator continued his study to Madrid.

I was afraid I‘d be off to Europe without having said goodbye to Saúl when, on the eve of my departure to Madrid, I ran into him as I got off a bus on a corner of the Avenida España. We went to little café, where he‘d treat me, he said, to a farewell meal of crackling sandwiches and ice-cold beer, the memory of which would I stay with me during the whole time I was in Europe (Llosa, 1989: 94).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The café on the Avenida España again describes another aspect of Lima.

The habitual action of meeting or having discussion at a bar or café somehow gives portrayal of how Lima is. Still in the moment of their farewell, Lima as a big city is portrayed through the hectic situation surrounding the café. As Saúl was about saying goodbye to him, the narrator described the circumstance outside the café.

That was the last time I saw Saúl Zuratas. The image floats unchanged above the tumultuous surge of the years, the gray air, the overcast sky, and the penetrating damp of a Lima winter serving as a backdrop. Behind him, a confusion of cars, trucks, and buses coiling around the monument to Bolognesi, and Mascarita, with the great dark stain on his face, his flaming red hair, and his checkered shirt, waving goodbye and shouting: ―We‘ll see if you come back a real Madrileño, lisping your z‘s and using archaic second-person plurals. Have good trip, and lots of luck to you over there, pal!‖ (Llosa, 1989: 102-103).

That quotation somehow gives significant note for the depiction of Lima.

As Saúl was leaving him in the café, the narrator portrayed the hectic situation of the city. He described how cars, trucks, and buses were trapped in the crowd of the circle of monument to Bolognesi.

From the overall depiction of Lima, this city is characterized from the names of the streets and also some places belonging to it. Yet, the important things to notice are how this city described from the atmosphere of life. Lima is described as a big city with its modernity. This can be seen from the atmosphere of education brought in the dynamic college life of the narrator and Saúl Zuratas.

Moreover, from the places in which they spent their togetherness such as bar and café, it can be drawn that this city states its status as a big city from the domination of the choice to spend for hanging out. The last one is from how the

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

narrator clearly stated that there were lots of vehicles contributing the crowd on a corner of this city.

But there were some other places in Peru that were also significant and described in the story. ii. Quillabamba

Quillabamba is part of Cuzco region in Peru. This city is well-known for its vast area of higher jungle. In the story, Quillabamba was mentioned when Saúl visited this place for a trip. He was invited by his uncle to spend his holidays there

(Llosa, 1989: 17).

The fact that part of Quillabamba was jungle could be seen from how

Saúl‘s uncle adjusted to living there. This place seemed to provide raw materials such as land and wood to cultivate. It was described on how Saúl‘s uncle explored the jungle to find mahogany and rosewood for making a living (Llosa, 1989: 17).

From the story of Saúl‘s uncle, it can be understood that Quillabamba itself was one of places in which the natives of America, Indians, dwelled and survived. It was told that some Indians Saúl‘s uncle hired to help him in timber cultivation lived in an area of camps. The location was surrounded by two big river, Alto Urubamba and Alto Madre de Dios, and also some other bayous.

Through his encountering with the Indians, Saúl had a chance to visit their camps.

Saúl had to ride a raft to reach the camps area since it was one of transportations used for river. This geographical condition in Quillabamba apparently provided

Saúl a chance for adventure. Not only did the Urubamba challenge him with its torrent but also its canyon, Pongo de Mainique, and some whirlpools. It was

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

described how he felt excited when the journey forced them to meet canyon of

Pongo de Mainique, part of Urubamba River, which was challenging due to its whirlpools. It was seen through the below quotation.

He spent an entire night enthusiastically telling me what it was like to ride a raft hurtling through the Pongo de Mainique, where the Urubamba, squeezed between two foothills of the Cordillera, became a labyrinth of rapids and whirlpools (Llosa, 1989: 17).

The jungle of Quillabamba, for Saúl, was challenging not only in terms of transportation but the geographical condition also forced anyone dwelling in that place to survive in wildlife. It was then explained that the jungle of Quillabamba offered whatever available there to eat and drink. They ate animals such as monkey, turtle, and insects, which actually were considered strange for those who had never consumed them. Saúl himself seemed to complete his adventure by trying to eat and drink the way the Indians did. He also tried traditional alcoholic beverage made from cassava called masato, ‗Saúl had eaten monkey, turtle, and grubs, and gotten incredibly soused on cassava masato,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 17-18).

In short, Quillabamba for one of the setting places in The Storyteller is depicted as a typically wildlife place. This is due to not only the domination of jungle and some rivers but also the way people there survive. For the people or the community originated from that place, wildlife seems to be very common to face.

However, it turns out differently when someone like Saúl coming from another place with its modernity visited this place. It becomes such an adventure for him.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

iii. Alto Marañón

Alto Marañón is another region located in Peru. It is in the surrounding of

Marañón River, one of Amazon‘s tributaries. Alto Marañón appears in the story when the narrator was offered a chance to visit Amazon jungle. This was several years after he listened to Saúl‘s experience. ‗I first became acquainted with the

Amazon jungle halfway through 1958, thanks to my friend Rosita Corpancho,‘

(Llosa, 1989: 70). The chance was an expedition conducted by a linguistic institute called Summer Institute of Linguistics. It was being done in Alto

Marañón.

―There‘s a place available for someone on an expedition to the Alto Marañón that‘s been organized by the Summer Institute of Linguistics for a Mexican anthropologist,‖ she said to me one day when I ran into her on the campus of the Faculty of Letters (Llosa, 1989: 70).

The narrator then decided to take the chance. For it was a research on languages and dialects, he and the other researchers had to encounter with certain

Indian tribes. In this region, the narrator met other Peruvian indigenous communities different from the one Saúl had told him.

We went first to Yarinacocha and talked with the linguists and then, a long way from there, to the region of the Alto Marañón, visiting a series of settlements and villages of two tribes of the Jíbaro family: the Aguarunas and the Huambisas. We then went up to Lake Morona to visit the Shapras (Llosa, 1989: 72).

Previously in the discussion about Quillabamba, Machiguenga is mentioned as one of Indians Saúl encountered. In the above quotation, some other tribes with whom the narrator encountered in Amazonian jungle were the

Aguarunas, the Huambisas, and the Shapras. The Aguarunas, Huambisas, and

Shapras are scattered through the jungles in Alto Marañón. The narrator, then,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

went on describing how he reached one of villages in Alto Marañón in which the

Shapras dwelled.

We traveled in a small hydroplane, and in some places in native canoes, along river channels so choked with tangled vegetation overhead that in bright daylight it seemed dark as night. The strength and the solitude of Nature−the tall trees, the mirror-smooth lagoons, the immutable rivers−brought us to mind a newly created world, untouched by man, a paradise of plants and animals (Llosa, 1989: 72-73).

Along the way to reach the village, the narrator seems to feel amazed by what the nature offered him to see. The dense of foliage made him feel as if it was night although it was noon. He described the jungles and the river as newborn world, home for plants and animals. It is all about a pack of wildlife.

The pack of life and atmosphere in Alto Marañón the narrator described are similar to what Saúl had experienced in Quillabamba. The jungles, the river, the creatures, are all the impression that they got from their first visiting to those places. Not only did the narrator encounter with the nature in Alto Marañón but also he finally understood how Peruvian indigenous communities survive in wildlife when he and the other researchers arrived at the Shapra village.

When we reached the tribes, by contrast, there before us was prehistory, the elemental, primeval existence of our distant ancestors: hunters, gatherers, bowmen, nomads, shamans, irrational and animistic. This, too, was Peru, and only then I did become fully aware of it: a world still untamed, the Stone Age, magico-religious cultures, polygamy, headshrinking (in a Shapra village of Moronacocha, the cacique, Tariri, explained to us, through an interpreter, the complicated technique of steeping and stuffing with herbs required by the operation)−that is to say, the dawn of human history (Llosa, 1989: 73).

The narrator was, again, amazed by another part of Alto Marañón. The nature had impressed him first with its pure and untouched wildlife. When he visited the Shapras, he was astonished by the human life in that settlement. The

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

community lived in an extremely traditional way. The narrator contrasted the way the community lived with his own life which seemed to be far from the term

‗traditional.‘ He even said that the community lived as if it was prehistoric period.

He described how those people represented ‗primeval existence of our ancestors.‘

Among them were some people hunting and gathering foods. The other ones might be shamans. They still hold local beliefs which the narrator considered as

‗irrational and animistic.‘ He then realized that in other parts of his country were there people still mingling with nature. They relied on what the jungle in Alto

Marañón provided.

They narrator, then, went on telling about another settlement he visited. He went to Urakusa village, the settlement of Aguaruna community. For this visit, he sensed similar atmosphere to the Shapras settlement.

In an Aguaruna village, Urakusa, where we arrived one evening, we saw through the portholes of the hydroplane the scene which had become familiar each time we touched down near some tribe: the eyes of the entire population of men and women, half naked and daubed with paint, attracted by the noise of the plane, followed its maneuver as they slapped at their faces and chests with both hands to drive away the insects (Llosa, 1989: 74).

After some visits to several settlements, the narrator became ‗familiar‘ with the things he saw. The communities are quite alike also in the way the members let their bodies covered with almost no dress but paint. They were distracted by the sound of the hydroplane and felt curious with it as the narrator and the researchers were approaching them.

The things amazed the narrator were sort of description of Alto Marañón.

This region is depicted in the story as a place with natural atmosphere. The jungle,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the river, the plants, and the animals create the impression of wildlife. Besides, it is seen from how the communities dwelling in that place survive. iv. Yarinacocha

Yarinacocha is one of significant places in the story since it includes in the moment when the narrator went to Alto Marañón with the linguistic institute. This place is the base camp for the research. It is located on ‗the banks of Ucayali,‘ a river with which Marañón River form Amazon River (Llosa, 1989: 71).

Yarinacocha is mentioned several times in the fourth chapter for it is the location where the researchers made several transits and discussion before the narrator and the other researchers started the expedition.

The narrator in that quotation mentioned that they went to Yarinacocha and had a talk with the linguists before they went to Alto Marañón and Lake

Morona. It describes that this place is significant for the researchers and the linguists to have discussion. Yarinacocha as the base camp for the research is then emphasized when the narrator told that it was also a place for the natives to be educated in this place so that they could be bilingual teachers.

The cacique was a quick-witted and determined man, and the Institute linguist working with the Aguarunas encouraged him to take a course at Yarinacocha so as to become a bilingual teacher. This was a program drawn up by the Ministry of Education with the aid of the Institute of Linguistics. Men of the tribes who, like Jum, seemed capable of setting up an educational project in their villages were sent to Yarinacocha, where they took a course−a fairly superficial one, I imagine−given by the

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

linguists and Peruvian instructors, to enable them to teach their people to read and read and write in their own language. They then returned to their native villages with classroom aids and the somewhat optimistic title of bilingual teacher (Llosa, 1989: 75).

The quotation shows how a cacique from the Aguaruna community was taken to undergo process of language learning at Yarinacocha in order to make him be able to be a bilingual teacher when going back to his village. Thus,

Yarinacocha is described in the story as a place functioning not only for the linguists and the researcher for gathering but also to give education for the natives so that they can share their knowledge to the other members of the community.

Still at Yarinacocha, the narrator and the other researchers discussed not only about linguistic groundwork but also characteristics of some indigenous communities they visited. Once they had a discussion at Mr. and Mrs. Schneil‘s house, a couple of linguists. It was about Machiguenga community which was different from other Peruvian indigenous communities. It is described by the narrator when they were sitting together having a talk at the Schneils‘.

Yarinacocha at dusk, when the red mouth of the sun begins to sink behind the treetops and the greenish lake glows beneath the indigo sky where the first stars are beginning to twinkle, is one of the most beautiful sights I have ever seen. We were sitting on the porch of a wooden house contemplating, over the Schneils‘ shoulders, the horizon line of the darkening forest. It was a magnificent sight (Llosa, 1989: 81).

Despite the domination of the depiction of Yarinacocha as a setting a place in which the narrator and the researchers did the project, the above quotation put little side of beauty of this place. The narrator described that he enjoyed the twilight he spent at the Schneils‘ house. He mentioned that he could see the reflection of glow from the surface of a lake. Similar to the description of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Quillabamba and Alto Marañón, forest is one of the main content of these three places. The narrator depicted that by saying that he could see ‗the horizon line of darkening forest‘ behind Schneils‘ shoulders.

2. Setting of Time

The story in this novel is a series of flashback. The most recent time in this story is put in 1980s. It is seen from the setting when the narrator, who was in

1985, started to recall his memory of his country Peru especially when he was entering college life in 1950. The story is then continued with some moments in

1960s and 1970s. Finally, the period of 1980s appears again in the end of the story. Thus, the narrator told the whole story in 1980s which covers flashback moments in 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

The narrator began to the story by telling a moment in Firenze when he was just visiting a gallery in that city. This gallery apparently displayed some pictures about Machiguenga, an indigenous community in Peru he had ever encountered. One of the photographs really attracted him and made him feel curious about how the photographer could get that picture. He even wanted to buy it but he was not allowed (1989: 3-7). Despite his interest and his curiosity toward the pictures, this moment in Firenze finally brought his mind back to his life as a college student until he worked. The story is then continued with some moments in 1950s.

The period of 1950s as setting of time is used to describe the time when the narrator was dealing with college life. The narrator joined Faculty of Letters in

San Marcos University around 1953 because he described that three years later, in

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

1956, he was in his third year in that university. In his description, he mentioned one significant moment in Peru related to political condition in that year.

He was finding out gradually during the months and years of our friendship, the fifties, in the Peru that, as Mascarita, myself, and our generation were reaching adulthood , was moving from the spurious peace of General Odria‘s dictatorship to the uncertainties and novelties of the return to democratic rule in 1956, when Saúl and I were third-year students at San Marcos (Llosa, 1989: 12).

The narrator described that in 1956, he reached his third-year at San

Marcos University. Along with his junior degree, he, as well as other students in his generation, were experiencing transfer of power in Peruvian political life. It is seen from the narrator‘s explanation that it was a moment when authoritarian governmental system ruled by General Odría turned into democratic system. It was somehow an important historical moment in their generation since it signified an outbreak of revolution toward dictatorship.

Another year in 1950s used as setting of time in this story is 1958. It is told that in 1958, the narrator started his first expedition to Amazonian jungle. ‗I first became acquainted with the Amazon jungle halfway through 1958, thanks to my friend Rosita Corpancho.‘ The expedition which was offered by Summer

Institute of Linguistics apparently attracted him even if it lasted only few weeks.

He finally managed his time to join it before he left for Spain (Llosa, 1989: 70-

72).

The overall setting of time in 1950s explains about years he spent for bachelor degree at San Marcos University. Along with that, 1950s introduces the narrator to Amazonian jungle through his relation with his best friend, Saúl

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Zuratas. By the end of this decade, after visiting Amazonian jungle in 1958, he left for Spain to take a fellowship for postgraduate degree.

The setting of 1958 signifies the end of the narrator‘s finishing his undergraduate degree at San Marcos and also the starting point he entered postgraduate studies in Madrid. The setting of time is then continued with the period of 1960s when he had finished his master degree and managed to spent several years to live in Madrid or Paris. During his staying in Madrid or Paris, he sent several letters to his best friend, Saúl, but none of them was replied. He was wondering about any information related to his friend until the setting took place in 1963 when he met his lecturer who seemed to be able to answer his curiosity.

‗It was not until the end of 1963, when Matos Mar turned up in Paris, to speak at an anthropological congress that I heard of Mascarita‘s whereabouts‘ (Llosa,

1989: 106).

The story only puts little part for 1960s as one of the setting of time. This decade is used more as a period in which the narrator spent his postgraduate studies in Spain or France. In addition to the use of 1960s as a phase the narrator spent for his postgraduate studies and living in Madrid or Paris, the story also places the setting of 1970s as a period in which the narrator spent to live outside

Peru. The setting of 1960s and 1970s in this story are similar in a way that the two decades show the period of the narrator that were still living far from his country.

It is mentioned in the story that in the early of 1970s, the narrator was still in

Spain.

Ever since I‘d lived in Spain in the early seventies, I had wanted to interview Corín Tellado, whose sentimental romances, radio soap operas,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

photo-novels, and television melodramas are devoured by countless thousands in Spain and Hispano-America (Llosa, 1989: 152).

Although the period of 1960s and 1970s is used to describe years the narrator spent for living outside from his country, he still followed news from his country. He described social situation in Lima around 1960s and 1970s when the city seemed to be dominated by high-class lifestyle. It is depicted in the story when students from middle-class society protested against that lifestyle.

In the sixties and seventies―the years of student revolt against a consumer society―many middle-class young people left Lima, motivated partly by adventure-seeking and partly by disgust at life in the capital, and went to the jungle or the mountains, where they lived in conditions that were frequently precarious (Llosa, 1989: 242).

That quotation explains the period of 1960s and 1970s as a moment the young people in Lima especially those coming from middle class society carried out their voice against consumerism. They articulated their voice through a protest toward ‗a consumer society.‘ The young people went to the jungle and mountains to carry out simple way of life far from consumerism in the capital city.

After telling the story in a frame of 1960s and 1970s, the narrator moved on revealing his life in the early of 1980s. The setting of 1981 began the story in

1980s. In 1981 the narrator had returned back to Peru. He spent six months in this year to work for a television channel. He and some friends were in charge of a program called Tower of Babel (Llosa, 1989: 146).

Six months in 1981 gave him not only a chance to meet some well-known writers but also a chance to have a contact with indigenous community in Peru, the Machiguengas. This chance was given by an old friend with whom the narrator had ever gone to Peruvian jungle in 1958, Rosita Corpancho, who

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

represented Summer Institute of Linguistics to ask if Tower of Babel would give a space for the institute to celebrate their ‗linguist-missionaries‘ in Peru. The narrator did not feel any hesitation when he was offered the chance since he was so curious about a mystery he had not yet found the answer related to the

Machiguengas (Llosa, 1989: 155-156).

The narrator then described when he finally went back to some villages in

Amazonian jungle where he had ever been.

Since that trip in mid-1958 when I discovered the Peruvian jungle, I had returned to Amazonia several times: to Iquitos, to San Martín, to the Alto Marañón, to Madre de Dios, to Tingo María. But I had not been back to Pucallpa. In the twenty-three years that had gone by, that tiny, dusty village that I remembered as being full of dark, gloomy houses and evangelical churches, had been through an industrial and commercial ―boom,‖ followed by a depression, and now, as Lucho Llosa, Alejandro Pérez, and I landed there one September afternoon in 1981 to film what was to be the next-to-last program of the Tower of Babel, it was in the first stages of another ―boom‖ though for bad reasons this time: trafficking in cocaine. The rush of heat and the burning light, in whose embrace people and things stand out so sharply (unlike Lima, where even bright sunlight has a grayish cast), are something that always has the effect on me of an emulsive draft of enthusiasm (Llosa, 1989: 158).

A moment in September 1981 was like a repetition for the narrator to visit the Amazonian jungle. He described that it was the duration of twenty three years that gave so much changes to the villages he had ever visited in 1958. In addition to the use of 1981 as a time in which the narrator could go back to Amazonian jungle, this year is also significant to explain that it was the time when he could finally get a chance to get in touch again with his research about Machiguenga storyteller called hablador.

Ever since my unsuccessful attempts in the early sixties at writing about the Machiguenga storytellers, the subject had never been far from my

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

mind. It returned every now and then, like an old love, not quite dead coals yet, whose embers would suddenly burst into flame (Llosa, 1989: 156).

The research was very important for him since he finally decided to work with that again after his failure in the early sixties. Apparently his curiosity about

Machiguenga storyteller, hablador, is what finally led him to get the information about his best friend, Saúl Zuratas. After spending years to long for the explanation about mysterious Machiguenga storyteller, his visit again to

Amazonian jungle in 1981 finally turned his curiosity into a feeling of suspicious that the figure was his own best friend, Saúl Zuratas (Llosa, 1989: 181-185).

Thus, the overall setting of time in 1981 is telling about the narrator‘s going back to Peru and his six months working for a television channel.

Apparently, his decision to work organizing one of the programs in that channel gave him a chance to visit Amazonian jungle again. This visit finally answered his curiosity about a figure of Machiguenga storyteller that he had longed since

1960s.

The setting of time in the novel is then continued with the period of 1985, four years after his visit to Amazonian jungle in 1981. At the beginning of the discussion about setting of time in The Storyteller, it is explained that this is a flashback story which its first part is in the recent time. In this setting of time, the story is put back in its most recent time.

The beginning of the story describes that the narrator was in Firenze when he started to recall and tell his story from 1950s until 1981. In the end of the story, the setting is put back in Firenze. This signifies that moments in Firenze described

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

in the beginning and the end of the story are the setting of time at which the narrator retold his flashback story.

This flashback story was retold in a frame of 1985 and the narrator did that in a way of writing it. It is proven in the last chapter when the narrator said that the thing that made him write the story was his best friend figure, Saúl Zuratas.

Where I find it impossible to follow him―an insuperable difficulty that pains and frustrates me―is in the next stage: the transformation of the convert into the storyteller. It is this facet of Saúl‘s story, naturally, that moves me most; it is what makes me think of it continually and weave and unweave it a thousand times; it is what has impelled me to put it into writing in the hope that if I do so, it will cease to haunt me (Llosa, 1989: 243-244).

It explains how the narrator rearranged the story. So as to close this flashback story, he enclose the place and date where and when he arranged the story. He wrote ‗Firenze, July 1985‘ and ‗London, May 13, 1987,‘ (Llosa, 1989:

246). Although he wrote also ‗London, May 13, 1987‘, it seems that the setting was put mostly in Firenze in 1985. It seems so because the enclosing of ‗London,

May 13, 1987‘ did not come along with the description of London or year of 1987 in the story. The last chapter decribes only a moment in Firenze at which the narrator wrote the story, ‗―in the period in which this Firenze, where I am writing, produced its dazzling effervescence of ideas, paintings, buildings crimes, and intrigues―,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 244).

Thus, the setting of time of this story covers four periods: 1950s, 1960s,

1970s, and 1980s. The period of 1950s functions as a period at which the narrator deals with his college life especially his bachelor degree. The period of 1960s and

1970s explains his entering postgraduate and his being away from his country. In

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

1980s, the narrator went back to his country and did some programs on a television channel and research about Machiguenga. Along with his returning back to Peru, this decade also explains when he went outside again from his country, to Firenze. The period of 1980s is significant because it is the setting of time at which the narrator rearranged his story from 1950s until 1980s. Thus, the period of 1980s covers the whole setting of time in the story.

3. Setting of Social Circumstance

The writer focuses the analyses of the setting of social circumstances on the discussion of the condition of social dynamics among the Peruvian societies depicted in the story. Some societies with their characteristics described in the story are discussed along with the dynamics of lives they undergo. How they live side by side along with so many different characteristics that can stimulate conflicts among them is the focus of this discussion. Thus, the writer analyzes the setting of social circumstances in a way of mentioning some Peruvian societies in the story and analyzing how they are depicted. a. The Whites and Mestizos

Some people indicated as whites and mestizos were mentioned in the story. The mentioning of those considered as white and meztizos does not come along with specific description of their characteristics nor where they come from, though. They appear in the story as part of the development of the conflicts.

The whites and mestizos appear in the story in the second chapter. They are actually described differently but they often appear together especially when

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the narrator described the conflicts among the societies. Whites and mestizos in the story are often described as people who cause destruction to Peruvian nature and the lives of indigenous people.

The description of these societies and their dynamics are first mentioned in the second chapter. The first description is about the mestizos. Mestizo describes a person whose one of the parents is a white and another is a native. It is depicted in a figure named Fidel Pereira. It is a man Saúl Zuratas met when he visited

Quillabamba.

Meeting the legendary Fidel Pereira, for instance, the son of a white man from Cusco and a Machiguenga woman, he was a mixture of feudal lord and aboriginal cacique. In the last third of the nineteenth century a man from a good Cusco family, fleeing from the law, went deep into those forests, where the Machiguengas had sheltered him. He had married a woman of the tribe. His son, Fidel, lived astride the two cultures, acting like a white when with whites and like Machiguenga when with Machiguengas (Llosa, 1989: 18).

The quotation describes that Fidel Pereira was a son from a man from white society and his mother was a Machiguenga, one of Peruvian indigenous communities. For the fact that he was born mixed blood, he was considered as mestizo. He and his descendants were called mestizos as explained in a moment when the narrator told that Saúl Zuratas made posters of anti dynamite-fishing and addressed them to the whites and mestizos. To explain who are the mestizos he refers to, the narrator mentioned, ‗―the children, grandchildren, nephews, bastards, and stepsons of Fidel Pereira―,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 19).

Mestizo is also known as ‗creole‘ because creole, as well as mestizo, refers to the mixed blood descendants. This is explained in the conversation between the narrator and Saúl Zuratas about Fidel Pereira. During his arguing that modernity

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

should not be a way to educate the indigenous communities, he questioned if it was good to ‗civilize‘ the natives in a way of employing them as slaves for the

Creoles. ‗By putting them to work on the farms as slaves to Creoles like Fidel

Pereira?‘ (Llosa, 1989: 26). This shows that the man named Fidel Pereira who was born mixed blood was described not only with the term ‗mestizo‘ but also

‗creole.‘

The mentioning of creole is also seen from the description of Saúl Zuratas‘ mother. ‗My mother was a Creole from Talara; the old man took up with her soon after coming to this country as a refugee,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 10). Saúl said that during his conversation with the narrator when they were at his house. The word ‗Creole‘ describes that his mother was mixed blood.

As well as ‗mestizo‘ which can also be called ‗creole‘, the white people also have their popular name among Peruvian society. The whites are also known as ‗gringos.‘ Although the whites and gringos refer to the same people, they are used differently among the societies. Since ‗gringos‘ is a term coming from

Spanish-speaking society, in the story it is always used by Peruvian societies.

The term ‗gringo(s)‘ is described in the fourth chapter when the narrator was about going to an expedition to Amazonian jungle. The expedition was conducted by Summer Institute of Linguistics. The institute itself was established by American linguists who wanted to study the languages and dialects among the communities dwelling nearby the Amazon. There were many controversies and criticism addressed to the institute since it was considered as a form of American imperialism. Along with the controversies and criticism toward the institute, one

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

of the narrator‘s lecturers seemed to warn him for the expedition he wanted to follow.

A number of conservatives disapprove of the presence of the Institute in Peru for nationalist and Hispanist reasons. Among these latter was my professor and academic adviser back in those days, the historian Porras Barrenechea, who, when he heard that I was going on that expedition, solemnly cautioned me: ―Be careful. Those gringos will try to buy you.‖ He couldn‘t bear the thought that, because of the Institute, the jungle Indians would probably learn to speak English before they did Spanish (Llosa, 1989: 71).

It can be seen that the narrator‘s professor was using the term ‗gringos‘ to refer to some people. The people he referred were finally revealed when he said that it might happen that the Indians would study English earlier than studying

Spanish. It explains that ‗gringos‘ refers to those speaking English and they were

American linguists.

The term ‗whites‘ or ‗gringos‘ then appeared again when the narrator finally underwent the expedition with the institute. The whites were mentioned several times along with the mestizos in this moment. During the expedition, the narrator learned some problems faced by the indigenous communities which were related by the whites and mestizos.

He found out by himself that the Peruvian indigenous communities were slowly exploited by modernity which his friend, Saúl, described as destruction.

The whites and mestizos in this moment were mentioned as the societies bringing the modernity influences. It is described when the narrator visited Urakusa, a village of Aguaruna community. He and some friends who joined the expedition met a cacique, leader of the indigenous community, who had just been getting an incident. The cacique, whose name was Jum, was chosen to be educated in

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Yarinacocha where the base camp of Summer Institute of Linguistics gave the education for literacy. Apparently Jum‘s coming to Yarinacocha was a chance for the whites and mestizos to get materials for trading. ‗These bosses, whites or

Amazonian mestizos, periodically visited the tribes to buy rubber and animal skins.‘ Due to his realizing that he and his people were being exploited, he decided not to sell the materials to them. For he was considered as denying the contract, Jum was tortured by the whites and mestizos.

A party of whites and mestizos from Santa Maria de Nieva−a trading post on the banks of the Nieva River that we had also visited, put up in a Catholic mission−had arrived in Urakusa, beat up all the Indians they could lay their hands on, and raped several women. They carried Jum off to Santa Maria de Nieva, where they submitted him to the indignity of having his hair cut off. Then they tortured him in public (Llosa, 1989: 74).

This moment when the narrator visited Amazonian jungle for the expedition reveals that the whites and mestizos are described through their relation to the indigenous communities. Almost all of the description of the whites and mestizos in the story were about their conflicts with the natives. b. Indigenous People

The indigenous people described in Peruvian society were the Indians.

They are communities scattered through Amazonian jungle. There were various groups of Indians in Peruvian society. Some of them were named by the language they speak.

In the story, some Indian groups are mentioned and described. At least four groups are depicted. They are Aguarunas and Huambisas, Shapras, and

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Machiguengas. In this analysis, the groups are discussed one by one by their characterization. i. The Aguarunas and Huambisas

The analysis of the Aguarunas comes along with Huambisas because they have close family relation in terms of languages. Besides, they are often mentioned together in the story. However, compared to Huambisas, Aguarunas are mentioned more frequently than Huambisas.

The Aguarunas and Huambisas are two of many other tribes dwelling in the jungle of Alto Marañón, nearby Marañón River, in northwestern of Peru. They are explained as having close relation for they come from Jíbaro-speaking family.

It is explained in the below quotation.

It is depicted that there were some settlements and villages in Alto

Marañón in which the Aguarunas and Huambisas lived. They were considered as

‗the Jíbaro family‘ for they speak this language.

These two tribes are also depicted in the similar way not only in terms of language but also their tradition. It is depicted that both Aguarunas and

Huambisas had certain beliefs of reaching perfectness through some traditions which are considered as ‗cruelties‘ by people from outside the tribes. Their understanding of the perfectness is described in these ways.

The fact, for instance, that the Aguarunas and the Huambisas of the Alto Marañón tear out their daughters‘ hymen at her menarche and eat it, that

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

slavery exists in many tribes, and in some communities they let the old people die at the first signs of weakness, on the pretext that their souls have been called away and their destiny fulfilled (Llosa, 1989: 25).

The traditions of women circumcision and letting old people die when in their early sickness are part of their ways to understand perfectness. Those traditions are more or less the manifestation of their spiritual life. They also rely on their beliefs on good and bad signs happening in their communities. One of the examples is described in the case of baby birth. The tribes believe that if a baby is born with ‗physical defects‘, it should be killed for they consider it is a bad sign for the rest members of the communities (Llosa, 1989: 25).

The traditions and the beliefs seem to explain that from outside point of view, these people still live in traditional ways since they strongly hold their inherited traditions. In addition to the tradition and the beliefs that reflect their traditional culture, the tribes are described in the way they look.

In an Aguaruna village, Urakusa, where we arrived one evening, we saw through the potholes of the hydroplane the scene which had become familiar each time we touched down near some tribe: the eyes of the entire population of men and women, half naked and daubed with paint, attracted by the noise of the plane, followed its maneuvers as they slapped at their faces and chests with both hands to drive away their insects (Llosa, 1989: 74).

It is seen from the quotation that it is such familiar scenery to see men and women of the tribes half naked with their bodies painted. It depicts that the people of the communities still lived in their simple ways following the traditions.

Despite the traditional characteristics put in the description of the Aguarunas and

Huambisas, these tribes have already opened contact with the people outside their communities. ‗The Aguarunas had contact with the rest of Peru and some of their

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

villages were undergoing a process of outbreeding whose results were visible at first glance,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 88). The quotation explains how the Aguarunas have already been able to open relation with people outside their communities and even they marry with outsiders.

To sum up, the Aguarunas and Huambisas are two of many Indian tribes scattered through Amazonian jungle in Peru. Specifically, they mostly lived in

Alto Marañón region. These two tribes are typically traditional communities that relying their lives on the things in the jungle. It is no doubt that the way the dress and live is very simple. Besides, they also still hold their ancestor traditions and beliefs which sometimes are considered as ‗cruel‘ by the outsiders. Yet, these tribes are still more ‗familiar‘ with outsiders than some other indigenous communities. ii. The Shapras

The Shapras live not so far from the Aguarunas and Huambisas. They live surrounding Lake Morona in a village called Moronacocha, still in northwestern

Peru. As well as many other indigenous communities in Peru, the Shapras also live surrounded by jungle and wildlife. It is explained when the narrator and his friends visited the community. ‗When we reached the tribes, by contrast, there before us was prehistory, the elemental, primeval existence of our distant ancestors: hunters, gatherers, bowmen, nomads, shamans, irrational and animistic,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 73).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Amazed by the scenery he saw, the narrator described the situation in the community as prehistory-like. From his description, the Shapra community is described with its primordial touch. The way the narrator compared the Shapras to the lives of ‗our distant ancestor‘ emphasizes that this community still lived in very traditional ways. The terms ‗hunters, gatherers, bowmen, nomads‘ depict that this community relied on what nature provided them in the jungle. Besides, their spirituality was still traditional also for the mentioning of shamans, irrational and animistic to describe their beliefs.

This, too, was Peru, and only then I became fully aware of it: a world still untamed, the Stone Age, magico-religious cultures, polygamy, headshrinking (in a Shapra village of Moronacocha, the cacique, Tariri, explained to us, through an interpreter, the complicated technique of steeping and stuffing with herbs required by the operation)−that is to say, the dawn of human history (Llosa, 1989: 73).

The narrator then remarked that despite the primordial touch shown by the

Shapras, this community was still part of the Peruvians. That this community existed somewhere in Peru made him aware that besides the people he usually encountered, there were some other people lived in wildlife with their own ways to survive.

Thus, the Shapras as well as the Aguarunas and Huambisas are depicted with its primordial touch. They are part of Peruvian society that still holds the old traditions. It is seen from the way they survive and also their spirituality.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

iii. The Machiguengas

Machiguenga community is another society mentioned in the story. This community is depicted more thoroughly than the others in the story since it covers big part of the conflict.

Machiguenga is one of indigenous community dwelling in Peruvian jungle. They are also considered as Indians. The Machiguengas live mostly in the jungle of Quillabamba. This description can be seen from the narrator‘s contemplation when he was curious about how his friend, Saúl Zuratas, could earn knowledge about certain beliefs and customs of a tribe. The narrator finally found out that it was Saúl‘s encountering with the Machiguenga that enabled him to describe about many traditions of this community.

I now know that those Indians, whose language he had begun to learn with the help of native pupils in the Dominican mission of Quillabamba−he once sang me a sad, repetitive, incomprehensible song, shaking a seed- filled gourd to mark the rhytm−were the Machiguengas (Llosa, 1989: 19).

Machiguengas, as well as the other indigenous communities dwelling in

Peruvian jungle, rely on their beliefs on magical things and on the clash between good and bad things. They believe that their existence can last because they see the rule of good and bad signs happening among their communities. Besides, it is seen also from their polytheism for they have many gods and goddesses, such as

Tasurinchi, the god of good, and Kientibakori, the god of evil (Llosa, 1989: 14-

15).

Related to their beliefs on magical things, Machiguengas have their own ways to manifest their spirituality. The manifestation is seen from their costumes and their attributes. The Machiguengas draw secret writing instead of decorative

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

pictures on their special costumes called cushmas and their tools. They apply that also to paint tattoos on their bodies and faces. The aim for choosing the secret writing instead of pictures was their beliefs that evils will not be able to read it.

This is seen in the story when Saúl was asked to give further beliefs and customs he learned from Machiguengas.

The designs on their utensils and their cushmas, the tattoos on their faces and bodies, were neither fanciful nor decorative, pal. They were a coded writing that contained the secret names of people and magic formulas to protect things from damage and their owners from evil spell laid on them through such objects. The patterns were set by noisy bearded deity, Morenanchiite, the lord of thunder, who in the middle of a storm passed on the key to a tiger from the heights of a mountain peak. The tiger passed it on to a medicine man, or shaman, in the course of a trance brought on by ayahuasca, the hallucinogenic plant, which boiled into a brew, was drunk at all Indian ceremonies (Llosa, 1989: 15).

From that quotation, it is described why secret writing is chosen instead of pictures. Besides, it reveals how their beliefs become the guidance for them to hold rituals. Their beliefs are sort of philosophical reason for them.

In terms of spiritual life, Machiguengas and other Peruvian indigenous communities are depicted in almost the same ways. They believe in magical power and contemplate that in their daily life and rituals. In terms of how they survive, although it is not depicted thoroughly, the Machiguengas are similar to other natives for they are also hunters and gatherers. It is described in the story when a couple of linguistics, Mr. and Ms. Schneils, did a research on their language and had to experience wildlife with Machiguengas. They accompanied the Machiguengas when they hunted and gathered food.

From then on, the Schneils had spent brief periods−either one of them at a time or the two of them together−with that family of Machiguengas or others living along Alto Urubamba and its tributaries. They had

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

accompanied groups of them when they went fishing or hunting in the dry season, and had made recordings that they played for us (Llosa, 1989: 84- 85).

In one or two ways, the Machiguengas are similar to other Peruvian natives for they undergo wildlife and strictly hold traditions. However, it is depicted in the story that the Machiguengas are different from other Peruvian natives since this community is divided into two groups. The groups are

Machiguengas that can easily mingle with outsiders and those that live separately and isolated. It is depicted when the narrator had a long conversation with the

Schneils about this tribe.

A geographical accident, the narrow gorge between mountains where the Urubamba becomes a raging torrent, filled with foam, whirlpools, and deafening tumult, separated the Machiguengas above, who were in contact with the white and mestizo world and had begun the process of acculturation, from the others, scattered through the forests of the plain, living in near-total isolation and preserving their traditional way of life more or less unchanged (Llosa, 1989: 79-80).

It is depicted in that quotation how the Machiguengas split in two.

Apparently, the geographical condition signifies the boundary between two groups of Machiguengas. The abyss of Urubamba River becomes sources of the different cultures: Machiguengas that undergo acculturation with whites and mestizos and those drawn in their isolation.

B. Main Conflicts in The Storyteller

Conflicts takes an important part in a story it is source of problem development that creates the story can reach the end from the beginning.

According to Roberts and Jacobs, this can happen because conflicts are the results of human motivations (1987: 98-99).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Considering conflicts as the results of human motivations, the writer analyzes conflicts in The Storyteller as results of human motivations from two main characters, the (no-name) narrator and Saúl Zuratas, his best friend. The conflicts are about their different arguments related to influences of development in Peru to the existence and culture of natives, the Indians. Both the narrator and

Saúl had their own opinions related to this case. Thus, the analysis of main conflicts is based on the experiences of these two characters encountering with the

Indians and how the experiences drove the conflicts. The writer also divides the conflicts resulted from the experiences into two: the narrator‘s conflicts with Saúl

Zuratas and the narrator‘s conflicts with himself.

1. The Conflicts Related to Saúl’s Experience Encountering Indian

Community

The conflicts are preceded with a moment in Firenze that brought back the narrator‘s memory to tell flashback story from when he was entering college life in 1950s. He recalled the years he spent for bachelor degree at San Marcos

University, Lima, Peru. There he met Saúl Zuratas, a figure that really impressed him for he had good personality as explained below (Llosa, 1989: 3-8).

However, this good personality seems to be the sources of conflicts when one day the narrator found out that Saúl had no longer been interested in subjects he studied at San Marcos. In contrast to what they learned from college, Saúl precisely put his fascination to things related to Peruvian natives, the Indians. He even made several trips to Amazonian jungles to seek knowledge from the tribes.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

‗In 1956 he was studying ethnology as well as law and had made several trips into the jungle,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 12).

Saúl‘s fascination with the lives in rural areas somehow affected his wisdom. One day when he was humiliated by certain guys in a bar, he was not provoked. In the other hand, it provoked the narrator losing his temper and punched the guys who insulted his best friend. Saúl precisely advised the narrator not to be provoked and told him wisdoms from beliefs and traditions of a tribe called Machiguenga that he visited when holiday came (Llosa, 1989: 14-15).

Saúl‘s response and his knowledge about the beliefs of certain tribe made the narrator curious. He asked him to explain more about the tribe. ‗He had me hanging on his words for an entire afternoon at his house in Breña as he talked to me of the beliefs and customs of a tribe scattered through the jungles of Cusco and

Madre de Dios,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 15). The narrator told Saúl‘s story in this way.

Mascarita had gotten on well with the Indians—most of them pretty Westernized—and they had taken him with them on their expeditions and welcomed him in their camps up and down the vast region irrigated by the Alto Urubamba and the Alto Madre de Dios and their respective tributaries. He spent an entire night enthusiastically telling me what it was like to ride a raft hurtling through the Pongo de Mainique, where the Urubamba, squeezed between two foothills of the Cordillera, became a labyrinth of rapids and whirlpools (Llosa, 1989: 17).

Saúl who was also called Mascarita was so enthusiastic when he was asked to describe how the tribe could survive in the jungle with their traditional ways, a prehistory-like. The amount of knowledge he got from the tribe had astonished the narrator and even made him believe that Saúl did experience an

‗enlightment‘ during his visit. ‗With hindsight, knowing what happened to him

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

later−I have thought about this a lot−I can say that Saúl experienced a conversion.

In a cultural sense and perhaps in a religious one also (Llosa, 1989: 19).

Saúl had astonished the narrator not only in a way he ‗mastered‘ knowledge of Machiguenga but also in a way he put big concern to the lives of overall Indians. It is showed when he started to deliver his confrontation to development brought by the whites and mestizos which often grabbed the lives of the natives. Saúl argued that things such as clearing forests, fishing, and even education are part of development which endangered the dynamic lives in

Peruvian jungle. One of his efforts to manifest his fascination and respect to the natives‘ lives was by creating posters addressed to the whites and mestizos in a hope that those people would care how fishing with dynamite could endanger

Peruvian natives‘ lives (Llosa, 1989: 19). a. The Narrator’s Conflicts with Himself Related to Saúl’s Experience

The justification of preserving Indians culture and refusing development showed by Saúl apparently made the narrator felt challenged and haunted by his best friend‘s figure. He wondered that even for illogical and immoral things, Saúl still had his heart for the Indians. This situation made the narrator felt curious to have a discussion with Saúl every time he got knowledge about news related to natives. He felt haunted of Saúl‘s opinion.

That fellow feeling, that solidarity, that spell, or whatever it may have been, had by then reached a climax and assumed a different nature. In the eyes of the ethnologists—about whom the least that could be said was that, however shortsighted they might be, they were perfectly aware of the need to understand the jungle Indians‘ way of seeing in their own terms—what was it that Mascarita was defending? Was it something as chimerical as the recognition of their inalienable right to their lands, whereupon the rest

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

of Peru would agree to place the jungle under quarantine? Must no one, ever, have the right to enter it, so as to keep those cultures from being contaminated by the miasmas of our own degenerated one? Had Saúl‘s purism concerning the Amazon reached such extremes? (Llosa, 1989: 33- 34).

Somehow it drove the narrator to suspect many things related to Saúl‘s extreme altruism. Saúl‘s transformation had given him lots of question that made him haunted and curious. These were the narrator‘s conflicts with himself. He had many questions related to Saúl but none of these had been answered yet. b. The Narrator’s Conflicts with Saúl Zuratas Related to Saúl’s Experience

While the narrator kept on asking to himself about Saúl‘s altruism to the natives, he had also some conflicts with Saúl. The conflicts were recognized when they had a debate. Saúl‘s response which is inclined to be altruistic to the natives was, at first, understood by the narrator. However, the narrator began feeling that

Saúl was somehow exaggerating in his altruism. His concerns to the lives of the natives made him find it difficult to accept whatsoever called ‗development.‘ He did not even feel interested to discuss any other subjects than the Indians including politics or things he learned as law faculty student in San Marcos. He strongly argued that development in Peru was destruction in this way.

No, pal. As a matter of fact, I‘m understanding. I swear. What‘s being done in the Amazon is a crime. There‘s no justification for it, whatever way you look at it. Believe me, man, it‘s no laughing matter. Put yourself in their place, if only for a second. Where do they have left to go? They‘ve been driven out of their lands for centuries, pushed farther into the interior each time, farther and farther. The extraordinary thing is that, despite so many disasters, they haven‘t disappeared. They‘re still there, surviving (Llosa, 1989: 20).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Saúl‘s fanatic tendency for the sake of the Indians apparently stimulated opposing argument from the narrator. The narrator thought that Peru had to develop although in some other ways it ruins certain culture. In order to develop, several things had to be sacrificed. It is described when he argued in this way.

Occasionally, to see how far his obsession might lead him, I would provoke him. What did he suggest, when all was said and done? That, in order not to change the way of life and the beliefs of a handful of tribes still living, many of them, in the Stone Age, the rest of Peru abstain from developing the Amazon region? Should sixteen million Peruvians renounce the natural resources of three-quarters of their national territory so that seventy or eighty thousand Indians could quietly go on shooting at each other with bows and arrows, shrinking heads and worshipping boa constrictors? (Llosa, 1989: 21).

The narrator in that quotation showed how he could not easily accept what

Saúl‘s arguing about not to destroy the lives of the natives. The development in

Peru cannot be stop only for the sake of preserving cultures of the Indians because there were other Peruvians who needed to change. ‗No, Mascarita, the country had to move forward. Hadn‘t Marx said that progress would come dripping blood?‘

(Llosa, 1989: 22). He emphasized to Saúl, whom he called Mascarita, that development needed to sacrifice and Peru had to pass that.

In addition to their arguing about the controversy of development impacts for the lives of the natives, Saúl and the narrator continued to a debate related to factual examples happening in natives‘ culture. Saúl spotted the problem of fishing with dynamite done by the whites and mestizos. Knowing Saúl argued that way, the narrator gave offensive opinion by saying that fishing with poison was begun and done by the Indians. ‗How about fishing with poison, Mascarita?

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Wasn‘t that invented by the tribal Indians? That makes them despoilers of the

Amazon basin, too,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 23).

Saúl in his way kept insisting on arguing that the natives knew the cycle of the nature. They fished with poison only for certain moment in a year. It did not like those who did fishing using dynamite. They poisoned the fish and the water all frequently and even went fishing on the spawning season which meant that it could ruin the population of the fish. ‗Not only did they kill off all the fry at spawning time, but they were rotting the roots of trees and plants along the riverbanks as well,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 23).

They then kept on arguing about development and natives‘ cultures.

Several other things they brought in their debate were about the development destruction such as forests exploitation and hunting, and natives‘ traditional customs such as polygamy, animism, and headshrinking. During the debate both of them kept on offending. However, the debate was then reached the climax when the narrator spotted some natives culture he considered as immoral. He took an example of Aguarunas and Huambisas communities who did women circumcision. Besides, for some spiritual beliefs, a woman could kill her baby if it were born with physical defects (Llosa, 1989: 24-25).

Realizing that it happened in the tribes, Saúl seemed to contemplate that culture with his own physical appearance. He realized that he had a huge birthmark which means that if he were born among those tribes, he would be killed. Despite this irony, Saúl still had his heart for the natives. He responded to the narrator in this way.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

But that‘s the way they are and we should respect them. Being that way has helped them to live in harmony with their forests for hundreds of years. Though we don‘t understand their beliefs and some of their customs offend us, we have no right to kill them off (Llosa, 1989: 26).

Saúl thought no matter how cruel their culture might be, others should not destroy them for any reasons. They had lived peacefully in that way although it was considered as illogical and immoral by outsiders.

Up to this point, the conflict is about the different ideas between Saúl and the narrator about preserving natives‘ culture or supporting the development. Saúl strongly refused the development reaching the rural areas. No matter how the narrator attacked Saúl by showing illogical and immoral things happening in the tribes, Saúl still insisted on giving his hands for the natives.

2. The Conflicts Related to The Narrator’s Experience Encountering Indian

Community

The earliest conflicts deal with Saúl‘s transformation into a figure with altruism to the natives‘ sake. The transformation somehow reveals that there were different argument between the narrator and Saúl related to development for the rest of Peruvian people versus traditionalism undergone by the natives. The narrator feeling curious about Saúl‘s transformation suspected that it was due to his experience encountering with the Indians that led him into such kind of person.

However, there was finally a chance for the narrator to experience that

Saúl had undergone. It was described when in 1958 the narrator finally had his own chance to visit the Indian settlements. It was due to an expedition conducted

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

by Summer Institute of Linguistics that he finally could step on ground where the

Peruvian natives dwelled. Different from Saúl who visited the Machiguengas, the narrator visited Aguarunas, Huambisas, and Shapras communities. This visit made him experience by himself, being around the natives with their wildlife. Besides, he finally understood what Saúl had ever explained about the destruction brought by the development to the lives of the natives (Llosa, 1989: 70-73). a. The Narrator’s Conflicts with Himself Related to the Narrator’s

Experience

The experience encountering with the natives somehow made the narrator realize why Saúl transformed into altruistic figure to the natives. However, the narrator precisely contemplated differently the things he experienced about the natives culture. It was true that he saw, little by little, the natives‘ cultures were going down. But he thought that it was impossible to avoid the natives‘ culture from being influenced by the development brought by the whites and mestizos since it had already been contaminated. He then again questioned himself why

Saúl could argue in that extreme way related to the natives‘ rights.

Thanks to this expedition, I was better able to understand Mascarita‘s fascination with this region and these people, to get some idea of the forcefulness of the impact that changed the course of his life. But, besides that, it gave me firsthand experience that enabled me to justify many of the differences of opinion which, more out of instinct than out of real knowledge, I had had with Saúl over Amazonian cultures. Why did he cling they were, their way of life just as it was? To begin with, it wasn‘t possible. All of them, some more slowly, other more rapidly, were being contaminated by Western and mestizo influences (Llosa, 1989: 73).

The narrator seemed to feel that he was right about the impossibility to let the natives remained in traditional ways while Peru always grew up. Along with

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

his questions and arguments related to the significance of development for the natives, he explained this idea through a story of an Aguaruna cacique named Jum who was tortured by some whites and mestizos from Santa María de Nieva because he denied a contract of trading. While still having a contract of selling rubber and skin with the whites and mestizos from Santa María de Nieva, Jum preferred selling the goods to the cities since he could get much more profit than from them. Feeling the denial, they tortured Jum and did violence to Jum‘s people

(Llosa, 1989: 74-76).

The story of Jum is actually only slightest example that contributes the conflicts between the narrator and Saúl. As explained previously, the narrator‘s conflicts with himself were because he was always haunted by the figure of Saúl

Zuratas every time he got information or knowledge related to the natives. He was always curious about Saúl‘s response or opinion for every problem happening among the natives. In the case of Jum, the cacique, the narrator showed his curiosity of Saúl‘s response in this way.

All this had just happened. Jum‘s wounds were still oozing pus. His hair had not grown back in. As they translated this story for us in the peaceful clearing of Urakusa−Jum could get out little more than a few hoarse sentences in Spanish−I thought: ―I must talk this over with Saúl.‖ What would Mascarita say? Would he admit that in a case like this it was quite obvious that what was to Urakusa‘s advantage, to Jum‘s, was not going backward but forward? That is to say, setting up their own cooperative, trading with the towns, prospering economically and socially so that it would no longer be possible to treat them the way the ―civilized‖ people of Santa María de Nieva had done. Or would Saúl, unrealistically, deny that this was so, insist that the true solution was for the Viracocha to go away and let the inhabitants of Urakusa return to their traditional way of life? (Llosa, 1989: 76).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

In that way, the narrator wanted to show his argument to Saúl that the natives had already been touched by the development and they did need that. He showed how Jum‘s case reflected that Aguarunas communities need to get in touched with the development in the city for the sake of their own advantages. He argued that they had to know the condition in the towns related to trading or unless they would only be ‗used‘ by certain whites and mestizos without getting appropriate income for their community. However, these things still remained in the narrator‘s mind for Saúl was not there with him and those joining the expedition. This story emphasizes the conflict of the narrator who wanted to have a debate with Saúl. ‗Invisible and silent, Saúl Zurata‘s ghost took part in our conversation; both of us would have like to have him there, offering his opinion and arguing,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 76-77). b. The Narrator’s Conflicts with Saúl Zuratas Related to the Narrator’s

Experience

The conflicts develop again when the narrator met a couple of linguists working for Summer Institute of Linguistics, Mr. and Mrs. Schneils. This encountering made him get information about a tribe named Machiguenga. While the Schneils were telling about the characteristics of this tribe, it was a moment when the narrator realized that this tribe was the one Saúl had ever encountered.

‗But suddenly I realized that it was the same one that Saúl had told told me so many stories about, the one he had come in contact with on his trip to

Quillabamba: the Machiguengas,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 79).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The narrator was told that this community was quite different from other natives in a way that they were difficult to get close with outsiders. Besides, they were also different for they were divided into two groups due to geographical condition: the one that had already been in touch with ‗outside world‘ and those who still remained in their isolation (Llosa, 1989: 79-80). As the Schneils described the characteristics, the customs, and also important figures among

Machiguengas, they mentioned a mysterious figure living among them. It was later revealed that the figure was a storyteller called hablador (Llosa, 1989: 91).

This figure was described mysterious because the Schneils found it difficult to meet this figure although they spent two years and a half living with

Machiguengas. Besides, this figure seemed to be respected by the Machiguengas for there were reluctances every time the subject of hablador aroused. Hablador figure not seemed to be described by the Schneils as ordinary storyteller among the Machiguengas. However, the thing that builds the conflicts was that hablador seemed to be difficult to be found as the Schneils explained in this way. ‗It was certain, however, that the word ―hablador‖ was uttered with a great show of respect by all the Machiguengas, and each time someone uttered it in front of the

Schneils and the others had changed the subject,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 91).

The story of mysterious hablador was important to show the main conflict between the narrator and Saúl Zuratas. When he got all the experiences from the expedition and got a story about mysterious hablador, the narrator became more curious to find out Saúl‘s response. He felt confident that Saúl would be enthusiastically listening to his story and had a discussion especially related to the

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

subject of mysterious hablador which seemed to be important among

Machiguengas, a community which Saúl had ever encountered (Llosa, 1989: 93).

However, the narrator was about astonished when precisely Saúl did not show any interest when he presented the hablador subject. He was not fascinated as he used to be when hearing about natives‘ story. Saúl, on the other hand, thought that the hablador subject was only created by the whites doing research in

Machiguengas settlements. ‗Well don‘t let your imagination runaway with you.

I‘ll bet it‘s those gringos who told you that story about storytellers,‘ (Llosa, 1989:

94).

Up to this point, the conflicts were still on the subject of the natives. Two important things happened in these conflicts. The first one was that the narrator contemplated differently about the things he saw from the natives. He precisely still insisted on arguing that development was needed for the Peruvian. The second one was when he had all the things he wanted to discuss with Saúl especially related to hablador subject, apparently Saúl‘s did not show his fascination as he used to be. This was led him to have other questions related to

Saúl‘s response.

3. The Conflicts Related to the Subject of Hablador

The series of conflicts in this part do not involve Saúl Zuratas anymore.

Saúl‘s figure only appeared in the narrator‘s mind and his discussion with other characters. Thus, the conflicts are about the narrator‘s conflicts with his questions and arguments that had never been satisfied.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The conflicts of hablador subject appeared because the narrator thought this did not attract Saúl although it had relation with Machiguenga. It made the narrator became more curious. He did not believe that the hablador story was only created by the Schneils. He precisely suspected that Saúl hid something about the story of this figure. He revealed his suspicion in this way.

But the memory that remained etched on my mind was, rather, his evasive answer and his incomprehensible lack of interest in a subject−the Machiguengas storytellers−which I‘d thought that he‘d be all excited about. Was it really lack of interest? Of course not. I know now that he pretended not to be interested and lied to me when, on being backed into a corner by my questions, he assured me that he‘d never heard a word about any such storytellers (Llosa, 1989: 94-95).

The subject of hablador kept coming in the narrator‘s mind especially because Saúl did not seem to be interested in that mysterious figure. As he moved to Spain for postgraduate degree he still thought about hablador and even made a little research about it. When he found it difficult to get information about this figure, he expected to Saúl to help him but apparently his best friend seem to be disappear. None of his letters to him was replied (Llosa, 1989: 103-106).

I must have sent him the third one a year or so later, since by then I was in Paris. I took him to task for his stubborn silence and confessed that I‘d given up the idea of writing about habladores. I filled any numbers of composition books with my scribbling and spent many hours in the Place du Trocadéro, in the library of the Musée de l‘Homme and in front of its display cases, trying in vain to understand the storytellers, to intuit what they were like. The voices of the ones that I‘d contrived sounded all wrong. So I had resigned myself to writing other stories. But what was he doing? How was he getting on? What had he been doing all this time, and what were his plans? (Llosa, 1989: 106).

In his confusion finding about hablador and his best friend‘s news, the narrator unexpectedly got news about Saúl. He was told that Saúl moved to Israel together with his father for a devotion to his father who wanted to die there. But

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

once again, the narrator certainly did not believe the news for he knew that Saúl‘s bringing peaceful spirit he learned from the Indians would not let him easily moving to a place where war was like daily activity. Instead, he let his presumption hanging on his mind. It is explained in this way.

Unlike Matos Mar, I didn‘t think Saúl would have found Alyah easy going. Because he was, viscerally, a part of Peru, too torn and revolted by Peruvian affairs−one of them at least−to cast everything aside overnight, the way one changes shirts. I often tried to imagine him in the Middle East. Knowing him, I could readily foresee that in his new country the Palestine question and the occupied territories would confront Saúl Zuratas, the Israeli citizen, with all sorts of moral dilemmas. My mind wandered, trying to see him in his new surroundings, jabbering away in his new language, going about his new job−what was it?−and I prayed to Tasurinchi that no bullet might have come Mascarita‘s way in the wars and border incidents in Israel since he‘d arrived there (Llosa, 1989: 108).

Up to this point, the conflicts are revealed quite clear. For whatever subject related to Indians that the narrator got, he always feel haunted by Saúl‘s figure. He always felt that Saúl deserved to know and to give his response related to Indians‘ issues he presented. However, it seems that his thirst of having a debate with Saúl got stuck when he told about mysterious Machiguenga storyteller called hablador. He felt that for this quite amazing subject, Saúl precisely showed no fascination and even judge that it was only a fake story. It made him become more curious and when he was told that Saúl had moved to

Israel, he easily refused to believe. Thus, the conflicts presented explained the narrator‘s curiosity of Saúl‘s figure.

The question of figure of hablador and where Saúl belonged was seemed to be revealed when in 1981, he worked six months in a television channel and was in charge of a program called Tower of Babel. He and some friends were

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

demanded to serve cultural program in interesting ways. Thus, they were forced working all the time for broadcasting good cultural program but not a boring one

(Llosa, 1989: 147).

One day the narrator received a call from Summer Institute of Linguistics that they wanted to celebrate their farewell after years doing researches in Peru.

When the narrator was offered to make a documentary for the works of the institute, he mentioned Machiguengas for the object. He was so determined to do this documentary for he felt his question about hablador had not been answered yet and he still felt curious about that. ‗Ever since my unsuccessful attempts in the early sixties at writing about the Machiguenga storytellers, the subject had never been far from my mind,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 156).

During the time of documentary, the narrator met again with the couple of linguists, the Schneils. After more than twenty years, he was told that

Machiguengas had already been influenced by the development and led them into an acculturation (Llosa, 1989: 161-163). But the most important thing of this encountering is that the narrator finally could try to satisfy his curiosity of hablador subject. He told the linguist how this subject haunted him for more than twenty years after they told him. It is described in this way.

I told them that, for some reason I found hard to pin down, the existence of those storytellers, finding out what they were doing and importance it had in the life of their people, had been, for twenty-three years, a great stimulus for my own work, a source of inspiration and an example I would have liked to emulate. I realized how excited my voice sounded, and fell silent (Llosa, 1989: 174).

However, after years, this subject seemed to be kept secretly by the

Machiguengas. Even the Schneils who had been living with them for years, still

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

found it difficult to reveal about this secret. And that was apparently that led the narrator to keep on figuring it out: the hablador subject was kept secretly even more than spiritual taboo. He emphasized that in this way.

―I know that,‖ I said. ―You explained that to me the first time. And that‘s precisely what moves me. That the Machiguengas consider mere storytellers so important that they have to keep their existence a secret,‖ (Llosa, 1989: 175).

Although it was difficult to figure it out, this question about hablador is slowly revealed when Edwin Schneil admitted that he had ever met the storyteller twice. However, for his twice meeting with hablador, Mr. Schneil had never succeeded to figure out who hablador was since he always fell asleep and unconscious every time the hablador ended his tales. ‗I fell asleep and, and when I woke up, the storyteller had gone. And since the Machiguengas don‘t like to talk about them, I never heard anything more about him,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 179).

From Mr. Schneil‘s experience, the narrator had not yet been able to figure out about hablador. But when Mr. Schneil described how the hablador looked, the narrator seemed to know who the hablador was. Hablador as described by Mr.

Schneil was younger man in almost the same age as the narrator. ‗But certainly younger than I am. About your age, or perhaps a bit younger,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 182).

He had white skin and red hair. For the people were not really sure if he was white or albino, he was called ‗the gringo,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 179-182).

The characteristics of hablador did not really disgust the narrator until he was told one significant thing related to hablador‘s look. Apparently, the hablador had an enormous birthmark. It is described in this way.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

―He had a huge birthmark,‖ Edwin Schneil said. He paused, searching his memories or looking for words to describe them. ―And hair redder than mine. A strange person. What the Machiguengas call a serigórompi. Meaning an eccentric; someone different from the rest. Because of that carrot−colored hair of his, we called him the albino or the gringo among ourselves,‖ (Llosa, 1989: 181).

Knowing hablador‘s characteristics especially his having enormous birthmark, the narrator felt somehow shocked. He could not give anymore comments and question to response Mr. Schneil‘s information. Instead, he suspected a new thing. He felt that the reason why hablador subject seemed to be kept secretly among the Machiguengas was not because it was taboo but because it was aimed to protect the identity of who hablador was. His suspicion was revealed in a tone which signified that the narrator had known who the hablador was from the moment he knew the characteristics. It is contemplated in this way.

I now knew the reason for the taboo. Did I? Yes. Could it be possible? Yes it could. That was why they avoided talking about them that was why they had jealously hidden them from anthropologists, linguists, Dominican missionaries over the last twenty years. That was why they did not appear in the writings of modern ethnologiest on the Machiguengas. They were not protecting the institution or the idea of the storyteller in the abstract. They were protecting him. No doubt because he had asked them to. So as not to arouse the Viracochas‘ curiosity about this strange graft onto the tribe. And they had gone on doing as he asked for so many years now, providing him refuge by way of a taboo which had spread to the entire institution, to the hablador in the abstract. If that was how it had been, they had a great deal of respect for him. If that was how it was, in their eyes he was one of them (Llosa, 1989: 185).

The narrator kept in his mind his suspicion about who the hablador was.

While keeping his presumption, he collected other proofs. His mind stepped back on finding the information about Saúl Zuratas. It was then he realized that one of his partners at work could give him information about his best friend who was previously suspected moving to Israel. Saúl‘s father apparently died in Peru. The

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

family never moved to Israel. ‗As for his son, your friend, he may have gone to

Israel, but I couldn‘t find out for sure. None of the people I asked knew anything about him,‘ ( Llosa, 1989: 188). But nobody knew about where Saúl was.

By the time he heard about Saúl‘s family, the narrator seemed to be quiet sure about his suspicion that hablador was Saúl Zuratas, his best friend. ‗But I do,

I thought. I know everything,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 188). He expressed that in mind when he was told that nobody knew where Saúl was after the death of his father.

Along with his last curiosity about hablador, the narrator apparently suspected that the storyteller figure was Saúl. He even strongly believed that.

However, until the end of his story, he still could not prove that and even he was still haunted by Saúl‘s decision.

To sum up, the narrator‘s argument that it was good for Peru to develop was apparently an opposing side to Saúl‘s altruism to viability of the Indians. It develops into the narrator‘s personal conflict when he always felt haunted by

Saul‘s figure every time topics related to natives aroused. When the hablador subject aroused, the narrator‘s curiosity became more intense. The quest of who hablador was precisely led him to the fact that this figure was actually Saúl

Zuratas. His curiosity about Saúl Zuratas‘ altruism to Indians was answered with his best friend‘s decision to be part of the tribe. However, his story was not close ended for he did not yet prove the truth of Saúl‘s being hablador. Meanwhile, this story had led him into deep contemplation that consisted of some questions about why Saúl decided that way. His being haunted by Saúl‘s debating his argument of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the development for Peru was answered by an action which he never thought Saúl would do. It is described in this way.

The rest of the story, however, confronts me only with darkness, and the harder I try to see through it, the more impenetrable it becomes. Talking the way a storyteller talks means being able to feel and live in the very heart of that culture, means having penetrated its essence, reached the marrow of its history and mythology, given body to its taboos, images, ancestral desires, and terrors (Llosa, 1989: 244).

For his questions had not been answered yet, the narrator suspected that being the hablador among Machiguenga community was the action that he chose to realize his altruism. Through that way, Saúl could immerse with the natives and understood as well as experienced being part of the community.

C. Mario Vargas Llosa’s Nationalism in The Storyteller

In Anderson‘s theory, nationalism is understood as an idea resulted from the capability of certain people to imagine and realize which their nation is. This capability also enables them to know who their people are and where they belong.

Mario Vargas Llosa in The Storyteller seems to reveal nationalism in a way explained by Anderson when he explored Jose Rizal‘s Noli Me Tangere (1991:

22-30). Using the analogy of the term ‗meanwhile,‘ there are some descriptions of places in Peru and its societies which are put simultaneously in the story.

However, for certain contexts, Llosa precisely put some ironies along with the description of Peruvian places and societies. First, although it seems that this novel is a nationalistic one, the setting is put not in the era of Peruvian independence war but more than a century after Peruvian independence. Second, although most of places described in the setting are in Peru, the author put

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

significant place outside Peru. Third, through the depiction of main conflicts, the

Llosa does not seem to bring The Storyteller exclusively as a nationalistic novel.

The main conflicts precisely create some questions to respond to nationalism.

Thus, in this last analysis the writer firstly works with the description of setting to see how Llosa put the imagination of Peru to define the context of nationalism. Then, the writer analyzes the ironies put in the novel despite the imagination of Peru that is built by the author. Lastly, the imagination of Peru and the ironies are connected with Mario Vargas Llosa‘s life to understand how he defined nationalism.

1. Setting of Peru as Llosa’s Nationalistic Imagination

Llosa in The Storyteller puts most of its setting of places in the context of

Peru. Some cities and regions he described in this novel are the representation of those found in Peru. They are Lima, Quillabamba, Alto Marañón, and

Yarinacocha. Each place is described with its own characteristics.

Lima in this novel is described as a place in which the narrator spent his college life. Lima, as one of significant places in which the narrator underwent a phase of the narrator‘s life, represents the capital city of Peru. In the novel, as well as the real condition, Lima is described with atmosphere of modernity and development. This atmosphere is first described with education and it is seen from the description of the narrator and Saúl‘s togetherness in San Marcos University which is located in this city (Llosa, 1989: 8-9). Secondly, this place is described with its business life which is seen from the decision of Saúl‘s father who wanted to move to Lima to prolong his business (Llosa, 1989: 9). The clearest proof of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Lima as the representation of one of places in Peru is that it is described as capital city.

Quillabamba and Alto Marañón are regions in Peru which are well-known for their vast area of jungle. Besides, these places are where the tributaries of

Amazon River flow. In the story, they are described in almost similar way.

Although they are in different part of Peru, both of them are places where jungles belong. These places are depicted with their natural and wildlife atmosphere for there were tributaries of Amazon River, jungles, and even the narrator described them as the paradise of plants and animals.

Yarinacocha in Peru is a place where a linguistic institute named Summer

Institute of Linguistics works its project. In the story, that condition is represented clearly. Yarinacocha is several times mentioned for it is a linking place where education is trying to reach the natives. It is a base camp of a linguistic institute where natives learn to be literate.

Men of the tribes who, like Jum, seemed capable of setting up an educational project in their villages were sent to Yarinacocha, where they took a course−a fairly superficial one, I imagine−given by the linguists and Peruvian instructors, to enable them to teach their people to read and read and write in their own language (Llosa, 1989: 75).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The places mentioned and described are to give proofs that The Storyteller are put in the context of Peru for most of the setting of places describes the real places and its condition in Peru. Moreover, these places represent locales where

Llosa was born and grew. Lima, especially, was place where he spent his college life at San Marcos University. Some rural areas also represent his experiences going into the deep Amazonian jungles (http://www.centrorisorse.org, July 23,

2012). Thus, the setting of place represents not only Peruvian territory but also

Llosa‘s background related to these places.

To create imagination of Peru, Llosa does not only describe the locales but also the societies. Peru was a country in America Latin which was colonized by the Spain. Thus, the culture and the societies are influenced and inherited by Spain people. A term characterizing Spanish societies in Peru is mestizo or creole.

Mestizo societies are mentioned to describe mix-blood people living in Peru. They are those inherited from a mixture marriage between white people and natives. It is described in the story when a figure named Fidel Pereira appears. He was a son of a white man and a Machiguenga woman. This make him be considered as mestizo (1989: 19).

Another significant society depicted in the story is the natives. In the

Peruvian context, they are well-known as Indians. Natives in the story are described in their traditional lives. ‗When we reached the tribes, by contrast, there before us was prehistory, the elemental, primeval existence of our distant ancestors: hunters, gatherers, bowmen, nomads, shamans, irrational and animistic,‘ (Llosa, 1989: 73).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

They mostly live in the jungle and banks of river with their pre-history- like way of life. There are many of tribes considered as Indians but only some are depicted in the story. They are Aguarunas, Huambisas, Shapras, and

Machiguengas.

Through the description of places and societies in the story, it can be understood that this represent an imagination of Peru. It is true that the simultaneity of some places and some societies depicted in The Storyteller can explain that, borrowing Anderson‘s theory of imagined community, this novel represents nationalism in the context of Peru because the societies in the places mentioned can feel imagine the connectedness with other Peruvian. Besides it explain the cultural roots of the people. They can be connected by language and they are inherited from Spaniards, Incas, even Indians.

2. Ironies in the Setting and Main Conflicts Related to Nationalism

In a way of imagination of Peru, Llosa can be said that he conveys his nationalism in The Storyteller. However, it cannot be concluded that easy since this novel is not put in the era of independence war. This novel is put in the era of

1950s until 1980s.

The story is put in the era of 1950 as a description at which the narrator underwent college life. Along with that, it is described in the story that this period is a moment when President Manuel Odría‘s dictatorship regime was broken down (1989: 8-11). This period of time seems to be the representation of Llosa‘s journey of life. In 1953, he took Law and Literature at San Marcos. However,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

along with it represents the time when Odría‘s regime collapsed. But the most important thing is that in this era Peru underwent economic growth due to capitalism. It did not satisfy all Peruvians though.

In the period of 1960s and 1970s, the story describes a phase when the narrator took his postgraduate program. He even went outside country such as

Madrid and Paris to continue his study there. This period in the novel also seems to represent Llosa‘s life background. He went to European countries around 1960s

-1970s to Madrid and Paris.

Along with the representation of 1960s and 1970s as a phase when Llosa went to Madrid and Paris, it was depicted in the novel that Peru underwent many demonstration related to consumerism.

The time the author used does not seem to represent independence war era.

But to some extent, it represents more about the author‘s biography. These periods explain how he underwent half of his life.

The irony in the setting of time goes along with the setting of place.

Though the setting of place represents Peru at most, it precisely also sets some other places outside Peru such as Firenze, Madrid, and Paris. In fact, Madrid and

Paris were two cities that gave big influence to Llosa for he spent some years there to study and to work in the earliest of 1960s. Later, he often spent his time living outside Peru. His going outside Peru very frequently influences his

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

understanding of nationalism. He contemplates nationalism not only in a way of loving his country but also in a way of putting it in a universal context and issue.

Although he was outside, he still seems to put attention to his country especially during the era when capitalists and consumerism took over his country.

Another irony related to nationalism in The Storyteller lies on its conflicts.

It is not easy to define The Storyteller as a nationalistic novel by only looking at the setting inside Peru that is described a lot in the story. Thus the conflicts are also necessary.

A moment in Firenze had brought him to a flashback in 1950s when he met Saúl Zuratas. Apparently this encountering brought a conflict since Saúl became someone that was very altruistic to natives. Saúl‘s altruism to Indians tend to make him not be able to accept development or modernity that often cause destruction to the natives as he explained this way in the story.

Saúl‘s way of thinking was not accepted by the narrator for he thought that development was needed for Peru. He thought that it was impossible to avoid the development just for the sake of the natives. It is seen in this way.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

renounce the natural resources of three-quarters of their national territory so that seventy or eighty thousand Indians could quietly go on shooting at each other with bows and arrows, shrinking heads and worshipping boa constrictors? (Llosa, 1989: 21).

Apparently, these two opposing ideas were the main conflicts. In the development of the conflicts, Saúl even devoted his own life for the natives,

Machiguengas, by becoming a storyteller among them. It was somehow a decision which the narrator could not understand taken by his best friend as he explained this way.

Where I find it impossible to follow him—an insuperable difficulty that pains and frustrates me—is in the next stage: the transformation of the convert into the storyteller (Llosa, 1989: 243).

While Saúl had shocked the narrator with his decision of becoming a storyteller, the narrator himself seemed to stay in his argument of having global mind. While Saúl preferred going deep into the jungle, the narrator precisely kept going outside Peru. Even the setting of place in the last scene was placed in

Firenze, Italy, when he wrote all these stories.

Darkness has fallen and there are stars in the Florentine night, though not as bright as those in the jungle. I have a feeling that at any moment I‘ll run out of ink (the shops in this city where I might get a refill for my pen are also locked up tight for their chiusura estivale, naturally) (Llosa, 1989: 245).

Thus, the ironies lie on three things: the setting of time, the setting place, and main conflicts. The setting of time do not reflect independence era although this is a nationalistic novel. The setting of place also shows locales outside Peru although this novel seems to bring up nationalism in Peruvian context. Lastly, although the atmosphere of nationalism in Peruvian context have been reached in the description of settings of place inside Peru and social circumstances, the main

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

conflicts apparently shows two opposing ideas about the development for Peru.

The main conflicts precisely reveal that there were internal conflicts in Peru between those who supported development and those who refuse it for the sake of natives‘ lives.

3. Mario Vargas Llosa’s Nationalism

From the representation of setting of place and social circumstances, The

Storyteller to some extent can uphold nationalism. It represents Peru as a national imagination for Peruvian as well as represents his background. It is true that the

Peruvian are so multicultural and inherited from many ancestors (such as

Spaniards, Incas, Indians).

However, through the ironies put in the setting of time, setting of place outside Peru, and the conflicts depicted, Llosa precisely criticizes nationalism itself. Through the setting of time Llosa spotlights the representation of Peru in the era of capitalists and economic growth. Moreover, he refers also to consumerism happening in the capital. The setting of time he chose apparently described how Peru still underwent its glory in economic which certainly benefitted to upper class group. This is somehow connected to the conflicts presented. The conflicts are about two different ideas related to development versus traditionalism. The proof can be seen in the below quotation.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

It seems that through the depiction of setting of time and conflicts, Llosa wants to question about nationalism imagined by the rest of Peruvian. It is easy for middle class and upper class of Peruvian societies (such as mestizos) to imagine Peru as a whole. They certainly can define the meaning of nationalism through education and script language that can connect them with their brother and sisters. However, this imagination is not easy for the natives who live in the jungles and only care for their daily life. Borrowing Anderson‘s opinion, there are still many people illiterate.

But even though the sacred languages made such communities as Christendom imaginable, the actual scope and plausibility of these communities cannot be explained by sacred script alone: their readers were, after all, tiny literate reefs on top of vast illiterate (Anderson, 1991: 15).

This condition is somehow depicted also in the story of Jum once the narrator visited Aguaruna community. The story was about some linguists from

Summer Institute of Linguistics who tried to make the natives literate. But then their program seems to benefit much to the Peruvian upper class. They seem to use this chance to open a link for doing trade transaction with natives and exploited them. It is seen in the below quotation.

The program did not attain the goal it had set—making the Amazonian Indians literate—but, as far as Jum was concerned, it had unforeseeable consequences. His stay in Yarinacocha, his contacts with ―civilization‖ caused the cacique of Urakusa to discover—by himself or with the help of his instructors—that he and his people were being iniquitously exploited by the bosses with whom they traded (Llosa, 1989: 75).

In the story, Llosa described that some people warned the narrator that

Summer Institute of Linguistics was such an imperialistic project which attempted to teach English to natives before they could speak Spanish. ‗A number of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

conservatives disapprove of the presence of the Institute in Peru for nationalist and Hispanist reasons,‘ (1989: 71). However, it is described in the story of Jum that the ones exploiting the natives were not only foreigners but also Peruvian people, such as mestizos.

A party of whites and mestizos from Santa María de Nieva—a trading post on the banks of the Nieva River that we had also visited, put up in a Catholic mission—had arrived in Urakusa a few weeks before us. The party included the civil authorities of the settlement plus a soldier from a frontier post. Jum went out to meet them, and was greeted by a blow that split his forehead open. Then they burned down the huts of Urakusa, beat up all the Indians they could lay their hands on, and raped several women. They carried Jum off to Santa María de Nieva, where they submitted him to the indignity of having his hair cut off. Then they tortured him in public. They flogged him, burned his armpits with hot eggs, and finally hoisted him up a tree the way they do paiche, large river fish, to drain them off. They left him there for several hours, then untied him and let him go back to his village (Llosa, 1989: 74).

The conflicts presented underline Llosa‘s criticism for those Peruvian who hates their former conquerors, the Spaniards, and foreigners but they are somehow hypocrites for they keep on doing the cruelty to the natives by exploiting them. It is his way to deliver that such kind of nationalism is shortsighted and less altruistic to the marginalized people in Peru. He delivers that in this way.

Such criticism, to be just, should be self-criticism. Because when we gained our independence from Spain two hundred years ago, those who assumed power in the former colonies, instead of liberating the Indians and creating justice for old wrongs, continued to exploit them with as much greed and ferocity as the conquerors and, in some countries, decimating and exterminating them. Let us say this with absolute clarity: for two centuries the emancipation of the indigenous population has been our exclusive responsibility, and we have not fulfilled it. This continues to be an unresolved issue in all of Latin America. There is not a single exception to this ignominy and shame (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Thus, to some extent The Storyteller can be called as nationalistic novel.

However, through the ironies in setting of time and conflicts, Llosa precisely reveals that nationalism as imagined community may be just a matter of ideology.

Thus through The Storyteller he argued that people need not to be so extreme about nationalism since it is an abstract thing that people such Indians would not care about rather than their daily needs. This seems to reflect Llosa‘s argument related to nationalism when he was giving a Nobel lecture.

Llosa presents his nationalism on the way showing that Peruvian people should also care about the lives of marginalized people in their country. Besides,

Llosa also seems to deliver the understanding that nationalism can also be experienced by those who are far from ‗home.‘ This is seen from the placement of setting place outside Peru. Llosa created imagination of Peruvian territory as well as some other countries such as Firenze, Madrid, and Paris. This apparently reflect his experiences going around the world but still has his heart for Peru as well as his love to other countries.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

that were so, my Peruvian experiences would not continue to nourish me as a writer and would not always appear in my stories, even when they seem to occur very far from Peru (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

Moreover, he delivers this idea for some people who judged him as a traitor to his country when he changed citizenship after failed the Peruvian

President election. For him, going away from his country cannot erase his heart from Peru. Thus, he criticizes those who think that nationalism is a matter of

‗inside‘ ideology of loving nation.

I carry Peru deep inside me because that is where I was born, grew up, was formed, and lived those experiences of childhood and youth that shaped my personality and forged my calling, and there I loved, hated, enjoyed, suffered, and dreamed. What happens there affects me more, moves and exasperates me more than what occurs elsewhere. I have not wished it or imposed it on myself; it simply so. Some compatriots accused me of being a traitor, and I was on the verge of losing my citizenship when, during the last dictatorship, I asked the democratic governments of the world to penalize the regime with diplomatic and economic sanctions, as I have always dome with all dictatorships of any kind, whether of Pinochet, Fidel Castro, the Taliban in Afganistan, the Imams in Iran, apartheid in South Africa, the uniformed satraps of Burma (now called Myanmar) (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

Thus, Llosa, through The Storyteller, delivers his nationalism in three ways. First, he reveals the setting of place inside Peru and the setting of social circumstance to create national imagination of Peru. Second, he delivers that feeling of nationalism should come along with justice for marginalized people, such as Indians, through the ironies in the setting of time and main conflicts.

Third, through the setting of place outside Peru, he wants to deliver that his experience as a cosmopolitan who goes around the world cannot erase his nationalism to his country. To sum up, he advises in this way.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

We should not confuse a blinkered nationalism and its rejection of the ―other,‖ always the seed of violence, with patriotism, a salutary, generous feeling of love for the land where we were born, where our ancestors lived, where our first dreams were forged, a familiar landscape of geographies, loved one, and events that are transformed into signposts of memory and defenses against solitude. Homeland is not flags, anthems, or apodictic speeches about emblematic heroes, but a handful of places and people that populate our memories and tinge them with melancholy, the warm sensation that no matter where we are, there is home for us to return to (http://www.nobelprize.org, May 24, 2012).

Nationalism is not to be taken too extreme and shortsighted. It is not only a matter of nationalistic symbols. Nationalism is a willingness to love countries as well as to care about problems in the countries.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Through series of analyses, this part answers and concludes the depictions of setting and main conflicts in The Storyteller to convey Mario Vargas Llosa‘s effort defining his understanding of nationalism. The setting is analyzed into three: setting of place, time, and social condition. The conflicts are divided into three parts: the conflicts responding Saúl‘s experience, the conflicts responding the narrator‘s experience, and the conflicts related to subject of hablador.

Through the analysis of the setting, a lot of depictions about Peru are found. The setting of place mentioned four places represented Peru: Lima,

Quillabamba, Alto Marañón, and Yarinacocha. Along with the depiction of places in Peru, there are also names belonging to other countries: Firenze, Paris, and

Madrid. The setting of time describes Peru in the era of 1950s into 1980s. The social condition reflects Peruvian society consisting of mestizos, whites, and

Indians.

The main conflicts presented are about two characters, the narrator and

Saúl Zuratas, who argued about development for Peruvians versus traditionalism for the natives. Saúl strongly argued that development destructed the lives of indigenous people and thought that it was better to let them lived peacefully with their traditions. However, the narrator argued that it was impossible to let the rest of Peruvians remained in traditionalism while the world kept on developing.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

100

How do these findings articulate Mario Vargas Llosa‘s nationalism? The setting of locales and social conditions in The Storyteller set the imagination of

Peru. Lima, Quillabamba, Alto Marañón, and Yarinacocha represent an imagination of Peruvian territory. These locales are also depicted dynamics of lives in Peru which contain modernity as well as wildlife and local cultures. The social conditions emphasize this imagination for the findings depict Peruvian societies: whites, mestizos, and Indians/natives. These are the reflections of nationalism in the Peruvian context. This novel brings the imagination of Peruvian territory as well as its multicultural societies to articulate nationalism.

To some extent, The Storyteller brings nationalism but through the ironies found in some part of the setting and main conflicts, the author seems to articulate his own understanding about nationalism. First, the setting of time does not reflect the era of independence war like many nationalistic does. It precisely depicts Peru in the era around 1950s to 1980s. Second, the setting of place depicts not just places inside Peru. There are also some places outside Peru depicted in The

Storyteller. Third, the main conflicts apparently reflect that multicultural societies in Peru do not seem to unite as imagination nationalism explains. They are depicted in a way that some societies (upper class: whites and mestizos) benefit a lot from other societies which precisely seem to be marginalized (lower class:

Indians/natives).

Through the findings of ironies, it seems that The Storyteller is Mario

Vargas Llosa‘s way to question/criticize nationalism as well as offer his own understanding. The setting of time is depicted in the era of 1950s to 1980s

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

101

because that period Peru was still in economic growth when many capitalists owned many sectors in the country and consumerism took over the capital. The period somehow benefitted for the upper class but not for the lower class such as

Indians who were hired to work for them. This condition is reflected in the conflicts when the case of development for Peru versus the viability of the Indians became source of discussion for the two main characters. What do these imply?

These seem to be Llosa‘s way to criticize nationalism as imagination of which tends to be shortsighted. Nationalism is thing that is understood well by educated people which refer to the upper class. He seems to question some people who are willing to die for their national imagination while there are other people from their nation that do not even care about that abstract thing. He seems to ask if the rest of

Peruvian people can talk about nationalism while there are some of them who are marginalized in their own community.

Meanwhile, Llosa seems to offer his understanding of nationalism by placing setting of place outside Peru in this novel to articulate that this idea is not to be taken so extremely. This is described when the narrator was in Firenze to forget about his country but unfortunately he was not allowed. This seems to be

Llosa‘s contemplation of his going around the world but he still has his heart for

Peru as well as his love for other countries. From the depiction of the conflicts between the two characters that underwent different phase and different direction of life, Llosa seems to reveal that nationalism can be understood through global and local minded. This understanding of nationalism is somehow his reflection as a cosmopolitan who still follows every development related to his country, Peru.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms, 7th ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1999. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Community: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. _____ The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the World. London: Verso, 1998. Garcia, José Z. Peru and Bolivia. Latin America, Its Problems and Its Promise: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. ed. Jan Knippers Black. Boulder: Westview Press, 1984, pp. 402-416. Guerin, Wilfred L., et. al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Harmon, William & Hugh Holman. A Handbook to Literature, 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. Kennedy, Joseph. Asian Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. London: Macmillan, 1968. Llosa, Mario Vargas. The Storyteller. New York: Picador, 1989. Roberts, Edgar V. and Henry E. Jacobs. Fiction: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1987. Snyder, Louis Leo. The Meaning of Nationalism. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954.

Online References Bosman, Julie and Simon Romero. Vargas Llosa Takes Nobel in Literature. The New York Times, 2010. (23 July 2012). Castro, Juan E. De. ―Mario Vargas Llosa Versus Barbarism.‖ Latin American Research Review. Vol. 45, No. 2 (2010), pp. 5-26. (5 June 2012). Johnson, Orna R. and Allen W. Johnson. "Matsigenka." Encyclopedia of World Cultures, 1996. (18 September 2012).

102

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

103

Romei, Stephen. ed. Peruvian Novelist Mario Vargas Llosa Takes Nobel Literature Prize. The Australian, 2010. (23 July 2012). Salam, Upashana. ―Old Made New: A Postmodern Investigation into Mario Vargas Llosa‘s The Storyteller and Thomas Pynchon‘s The Crying of Lot 49.‖ Undergraduate Thesis. Bangladesh: BRAC University, 2009. (5 June 2012). Stavans, Ilan. Mario Vargas Llosa: Enlightenment Over Barbarism. 2010. (23 July 2012). (21 May 2012). (21 May 2012). (24 May 2012). (24 May 2012). (23 July 2012). (10 December 2012).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

APPENDIX

The Storyteller opens the flashback story by presenting a no-name narrator who was restless in the process of forgetting his country, Peru. His country seemed to forbid him to do that though. The memory of Peru brought his mind back to his country through a moment in a gallery in Firenze.

The narrator then recalled his memory of his years in college when he made a friend with Saúl Zuratas. This figure brought good atmosphere as well as created conflicts for him. In the middle period of his study, Saúl turned to be a very altruistic person. His altruism is addressed to the Indians, the societies that were marginalized among Peruvian societies.

Saúl‘s altruism went along with his fascination about the dynamic life of the Indians. He could describe the natives‘ traditional lives as well as understand their customs and mythology. He entranced their frugal lives and seemed to be impressed by those things rather than what he studied at San Marcos University.

That Saúl understood well the natives apparently led him to struggle for their rights as marginalized people in Peru. His altruism made him refused any kind of development that touched the natives‘ lives.

Saúl‘s transformation was at first understood by the narrator. However, the narrator felt that his best friend exaggerated his altruism. He could not accept

Saúl‘s argument that it is for the natives‘ sake that development should be stopped. He thought that development was needed for Peru. He found it impossible for the rest of Peruvian to respect the natives and let them remain in traditionalism while the others had developed.

104

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

105

This conflict then became the narrator‘s internal conflicts for he then could not meet Saúl after his study in abroad. He could not find his best friend and along with that, he was always haunted by Saúl‘s opinion related to the natives. He brought that conflict throughout his years in outside Peru.

As time went by, finally he strongly suspected that Saúl had been being a hablador (a storyteller in Machiguenga community). His years living outside his country apparently went along with Saúl‘s decision to be part of Machiguenga community. While he travelled to other countries, his best friend preferred going deeper into the Amazonian jungles.

His best friend‘ decision somehow still gave him many questions. He wondered if being part of that community was Saúl‘s final decision to articulate his altruism. His story is then hanging with his own questions that had not been answered.