Plagiat Merupakan Tindakan Tidak Terpuji
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
SAUSSURIAN BINARY OPPOSITION AS THE NARRATIVE STRUCTURE OF WILLIAMS’SUMMER AND SMOKE
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters
By
ANITA PUTRI
Student Number: 114214125
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2015
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
SAUSSURIAN BINARY OPPOSITION AS THE NARRATIVE STRUCTURE OF WILLIAMS’SUMMER AND SMOKE
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters
By
ANITA PUTRI
Student Number: 114214125
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2015
ii
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
“The greatest ideas are the
simplest.” ― William Golding, Lord of the Flies
vii
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Mr. P. Sarwoto, S.S.,
M.A., Ph.D. for sharing his pearls of wisdom during the undergraduate thesis preparation process, without his persistent guidance this thesis would not have been possible; to my co-advisor, Ni Luh Putu Rosiandani M.Hum., for her help in improving this thesis; to Drs. Hirmawan Wijanarka M.Hum for introducing me to
Williams’ Summer and Smoke; and to other lecturers -who I cannot mention all due to the limited space provided- and all of the Department faculty members for their help and support for these past four years of my studying at Sanata Dharma
University. This thesis is the culmination of my wondrously grueling yet wonderful years of studying with the most inspiring lecturers and broad-minded classmates.
I am also grateful to my friends, Nelif Mike Simatupang and Naftalia
Indah Lukartono, for their friendship through thick and thin. Special thanks are reserved for my boyfriend, Donny Mulyadi, who has always been there for me; for my sister, Olivia Putri, who helps me without her even knowing; for my brother, Julius Perdana, thank you for being the constant reminder for me to be a responsible grown-up; for mom, who inspires me. The last but not least is to thank my dad for his love and persistence in life that I have someone to hold onto. Thus,
I proudly dedicate this thesis for him. Dad, thank you for making the best choice of my life that I went to Sanata Dharma to be the person I’ve become now.
Anita Putri.
viii
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………… ii APPROVAL PAGE……………………………………………………. iii ACCEPTANCE PAGE………………………………………………… iv LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN KARYA ILMIAH………. v STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY…………………………………… vi MOTTO PAGE………………………………………………………… vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………… viii TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………….. ix LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………… x ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………... xi ABSTRAK……………………………………………………………...... xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION……………………………………….. 1 A. Background of the Study…………………………………...... 1 B. Problem Formulation………………………………………….... 3 C. Objectives of the Study……………………………………….... 4 D. Definition of Terms…………………………………………….. 4
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………….. 6 A. Review of Related Studies..………………………………...... 6 B. Review of Related Theories………………………………...... 14 1. Theory of Symbol…………………………………………... 14 2. Theory of Characters and Characterization…………………. 15 a. Character………………………………………………… 15 b. Characterization…………………………………………. 16 3. Theory of Binary Opposition……………………………….. 18 4. Theory of Narrative Structure………………………………. 19 C. Theoretical Framework.……………………………………….... 23
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY…………………………………… 25 A. Object of the Study……………………………………………. 25 B. Approach of the Study………………………………………… 27 C. Method of the Study…………………………………………… 28
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS (RESULTS AND DISCUSSION)……… 31 A. Analysis on Symbols and Characters…………………………. 31 1. Symbols Representing Alma and John and the Characteristics Revealed………………………………………………….. 31 a. Stone Angel…………………………………………… 32 b. Human Anatomy Chart……………………………….. 34 c. Telescope and Microscope……………………………. 36 d. Water Lily in Chinese Lagoon………………………… 38 e. Stone Pieta…………………………………………….. 40
ix
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
f. Summer, Firecracker, Firework, Fire…..………………. 41 g. Smoke…………………………………………………... 42
2. Binary Oppositions Revealed by the Symbols and Characters 44 B. Analysis on Binary Opposition as Summer and Smoke’s Narrative Structure………………………………………………………… 48 1. Subject Vs. Object (Desire, Search, or Aim)...…………….. 49 a. Subject/Object = Alma/John…………………………… 49 b. Subject/Object = John/Alma……………………………. 50 2. Sender Vs. Receiver(Communication)……………………… 52 a. Alma/John = Subject&Receiver/Object&Sender……….. 53 b. John/Alma = Subject&ReceiverObject&Sender……….. 55 3. Helper/Opponent(Auxiliary Support or Hindrance)………... 57 a. Alma/John = Opponent/ Helper………………………… 57 b. Alma/John = Helper/Opponent…………………………. 60
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION…………………………………………. 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………….. 68
x
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
ABSTRACT
PUTRI, ANITA. Saussurian Binary Opposition as the Narrative Structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2015. The Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, is one of the forefathers of structuralism whose works have inspired and influenced many of current modern thinkers. Binary opposition is one of many of his thoughts. This notion came up from his theory explaining that in fact in humans’ attempt at deriving conceptual meanings, their minds work by distinguishing the differences between things. Thus, Saussure basically suggests the idea that humans first logical operation is by discerning things through their relationships; one of Saussure’s basic relationships is binary opposition. For this reason, this thesis is conducted to prove this basic yet comprehensive theory as the narrative structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke. Tennessee Williams’ Summer and Smoke (1948) is chosen since it is richly endowed with binary symbols and characters. Moreover, the course of the narrative is also structured in dichotomies.
This thesis begins with research questions which are expected to help achieve the objective of the study. The first question regards to the characteristics of Alma and John as revealed by the symbols. The second question will lead to the explanation of how Saussurian binary opposition found in the symbols constructs the narrative structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke.
The method used in conducted the study is library research. As for the primary source of the research is a play script written by Tennessee Williams, Summer and Smoke (1948). The secondary sources that writer used are the related studies (Augustten and Dewi’s undergraduate thesis, J. Pryor, S.J.’s paper, Guo Chun An’s study), Selden and Barry’s reviews of theory for theoretical ground of this study, Chevalier's The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols and last and most important source is A.J. Greimas’ three basic patterns of narrative. The approach used in this study is structuralism from which the notion of binary opposition is born. The results of this study are: first, the binary symbols and characteristics found in the play reveal the dichotomies concerning the importance of soul/body, spirituality/sexuality, life/death, physical lust/divine love; second, the binary symbols and characters prove that Williams’ Summer and Smoke’s narrative structure is constructed upon the binary oppositions as proven by the binary quests of soul and body and the binary role transformations between Alma and John as revealed by A.J. Greimas’ three pairs of actantial model.
xi
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
ABSTRAK
PUTRI, ANITA. Saussurian Binary Opposition as the Narrative Structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2015.
Linguis asal Swiss, Ferdinand de Saussure, merupakan salah satu pendiri strukturalisme yang karya-karyanya telah menginspirasi dan mempengaruhi banyak pemikir modern saat ini. Oposisi biner adalah salah satu gagasannya. Gagasan ini muncul dari teori yang menjelaskan bahwa sebenarnya dalam upaya manusia memperoleh makna konseptual, otak bekerja dengan mencari perbedaan antara satu hal dengan hal yang lain. Dengan demikian, pada dasarnya Saussure menunjukkan bahwa cara berpikir utama manusia adalah dengan mencari perbedaan dan relasi antara hal-hal tersebut dan oposisi biner merupakan relasi yang paling umum berdasarkan teori Saussure. Untuk alasan ini, studi ini dilakukan untuk membuktikan teori oposisi biner sebagai struktur narasi dari Summer and Smoke. Karya Tennesse Williams ini dipilih karena banyaknya dual simbol dan karakterdi dalam naskah. Bukan hanya itu, jalan cerita karya Williams inijuga terstruktur dalamdikotomi.
Dalam melakukan penelitian ini, proses dimulai dengan pertanyaan penelitian yang diharapkan dapat membantu mencapai tujuan penelitian. Pertanyaan pertama berkenaan dengan karakteristik Alma dan John seperti yang diungkapkan oleh simbol-simbol. Pertanyaan kedua akan mengarah pada penjelasan tentang bagaimana gagasan Saussure, oposisi biner,yang ditemukan dalam simbol-simbol membangun struktur naratif Summer and Smoke, karya Williams. . Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah studi kepustakaan. Adapun sumber utama dari penelitian ini adalah sebuah naskah drama yang ditulis oleh Tennessee Williams, Summer and Smoke. Sumber kedua yang digunakan penulis adalah semua studi terkait (studi dari Augustten, Dewi, J. Pryor dan makalah yang ditulis oleh SJ dan Guo Chun An), buku oleh Selden dan Barry untuk dasar teory penelitian ini, kamus symbol oleh Chevalier dan terakhir dan yang paling penting adalah landasan teori dari A.J. Greimas tentang tiga pola dasar narasi. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah strukturalisme yang merupakan sumbergagasan oposisi biner berasal.
Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah: pertama, simbol biner dan karakteristik yang ditemukan dalam drama mengungkapkan dikotomi mengenai pentingnya jiwa/tubuh, spiritualitas/seksualitas, kehidupan/kematian, nafsu fisik/cinta ilahi; kedua, simbol biner dan karakter membuktikan bahwa struktur narasi Summer and Smoke oleh Williams dibangun pada oposisi biner yang dibuktikan dengan dualitas akan pencarian jiwa dan tubuh dan dualitas dari transformasi peran antara Alma dan John sebagaimana terungkap dalam teori tiga pasang model actant oleh AJ Greimas.
xii
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
In learning a language, children are introduced to concepts and ideas through binary oppositions. As for examples, children cannot conceive the concept of dark when they do not know what light is, and the same goes for good and bad, beautiful and ugly, noisy and silent, etc. This explains the contemporary critics known as structuralists’ belief that “things cannot be understood in isolation- they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of” (Barry, 2002: 39). This may be true since binary oppositions provide a systematic foundation which enables human to understand abstract and seemingly chaotic concepts or ideas more easily by putting the ideas into complementary pairs, such as body and soul, cause and effect, truth and lies, mundane and spiritual, living and existing, etc. Therefore, it can be concluded that binary opposition is one of many systems that governs human’s mind to comprehend and derive meaning of concept and idea.
Binary opposition comes from Saussure’s theory on structuralism.
According to Saussure, binary opposition is:
the means by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined in reciprocal determination with another term, as in binary code. It is not a contradictory relation but, a structural, complementary one (litencyc.com, 2005).
1
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 2
In other words, binary oppositions are pairs of related terms or concepts whose meanings are mutually exclusive.
Binary opposition does not only serve in language when it comes to conceptual understanding. Many fields of studies use binary opposition as their tool in presenting their ideas. For example, there is famous concept like yin and yang in Chinese philosophy, angel and demon in religion like Christianity, to show concept of gender there is male and female in biology, etc. This shows that binary opposition is indeed indispensable and fundamental in every field of study including literature.
Speaking of literary study, there are many strategies which critiques may employ in order to have a critical and significant reading. Thus, the discovery of thematic binary opposition within a text may become one of the possible ways in grasping the intended meaning of the literary work or the readers’ choice of interpretation. On the other hand, binary opposition may become author’s way in presenting his/her works. Thus, binary oppositions can be considered very useful for both readers and authors. For the authors, binary oppositions help them establish, integrate, and highlight ideas and meanings within their works. For the readers, binary opposition enable them to have a big picture of a literary text as well as to get profound understanding of what is happening in a text.
Seeing how important binary opposition is when it comes to literary studies, this thesis aims to analyze Tennessee Williams’ Summer and Smoke by PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 3
spotting fundamental binary oppositions in the text and thus deciphering the meaning of the text according to the revealed structure.
Williams’ Summer and Smoke is chosen as the object of this study as the play is so popular yet the studies using it as their object have not focused on its high productivity of binary oppositions as their topic. Seeing the significance of
Summer and Smoke’s binary oppositions as its narrative structure, this thesis is made to contribute more to literature study. Besides, there are still no other studies covering this area of study. Hence, it is considered as terra incognita i.e. the area of research that has not been covered by the other criticisms or critiques. As for the most apparent symbols employed in this drama among others are the stoned- angel and the anatomy chart both of which represent Alma and John respectively.
Other symbols include the water lily in Chinese lagoon, the Stone Pieta, and telescope/ microscope which represent not only the characters’ distinctive point of view in life, but the later also represents John’s dualism. Moreover, the very title of the play does reflect the binary opposition, i.e. Summer and Smoke.
B. Problem Formulation
Problem formulation is a key factor to be considered in setting this research on the right track as not to betray its own goals. For this reason, the need to list the research questions in an organized way is highly needed as to limit the scope and objectives of this research. Hence, the problem formulation for this research is listed as follows:
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 4
1. What are the characteristics of Alma and John as revealed by the symbols?
2. How does Saussurian binary opposition found in the symbols construct the
narrative structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke?
C. Objectives of the Study
The first objective of this study is to identify and analyze the symbols used in William’s Summer and Smoke to reveal the characteristics of Alma and John.
The second objective, acting also as the ultimate goal of this study, is to explain in elaborative analysis of the way Saussurian binary opposition found in the symbols constructs the narrative structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke.
D. Definition of Terms
This part contains definitions of important terms, keywords related to the topic of the research. This part is important to avoid misinterpretation in the process of analyzing the data. The followings are the keywords that might help readers to gain profound understanding of the discussion.
The first term generously used in this thesis is Saussurian binary opposition. Binary opposition, according to Ferdinand de Saussure, is “the means by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined in reciprocal determination with another term, as in binary code. It is not a contradictory relation but, a structural, complementary one” (litencyc.com, 2005).
Another keyword in this thesis is narrative structure. As stated in
Beginning Theory, “narrative structure is the basic mechanism or procedure in PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 5
which events are edited, ordered, packaged, and presented that creates the overall effect of a literary work” (Barry, 2002: 223).
Symbols are the other primary term whose discussion is paramount to this thesis. According to Thomas R. Arp and Greg Johnson, “literary symbol is something that means more than what it suggests on the surface. It may be an object, a person, a situation, an action, or some other element that has literal meaning in the story but that suggests or represents other meaning as well” (2006:
274).
The last but not least term used in this thesis is main characters. Main or usually known as major characters are “the characters that appear throughout the novel or in a major section of it - they are involved in the important actions and conflicts” (leasttern.com, Sept 11 2014). In other words, major characters are defined as characters that are central to the development and resolution of the story’s conflict.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Review of Related Studies
As a very popular play, Summer and Smoke receives many critiques and reviews. To gain profound understanding of the object of the study; reviews of related studies are paramount. Firstly, two undergraduate theses and a paper having Summer and Smoke as their object of studies are studied. Secondly, writer will review a study using binary opposition as its interpretive strategy to grasp how binary opposition works in literary reading.
The first study is Ayunda Augustten‟s “AlmaWinemiller‟s Psychological
Conflict as Seen in Tennessee Williams‟ Summer and Smoke”. In this previous study, Augustten presents Alma‟s character analysis which is very useful for this study. She mentions Alma Winemiller‟s change in characteristics caused by her psychological conflict. In the beginning of the play, Alma is described as a naïve young girl, respectful of her parents, has a great simplicity of thought and possesses a noble heart. All of her good qualities then begin to change after she finds out that she cannot have John love her back like she wants him to. After that painful revelation, Alma starts to argue back to her parents and turns to be a more aggressive woman who is full of sexual desires. This is seen in the very last section of the play when Alma encourages a traveling salesman to go to Moonlike
Casino with her only after their first meeting and short conversation (Augustten
2004:10).
6
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 7
By highlighting the drastic change of Alma‟s characteristics, Augustten wants to argue that this changes of Alma‟s are as a result of Alma‟s repression of her desire, in this case, sexuality. Using Freud‟s three concepts of human‟s mind, i.e. the id, ego, and superego, Augustten states that Alma uses her superego, tendency to be morally good, all the time that she unconsciously represses her id, the tendency to indulge in worldly pleasure and desires. Because of this psychological conflict, Alma suffers from acute anxiety. This anxiety, as
Augustten claims, occurs because of “the imbalance of the superego and the id”
(2004: 61) within her inner self. This psychological conflict also results in the drastic change in Alma‟s personality as Alma‟s id wins over her superego. As
Augustten puts it, “her Id explodes and in the end, she changes drastically” (2004:
61). The “explosion” of Alma‟s id is explained as Alma‟s realization of her innate instinct which demands to be fulfilled, i.e. her sexual desire.
In Augustteen‟ study, the analysis of Alma Winemiller is conducted along with minimum analysis of the other character, John Buchanan. In response to that, this study wants to use different approach in analyzing the character, i.e. by putting Alma into juxtaposition against John since for structurulists, in order to be able to delve into the drama text and gain its significance, one cannot separate one element, in this case the character, from its pair. This measure is driven from the belief that Williams‟ Summer and Smoke indeed has to be studied within binary codes in which it is constructed. For example, readers will gain nothing if they just look into the meaning of “summer” used in this text drama without taking equal importance towards “summer‟s” opposite, “smoke”. This is true since PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 8
“summer” in William‟s Summer and Smoke will form different ideas or concepts in other texts. The word “summer”, thus, can only be understood in the comparison between “smoke”. The same goes for the analysis of the characters.
One cannot only takes one character into his/her study without bothering to go through the same procedure in dealing with the other character that becomes its opposition.
The second study is Utari Dewi‟s “A Study of Character Development of
Alma Winemiller and John Buchanan in William‟s Summer and Smoke.” Here,
Dewi notes the untimely swap of both main characters‟ characteristics. She reveals a significant point that Alma and John succeeds in influencing one another to develop their characteristics to the others‟ direction. This means that Alma turns to be more mundane in her way of thinking and John starts to embrace
Alma‟s belief which is spirituality-ridden. Unfortunately, they both do that in simultaneous time which makes them walk their separate ways again. Thus, they never met in one point since they “move in different circle” (Dewi, 2000:05).
This second study puts great emphasis on the untimely swap of both characters‟ directions of transformation. By this, Dewi points out where the tragedy starts coming into the surface in this play. She explains that it is both characters‟ love for each other that urges them to change. They hope that by being more alike, their chance to end up being together is bigger. However, this awareness, that is supposed to bring happiness for both of them, turns out to be their downfall. Thus, Dewi argues that the tragic ending of this play is caused by both characters‟ consciousness that come in the wrong time (2004: 52). PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 9
In Dewi‟s study, she implies that both characters in the drama text, is like water and oil, which will always walk their separate ways. Responding to this study, writer considers the need to elaborate the previous study‟s main argument to prevent simplistic ideas. For example, when Dewi argues that both characters succeed in influencing one another to go to their opposite‟s direction, she overlooks the symbolic actions of the characters in their process to embrace their opposites‟ beliefs such as John‟s action suggesting stone pieta in which he seeks comfort from Alma as he mourns over his summer‟s debauchery and Alma‟s admittance upon her feelings resembling a water lily in Chinese Lagoon. These are the epitome of scenes depicting the process of Alma‟s and John‟s releasing their second self. With this, writer wants to argue that the second previous study needs to be elaborated in terms of the identifications of such binary patterns that construct the narrative plot of the drama text.
The third study is a paper titled “The Discovery of Dionysus in Tennessee
Williams‟ Summer and Smoke” written by Jerome J. Pryor, S.J. The objective of his paper as he puts it is “…to chart the Apollonian/Dionesiac polarities as defined by Friedrich Nietzsche in his Birth of Tragedy as presented in Tennessee
William‟s play, Summer and Smoke” (26 August 2014). In other words, the paper is going to compare the two Greek Gods, i.e. Dionysus and Apollo with the two main characters, Alma and John in the play.
As Pryor proceeds to his exposition on the comparison, he argues that
Alma represents Apollo, the God of Sun while John acts as the Dionysus, the God PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 10
of wine-making and party. This finding is motivated by the parallel characteristics of the two Gods to those of Summer and Smoke’s characters. As Pryor puts it,
Dionysus, the god of the irrational and lack of control (a person who is Dionesiac in the extreme is insane, since the rational has no part in the definition of the Dionesiac), symbolizes emotions, spontaneity, and inebriation, but also creativity. Apollo, the sun god, personifies logic, order, precision, conscious planning, and indirect rather than direct experience. Apollonian tend to be judges and lawyers, and in the extreme can be cruelly inhuman and rigid (Pryor, 26 August 2014).
Therefore, John who is depicted as the cavalier hedonistic character indeed resembles Dionysus whose tendency is to act based on his impulse and thus spontaneity. Meanwhile, Alma who is a very disciplined and high-strung spinster indeed shares the same qualities of Apollo since he is noted as one with “inhuman and rigid” tendency.
In his further elaboration, Pryor also notes the contrast opposition between the two characters in the play as he refers to Alma‟s, “…self-conscious mannerisms and excessive propriety” which is in contrast with “the carefree, uninhibited John” (Pryor, 26 August 2014).
Other than pointing out the parallelism between the two Greek Gods and the two characters and the distinction between the two characters, Pryor also introduces writer with three symbols used in the play, i.e. smoke and water lily in
Chinese Lagoon. He states that smoke is “a sign of death, of the soul leaving the body”, while in his exposition on water lily in Chinese lagoon he notes that “this image of this flower carries with it a reference to interior activity and to self- realization”, however, in the end of the play, it “can also refer to transmigration of PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 11
soul” as Alma experiences a metamorphosis from Apollonian to Dionesiac self
(Pryor, 26 August 2014).
The difference from the previous studies is that the three previous studies and this study apply different approach in analyzing the drama text. While the first study uses psychological approach based on Sigmund Freud‟s theory and the second applies formalistic theory while the third paper uses comparative strategy in its exposition, this study will apply structuralism theory. While there are many theories included in structuralism, this study will focus on one particular theory, i.e. Saussurian binary opposition. The reason for applying this theory of
Saussure‟s is since this study is aimed at revealing the narrative structure of
Summer and Smoke, as writer believes, is constructed based on binary opposition.
Other than a difference, the two previous studies and this study also have a similarity other than the apparent fact that these three studies have Tennessee
William‟s Summer and Smoke as their object of study. The similarity is in the very same steps applied in these three studies as they will start with the characters‟ identification and analysis in attaining the primary end of their studies.
Thus, the three aforementioned studies are very useful for this study in terms of providing more profound and extensive perspectives on character analysis done from different point of view while the third study, Pryor‟s paper, also provides the three symbols used in the play. What make this study different from the others are then, the writer will analyze the characters through the symbols employed in the play. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 12
The last review is on a study using binary opposition as its interpretive strategy. The study, titled “Binary Oppositions in Paradise Lost: A Structuralist
Reading Strategy”, is one of the journal compiled and written by Guo Chun An. In his study, he tells that
In the reading process, it is common for the reader to think in binary terms, spot fundamental binary oppositions in a particular text, integrate them to form a framework, and decipher the meaning of the text suggested by such a structural system (Chun An, 1995: 59).
In his findings, Chun An identifies two major binary oppositions, i.e. first is between God and Satan and second is between Adam and Eve and thus he correlates the two binary oppositions into parallelism. In the first binary opposition between God and Satan, Chun An points out the distinct nature of the two entities in which God is benevolent and kind, Satan is malevolent and evil.
Therefore, the two are opposites of each other because of their palpably distinctive nature. In his further elaboration on this first opposition, Chun An also introduces many other significant polarities generated from this foremost binary opposition, such as good/evil, heaven/hell, light / darkness, reason / irrationality and love/hate (Chun An, 1995: 64).
In the second binary opposition of Adam and Eve, Chun An argues that this binary opposition is “the extended political arena of Satan's treason against
God's order” (1995: 64). By this, he notes that while Adam represents God, Eve becomes the manifestation of Satan itself. This argument lies in the main fact that in “Paradise Lost”, Adam is created in God‟s image while Eve is created from
Adam‟s rib and Adam‟s image of God. Thus, while Adam is the copy of God, Eve PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 13
is only the “copy of the copy” emphasizing Eve‟s farther disparity towards God‟s image (Chun An, 1995: 73).
In his attempt to draw a conclusion from his study, Chun An makes correlation between the first binary opposition to the second. He notes the interrelation of the first and the second binary opposition which makes it easier for reader to keep tract of “the epic subject matter”. He points out Eve‟s qualities resembling those of Satan‟s, i.e. darkness, evil, sin, narcissist obsession, corruption and transgression (Chun An, 1995:73). With this parallelism, he explains that it is because of the similar qualities between Eve and Satan share that “Adam labels Eve as a repugnant serpent”. That is because once God transforms Satan into a hissing snake. He further exposes that it is not a coincidence that Eve plays the role of Satan that brings Adam into his first sin.
That is because Eve indeed is the representative of Satan (Chun An, 1995: 73).
From this last study, a reading strategy by the use of a binary opposition is revealed. It is clear from this study that the discovery of binary opposition within a literary work brings significant attribution of meaning in the text. Not only that, by finding binary opposition which acts as the underlying framework of a text, it is easier for reader to account for possible arguments and points or to validate a theme or as he puts it “master concept” of a work. That‟s why finding binary opposition in a literary work as its underlying framework becomes one of the most practical interpretive strategy.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 14
B. Review of Related Theories
1. Theory of Symbol
Symbol is one of many techniques available to authors to compress their works yet still leave resounding effect to the readers. The reason for this is noted in Arp and Johnson‟s explanation on Symbol, Allegory, and Fantasy. He noted the increase of “emotional force” and “resonance of a story” being accomplished by the use of the aforementioned techniques (symbol, allegory, and fantasy) (Arp and
Johnson, 2006: 274).
As this study is concerned, only theory of symbols will be reviewed.
According to Arp and Johnson,
A literary symbol is something that means more than what it suggests on the surface. It may be an object, a person, a situation, an action, or some other element that has literal meaning in the story but that suggests or represents other meaning as well (2006: 274). Thus, it may be inferred that it is not an arbitrary or random task to determine certain things as symbols, as Arp and Johnson puts it, “the ability to recognize and identify symbols requires perception and tact” (2006: 279).
He also points out the importance of the ability to interpret symbols that is essential for a full understanding on literature. Realizing this, he provides some guideline for readers to follow in attempt to identify symbols used in a literary text. The followings are the cautions Arp and Johnson suggested readers to pay attention to: a. “Symbols nearly always signal their existence by emphasis, repetition, and position” (Arp and Johnson, 2006: 280). What are meant by “emphasis and PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 15
repetition” is clear through the sense they give, which is numerous or continual mentions of an item may suggest that it is symbolic. The same goes for “position”, it means that for an item to be called a symbol, it might be “given prominence at the beginning of the story, the climax, or the end of the story” (Arp and Johnson,
2006: 280). b. “The meaning of a literary symbol must be established and supported by the entire context of the story” (Arp and Johnson, 2006: 280). Therefore, if the alleged symbols do not have meaning inside instead of outside of the story, one should be reluctant to say them as symbols.
The pointers above suggest that in order for a detail to be taken symbolically, readers must render it by clues provided by the text itself. And thus, discovering symbols that are nonexistence is the same as perverting the meaning of a text.
Both overstating and understating a significant detail are not suggested in the attempt of symbol identification and analysis.
2. Theory of Characters and Characterization a. Character
As Abrams said in A Glossary of Literary Terms,
characters are the persons presented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are interpreted by the reader as being endowed with moral and dispositional qualities that are expressed in what they say-the dialog-and by what they do-the action (Abrams, 1999:32). This shows that to know the characteristics of the characters in this drama text, writer have to scrutinize the plot. This is an inevitable way for anyone who wants to decipher a character‟s personality. The reason behind this is because only PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 16
through the plot of the story can the author present the characters‟ action, thought, and dialogue or any exposition or analysis of that. This is true according to Gill‟s idea about character that it is someone in a literary work that has some sort of identity, which is made up by appearance, conversation, action, name and
(possibly) thoughts going in his head” (Gill 1995: 127).
Other than conversation, action, and thoughts, there are some aspects that should not be overlooked in the attempt to scrutinize character in dramas. As
Barranger puts it, drama is the literary work that shows the recent reality by using real human beings and thus characters in drama are “the images of active human beings” (1994: 338). Seeing this aspect, the attitudes and dress also should be put into consideration into their analysis, such as if they dress according to their period, place and social class or if the way they talk suit their age, personality, social class and circumstances. (Barranger, 1994: 338). b. Characterization
Characterization is the way the author presents the characters (Reaske,
1966: 46). This creation of imagery persons in literary works does have a purpose.
Like Arp and Johnson puts it:
through the creation of character, an author can summon up a new personality, a new voice, and an entirely new and original way of seeing the world (2006: 165). It also provides readers the opportunity to have a closer look on human nature and to grow sympathy towards others that may not occur unless there is understanding like what readers get from fictional work. This is because “author PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 17
can show us exactly what is happening in a character‟s mind and emotions.” In contrast, readers may not be able to fathom real-life people‟s feelings and thoughts and can only guess from the external behaviors which sometimes conceal their true feelings and thoughts (Arp and Johnson, 2006: 162). Furthermore, there are three principles that good literary works follow in characterizing their characters. First is consistency in the characters‟ behavior. Should be any changes in the characters‟ behavior, there should be “clear and sufficient reason for the change” (Arp and Johnson, 2006: 163). Second is convincing motivations that explain the characters‟ words and actions. This is to ensure that readers can understand why the character behaves in certain ways. The understanding, however, does not need to come immediately as opposed to by the end of the story
(Arp and Johnson, 2006: 163). The last principle is the plausibility of the characters. As Arp and Johnson explains “they cannot be perfectly virtuous or monsters of evil; nor can they have some impossible combination of contradictory traits” (2006: 163).
In presenting their characters, authors may have four devices of characterization (Reaske, 1966: 46-48), i.e.
a. Appearances
It means how the character‟s outlook looks like. This includes how the character is dressed and what physical features he/ she gets. This physical attributes are usually described firstly in the prologue or the stage direction of the script. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 18
b. Ways of Thinking and Acts
This means the process from how the character‟s mind work until the action he/she finally makes. Through this process, readers will know the true nature of the character since it tells how true is the character‟s intention seen through not only their action but their consideration/ thought behind their actions.
c. Ways of Speaking and Language
It means the way a character expresses their mind and the expression they use. Different expression may tell one‟s nature. For example, the use of more sophisticated term, clavicle, for the common word, collarbone, may tell the character‟s educational background or in what light he/she wants to be seen.
d. Interaction Among Characters
This means how the characters act together and respond to each other. As
Reaske puts it, “Not only does the language of the characters speaking alone characterize him, but his language when speaking to others also sheds a great impact on showing his personality” (1966: 47).
3. Theory of Binary Opposition
Since binary opposition is under the grand roof of structuralism, the understanding of structuralism is paramount. Structuralism, as Barry puts it, “is the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation-they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of” (2002:39). In other words, when one studies one literary work from the perspective of structuralism, he/she will PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 19
aim at answering not what the meaning of that literary work is but how the meaning is produced. To do that, he/she will analyze the literary text by relating it to some mega-structures such as genre, history, or philosophy. Simply put, structuralists put great emphasis on how meanings are maintained and established and on the functions of the mega-structure in a literary work (Barry, 2002: 41).
G. Smith states that “binary opposition is the system by which, in language and thought, two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another” (Smith, 1996:383). This concept comes from A Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure. He suggests that like language which governs human‟s mind, binary opposition is the basic concept which influences human‟s way of thinking. The reason behind this is explained by Selden in his book that
The essential point about this view of language is that underlying human use of language is a system, a pattern paired oppositions, binary oppositions (Selden, 2005: 77). In the phoneme level, for example, linguist comes to the paired system such as nasalized/non-nasalized, vocalic/non-vocalic, voiced/unvoiced, tense/lax.
Therefore, binary oppositions, like Saussure suggests, are
the means by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined in reciprocal determination with another term, as in binary code. It is not a contradictory relation but, a structural, complementary one (Fogarty, 2005). Binary opposition, however, does not apply only in language use. A structuralist anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss, did his analysis on myth by using this linguistic model, which is binary opposition. He calls the unit of myths as “mythemes” which sound familiar as they are like phoneme and morpheme in PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 20
linguistic study. He bisected the Oedipus myth to two underlying grounds i.e. first is over-valuing blood relation (Oedipus marries his mother, Jocasta) vs. under- valuing blood relation (Oedipus kills his father, Laius), second is between two views of the originality of human beings, i.e. born from earth vs. born from coitus
(Selden, 2005: 80).
By doing his study on myth, Strauss did not put interest in the myth‟s narrative sequence but in the structural pattern that provides the myth its meaning
(Selden, 2005: 80). He points out that
this linguistic model (binary opposition) will uncover the basic structure of human mind-the structure that governs the way human beings shapes all their institutions, artifacts, and forms of knowledge (Selden, 2005: 80). Thus, in structuralists‟ point of view, the meaning of a literary work is not derived from the writer‟s or reader‟s experience, but from the underlying structure consisting of opposing ideas upon which literary work is built.
4. Theory of Narrative Structures
The study of narrative structure is called narratology. It is a branch of structuralism. In closer look, narratology can be defined as “the study of how narratives make meaning” and “what the basic mechanisms and procedures are which are common to all acts of story-telling” (Barry, 2002: 223).
There are so many important figures majoring in this field of study.
However, this study will use A. J Greimas‟ three basic patterns that he believes persist in all narrative. Greimas‟ theory is chosen since his theory emphasizes not the individual items but the structural relationship between them. This aspect of PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 21
his theory is fundamentally derived from Saussure‟s notion of binary opposition as the basic human conceptual mode. This is proven through his study,
Semantique Structurale (1966), in which he succeeded in compressing Vladimir
Propp‟s thirty-one „functions‟ of tales into only three pairs of binary oppositions that include six roles, i.e.: a. Subject/ object b. Sender/ receiver c. Helper/ opponent
The three pairs describe the three basic patterns which, as Greimas believes, are most likely to repeat in all narratives, i.e.:
1. Desire, search, or aim (Subject/ object)
2. Communication (Sender/ receiver)
3. Auxiliary support or hindrance(Helper/ opponent) (Selden, 2005: 81)
Wanda Rulewicz explains Greimas‟ three basic concepts further in “A
Grammar of Narrativity: Algirdas Julien Greimas”. She explains that the subject is the entity who does the action, in this case who desires, who searches, who aims to do something while the object is the entity who becomes the target of desire, the target of the search, and the mark or end of the aim itself. Meanwhile, in her explanation on sender and receiver, she puts it as follows, PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 22
…the sender may be interpreted as the source of knowledge of the subject, and the receiver as the group of people or humanity in general which receives the message (Rulewicz, Sept 28, 2014). Furthermore, she points out that
Sender and receiver may appear - and they usually do - as abstract notions, and they most often express the motivation of the subject to perform a certain action (Rulewicz, Sept 28, 2014). In other words, sender can be understood as the one who instigates the action of the subject while the receiver is the party that benefits from the action of the subject.
Meanwhile, for the explanation for the helper and opponent, she states that
“those who help the subject in his search are actant-helper, those who provide obstacles on his way - opponent” (Rulewicz, Sept 28, 2014). Thus, putting this six actants or roles, she uses the story of Holy Grail. Based on her findings on Holy
Grail using Greimas theory, the subject appears as Knights of the Round Table; the object as the Grail, the sender as God, the receiver as Humanity, the helper as
Saints and Angels, and finally the Devil and his acolytes constitute the opponent
(Rulewicz, Sept 28, 2014).
To help see the relationship among the actantial roles better, the three pairs of binary actantial roles then will be organized into a schema, known as Actant
Narrative Schema. The followings are the schema as depicted and thoroughly explained by Bronwen Martin and Felizitas Ringham in their book titled Key
Terms in Semiotics:
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 23
Sender Object Receiver
Helper Subject Opponent
(2006: 19)
The schema illustrates firstly the relationship in communication, i.e.
sender/receiver which according to Martin is “based on the desire for an object
or on an obligation which the sender transmits to the receiver, inducing the later
to pursue it” (2006:19). Hence, it can be concluded that the role of the sender is
to put the receiver into action, thereby turning the receiver into a subject, the one
that do the act of searching or wanting (Martin, 2006:19). This explanation as if
answers the underlying reason for this arrangement claimed as the pertaining
structure in love story;
Him = Subject and Receiver
Her Object and Sender" (Hawkes, 1977: 92).
C. Theoretical Framework
In the attempt to answer the emerging research questions stated in the previous chapter, several theories are needed. They are theory of symbols, theory of characters and characterizations, and last but not least is that of Saussurian binary opposition. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 24
To answer the first research question, firstly, writer needs to identify the symbols used in the novels. Thus, theory of symbols is needed. Arp and Johnson‟s theory on Symbols is chosen since the theory provides the pointers to find the symbols employed in a novel. After identifying the so called “alleged” symbols, one needs to observe if their meanings are “established and supported by the entire context of the story” (Arp and Johnson, 2006: 280). If the alleged symbols do not have meaning inside instead of outside of the story, one should be reluctant to say them as symbols.
Secondly, writer needs to learn how the main characters are portrayed in the text to complete the answer of the first research question. Accordingly, theory of characters and characterization will be used in dealing with this same
(first) research questions as it will guide this research to its findings on the characteristics of the main characters.
However, in this study, writer will study the characters‟ personality also with the help of the symbols employed in this drama text. This is done since the dramatic text is believed to be full of symbols which represent the main characters. Thus, the next step, after finding the symbols, is to seek for significant correlations between the characters‟ actions, thoughts, and dialogues and any things alleged as symbols. This means that both symbols and characters are studied concurrently. Then, a table with symbols along with the characters‟ characteristics they reveal will be drawn to make the process of mapping easier to conduct. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 25
Lastly, in trying to prove that William‟s Summer and Smoke was created based on Saussurian binary opposition, the study of theory of Saussurian binary opposition is highly needed. This is because the theory is indeed very crucial in giving the right and grounded findings and results of this research. Moreover, the theory of binary opposition will provide wide and profound information needed to understand the essence of Saussurian binary opposition.
Thus, in answering the research question number two, writer needs to describe the way texts' narrative structures are built out of symbols and the characters which are so strongly opposed to each other. In attempt to do this, writer will use A.J. Greimas‟ three pairs of binary actants, as he puts them as, subject-object, sender-receiver, helper-opposition. Writer needs to interpret the symbols and characters to understand how ideas and meanings are being shaped, created and reinforced in a text. In other words, writer will come to that understanding not only by attributing the ideas and meanings to the symbols and the characters but also by showing the differences between the two opposing ideas of the binary symbols and characters and elaborating of how those found opposing ideas contribute to the narrative structure of the play itself. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
Summer and Smoke (1948) is one of many plays born out of the creativity of the great American playwright, Tennessee Williams. Though it did not receive very enthusiastic respond by critics in its first debut, after more than two decades the play has maintained its appeal. Its success is seen through many production houses that brought Summer and Smoke both to film adaptation and television. In
1961, a film adaptation by Paramount Pictures was directed by Peter Glenville and starred Laurence Harvey, Rita Moreno and Geraldine Page playing her role as
Alma. From this, Summer and Smoke earned Academy Award nominations for both Geraldine Page and Una Merkel starring as Mrs. Winemiller. A television version was produced in 1972, starring Lee Remick, David Hedison and Barry
Morse. Another production, Eccentricities of a Nightingale, the revised version of
Summer and Smoke, appeared on television in 1976, starring Blythe Danner and
Frank Langella.
Previous studies argue that this two-part-twelve-scene-play presents the same theme of “repressed sexuality” and “psychological regression” as Williams’ other work, A Streetcar Named Desire, which won Williams the Pulitzer Prize.
These themes, as the critics put it, are shown through William’s depiction of his heroine, Alma Winemiller, as “prematurely spinsterish” woman in her middle twenties. She is noted by her “excessive propriety and self-consciousness” that tell
26
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 27
her apart from her peers. Being the daughter of a reverend, she has that spiritual- above-all-else attitude that makes her ignore her sexuality. This sexual repression of Alma becomes her downfall in the end of the play when she makes a suggestive offer to traveling salesman to enjoy the evening entertainment in Moon Lake
Casino. In that point of view, the “psychological regression” theme is apparent.
However, these themes as if exclude the other indispensable character of the play, i.e. the hero John Buchanan, from the analysis of the play. There is no room for John in “repressed sexuality” or “psychological regression” since he reflects the contrary. This is what writer considers as the untouched area of the previous studies that center their attention only in the other half of the play.
The play will tell about the unrequited love of Alma Winemiller for John
Buchanan. It is not because of his lack of interest towards Alma that John does not love her back. Intriguingly, John does not think he deserves to love the “angelic”
Alma because of their palpably distinct characters. Alma whose father is a minister represents those who regard spirituality above the worldly enjoyment.
Meanwhile, John tends to indulge in physical pleasure which makes him a direct opposite to Alma.
As the story unfolds, the main characters Alma, who is in the beginning presented as the “angel”, and John, as the “devil”, experience role reversal in the end of the play. John turns out to be a better man as he settles down with a good woman, Nellie, in the Glorious Hill; while Alma, after experiencing shock from PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 28
the news of John and Nellie getting married, leaves to Moon Lake Casino with a traveling salesman she barely knows.
B. Approach of the Study
After having known the object of the study, writer needs to have a right tool to dissect the object in the attempt to answer the formulated research questions. This phase of determining the most appropriate approach should consider both the object and the objective of the study.
As the objective of this study is to explain how Saussurian binary opposition becomes the narrative structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke, structuralism becomes the most suitable tool in this regard. The reason for the appropriateness of structuralism as the approach lies in the Selden’s statement that
“At the heart of structuralism is the scientific ambition to discover the codes, the rule, the systems, which underlie all human social and cultural practices” (Selden,
2005: 90). Selden’s statement is also restated by Barry saying that structuralists regard the containing structure as the most important activity than the close analysis of the literary work itself since they believed that one must see a literary text “in the context of the larger structure they are part of” to understand the text
(Barry, 2002: 39-40). For that reason, structuralism is the most suitable approach for this study since it attempts to see the object through binary oppositions that writer believes as the play’s backbone.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 29
C. Method of the Study
This study is a library research since all the research activities comprise of reading related studies and theories to answer the formulated research questions. It is library research because all sources or references are based on documents derived both online and offline.
The primary source of this study is Tennessee Williams’ Summer and
Smoke acting also as the object of this study. The secondary sources that writer used are all the related studies (Augustten and Dewi’s undergraduate thesis, J.
Pryor, S.J.’s paper, Guo Chun An’s study), Selden and Barry’s reviews of theory for theoretical ground of this study, Chevalier's The Penguin Dictionary of
Symbols and last and most important source is A.J. Greimas’ three basic patterns of narrative.
The followings were the procedures that writer underwent in conducting this study.
Firstly, the object, i.e. Tennessee Williams’ Summer and Smoke, was closely read and thus some notes were taken accordingly. The notes consisted of some important details that were considered to be analyzed thoroughly. The found details, that later became the data, consisted of characters’ characteristics and symbols representing them. This phase was repeated to ensure the collected data’s validity.
Secondly, some related studies having Williams’ Summer and Smoke as their object were studied. This was done to know which areas of study had been PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 30
taken and which had not. Thus, after the previous studies’ main arguments were scrutinized, some points that needed further analysis were found. The two previous studies put their main bulk of arguments around Alma without paying equal attention to the other main character, John. This was the point that motivated this study to be conducted, i.e. John’s equal importance in the play.
Thirdly, as the purpose of this study was to prove the importance of John in the play, a hypothesis was born. The hypothesis was that William’s Summer and Smoke was created based on Saussurian binary opposition, and this could be seen from the symbols and the two main characters’ characteristics. Thus, research questions were formulated to conduct the study. The first research question dealt with the intrinsic elements of the play that writer believed would lead to the ultimate goal of this study, i.e. the characteristics of Alma and John as revealed by the symbols. The second and last research question would answer how binary opposition found in these symbols and the characteristics of the characters construct the narrative structure of the play. From the last research question, it was apparent that the approach for this study would be structuralism.
The next step was to answer the research questions. However, before jumping to the analysis, this study needed to be equipped with theories related to the research questions. Thus, library research was done. This step was important to provide guidelines in conducting the analysis. Thus, theories on symbols, characters and characterization, structuralism and narratology were reviewed. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 31
Next, the time came to answer the previously formulated research questions. In answering the first questions, all the symbols found in the play were listed. After that, the analysis of symbols would be done to find the characteristics of Alma Winemiller and John Buchanan. For the last questions, the theory of A.J.
Greimas’ three basic patterns was applied to see how the symbols and the characters construct the narrative structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke.
Lastly, the conclusion was drawn from the two analyses on the two research questions. As the last stage of this study, a review of the two previous analyses would also be contained in this last part.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
A. Analyses on Symbols and Characters
1. Symbols Representing Alma and John, and the Characteristics Revealed
Symbol identification is not an easy task. It requires special qualities from
the doers i.e. sensitivity and sharp discernment. Not only that, it also demands
wide and deep knowledge about not only of the related literary work but also of
the other fields such as philosophy, theology, or history since symbols are often
linked with these areas. Realizing this, writer conducts the analysis with the help
of the primary source of this section, i.e. Chevalier‘s The Penguin Dictionary of
Symbols. This dictionary is chosen since it provides complete and thorough
elaboration on symbols usually used in a literary text.
Symbols in Williams‘ Summer and Smoke are firstly identified. Then,
each symbol undergoes in-depth scrutiny to reveal the characteristics of the
characters being represented by the symbols. The symbols to be scrutinized are
stone angel, human anatomy chart, telescope and microscope, water lily in
Chinese lagoon, a stone pieta, summer, and smoke. The followings are the
analyses of the symbols: a. Stone Angel
The stone angel is the most prominent symbol of Summer and Smoke. Its
prominence is clearly seen firstly, from its position in the stage. The author
himself made special note ensuring its position in the stage by saying:
32
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 33
Situated on this promontory are a fountain lifted and her hands held together to form a cup from which water flows, a public drinking fountain. The stone angel of the fountain should probably be elevated so that it appears in the background of the interior scene as a symbolic figure (Eternity) brooding over the course of the play (Williams, 1948:410).
From this quotation of the author‘s production notes, a conclusion can be drawn that the stone angel poses significant role in the play. With parallel postures and traits the stone angel and Alma share, it is inevitable that the stone angel acts as the symbol of Alma herself. In the prologue, Alma is depicted as a ten-year-old girl who ―has a habit of holding her hands, one cupped under the other in a way similar to that of receiving the water at Holy Communion‖
(William, 1948: 411). Relating this depiction of Alma to the previous quoted author‘s note of the stone angel, reader can see the similar posture.
The stone angel also projects the same personality and principles as Alma.
There are several reasons for this, firstly is because of the projection it has as an
―angel‖. Alma is also regarded as the angel of the play. This can be seen when
Nellie reveals what John thinks of Alma, ―He told me about how you came in the house that night like an angel of mercy‖ (Williams, 1948: 454). Secondly is the role the stone angel and Alma play as comfort provider. The stone angel is always being where she is; showing her stagnancy in providing relief for those who wants to quench their thirst. The same goes for Alma since she becomes the one that provides John with serenity when John goes to her for comfort despite his impending marriage with Rosa Gonzales, saying ―I will go in a minute, but first I want you to put your hands on my face.... [He crouches beside her].
Eternity and Miss Alma have such cool hands‖ (Williams, 1948: 446). Readers PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 34
will know that in this scene John put Alma and the stone angel in parallelism to show that both provide ―comfort.‖ Another parallelism is seen through Alma‘s name. It is said in the play‘s prologue that ―Alma is Spanish for soul‖ (William,
1948: 413). The stone angel also has this idea of ―soul.‖ According to Chevalier,
There are close links between stone and soul. Stones and humans display the twofold movement of rising and falling. Humans are born of God and return to God. Raw stones come down from heaven and when transmuted rises to the sky (Chevalier, 1996: 932).
From the explanation above about stone and soul, reader will see the resemblance between the stone angel and Alma from the fact that they both act as the bearer of the importance of soul over flesh thus spiritual over physical needs.
The other reason for the prominence of the stone angel is its significant appearance in the beginning and the end of the play. In both the prologue and the end of the play, the scene opens and closes where the stone angel is located. It is as if to emphasize its importance throughout the play.
However, there is a difference between the stone angel in the beginning and the end of the play. In the beginning of the play, the author presents the stone angel as the ―Eternity‖. By analyzing the word of eternity itself, it offers the idea of ―time after death that never ends‖ (Webster, 16 Sept 2014). Thus, the stone angel in the beginning of the play stands as the reminder for Alma to sacrifice her earthly desires in exchange for happiness hereafter. Thus, it marks the state of
Alma before she realizes the existence of her other ―half‖, when she still regards spirituality over her sensuality. Meanwhile, in the end of the play, after undergoing aftershock from learning John getting married to another woman, the PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 35
stone angel no longer serves as the reminder of happiness after life, but as the
―figure of isolation in the begging pity‖ (Bloom, 2005: 408) as Alma bids her final salute to the stone angel. This state of the stone angel is parallel too to the state of Alma when she begs John to accept her but he refuses, leaving Alma on her own. b. Human Anatomy Chart
The second most noticeable symbol is human anatomy chart. This is because the anatomy chart in the doctor‘s office dominates the scene almost as much as the figure of the stone angel does. Its first appearance is in the very last of scene 4. In this scene, Alma goes to her next-door crush the Dr. Buchanan Jr. for some medicines that she cannot fall asleep. John then finds that nothing is wrong with Alma‘s body instead it is her being ―lonesome‖ that troubles her. By this, John implies that what Alma needs is not medicine but love and thus, sex since at the moment John still believes in physical needs as the most important things in life. When the clock tells it is three, Alma goes back to her house but only after having been promised to have some riding with John. However, right after Alma leaves his house, John goes back to his previous postponed activity with Rosa Gonzales,
[John reaches above him and turns out the light. He crosses to Rosa by the anatomy chart and takes her roughly in his arms. The light lingers on the chart as the interior dims out] (Williams, 1948: 436).
The quotation above shows reader how the anatomy chart stands for
John‘s debauchery tendency (his propensity to indulge his senses and physical PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 36
pleasure). There is no real intention of John to be really with Alma as he can just take Rosa right after confessing his interest in Alma.
Hence, the anatomy chart in this play stands for John‘s contention in his childhood when he refuses the idea of being sent to college and following his father‘s footprint as a doctor saying ―I‘d rather be a devil, like they called me and go to South America on boat!‖ (Williams, 1948: 413). From this statement of
John, his inclination to the cavalier way of living is pretty obvious. He believes that it is better to live for the moment, indulging the senses while he can rather than to restraint himself for something that is not yet certain like ―Eternity‖ Alma believes in.
Another significant appearance of the chart is in scene 8. In this scene,
John gives Alma ―an anatomy lecture:‖
JOHN, [with crazy grinning intensity] Now listen here to the anatomy lecture! This upper story‘s the brain, which is hungry for something called truth and doesn‘t get much but keeps on feeling hungry. This middle‘s the belly which is hungry for food. This part down here is the sex which is hungry for love because it is sometimes lonesome. I‘ve fed all three, as much of all three as I could or as much as I wanted—You‘ve fed none. (Williams, 1948: 448)
From the quotation above, it can be concluded that John gives little weight to spiritual matters and spends most of his time and energy fulfilling his physical wants and desires. Thus, the anatomy chart in this play also stands for John himself. He who regards worldly and physical pleasures above moral and spirituality gives no room for ―soul‖ like the anatomy chart itself that is only a picture of human physical being and no ―soul‖ in it. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 37
c. Telescope and Microscope
The telescope and microscope symbolize the main characters. While Alma is represented by the telescope, John is by the microscope. It is in the first scene that they bring up the discussion about these optical devices. A telescope is an optical instrument that enables human to observe extraterrestrial things such as planet, comets, and star. It magnifies the distant objects for human to see. In contrast, microscope is an optical instrument that enables humans to examine terrestrial objects that are near but unseen-with-bare-eyes object.
Like telescope, Alma focuses her attention too much to the larger existence called ―soul‖ compared to the ―flesh‖. It can be seen through her puritan life that she follows strict moral rules and believes in the afterlife things like eternity. On the other hand, John weighs his credence on mortal things, or the body itself rather than thespirit. He shows no concern for norms prevailed in the society while take strong belief in ―carpe diem‖ principle that life is only temporary and thus should be enjoyed as long as the body still permits.
Microscope also stands for John‘s psychological development. It is when
Alma asks John about his study of bacteriology when microscope is brought up.
Upon her curiosity, Alma continues prying after John on this topic and brings
John to reveal what he sees when he uses microscope and he says ―a universe‖,
―part anarchy, and part order!‖ (Williams, 1948: 418). ―Anarchy‖ represents
John‘s first state of mind in the play, which negligence, indolence, and PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 38
indulgence are the prevailing qualities within him. These qualities are noted in
Alma‘s lashing her disappointment on John:
ALMA. ...Most of us have no choice but to lead useless lives! But you have a gift for scientific research! You have a chance to serve humanity. Not just to go on enduring for the sake of endurance, but serve a noble, humanitarian cause, to relief human suffering. And what do you do about it? Everything that you can to alienate the confidence of nice people who love and respect your father. While he is devoting himself to the fever at Lyon, you drive your automobile at a reckless pace from one disorderly roadhouse to another! You say you see two things through the microscope, anarchy and order? Well, obviously order is not the thing that impressed you... (Williams, 1948: 423)
It is clear from the quotation that John indeed does not realize the
importance of his job in the first half of the play. He still cannot grasp the
meaning of ―responsibility‖, ―devotion‖ or ―hard-work‖. All he knows is to
indulge himself in all his glory, be the reckless man in town, and the negligent
son.
However, this state of John‘s mind does not continue to be so. It evolves through his journey of self-realization and this is depicted in the second half of the play. It is after his father‘s death that he takes over his father‘s work. He devotes his time and energy for the sake of humanity, fighting against the epidemic in
Lyon and stopping the fever. For the first time in the play, John is seen meddling with the microscope ―[John is seated at a white enameled table examining a slide through a microscope]‖ (Williams, 1948: 455). This time, the microscope represents the ―order‖ since John is doing what the society and what the convention agrees as ―good‖ and ―right‖. From this, it can be concluded that the PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 39
microscope stands for John‘s development in his self-realization and his newfound responsibility upon himself and others who need him.
d. Water Lily in Chinese Lagoon
Water lily in Chinese lagoon represents Alma‘s ―other half‘. Water lily, as
Chevalier puts it, has the equivalency with the lotus since both grow up from
muddy water. As Chevalier puts it, water lily is the symbol of ―the potential of the
individual to realize the antithesis of his/her being‖ (Chevalier, 1996: 608-609).
Unlike the other symbols, the binary opposition in water lily in Chinese lagoon is
inherently represented in one entity. This can be seen when the dichotomies of
purity and defilement, splendor and filth, beauty and dirt are drawn from this
single entity. The conclusion of such dichotomies comes up by scrutinizing the
nature of the flower. Growing in the muddy water, it is still pure and spotless.
Hence, the beauty andfilthiness cannot be separated in attempt to define this
flower since the dichotomies are parts of it. Viewed from this perspective, it
indeed represents Alma‘s first and second selves; the first self is being the pure
and upright minister‘s spinsterish daughter represented by the flower, water lily,
while her second self is being a flirtatious seductress represented by the Chinese
lagoon. In more thorough analyses, the water lily in Chinese lagoon also reflects
the dichotomy of love and lust. This is drawn by the earlier dichotomy of pure
soul and filthy body which in essence the way Alma loves and desires John. Her
first half loves John with her soul while the second half projects lusts through her
crave for the physical connection. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 40
Thus, it is ―water lily in Chinese lagoon‖ that signifies Alma‘s second self. In the first part of the play, John points out that Alma has a ―doppelganger‖, a German word for ―double,‖ a second self. However, Alma does not know the existence of her second self until she meets John in their adulthood. The second half is actually the mirror image of the first‘s opposite. Hence, projecting Alma‘s first self which is self- conscious, restrained, and puritanical; her second self will be carefree, uninhibited, and cavalier. The first self of Alma also puts so much importance on the spiritual that leaves no room for her sensuality, which is the opposite of her second self who regards her sensuality above the moral or principles the first self upholds.
Water lily in Chinese lagoon is mentioned two times in the play. First in scene 4 when John gives her sleeping pills to let her have some sleep in her restless night. However, in this scene, Alma has not frilly realized her second self and just starts tofeel it, as she says ―I‘m beginning to feel almost like a water lily.
A water lily on a Chinese lagoon‖ (Williams, 1948: 436). It is in the last scene of the play when she is about to enjoy the evening entertainment with the traveling salesman, does Alma fully realize upon the existence of her doppelganger, as she said ―Yes, 1 feel like a water lily on a Chinese Lagoon‖ (Williams, 1948: 462).
e. A Stone Pieta
A stone pieta is Michael Angelo‘s sculpt of Virgin Mary with the dead
Jesus Christ on her lap. John‘s attitude suggesting a stone pieta symbolizes John‘s PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 41
leaving his body and goes for his soul. Such conclusion can be drawn from the background information about pieta. Pieta, according to Merriam Webster online dictionary, is ―a representation of the Virgin Mary mourning over the dead body of Christ‖ (Webster, 2014). From this definition, it is important to note the fact that what is being mourned over is the act of Jesus leaving his physical being.
Jesus‘ being dead means His spirit is free from this word and its sufferings.
Hence, John‘s action of pieta also suggests the same thing in essence i.e. to renounce his principles on physical pleasure— self-indulgence.
This particular scene can be found in the play when John, in his self- loathing and remorse, goes across to the Rectory for Alma‘s comfort. John says,
―‗Eternity and Miss Alma have such cool hands.‘ [He buries his face in her lap.
The attitude suggests a stone pieta. Alma’s eyes remain closed/‖ (Williams, 1948:
446). Here, John reveals about his being fed up with his self-indulgence. He refers to his previous summer, when he indulged all his senses senseless and should have been castrated. He regrets it that it leads him to find life meaningless.
It emphasizes the turning point in John‘s life when he at the end of the play becomes the one who regards the importance of spirituality and ―soul‖ above the ―body‖ or physical desires and needs. This gesture of John also symbolizes his repentance upon his summer‘s debauchery and larceny. Therefore, this particular symbol suggests the polarity of John‘s sin-virtue.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 42
f. Summer, Firework, Firecrackers, Fire
The title of the play, Summer and Smoke, does represent the two main characters of this play; ―summer‖ here stands as passion. As ―summer‖ is put on the entry along with ―fire‖, it is more strategic to know what fire represents first to achieve the significance of ―summer‖ in the play.
Chevalier states fire is strongly related to sexuality. He explains that ―the sexual significance of fire is linked worldwide with the first technique of obtaining fire by up and down friction, the image of the sexual act‖ (Chevalier,
1996: 381). He also notes that ―fire corresponds to south, the color Red, summer, and Heart. Fire also symbolizes the passions (especially those of love and hate)
(Chevalier, 1996:379).
From Chevalier‘s exposition, a link can be drawn fromSummer and
Smoke based on what he has said. First are firecrackers. It is in the first scene that these two object being shown. It is John who tosses down the firecrackers toward
Alma‘s bench and later acts as a hero shooing the imaginative scoundrels. After this, Alma and John are spending the night of 4th of July talking on the bench.
John notes Alma‘s unease which Alma blames it on the firecrackers. This discomfiture of Alma actually comes from within herself, i.e. her excitement and passion for John and not at all from the firecrackers. Also, along their heated argument upon Alma‘s being affected and John‘s being irresponsible, firework is displayed. This shows the ―friction‖ and their passion for each other but are PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 43
prevented to be together because of the tension and disagreement between them, one with soul but bodiless and one with body but soulless.
From the exposition above, it is clear that summer stands for the passion and sexuality of both characters. Their disagreement and differences bring them together and put them in contrast and thus shows how actually they crave for what the other has and to give what they have in return. This emphasizes summer as both character‘s passion for each other. g. Smoke
Smoke, which also becomes one of the entities of the play‘s title, plays an important role in the play. It symbolizes Alma‘s soul leaving her body which marks her psychic regression. Chevalier discusses ―smoke‖ in two different entries, first along with the entry of ―fire‖ and second is on its own entry as
―smoke‖. In the first entry, it is put as follows: Fire which smokes and devours symbolizes an imagination inflamed, the subconscious, the hole in the ground, hell fire, the intellect in rebellion, in short all forms of psychic regression (Chevalier, 1996: 381)
While in the second entry, smoke is emphasized as ―soul leaving the body‖ (Chevalier, 1996: 890).
The significance of smoke can be seen in scene 11, when Alma reveals her true feelings to John, she says
ALMA. ... One time I said ―no‖ to something. You may remember the time, and all that demented howling from the cock-fight? But now I have changed my mind, or the girl who sad ―no‖, she doesn‘t exist anymore, she died last summer—suffocated in smoke from something on fire inside her... (Williams, 1948: 456-457). PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 44
She reveals that she dies of smoke. It shows how she realizes that for all this time she has made a mistake puts imbalanced concerns between her sensuality and spirituality by ignoring her physical needs. Thus, smoke here marks the ―soul leaving the body‖ and the death of old Alma. She has undergone rebirth through her realization over her sensuality. However, after her soul leaves the body, it means that Alma also leaves all her principles along with her soul.
That means she no longer sticks to religious values she has always believed in and neither will she stay as a chaste woman as she no longer believes the importance of her soul.
Take a look in the very last seen of the play, when the travelling salesman asks Alma out to spend the night in Moon Lake Casino, and she knows well what is implied by such invitation, she, without showing her usual restraints, immediately accepts it. If seen from this point of view, it can be said that ―smoke‖ here indeed stands for Alma‘s transformed self that she overlooks her usual common sense and morals. The transformation can be clearer viewed by comparing the Alma‘s now and then. Then, Alma abode to her principle about good sexual behavior i.e. no premarital sex. However, the current Alma as if forsakes all the morals that she can easily partake in the sexual invitation done by a mere passing stranger. If viewed from this perspective, ―smoke‖ (Alma‘s soul leaving her body) does represent Alma‘s new self, her second half.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 45
2. Binary oppositions revealed by the symbols and characters
As all symbols have been identified and elaborated, they will be put into a table to reveal the characters‘ characteristics and dichotomies between them.
Symbols The Revelation on Character’s Binary Opposition Characteristics Revealed Alma: Puritan (following strict
moral rules and believing that
Stone Angel pleasure is wrong), spirituality Puritan – Hedonist
Vs. above sexuality, dignified, Spirituality-Sexuality
Human angelic/kind, distant/lofty. Afterlife - Life
Anatomy Chart John: carefree, uninhibited, Carpe
Diem/Hedonist (believing that it‘s
better to live for the moment,
indulging the sense), life above
afterlife.
Telescope: Soul – Body
Telescope It represents Alma‘s awareness and Divine – Worldly Vs. large-scaled aspiration, i.e.eternity. Abstract – Physical Microscope The universe she sees is always
related to God, the extraterrestrials
thus related to human spirits and the
hereafter—the divine and more
abstract notion.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 46
Microscope:
What he sees is more physically
related, thus it marks his focus on
his physical being rather than on the
spirit. It represents the physical
worldly aspect of life. However,
there is a dichotomy in what he sees
through microscope, i.e. anarchy
and order. This dichotomy
represents his old and reformed self.
The differences can be seen as
follows: Anarchy - Order:
In the beginning of the play: Reckless - Reliable
―Anarchy‖: negligent, reckless, Decadent - Honorable
lawlessness, self-indulgent.
In the end of the play:
―Order‖ : responsible, devoted,
restrained, unselfish.
Alma’s first and second half, the Water Lily self-realization upon her duality. Vs. The first self represented by the Chinese Lagoon flower as the emblem of purity i.e. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 47
her spiritual self while the second
half represented by the muddy Purity– Filthiness
water, Chinese lagoon, as the Beauty – Dirt
emblem of filthiness, i.e. her Love – Lust
sexuality and physical need as
human being. Water lily in Chinese
lagoon also reflects the dichotomy
of love and lust. This is drawn by
the earlier dichotomy of pure soul
and filthy body which in essence the
way Alma loves and desires John.
Her first half loves John with her
soul while the second half projects
lusts through her crave for the
physical connection.
John‘s self realization upon his
A Stone Pieta: soul, the manifestation of his Death - Birth
Dead Body embracing ―soul‖ and his Body –Soul
Vs. repentance on his debauchery and Living Soul decadence. John‘s action of pieta
marks the beginning of the
reformed John, thus the birth of the
new John and the death of old John. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 48
Summer:
John and Alma‘s passion for each
other. It also acts as both characters‘
―friction‖, the tension and
disagreement between them. Thus,
―summer‖ represents life— the state
Summer of being alive as human. Hence, life Life – Death Vs. indeed needs the passion and Smoke tension to make it so.
Smoke:
Opposite to summer, smoke
represents its antithesis, i.e. death. It
marks Alma‘s soul leaving her
body. It means that ―smoke‖ marks
the death of Alma‘s puritan side,
her firstself.
B. Analysis on binary oppositions as Summer and Smoke’s narrative structure For this section, A.J. Greimas‘ theory of three pairs of actantial models is
employed in attempt to reveal Saussurian concept, binary opposition, as the
narrative structure of Williams‘ Summer and Smoke. Greimas‘ theory is chosen
since his theory is established from the underlying notion that binary oppositions
is the bone of structural analysis of stories and thus, the common grammar which PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 49
all stories springfrom (Hawkes, 1977: 89). Thus, it can be concluded that
Greimas‘ theory of narrative structure has been derived from his predecessor‘s fundamental belief. In Hawkes‘ review on Greimas‘ theory, he says
In essence, his work attempts to describe narrative structure in terms of an established linguistic model derived from the Saussurian notion of an underlying langue or competence which generates a specific parole or performance, as well as from Saussure‘s and Jakobson‘s concept of the fundamental signifying role of binary opposition (Hawkes, 1977: 87-88).
Hence, using Greimas theory in discerning Summer and Smoke’s narrative structure will prove the earlier hypothesis that Williams‘ Summer and Smoke’ narrative structure is constructed with Saussurian notion of binary opposition.
The followings are the elaboration of the binary opposition as the play‘s narrative structure through three pairs of actantial models i.e. subject/object, sender/receiver, and helper/opponent as revealed by the earlier revelation upon the binary oppositions of the symbols and characters.
1. Subject/Object (Desire, Search, or Aim)
Subject is the entity who does the action, in this case who desires, who searches, who aims to do something while the object is the entity who becomes the target of desire, the target of the search, and the end of the aim itself
(Rulewicz, Sept 28, 2014). In Summer and Smoke the roles of subject and object are attributed to the main characters Alma and John. Both the characters are the subject and the object of this play since not only both characters pursue to their second self, but also they represent the missing second half of the other character.
All the symbols found in this thesis show this subject-object opposition. The two PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 50
following illustrations will show how Alma is the subject and John is the object and vice versa in the second illustration based on the revelation of the symbols. a. Subject = Alma
Object John
Firstly, the water lily in Chinese lagoon representing Alma‘s second half shows Alma as the subject and John as the object as Alma searches for her other half which is represented by John. She desires what is represented by John, i.e. sexuality and hedonism. As the human anatomy reveals, John is carefree, passionate, and full of vigor. The uptight and morally-strict Alma sees the carefree John with interest ever since their childhood. The innocent interest then grows to be more sexual by the time they reach adulthood. As the symbol,
―summer‖ indicates, there is a thick sexual tension between Alma and John which comes from Alma‘s passion for John. Therefore, in this case, John becomes the object since he is the target of Alma‘s desire. Alma‘s pursuit of her second half represented by the water lily surely correlates to John‘s devotion to pleasure which represented by the human anatomy chart. This pursuit of Alma‘s doppelganger is not fruitless as she at the end of the play embraces her sexuality and is able to express it like the symbol ―smoke‖ shows. ―Smoke‖ standing for death-rebirth dichotomy of Alma‘s spiritual and sexuality marks the end result of
Alma‘s search of her second self represented by John. For this reason, Alma becomes the subject who searches for her doppelganger, who aims to embrace her sexuality, who desires the man acting as her second half and John becomes PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 51
the object since he is the target of Alma‘s desire and the one that represents
Alma‘s second half.
b. Subject = John
Object Alma
Secondly, John becomes the subject while Alma is the object. This can be seen on how John also desires Alma but in a different motive. He desires her but not in physical way as he is afraid of her soul. As the stone angel reveals, Alma is unreachable since she is too refined, dignified, and pious as if she comes from the higher realm where the angels dwell. John is aware of Alma‘s sublime characteristics and upbringing that he does not think himself worthy of her. This is clearly depicted in his revelation about his feeling unworthy that he cannot touch her,
JOHN. I‘m more afraid of your soul that you‘re afraid of my body. You‘d have been as safe as the angel of the fountain—because 1 wouldn‘t feel decent enough to touch you (Williams, 1948:, 449).
Consequently, John‘s implicit notion about ―the angel of the fountain‖ as being
―safe‖ and thus pure and untouchable reveals how John regards Alma the same as one of the angel, pure, safe, and untouchable and thus sacred. He considers her as light in darkness and water for thirst that she comforts him in his remorse upon his past debauchery just like what the symbol stone pieta reveals. This means that actually John is craving for the comfort that is provided by her and the aspect of religious and spirituality that are represented by Alma. This can be proven PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 52
through the symbols stone pieta and the microscope since both these symbols
mark John‘s realization upon his spiritual side. After realizing the importance of
spirituality, John then turns into a different person. He devotes himself to his
profession as a doctor and becomes more responsible as he is going to commits to
a marriage which previously has been unthinkable. Like what the symbol
microscope indicates, he then gives up his ―anarchy‖, the hedonistic negligent
lawless way of life to hold onto the ―order‖, the responsible devoted self. For this
reason, John becomes the subject that searches for the spiritual comfort and Alma
becomes the object since she represents the spirituality and ―order‖ that John aims
for.
Alma and John‘s subject and object roles are strengthened by the idea that
each John and Alma stands for two different selves; John for the physical while
Alma for the spiritual self. This theme of divided self is the one that constructs
the play asits narratives structure as it reveals the journey of two characters in
their self- realization.
2. Sender/Receiver (Communication)
Sender can be understood as the one who instigates the action of the subject while the receiver is the party that benefits from the action of the subject
(Rulewicz, Sept 28, 2014). It should be noted that sender-receiver roles ―may appear - and they usually do - as abstract notions, and they most often express the motivation of the subject to perform a certain action‖ (Rulewicz, Sept 28, 2014).
It is also important to highlight the correspondence between sender-receiver and PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 53
subject-object binary oppositions. Based on the previous discussion on subject- object actants, the main characters, i.e. Alma and John, are both the subject and object ofSummer and Smoke. Accordingly, both Alma and John become the sender and receiver of this play. As Greimas indicates, ―in a banal love story, the following structure pertains:
Him = Subject and Receiver
Her Object and Sender‖ (Hawkes, 1977: 92).
According to Greimas, the receiver is the one that benefits from the
subject‘s action. Hence, in the love story, the one that will gain the benefit of the
subject‘s search of true love is none other than the subject itself since he/she is the
one that gain something from his/her search. However, inSummer and Smoke, the
search is confined to more specific aspect other than love but the characters‘ other
half/self. Thus, the subject is the receiver, the one that profits from his/her search
of self. Accordingly, the object, which is described as the one that instigates the
actions of the subject, stands as the sender since it is the one that stirs up the
desire to find their other missing half.
In the idea of communication, the act of transferring belief does happen
successfully since both characters end in embracing the others‘ belief and finding
their missing self. However, this results in their inability to be together because
the differences between them are not bridged but prevail. This unfortunate turn of
event is caused by the simultaneous change in both of Alma and John‘s point of
view in life. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 54
a. Alma = Subject and Receiver
John Object and Sender
Acting as the subject, Alma searches for her second half, i.e. her sexuality
which is represented by John. She desires John and at the same time
doppelganger (her second self) which is repressed. By this logic, John becomes
the sender since he instigates Alma‘s pursuit of self-identity. The symbol human
anatomy chart represents this other half that Alma has been missing out, i.e. the
flesh as the vessel of the soul. The process of communication happens when John
gives Alma the ―anatomy lecture‖: JOHN, [with crazy, grinning intensity] Now listen here to the anatomy lecture! This upper story‘s the brain, which is hungry for something called truth and doesn‘t get much but keeps on feeling hungry. This middle‘s the belly which is hungry for food. This part down here is the sex which is hungry for love because it is sometimes lonesome. I‘ve fed all three, as much of all three as I could or as much as I wanted—You‘ve fed none. (Williams, 1948: 448)
However, in the second part of the play, Alma finds that John has changed his point of view into her old way of thinking when she herself has abandoned it for John‘s. Hence, Alma becomes the receiver of John‘s newfound spirituality.
John now becomes the sender of propriety and the importance of soul over body andAlma becomes the receiver end of this belief. This particular change is marked by thechange of characters in both Alma and John. John, at the end of the play, has becomethose who regard spiritual above physical pleasure. Thus, the anatomy chart, theemblem of body, turns to be the reminder of the supremacy of soul as the generator ofthe machine, one that makes the body function. This is clearly depicted in scene 11,when John sincerely admits he loses the argument over the PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 55
anatomy chart. He realizes now that the soul does exist and becomes the
―machines‘ whole reason for being‖ (Williams, 1948:, 457). Thus, John‘s transformed self puts Alma in the positionto receive the message, i.e. the importance of morality, spirituality, and propriety.
b. John = Subject and Receiver
Alma Object and Sender
In this part, the discussion will revolve around John as the subject and
thus the receiver of the play and Alma as the sender. As the stone pieta reveals,
John actually desires Alma. He craves for the spiritual comfort Alma provides. In
the beginning of the play, Alma goes into confrontation with John upon the
importance of spirituality and responsibility. Then, she is the sender of the
superiority of the soul over the body, the spirituality over worldly pleasures. The
receiver is John who does not believe in the soul and is therefore recklessly
wallowing in his self-indulgence. John‘s different point of view regarding priority
in life sends Alma into lecturing him upon his decadent lifestyle. This is clearly
depicted in the first half of the play, scene 1 until scene 6. In scene 1, Alma
reprimands John‘s recklessness that instead of devoting himself like his father to
humanity as a reputable doctor, he pleases himself with self- partying and self-
‖desecration‖ as Alma puts it. This particular scene shows how Alma regards
spirituality higher than worldly pleasures. The passion- friction binary opposition
revealed by summer can also be seen in scene 6. Alma reiterates her ideology on
the superiority of spirituality that she refuses to enter the casino, which represents PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 56
the opposite of spirituality. That is how the disagreement happens between John and Alma since Alma refuses John the ―connubial felicity‖ that John implies to her. She shows her repugnance to John promiscuity and thus tries to defend herself by highlighting the importance of spiritual love that John is missing out.
After the role reversal takes place, however, the transformation does occur in Alma‘s belief. She, then, no longer becomes the sender of the importance ofspirituality and morality but turns to be the sender of John‘s previous principle, i.e. body over soul. The role-reversal can be seen through
Alma‘s impulsive act of kissing John, [She suddenly leans toward him and presses her moth to his] (Williams, 1948: 456) and her revelation of the death of her first self: ALMA. ... One time I said ―no‖ to something. You may remember the time, and all that demented howling from the cock-fight? But now I have changed my mind, or the girl who sad ―no‖, she doesn‘t exist anymore, she died last summer—suffocated in smoke from something on fire inside her. No she doesn‘t live now, but she left me the ring—You see? (William, 1948: 456- 457).
This is when the symbol ―smoke‖ highlights the transformation of Alma that it stands for Alma‘s soul leaving her body which marks her newfound hedonistic self. Therefore, Alma now takes over John‘s role in the beginning of the play by being the sender of the importance of the flesh as the vessel of the soul as she relays her dialogue with her old self to John:
ALMA. ‗Remember I died empty handed, and so make sure that your hands have something in them!‘ [She drops her gloves. She clasps his head again in her hands.] I said ‗But what about pride?‘—She said, ‗Forget about pride whenever it stands between you and what you must have‘ (Williams, 1948: 457) PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 57
Alma also shows her desperation on their perpetual disagreement on their principles. Her desperation is shown through her outburst of emotion as she puts it:
ALMA ...... The tables have turned, yes, the table has turned with avengeance! You‘ve come around to my old way of thinking and I to yours like two people exchanging a call on each other at the same time, and each one finding the other one gone out, the door locked against him and no one answer the bell! [She laughs] I came here to tell you that being a gentleman does notseem so important to me anymore, but you‘re telling me I‘ve got to remain a lady .[She laughs rather violently] ... (Williams, 1948:, 1948: 458-459).
The never changing relationship despite the role reversal is caused by both Alma and John success in influencing one another to develop their characteristics to the others‘ direction. This means that Alma turns to be worldlier in her way of thinking and John starts to embrace Alma‘s belief which is spirituality-ridden. Unfortunately, they both do that in simultaneous time which makes them walk their separate ways again. That is how the communication between them never culminates in agreement that these two characters are unable to entwine their belief and principles.
3. Helper/Opponent (Auxiliary Support or Hindrance)
The helper is those who help the subject in his search while those who provide obstacles on his way are regarded as the opponent (Rulewicz, Sept 28,
2014). In Summer and Smoke, It is clear from the characters‘ character development that the two characters, Alma and John, act as both helper and PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 58
opponent to each other. The followings will illustrate how Alma and John become not only the opponent but also the helper to each other: a. Alma = Opposition
John Helper
In the quest of her missing self, Alma is exposed to John whose personality and belief which is contrary to hers. The differences between them are so palpably crafted by Williams in the very beginning of the play through the use of the symbol the stone angel. In the prologue introducing Alma and John in their childhood, the stone angel is employed to show Alma‘s stance, i.e. the importance of afterlife instead of the physical life—the spirituality over the worldly aspect.
Hence, it is crystal clear that in the beginning Alma stands for the spirituality.
However, when she reaches adulthood, she starts to reveal her other need other than spirituality. The symbol water lily in Chinese lagoon seems to provide the explanation for Alma‘s altercation— the pure spiritual lady who owns sexual desire. Thus, in her struggle in finding her second self, the carefree sexual young lady, she is hindered by her own self, the rigid spiritual spinster. Being a priest daughter indeed influences her upbringing which is spiritual-ridden but it also becomes the reason why Alma vigorously denies her sexual being dwelling inside her since she has been living up to everyone‘s expectation of her to be the priest‘s well-behaved daughter. For this reason, Alma acts as the opponent of herself in her quest of her second self. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 59
In contrast, John plays a role as the helper in Alma‘s quest of her sexual being. Different from Alma, John stands for the physical, worldly aspect of life.
Through the symbol human anatomy chart, it is revealed that his concepts of life is to fulfill three kinds of needs; knowledge for brain, food for belly, love for sex
(Williams, 1946: 448-449). All the needs are physical and unrelated to the divine.
That is how his personality is so different from Alma‘s. He is carefree, reckless, and self-indulgent; directly in contrast with Alma who is prudish, responsible and devout. Acting as her antithesis, John also plays the role as helper since he is the one that introduces and shows Alma how to let her second self come to the surface. The water lily in Chinese lagoon reveals that it is John who makes Alma realize the existence of another self being trapped within her respectable facade.
The one she presents to the world is that of the obedient priest‘s daughter and shy, prudent woman while actually who John sees in her is a woman full of feelings and excitement. John states that it is Alma‘s repressed sexual being that makes her restless at nights. He feels Alma‘s excitement and pent-up passion when he counts her pulses in one night of her visit due to her inability to rest at night. He then gives Alma prescription to help her sleep at night. John‘s revelation upon Alma‘s trapped sexual being lets Alma admit her sensuality.
Later in the end of the play, Alma succeeds in embracing the sensual level of her being. Her success is marked by her symbolical statement saying that she feels like a ―water lily in Chinese lagoon‖ (Williams, 1948: 462). PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 60
Another symbol showing John as Alma‘s helper is the symbols smoke.
The symbol smoke reveals another binary opposition, i.e. death and birth. The second binary opposition of the symbol smoke sees Alma‘s character development into brighter light. It shows progress rather that regression since it means that Alma succeeds in releasing her depressed life and she becomes more true to herself as she no longer denies her sexuality. By putting it through this point of view, the symbolsmoke reveals how John helps Alma in finding her true self. This is because the smoke is the result of the repressed passion Alma feels for John. Thus, indirectly, John is the one that triggers Alma‘s character fulfillment.
b. Alma = Helper
John Opponent
The recurrent pattern of the first self as the opponent of the second self occurs in John‘s pursuit of self-realization. In the very beginning of the play,
Williams has put John as Alma‘s opposite. The quest of his second self is manifested through John‘s pursuit of Alma. Serving as the spiritual self, Alma indeed shows John different point of view in life. However, John has mistaken his interest in Alma, i.e. the spiritual bearer, for his usual sexual pursuit. This misjudgment on his part upon his intention is derived from his own deep dwelling upon physical indulgent. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 61
John is depicted as the rebellious young boy whose aspiration is to be a devil, like what everyone has expected from him and to ―go to South America on a boat‖ (Williams, 1948:413). As the symbol human anatomy chart also reveals,
John‘s mindset upon life revolves around physical fulfillments. His first self has no regard for spirituality; neither moral nor social conventions can curb John‘s hedonistic inclination. He spends his summer with overtly sexual promiscuity and irresponsible behaviors such as drinking and reckless driving. He has no room for morality and thus acts impulsively without forethought. In his self-remorse then it is revealed thathe actually feels hollow inside. He is hugely indebted in gambling that he has to marry the Casino‘s owner‘s daughter, Rosa Gonzales resulted in two of them planning to go to South America. Upon realizing this, he, instead of feeling content that his aspiration is about to be fulfilled, feels remorseful that he despises his pass debauchery. For that reason, the one that hinders John‘s struggle for spiritual self is his hedonistic self.
As for the role of helper in the quest of John‘s self-realization, it is none other than Alma—the embodiment of spirituality in the play. In his struggle upon finding his spiritual level of being, the higher consciousness, John is starkly juxtaposed with the ever divine Alma. She helps John to find his spiritual self by providing spiritual comfort in time of his self-remorse. Alma, who is depicted as the angel of the play, indeed acts upon the image of an angel, the all benevolent messenger of God. She provides John the spiritual comfort in time of his self- remorse. As the symbol stone pieta reveals, it is Alma to whom John goes for PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 62
relieving his sorrow upon his summer debauchery. She is the one that provide spiritual solace for John. Her effect upon John‘s life can be seen through the conversation between Alma and Nelly after Alma‘s long reclusion:
ALMA. You mean you—spoke well of me? NELLIE. ―Well of‘! We raved, simply raved! Oh, he told me the influence you had on him! ALMA. Influence?
NELLIE. He told me about the wonderful talks he‘d had with you last summer when he was so mixed up and how you inspired him and you more than anyone else was responsible for his pulling himself together, after his father was killed, and he told me about... [Alma rises stiffly from the bench.] Where are you going, Miss Alma? ALMA. To drink at the fountain. NELLIE. He told me about how you came in the house that night like an angel of mercy! (Williams, 1948: 454)
It is also Alma that points out the existence of the spirit, as he puts it ―the machines, the whole reason for being‖ (Williams, 1948: 457). Alma‘s propagation of the importance of spirituality in life leads to not only John‘s realizing his spiritual being but also the ―order‘ in his life. Like what the symbol microscope reveals, previously John‘s life is ―anarchic‖—without controlling rules of morality or principles to pertain order. Even though he graduates with doctoral degree in bacteriology, he never has intention let alone acts upon using his knowledge to help mankind relieve the sufferings caused by diseases. He is too self-absorbed that his aspiration rests in fulfilling his physical pleasures.
However, in the end of the play, John succeeds in pulling himself together, i.e. recovering control of his life. He starts contributing to medical world by PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 63
continuing his father‘s work to fight off the fever epidemic in Lyon. From there, he starts building his reputation as the responsible young doctor. He no longer dwells upon his remorse upon the past summer when he mindlessly ignoring his soul. All this reformation is attributed to Alma‘s influence. For this reason, Alma is the helper in John‘s quest of soul.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Through symbols and the main characters, Alma and John, William’s
Summer and Smoke’s narrative structure is proven to be constructed upon
Saussurian binary opposition. Firstly, the most prominent symbols representing the two characters are the stone angel and human anatomy chart. Through these symbols, Alma and John’s characters as well as their ideology of life are revealed.
The stone angel reveals Alma’s characteristics which are angelic, spiritual, however lofty and distant. The name of the stone angel, Eternity, implies Alma’s
Puritanism, who follows strict moral rules and restraining from worldly pleasures for the sake of the happiness hereafter in afterlife.
On the contrary, the human anatomy chart stands for John’s hedonistic principle, i.e. it is better to live for the moment, indulge all senses while still living and able. The anatomy chart exposes the three basic physical needs i.e. the brain which craves for knowledge, the digestive system which is hungry for food, and the sexual organ that lust after love and physical connection. John believes that only these three needs are important for human and thus he defies Alma to point out the location for “soul” that she regards highly. This of course is John’s trap for Alma, that the anatomy chart provides no room for soul, like John who makes no room for the so called “soul” in his state of mind which then makes him regard life highly over afterlife, and thus body over soul.
64
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 65
The third symbol is microscope. It stands for John’s psychic development.
As john reveals, there are two things whenever he sees through a microscope,
“anarchy” and “order”. These two things stand for John psychic. In the beginning of the play, what interests John more is the anarchy part. He does not like to follow the rules prevailed in the society. He also tends to indulge himself in worldly entertainment rather than to devote himself to his work as a doctor. His indulgence also leads him to reckless behavior that Alma points out as
“desecration” to his achievement of Magna Cum Laude for his doctoral degree.
Thus, this part of “anarchy” presents John’s characteristics which are negligent, reckless, irresponsible, self- indulgent. In contrast, the second part of the play depicts John as the “order” of the microscope. He becomes the hero in Lyon that he succeeds in fighting off the fever. He works hard to stamp out the epidemic and thus, shows his responsibility towards humanity as a doctor. This part of “order” represents John’s second self who are responsible, devoted, dutiful, and unselfish.
The next symbol is water lily in Chinese lagoon that stands for Alma’s firstand second being.The first represented by the water lily is her spiritual being while the second half represented by the muddy Chinese lagoon, i.e. her sexuality and physical being--that she is not made of stone but flesh and blood. Thus she needs the other human being to complement her as complete human beings. Her mind set is altered from the superiority of spirituality to the significance of her body as the vessel of her spirit.
Next, is his stone pieta which is a symbol representing John’s self realization upon his soul, the manifestation of his embracing “soul” and his PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 66
repentance on his debauchery and larceny. Like stone pieta in which Virgin Marry mourns over the dead body of Jesus, it also marks the dead of John’s old self that regards physical pleasures above spiritual attainment. Therefore, this gesture of
John stands for the beginning of his transformation to the better personage in the end of the play.
The Summer, which also acts as the title of the play, stands for both characters passion for each other. Not only passion, it also stands for the friction between the characters, i.e. the tension and disagreement between them, one with soul but bodiless and one with body but soulless. It provides the binary polarities of love and hate.
The last symbol is Smoke, which stands as Alma’s soul leaving her body.
It stands for Alma’s inner death of her Puritan’s side and the rebirth of her. It is portrayed in scene 11 and 12 how Alma has changed from her shy and restrained self to be the impulsive and brazen self that she no longer shows any restraints she shows earlier in the beginning of the play. Thus, it marks Alma’s dead old self but the birth of her doppelganger, her second half that she has repressed all along. The
Smoke provides the binary polarities of life and death and death and birth.
These symbols along with their revelation upon the two main characters’ characteristics reveal that Williams’ Summer and Smoke’s narrative structure is constructed upon Saussurian binary opposition. The results are shown through
A.J. Greimas’ three basic binary oppositions, i.e. subject/object, sender, receiver, helper/opponent. PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 67
The results are shown through the following table:
1. Stone Angel Vs. Human Anatomy Chart = Spirituality Vs. Physical
2. Alma’s duality Alma1= Water Lily vs. Alma2 = Chinese Lagoon
3. John’s duality John1 = “Anarchy” vs. John 2 = “Order”
4. Summer vs. Smoke = Physical Lust/Passion vs. Divine Love/ Soul
5. Alma’s reformation= Smoke Death of soul to the. Birth of body
6. John’s reformation = Stone Pieta Death of body to the Birth of Soul
Alma’s Quest of Her Body
Sender Object Receiver
Summer John1 Alma2 Smoke Helper Subject Opponent
Human Anatomy Chart Alma1 Stone Angel
John’s Quest of His Soul
Sender Object Receiver
Smoke Alma1 John 2 Stone Pieta Helper Subject Opponent
Stone Angel John1 Human Anatomy Chart
According to the results, the binary symbols and characteristics found in the play reveal the dichotomies concerning the importance of soul/body, spirituality/sexuality, life/death, physical lust/divine love ; second, the binary PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 68
symbols and characters prove that Williams’ Summer and Smoke’s narrative structure is constructed upon the binary oppositions as proven by the binary quests of soul and body and the binary role transformations between Alma and John as revealed by A.J. Greimas’ three pairs of actantial model.
As structuralism indicates, instead of focusing on the actual meaning of literary works, structuralists aim at finding on how meanings are maintained and established and on the functions of the mega-structure in a literary work.
Accordingly, the results show how binary oppositions act as the grammar or in this case the langue of the parole Williams’ Summer and Smoke. The themes of the dramatic text such as the quest of self-knowledge, the pursuit of higher consciousness, the struggle between spirit and flesh are carried through the dichotomies of the symbols and the main characters.
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms: Seventh Edition. New York: Heinle&Heinle, 1999. Arp, Thomas R. and Greg Johnson. Perrine’s Literature: Structure, Sound, and Sense.Boston: Heinle&Heinle, 2006. Augustten, Ayunda. “Alma Winemiller’s Psychological Conflict as Seen in Tennessee Williams’ Summer and Smoke”. Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University, 2004. Barranger, Milly S. Theater, A Way of Seeing: Fourth Edition. New York: Wadsworth, 1994. Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, Second Edition. New York: Manchester University Press, 2002. Chevalier, Jean. Alain Gheerbrant. Translated by John Buchanan-Brown. The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols. London: Penguin Group, 1996. Chun An, Guo. “Binary Oppositions in Paradise Lost: A Structuralist Reading Strategy”. Kaohsiung Journal Ninth. (August 1, 1995) (lib.kshs.kh.edu.tw/lib/journals/journals.../p59.pdf) September 26, 2014.
Dewi, Utari.“A Study of Character Development of Alma Winemiller and John Buchanan in William’s Summer and Smoke”. Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University, 2000.
Fogarty,S, “The literary encyclopedia”.2005. (http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?pec=true&UID=122) April 6, 2014. Gill, Richard. Mastering English Literature: Second Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 1995. Hawkes, Terence. Structuralism and Semiotics. London: Methuen&Company Limited, 1977. Martin, Bronwen and Felizitas Ringham. Key Terms in Semiotics. London: MPG Books Ltd, 2006
Pryor, Jerome J. “The Discovery of Dionysus inTennessee Williams’Summer and Smoke”. (http://brpryor.com/Papers/Summer_and_Smoke_96.htm) September 26, 2014.
Reaske, Christopher Russell. How to Analyze Drama. New York: Monarch Press, 1966.
69
PLAGIATPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TIDAK TERPUJI TERPUJI 70
Rulewicz, Wanda. “A Grammar of Narrativity: Algirdas Julien Greimas”. (http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/STELLA/COMET/glasgrev/issue3/rudz.htm). September 28, 2014.
Selden, Raman, Peter Widowson, and Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory: Fifth edition. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited, 2005. (http://pearson.vrvbookshop.com/book/a-readers- guide-contemporary-literary-theory-raman-selden/9788177589979) September 15, 2014.
Smith, G. “Binary opposition and sexual power in Paradise Lost”. Midwest Quarterly.Vol. 27 No. 4. P. 383. 1996. Webster, Merriam. Merriam-Webster Online, Merriam-Webster Incorporated. 2014 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pieta). September 08, 2014. Williams, Tennessee. Summer and Smoke. 1948. Modern American Drama. ed. Harold Bloom. Ed. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2005: 409-462.