ABSTRACT
Darumi, E. Novi. (2017). Ecocentrism in Michael Punke’s The Revenant: A Novel Of
Revenge. Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Sunan
Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya. Advisor : Sufi Ikrima Saadah, M.Hum
The research’s aim is to find out the environmental issues which appear in Michael Punke’s novel, The Revenant: A Novel Of Revenge, by analyzing the relationship between the main character, Hugh Glass, with the environment and the effects from the relationship. This research applies descriptive method. The researcher uses ecocriticism theory and ecocentrism which is the branch from the theory as the tool to analyze the data and to answer the research questions.
The novel describes the relationship of the nature with the main character, Hugh Glass. The nature, in this book is in the form of the forest and the animals, which the main character thinks that it can provide what Hugh Glass needs. As a frontier, he thinks that nature is an object to be explored. He cuts down some trees and shoots various animals to fulfill what he needs. The deeds bring him to suffer the major impact in his life and the nature.
The results of the research are the relationship between human and the environment is disadvantageous to each other and imbalance because humans tend to be destructive to the environment without any intentions to protect the environment and the effect of the relationship is the damage to the environment and Hugh Glass gets injured.
INTISARI
Darumi, E. Novi. (2017). Ecocentrism in Michael Punke’s The Revenant: A Novel Of
Revenge. Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Sunan
Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya. Pembimbing : Sufi Ikrima Saadah, M.Hum
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan beberapa masalah lingkungan yang muncul di dalam novel karya Michael Punke dengan judul The
Revenant: A Novel Of Revenge, dengan menganalisa hubungan antara tokoh utama,
Hugh Class, dengan lingkungan. Peneliti menggunakan teori ecocritism dan ecocentrism sebagai cabang teori untuk menganalisa data dan menjawab rumusan masalah.
Novel tersebut mendeskripsikan hubungan antara alam dengan tokoh utama, Hugh Glass. Alam, di dalam novel digambarkan sebagai hutan dan hewan-hewan, yang dianggap biss memenuhi apapun yang dibutuhkan oleh tokoh utama. Sebagai pemburu, dia menganggap bahwa alam adalah sebuah objek untuk dieksplor. Dia menebang beberapa pohon dan menembak berbagai macam hewan untuk memenuhi apa yang dia butuhkan. Perbuatan-perbuatan tersebut membuatnya menderita merasakan dampak terhadap dirinya sendiri dan terhadap lingkungan.
Kata kunci: ecocritisim, ecocentrism
ECOCENTRI
SM IN MICHAEL PUNKE’S
THE REVENANT: A
NOVEL OF REVENGE
THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department, Faculty of Arts and Humanities,
Sunan Ampel State Islamic University
By:
ENGGAR NOVI DARUMI
Reg. Number: A03213017
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SUNAN AMPEL
SURABAYA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inside Cover Page ... i
Inside Title Page ... ii
Declaration Page ... iii
Dedication Page ... iv
Advisor’s Approval Page ... v
Examiner’s Approval Page ... vi
Motto ... vii
Acknowledgement... viii
Table of Contents ... x
Abstract ... xiii
Intisari ... xiv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ... 5
1.3 Objectives of the Study ... 5
1.4 Scope and Limitation ... 6
1.5 Significance of the Study ... 6
1.7 Definition of the Key Terms ... 7
CHAPTER II LITERARY REVIEW ... 8
2.1Ecocriticism... 8
2.1.1 The Definition of Ecocriticism ... 8
2.1.2 History of Ecocritical Movement ... 9
2.1.3 Ecocriticism as Literary Criticism ... 13
2.1.4 Ecocentrism ... 17
2.2Review of Related Studies ... 18
CHAPTER III THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MAIN CHARACTER AND ITS EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT PORTRAYED IN THE REVENANT: A NOVEL OF REVENGE ... 20
3.1The Relationship between the Main Character, Hugh Glass, and the Environment ... 20
3.1.1 Nature is Profitable and Wild: Nature as aProvider for Human’s Need ... 21
3.1.2 A Disadvantageous Relationship: Human Exploitation of Environment ... 28
3.2The Effect of the Relationship between the Main Character and the Environment ... 36
3.2.1 The Effects on the Nature ... 36
3.2.2 The Effects on the Human... 40
CONCLUSION ... 45
SUGGESTION ... 46
WORKS CITED ... 48
SYNOPSIS ... 51
D a r u m i | 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The environment becomes the front-page news during the last decade and the public tend to believe that apocalypse will happen by unintended environmental disaster. The damage of the environment has become the talk of the universe. The deforestation and the forest degradation are not something uncommon in the world, yet the rapid loss of the tropical rain forests that has captured the world’s attention
since 1980s. Recently, there are many kinds of forest that also being deforested, such as temperate rain forests and tropical dry forests (Newton vii). It becomes the major factor of global warming and climate changing that increase rapidly this day on.
Human is not the only factor that causes environmental damage but the environment itself as well. There are two major factors that cause environmental damage; mankind and nature. By the 21st century, varies kinds of disasters have happened in the universe, such as earthquake, mountain eruption, hurricane, storm, tsunami, etc. It proofs that nature has its own power beyond human’s capability.
There are many authors that show the environmental issues in their novels, for example Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia and Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows one of the Harry Potter series. Those novels portray nature into the story as a
D a r u m i | 2
forest and Hogwarts School in a result of carelessness of the witch and wizards who fight and destroy the environment brutally in attacking each other. Whereas in Prince
Caspian: The Return to Narnia,the readers can see the contradiction between those
who want to take care of the environment and those who want to exploit it for their own sake.
The other environmental novel is The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge by Michael Punke. The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge is a 2002 novel written, based on a series of events in the life of American frontiersman Hugh Glass.The novel was later adapted as a screenplay for a 2015 feature film directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu. The novel was republished in January 2015 in anticipation of the upcoming film release.
D a r u m i | 3
From the novel, it can be seen the relationship between the main
characterHugh Glassand the environment when he tries to survive after being
attacked by the bear and also being abandoned when he is in the comatose state. The novel also shows the environment damage that happened after the hunting.
From the explanation above, the researcher is interested in analyzing the problem concerned on environmental issues and its relation with human in Michael Punke’s novel The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge, using ecocriticism theory.
Ecocriticism, a relatively new form of criticism, finds its origins in the 1970s, and many critics are still struggling to determine the definition of ecocriticism.
Cheryll Glotfelty, in her introduction to a collection of landmark essays in the field of ecocriticism, argues for the interconnectedness inherent in ecological literary
criticism and embraces the standard definition of ecocriticism by the Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment (ASLE), that “ecocriticism is the study
of the relationship between literature and the physical environment” (xviii). In America, environment was already being a development academic movement by the early 1990. They focused on the study of nature writing.
Ecocriticism is the criticism of the “house”, the environment as represented in
literature. It has burgeoned since 1990. Peter Barry added a chapter titled
“Ecocriticism” to the second edition of his Beginning Theory: An Introduction to
Literary and Cultural Theory (1995). Some ecocritics date the birth of the word
D a r u m i | 4
Ecology: An Experiment in “Ecocriticism” wrote that ecocriticism entailed
“application of ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature” (Rueckert
107).
Ecocriticism seeks to evaluate texts and ideas in terms of their coherence and usefulness as responses to environmental crisis (Garrard 4). Ecocentrism is the branch of ecocriticism theory. Ecocriticism uses insights from the science of ecology to locate value within ecological entities, processes, and relationships. Ecocentrism represents an alternative to an anthropocentric or human-centered ethic of the environment (Woods 1).
1.2 Statement of the Problems
Based on the background of the study explained above, the researcher is interested in analyzing the problems which are formulated as follows:
1. How is the relationship between the main character and the environment portrayed in the novel?
2. How is the effect of the relationship between the main character and the environment in the novel?
1.3Objectives of the Study
D a r u m i | 5
1. Describing the relationship between the main character and the environment portrayed in the novel The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge.
2. Describing the effect of the relationship between the main character and the environment in the novel The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge.
1.4Scope and Limitation
To keep the discussion proper to the objective of study, there is scope and limitation in this research. The scope in this research is the relationship between the main character and the environment or it is called ecocentrism. In this case, it means that the researcher only discusses about the relationship between the main character and the environment and the effect of the by the main character of relationship between the main character and the environment.
1.5Significance of the Study
The study of “Ecocentrism in Michael Punke’s The Revenant: A Novel of
Revenge” is expected to contribute in the development of students of literary study
and also the readers of literary works. The readers are expected to understand the relationship of human and the environment and use the understanding as the guide to treat the environment virtuously. The study is also expected to contribute in the analysis on study related to the study of ecocriticism in the novel The Revenant: A
D a r u m i | 6
1.6Method of the Study
This study uses library research. Library research works through many books and other sources like articles, journals, e-books, and websites related to the topic in order to support the topic.
There are two sources of the data; the primary data and the secondary data. In this research, the source of primary data is the novel entitled “The Revenant” by
Michael Punke. The secondary data is taken from some critical works and some
books that concern with the novel and ecocriticism theory. The steps of data analysis that researcher takes are:
1. Reading and understanding the whole of the novel entitled The
Revenant: A Novel of Revenge.
2. Collecting the data that relates to the relationship between the main character and the environment and the effect of the by the main character of relationship between the main character and the environment.
3. Analyzing the data related to the relationship between the main character and the environment and the effect of the by the main character of relationship between the main character and the environment.
D a r u m i | 7
1.7Definition of the Key Terms
1. Ecocriticism : The study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment (Glotfelty xviii).
2. Ecocentrism : The relationship between human and the environment. Ecocentrism uses insights from the science of ecology to locate value within ecological entities, processes, and relationships. Ecocentrism represents an alternative to an anthropocentric or human-centered ethic of the environment (Woods 1).
3. Nature: the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations (qtd. in Magdoff and Williams 158).
D a r u m i | 8
CHAPTER II
LITERARY REVIEW
In doing this study, the researcher uses the ecocriticism theory. The researcher analyzes the relationship of the main character, Hugh Glass, and the environment in the novel.
2.1Ecocriticism
2.1.1 The Definition of Ecocriticism
Lawrence Buell in his writing, Environmental Imagination defined
ecocriticism as “…a study of the relationship between literature and the environment
conducted in a spirit of commitment to environmentalist praxis.” (430). Cherryl
Glotfelty in The Ecocriticism Reader defines ecocriticism as “…the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment” (xviii). Jelica Tošić in her journal, Ecocriticism–Interdisciplinary Study of Literature and Environment described the ecological terms as a source of ecocriticism and language study. Ecocriticism is a response of the environmental phenomenon which is affected by human activity and focused onstudying the relationship between human and physical nature which is shown in literature.
D a r u m i | 9
work shares a common motivation: the troubling awareness that we have reached the age of environmental limits, a time when the consequences of human actions are damaging the planet's basic life support systems” (6). Through this quotation, it is
clear that the ecocriticism put its concern on environmental issue. Its domain is very broad because it is applicable to any literary genres. The relation between nature, ecological issues, ecosystems with human are the main concern of this theory.
Literature and environment truly can’t be separated each other. Lawrence Buell argues in his book The Truth of Ecology as quoted by Dana Philip that literature would be environmental. It would evoke the natural world through verbal surrogates, and would attempt to bond the reader to the world as well as to discourse (Philip 7). It can be assumed that through the literary work, the reader will be brought to the environmental world and devastation of earth. Indirectly, literature causes the reader’s interpretation of the environment. Thus, it is important to understand the
relation between humans and environment through literary work. It needs to notice that ecology is not a slush fund of fact, value, and metaphor, but a less than fully coherent field with a very checkered past and a fairly uncertain future (Philip 45).
2.1.2 History of Ecocritical Movement
The term ecocritcism was first introduced in 1978 by William Rueckert in his essay, Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism Rueckert intended to focus on the application of ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature, which he introduced the word “ecocriticism” as a term of his subject. Since then,
D a r u m i | 10
Association (WLA) in 1989, brought by Cherryl Glotfelty and Glen A. Love. Then it was developed rapidly since 1990’s by ecocritics such as Harold Fromm, William
Howarth, Suellen Campbell, Simon C. Estok, Lawrence Buell and Michael P. Branch.Ecocriticism as a concept first arose in the late 1970s, at meetings of the WLA (the Western Literature Association, a body whose field of interest in the literature of the American West) (Barry 161).
A prominent Ecocritic, Lawrence Buell states that one can identify several trend-lines marking an evolution from a “first wave” of ecocriticism to “second” or newer revisionist wave or waves increasingly evident today (Buell 17).
1. First Wave Ecocriticism
“Environment” meant “natural environment” for first wave ecocriticism.
Practically, the realm of the “natural” and the “human” seemed more disjunctive than they have been seen in recent environmental critics. Ecocriticism was initially
understood to be synchronous with the aims of earth care. Its goal was to contribute to “the struggle to preserve the „biotic community’” (Buell 21).
D a r u m i | 11
2. Second Wave Ecocriticism or Newer Revisionist Waves
Second Wave Ecocriticism or Newer Revisionist Waves has closer alliance with environmental science, especially the life science. The
biological-environmental-literary connection reached its first major critical expression in 1974 with the publication of Joseph W. Meeker (Love 564). Glen A. Love in his 1999 essay “Ecocriticism and Science: Toward Consilience?”points out that a line of
biological thinking has been a constant and indispensable accompaniment to the rise of ecocriticism and the study of literature and the environment. Biologically verified evidence of environmental destruction and it was the natural connecting point, as the emphasized, which can claim a permanent and important relationship to human life (565).
Meanwhile, William Howarth seems rather to favor bringing humanities and science together in the context of studying specific landscapes and regions (qtd. in Buell 18), to which end geology is at least as important as the life sciences (qtd. in Buell 18). Ursula Heise, on the other hand, has recently turned to a branch of applied mathematics, risk theory, as a window onto literature’s explanation of the kind of contemporary anxieties (Buell 18). Then, others have also taken up the argument that ecocritism’s progress becoming more science-literate.
Likewise, the Carson’s book Silent Spring is a great model. Carson had
D a r u m i | 12
environment in amounts toxic to wildlife, but Silent Spring undertook cultural not scientific work when it strove to argue the moral case that ought not to be. The great achievement of the book was to turn a (scientific) problem in ecology into a widely perceived ecological problem that was then contested politically, legally and in the media and popular culture. Thus ecocriticism cannot contribute much to debates about problems in ecology, but it can help to define, explore and even resolve ecological problems in this wider sense (Garrard 6).
Laurence Buell quoted in his book:
“Science’s “facts” are “neither real nor fabricated”: the microbial revolution
hinged on a certain kind of orchestrated laboratory performance, without which science history would have taken a different path, but the
discovery/invention was not fictitious, either. Bruno Latour ingeniously proposes the neologism “factish” (a collage of “fact” and “fetish”) to describe
this understanding of the “facts” of science: “types of action that do not fall
into the comminatory choice between fact and belief (Latour 1999: 295, 306)” The discourses of science and literature, then, must be read both with and against each other (21).”
D a r u m i | 13
the understanding of personhood is defined for better or worse by environmental entanglement (Buell 23).
2.1.3 Ecocriticism as Literary Criticism
Regardless of what name it goes by, most ecocritical work shares a common motivation. The ecocritic wants to track environmental ideas and representations whenever they appear, to see a debate which seems to be taking place more clearly, often part-concealed, in a great many cultural spaces. Most of all, ecocriticism seeks to evaluate texts and ideas in terms of their coherence and usefulness as responses to environmental crisis (Kerridge and Sammells 5). All ecological criticism shares the fundamental premise that human culture is connected to the physical world, affected it and affected by it (Kerridge and Sammells xix). An ecological perspective strives to see how all things are interdependent, even those apparently most separated. Nothing may be discarded or buried without consequences (Kerridge and Sammells 7).
Ecocriticism takes as its subject interconnections between nature and culture, specifically the cultural artifacts of language and literature. As a critical stance, it has one foot in literature and the other on land; as a theoretical discourse, it negotiates between the human and non human. Ecicriticism expands the notion of “the world” to
include the entire ecosphere (Kerridge and Sammells xix).
The ecrocitical movement’s primary publication, the American ISLE
(international studies in literature and environment) and its younger British
D a r u m i | 14
their mixture of scholarly, pedagogical, creative, and environmentalist contributions (Buell 6). ISLE is established in 1993 by Patrick Murphy to “provide a forum for
critical studies of the literary and performing arts proceeding from or addressing environmental considerations. These would include ecological theory,
environmentalism, conceptions of nature and their depictions, the human/nature dichotomy and related concerns.” (Glofeltly and Fromm xviii)
Ecology, meanwhile, is concerned with an integrated, nitionally holistic view of human-natural systems, even though at any point or space these system – whether nominally organic or mechanical – are seen to be open and evolving. Meanwhile, a broadly ecological concern with human/nature and people/place relations is deep-rooted and perennial feature of the subject, implicit in some of its classical origins and explicit in much of its romantic legacy. Ecological concern has some terms and topics. They usually focus on some questions about family and community based on, identification between characters and places or a mood and place, life and death, and about human and environment representation and relation such as whether people are a part of or apart from nature. All this can be expressed in the terms of three major and recurrent topics in literary and cultural history (Pope 160-161).
1) Version of pastoral. Stereotypically, pastoral is a genre in which shepherd in particular or country-dwellers in general are represented in an
idyllically idealized stat of simplicity and innocence, far from the
D a r u m i | 15
presented as brutal and backward. Typically, in many a piece it is the movement between these states that drives the plot and informs the main issues (Pope 162).
2) The city as the second nature. Here alternatives tend to be farmed in terms of delights and distresses of urban living as a whole, without recourse to rural comparisons. Above all it is the capital city, the Metropolis that is seen as an interlocking system of worlds within worlds, an intricate network of cultures and sub-cultures. The city is hailed from afar as a place of individual opportunity and social mobility „the bright city lights’. However on further acquaintances and reflection of the city often turns out to b a place of personal loneliness and social alienation, naked acquisitiveness and financial vulnerability (Pope 162).
3) Science fiction: utopias and dystopias. The genre of science fiction has been particularly influential in offering representations of imaginary places that are variously utopian and dystopian. „Utopia’, from Greek
ou-topos, is strictly „noplace’ means an imaginary ideal place. Dystopia was
a term coined later to designate an imaginary horrible place. And in fact, depending on one’s point of view, most utopias have potentially
dystopian dimension to them (Pope 163).
D a r u m i | 16
can be seen from the beginning of the novel. The date of the story in the opening is September 1, 182. However in the next pages, the date of the story is written backwards on August 21, 1823.
Cheryll Glotfeltly makes an analogous ecocriticism’s phases similar as Elaine
Showalter’s model of the three developmental stages of feminist criticism. The first
stage is the “images of nature”, how nature is represented in literature. But nature is
not the only focus of ecocritical studies of representation. Other topics include the frontier, animals, cities, specific geographical regions, rivers, mountains, deserts, Indians, technology, garbage, and the body.
Second stage is to recuperate the hitherto neglected genre of nature writing, a tradition of nature-oriented nonfiction originates in England with Gilbert White’s A
Natural History of Selbourne (1789) and extends to America through Henry Thoreau,
Mary Austin, Rachel Carson, Terry Tempest Williams, and many others. In an increasingly urban society, nature writing plays a vital role in teaching us to value the natural world. Another effort to promulgate environmentally enlightened works which examines mainstream genres, identifying fiction and poetry writers whose work manifest ecological awareness.
The third stage, analogous work ecocriticism includes examining the symbolic construction of species. How has literary discourse defined the human? Such a
D a r u m i | 17
meaning from matter, sever mind from the body, divide men from women, and wrench humanity from nature. A related endeavor is being carried out under the hybrid label “ecofeminism” a theoretical discourse whose theme is the link between
the oppression of women and the domination of nature. Another theoretical is that known as deep ecology, which is considering the philosophy to explore the
implications that its radical critique of anthropocentrism might have for literary study (Pope xxiv).
2.1.4 Ecocentrism
An ecologistMark Woods defines ecocentrism or sometimes called dark
green or deep green ecological ethics is the core of environmental positions focused on protecting holistic natural entities such as species, ecosystems, and landscapes. Ecocentrism uses insights from the science of ecology to locate value within ecological entities, processes, and relationships, and ecocetrism represents an
alternative to an anthropocentric or human-centered ethic of the environment (Woods 1).
According to Aldo Leopold on his essay entitled “A Sand County Almanac:
And Sketches Here and There”, ecocentrism is the part of ecocriticsm that represents
a human-environment relationship.
D a r u m i | 18
are capable of making efforts toward contributing to a solution or, at least, to show a desire to be personally engaged in the environmental matter. (3)
2.2 Review of Previous Studies
Ecocriticism study has been done by several researchers. The research found an undergraduate thesis by Rohmah Romadhon from Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta entitled “An Analysis of Environmental Issues Using
Ecocriticism in James Cameroo’s Film Avatar”. She used descriptive-qualitative
method. This research describes how the relationship between human and the environment and the non-human with the environment.
The second research comes from the journal written by Fahmi Leksono and Fithriyah Inda SS., M.Pd. entitled “Devastation of Earth: an Ecocriticism Study in Cormac McCarthy‟s The Road”. The journal describes how the devastation of earth happened in the whole layers of environment; atmosphere, land and sea in Comac McCarthy’s The Road.
The third research comes from Nofrialdhi Arif with the title “The Arrogance Of Geneticists Over Nature As Reflected On DR. Henry Wu Character In Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park Novel”. He uses qualitative method on analyzing the
arrogance of geneticists over nature on DR. Henry Wu.
D a r u m i | 19
D a r u m i | 20
CHAPTER III
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MAIN CHARACTER AND ITS EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT PORTRAYED IN THE REVENANT:
A NOVEL OF REVENGE
In this chapter, the researcher discusses the answers to the research questions. Before discussing the answers, it is important to understand how ecocentrism connects with ecocritisicm theory. Ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment (Glotfeltly xviii). As already known, character is the part of literature and it is usually portrayed as human, while ecocentrism deals with the relationship between human and the environment. So, the researcher uses ecocentrism to discuss the answers of the research questions.
This chapter is divided into two main parts. In the first part, the researcher describes how the relationship between the main character and the environment is portrayed in the novel, The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge. In the second part, the researcher analyzes the effect of the relationship between the main character and the environment.
3.1The Relationship between the Main Character, Hugh Glass, and the
Environment
Based on Cheryl Glotfeltly’s theory, the researcher first describes how the
D a r u m i | 21
As mentioned before, an ecocritic named Lawrence Buell mentioned there are two waves of ecocriticism. This novel is classified into first wave because from a human perspective in the novel, environmental issues involve concerns about employment, profits, politics, ethics and economics. The novel shows the relationship of the main character, Hugh Glass, with the environment. Living in 1800s when hunting is the main livelihood in the Fort Brazeau have made Hugh Glass a master woodsman, a sharpshooter and game hunter since he was young. On August 1823, Hugh Glass joins the hunting along the wild life of Missouri river and the trading of fur with other ten men led by a captain named Andrew Henry. They bet their lives albeit the environment is still wide in order to get the trade work successfully and to get money as much as they can. As far as they get the profit from the nature, wilderness is not a big deal for them and they think that environment exists to fulfill their needs. From a human point of view,
environmental issues involve around science, nature, health, employment, profits, politics, ethics, and economics (Enger and Smith 5).
3.1.1 Nature is Profitable and Wild: Nature as a Provider for Human’s Needs
In The Revenant: A Novel Of Revenge, the fur traders regard that nature is
the place where they can rely their lives on. They do everything for getting what they need, although the environment is still wild. They are even willing to destroy the nature to fulfill their needs in life. It is explained in the book how the
D a r u m i | 22
“HE SMELLED THE BUFFALO CARCASS before he saw it. He
heard it too. Or at least he heard the clouds of flies that swirled around the heaping mass of hide and bone. Sinews held the skeleton mostly intact, although scavengers had picked it clean of any meat. The massive, bushy head and swooping black horns lent the animal its only measure of dignity, though this too had been undermined by the birds that had picked away the eyes.”(Punke 101)
The situation of the environment after the hunting is explained in the middle of the book. The fur traders leave what they have already destroyed from the nature. In this case is in the form of buffalo carcass. They hunt the buffalo and take the meat and all of the important parts of the buffalo with them. They leave the carcass which is only bones and its head left haphazardly without having any idea of what they have done. Hugh Glass finds the carcass in his way to where his fellow traders head to. This explanation clearly shows how human are willing to do anything to fulfill the needs for their lives, even destroying the balance of the nature by hunting the animals which live in it.
Human do not only kill the animals to fulfill their needs for food
especially meat. They also cut down some trees in the forest which they think can provide them in their days in the forest alongside the Missouri River where the group of eleven men (Glass’ group) stays for awhile. It is explained in the novel
D a r u m i | 23
“I want you and Black Harris to scout tomorrow,” said Captain
Henry. Glass looked up, disappointed that he could not respond to the beckoning call of sleep.”(Punke 16)
When Glass scouts in the next morning, he walks around alone at the camp site and he finds plum trees that have been cut down and used by another group before.
“Glass noticed plum trees scattered among the willows, a lucky
break. They could grind pemmican from the combined fruit and meat.”(Punke 23)
Glass finds the scattered trees to help the group to grind for their food. He does not clean the mess and makes the environment to be a better place. He also uses the trees for his group. Glass’ deed also represents the idea that human will do
everything to get the profit from the nature.
Human also think that nature can provide what they need in their lives. In the book, it is explained that all of the frontiers from the group who come into the forest do not carry food with them.
“In the hierarchy of challenges the trappers faced each day,
D a r u m i | 24
on this stretch of the Grand, and they could have dined on fresh meat each night. But harvesting game meant shooting, and the sound of a rifle carried for miles, revealing their position to any foe within earshot.”(Punke 24)
The men’s thinking is that nature can fulfill their needs to provide their
food. Environment, for them, is like the old conception of nature for man. Nature is gendered female, while women, from the men viewpoint, are the territory for adventure, wildness to be tamed, owned and controlled (Kerridge and Sammels 6). They even use the term „game’ for the hunting. The term is clearly intended
that hunting for them is a fun adventure and it is not a problem for them to kill the animals in the forest. By not bringing some food with them and hunting the animals and even cutting down the trees in the forest near the Missouri River, it can be seen that they can rely their lives on the nature.
In their trading journey, it is unavoidable that they can face many
obstacles. The wilderness becomes their main obstacle to deal with. The form of the wilderness in the book is portrayed into two kinds of wilderness. First is the Indian tribe and the second is the nature itself. They have to avoid those as much as the can. They believe if they can avoid the obstacles, they can get the profit from the nature without being harmed and come back in the town successfully.
“Since leaving the Missouri, the men had held closely to a pattern.
D a r u m i | 25
responsibilities were to avoid Indians, select a campsite, and find food. They shot fresh game every few days.”(Punke 24)
In the statement above, it is clearly implied that if they can avoid the Indians, they can shot fresh game (hunting the animals for their food) every few days.
Encountering Indians means that they cannot do their trading as planned, they cannot hunt for food, and they can also die in the journey. As already known, Indians is the occupant of the Grand Forest. They will kill whoever destroys the forest especially white men. It is told in the book that the prior group of the trappers is killed by the Indians named Arikara tribe.
Before the eleven men hunting and trading, the former group from
Mountain Fur Company gets involved in a battle with Arikara tribe while trapping beavers along Missouri River.
“Dear Mr. Pickens,
It is my unfortunate responsibility to inform you of the events of the
past two weeks. By their nature these events must alter−though not
deter−our venture on the Upper Missouri.
As you probably know by now, the men of the Rocky Mountain Fur
Company were attacked by the Arikara after trading in good faith for
sixty horses. The Arikara attacked without provocation, killing 16 of
D a r u m i | 26
In a letter written by William H. Asley−the businessman who runs the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, where Hugh Glass and his group work in−it is clearly stated that the prior group is killed before and the Arikara steals their horses. The Arikara wants to take the control of the region along the Upper Missouri. The attack of Arikara is an obstacle written in the book that the group must avoid. The Arikara is the wilderness that can turn their profit into death. The wilderness in Arikara means they willingly kill the group of traders and steal the group’s things without provocation. This means that the Arikara can prevent
Glass’ group to go trading and hunting in the forest.
Besides the Arikara, there is the wilderness of the nature itself that can be the obstacle. The wild animals in the forest can also endanger their lives. It is unavoidable that many wild animals live in the forest, especially in the forest alongside Missouri River. Some of the wild animals even attack one of the eleven men in the group, which happens to be Hugh Glass.
“…The bear brought down her paw, and Glass felt the sickening
sensation of the animal’s six-inch claws dredging deep into the flesh of his
upper arm, shoulder, and throat. The blow threw him to his back. The knife dropped, and he pushed furiously against the earth with his feet, futilely seeking the cover of the willows.
D a r u m i | 27
the bone of his shoulder blade. Claws raked repeatedly through the flesh of his back and scalp. He screamed in agony. She dropped him, then sank her teeth deep into his thigh and shook him again, lifting him and throwing him to the ground with such force that he lay stunned−conscious, but unable to resist any further.”(Punke 25-26)
When Glass is asked to scout by the leader of the group, Captain Andrew Henry, he accidentally sees some bear cubs not far from the camp. He does not aware that the sow has been watching him. He is transfixed by the cubs. However it is too late for him to realize that the danger comes his way. The mother bear comes his way and attacks him while she is roaring. The bear attacks him mercilessly. The bear attacks him because the bear sees the man as a threat for them. Wild animals usually attack when they see a stranger and their instinct sees that stranger as a threat.
After being attacked badly by the grizzly bear, Hugh Glass is injured at the point that he cannot do anything. Even breathing is hard for him because his windpipe is ripped by the bear’s claws. He is getting treatment from his fellows.
Unfortunately, his fellows later leave him alone because they feel that it is too hard for them to reach Fort Union by carrying a badly injured person who is hard to regain his consciousness with a stretcher. When he cannot do anything but lying in the camp site, he regains his conscious only to watch a snake appeared before him.
D a r u m i | 28
“The first strike came so quickly that Glass had no time to recoil.
He stared down in horror as the rattler’s head shot forward, jaws distended
to reveal fangs dripping with poison. The fangs sunk into Glass’s forearm. He screamed in pain as the venom coursed into his body. He shook his arm but the fangs held on, the snake’s body flailing with Glass’s arm
through the air. Finally the snake dropped, its long body perpendicular to Glass’s torso. Before Glass could roll away, the snake rewound itself and struck again. Glass couldn’t scream this time. The serpent had buried its
fangs in his throat.”(73)
He can only stare at the snake and let him be attacked once more time by the wild animal. The snake also has the same instinct as the bear, they see human as a threat and attacked them. With the explanation above, the wilderness is one thing that cannot be avoided in the hunting life in the Grand forest in the book.
3.1.2 A Disadvantageous Relationship: Human Exploitation of Environment
In most of the Western religious and philosophical tradition, the
nonhuman world is thought to exist for the sake of human beings (Gifford viii). Stan J. Rowe states that:
“The ecocentric argument is grounded in the belief that, compared
D a r u m i | 29
materials designed to be used exclusively by humans, to serve the needs of humanity, is in the profoundest sense humanity's source and support: its ingenious, inventive life-giving matrix.”(106-107)
These believe and these understandings lead human to do exploration and exploitation to the nature. Being attacked badly by the bear and the snake and being left by his friends alone with only a razor in the state where he needs the others’ help, makes Hugh Glass furious and wants to avenge what his fellows
have done to him. It makes him do some exploitation to the environment in order to save his life from the death.
In the beginning of The Revenant: A Novel Of Revenge, readers can see the letter by William H. Ashley that states there are another competitor of their fur trading company. Ashley writes that the Rocky Mountain Fur Company has to arrive to Fort Brazeau quicker than the others because they cannot lose their buyers to the others. This clearly fuels the group led by Captain Andrew Henry to hunt and arrive quickly at the Fort Brazeau.
In the afternoon before Hugh Glass is attacked by the grizzly bear, he is ordered to do the scouting together with a man named Black Harris by Captain Henry. He asks Glass and Harris to go for hunting for their supply of meat.
“After shooting a deer or buffalo calf, the scouts prepared the camp for
D a r u m i | 30
Glass and Harris already do their task in hunting for meat using Glass’s riffle. This clearly represents the exploitation of the nature by hunting and
shooting the buffalo. They kill the animals in the wood only to get profit for them. One of the men is even wearing a coat from wolves’ skin which is also a kind of exploitation to the nature especially animals.
“The man in the wolf skin looked up briefly, then disappeared into the
woods.”(Punke 70)
After hunting, Glass and Harris continue to do the round. Glass is just walking not far from the camp and Black Harris is nowhere to see. He sees some bear cubs. When he realizes the presence of the mother bear who thinks he will catch her cubs, the mother bear is already approaching him furiously. He uses the Anstadt, his great riffle, to attack the bear.
“Glass pulled the hammer to full-cock and raised the Anstadt, staring
through the pronghorn sight in stunned horror that the animal could be, at the same time, enormous and lithe.” (Punke 26)
“She towered three feet over Glass as she pivoted for the raking swipe
of her lethal claws. Point-blank, he aimed at the great bear’s heart and pulled the trigger.”(Punke 26)
D a r u m i | 31
by Glass’ riffle, the bear is not dead. Glass is badly attacked by the grizzly bear
until he faints and finally his fellows come and rescue him after shooting the bear dead. He is being carried by his group for three days using stretcher until Captain Henry decides to leave him in the hands of Fitzgerald and Bridger.
The exploitation continuously happens in the book. After being left by Fitzgerald and Bridger, Glass does everything to save his own life. Even in his state where he cannot walk, only crawl on the ground, he keeps hunting to kill his hunger. It may be not as big as the fur hunting that he does with his group, but still what he does is exploit the nature for his own safety.
“Glass crawled cautiously toward the snake, the imagery of his
horrific dream still vivid. He moved to within six feet, stopping to pick up a walnut-size rock. With his left hand, he rolled the rock, which skipped toward the snake, bumping its body. The snake didn’t move. Glass picked
up a fist-size rock and crawled within reach. Too late, the snake made a sluggish move toward cover. Glass smashed the rock on its head, beating the serpent repeatedly until he was certain it was dead.” (Punke 94)
D a r u m i | 32
does not care at all about him killing the animals. As long as he can live well by hunting them, he does not care at all about the animals’ life.
“He sliced down the belly beginning at the neck. The razor dulled
quickly, reducing its effectiveness with each inch. He managed to cut the length of the snake, nearly five feet to the vent. With the snake laid open he pulled out the entrails, throwing them aside. Beginning again at the neck, he used the razor to peel the scaly skin away from the muscle. The meat now glistened before him, irresistible in the face of his
hunger.”(Punke 95)
He without hesitation skins the snake cruelly using the razor given by Bridger. He even throws away the snake’s skin without any thinking that he has
already destroying the environment around him. He eats that raw meat of snake.
“Next Glass searched for the three sticks he needed to support the
deadfalls. The downed cottonwood provided an array of choices. He selected three branches about an inch in diameter and broke them off at a span about the length of his arm.”(Punke 105)
“For the trigger sticks, Glass selected three slender willows, cut to a length of about sixteen inches.”(Punke 105)
D a r u m i | 33
not causing a fatal damage into the forest, but still it clearly exploits the nature if he does this hunting continuously.
“He thrust the torch toward the wolf with one ear. Flames singed
the animal’s face and it jumped backward with a yelp.” (Punke121)
Several days after eating the snake, he still does not make a far move by crawling. Going on crawl only prolong his destination to the Fort Union. He feels hungry again. And then he sees a group of wolves and a buffalo who was being captured by the wolves. Glass makes a torch from a wood stick and fire. He then thrusts the torch toward the wolf but it does not make the wolf and its group retreat. He attacks the wolf once again with the help from the rain and the lightning; he succeeds in make the wolves which already eat the carcass of the buffalo run and takes over the captive buffalo.
Eating a small bit of carcass can fuel him to continue his journey again until he meets two Indians who happen to be the member of Indians and are working with Mountain Fur Company. They help Glass and bring him to their settlement, the Sioux Camp. In there, Glass gets the treatment for his injuries and gets a new riffle. They heal Glass and give him a new riffle and they make Glass feels more spirited to take his revenge on his fellows who leave him, especially Fitzgerald who steals his Andstadt.
On his journey after getting medication, he meets the wild Arikara. Without hesitation he attacks and kills the Arikara by shooting the horse.
“Glass cocked his rifle and aimed. At first he tried to line his sights
D a r u m i | 34
heads. He moved his aim to one of the horses, picking the hollow spot just below the neck.
“He squeezed the trigger and the rifle spit forth his shot. The horse
screamed and its legs seemed to fold in front of it. Dust flew as it ploughed to an abrupt stop, its rider flying over the dead animal’s head.”(Punke 202) Shooting the horse means he does not change his behavior in hunting. Although he shoots the horse because of his life is in danger, but still it can be called as exploitation of the environment.
After parting way with another Indian tribe who works with his company and also the enemy of Arikara, he continues his journey to the Fort Union by walking along the river. He then feels cold and he builds a fire. Hunger once again consumes him and makes him search something that is edible enough for him. Now, with riffle in his hands, it eases him in hunting. He sees a rabbit and he shoots it for his night supper.
“Hugh Glass sat cross-legged beside a small fire, the flames
tickling at the lean carcass of a rabbit suspended on a willow spit. As he waited for the rabbit to roast...”(Punke 215)
D a r u m i | 35
Fitzgerald who has stolen his Anstadt. In the middle of their journey, they see a group of buffalo stuck in the middle of the snow.
“Glass crested a butte and stopped dead in his tracks. A hundred
yards in front of him, a small herd of fifty or so buffalo huddled together, holding a protective, circular formation from their own recent battle with the storm.
“…Glass wondered if he should shoot another cow or calf, but
quickly decided that they had more than enough meat. Too bad, he thought. I could shoot a dozen if I wanted.
Then an idea struck him, and he wondered why he hadn’t thought of it before. He moved to within forty yards of the herd, aimed at the biggest bull he could find and fired. He reloaded and quickly shot another bull.”(259)
They did not waste the chance to hunt the buffalo for their food’s supply. Glass
does not only shoot but shoot as much as he can because now he has a good enough riffle. His companions help him to shoot. They do not only shoot the buffalo for their food, they use its skins for making boat. They need a boat to cross the river. It takes longer time if they go on land. They shoot down eleven bulls and dissect the bulls with their knives.
“Red and Chapman moved up beside him, eagerly reloading.
“Why?”• asked Chapman. “The calves is better eating.”
D a r u m i | 36
Five minutes later eleven bulls lay dead in the little vale. It was more than they needed, but Red and Chapman were caught in a frenzy once the shooting started. Glass pushed his ramrod hard to reload. The flurry of shooting had fouled his barrel. Only when the charge was seated and the pan primed did he approach the closest bull. “Chapman, get up on
that ridgeline and take a look around. That’s a lot of noise we just made.
Red, start putting that new knife to use.”(Punke 260)
Moreover, there is no regret written in the book for the hunting and killing and damaging the nature. There are many ways in which human try to excuse hunting. Some claims say that it is done in the interest of preserving the “circle of life” or the ecosystem, others say that wildlife should be treated no differently
from the crops that human harvest (Garlow par 12). It explains that destruction is humans’ intend to the nature in order to get the benefit from the nature whether Hugh Glass’s life depends on the nature.
3.2The Effect of the Relationship between the Main Character and the Environment
D a r u m i | 37
territory for adventure, wildness to be tamed, owned and controlled (Kerridge and Sammels 6). That is why the men in The Revenant: A Novel Of Revenge treat the nature the way they want to get the profit from the nature around them. There are some effects from the way human treat the nature, whether the effects are harmful for the nature or harmful for the human being itself.
3.2.1 The Effects on the Nature
From the relationship between the main character, Hugh Glass, and the environment explained above, there are some effects from what Glass has done to the environment, whether the effects have a major or a minor impact on the environmental change.
A group of eleven men led by Captain Henry is walking in the forest alongside the Missouri River for fur trading to the Fort Union which is miles away from their place. On their journey in the forest, they hunt and cut some trees to support their lives. From the way they think that nature can provide what they need, they do not need to worry about their foods.
To survive in the middle of the forest, the men build a camp and do the scout hunting for their foods. One day, the captain of the group, Captain Andrew Henry asks Hugh Glass and Black Harris to hunt.
“After shooting a deer or buffalo calf, the scouts prepared the camp
D a r u m i | 38
“Glass noticed plum trees scattered among the willows, a lucky
break. They could grind pemmican from the combined fruit and meat.”(Punke 23)
Glass and Harris already do their task in hunting for meat using Glass’s rifle, the
Andstadt. This clearly represents the damage of the nature by hunting and
shooting the buffalo. They also cut some trees to get the wood for making a fire. It can change the balance of the nature by hunting and killing the animals and cutting trees in the wood only to get profit for human.
“HE SMELLED THE BUFFALO CARCASS before he saw it. He
heard it too. Or at least he heard the clouds of flies that swirled around the heaping mass of hide and bone. Sinews held the skeleton mostly intact, although scavengers had picked it clean of any meat. The massive, bushy head and swooping black horns lent the animal its only measure of dignity, though this too had been undermined by the birds that had picked away the eyes.”(Punke 101)
Several days later, after Glass hunts the buffalo, he and his group leave the carcass recklessly. They hunt the buffalo and take the meat and all of the important parts of the buffalo with them to eat. They leave the carcass, which is only bones and its head left, haphazardly without having any idea of what they have done to the environment. The forest that is used to be clean will be dirty. The carcass stains the environment and it also changes the environment’s state if the hunting is done
D a r u m i | 39
The day after Hugh Glass and his group enjoys the game they have harvested, agrizzly bear attacks Hugh Glass. The mother bear’s attack is enough to make Glass comatose and injured badly. One day, his fellows leave him alone and take all of his belongings including his rifle named Andstadt and his knife. He has to survive no matter how is. So, he decides to kill animals and cut trees around him with only a razor that is left by his fellows for him.
“Next Glass searched for the three sticks he needed to support the
deadfalls. The downed cottonwood provided an array of choices. He selected three branches about an inch in diameter and broke them off at a span about the length of his arm.”(Punke 105)
“For the trigger sticks, Glass selected three slender willows, cut to
a length of about sixteen inches.”(Punke 105)
“He managed to cut the length of the snake, nearly five feet to the
vent. With the snake laid open he pulled out the entrails, throwing them aside. Beginning again at the neck, he used the razor to peel the scaly skin away from the muscle.”(Punke 95)
By killing some animals and cutting the trees, Hugh Glass manages to stay alive. In his mind, it is okay to do the deeds because he thinks that nature can provide what he needs. Killing one or two animals may be not a major exploitation, but it still can change the balance of the nature.
D a r u m i | 40
and hunt very well with his Anstadt. So, he will do everything to relieve his hunger and stay alive in order to take his Anstadt back although it means that he has to kill animals and cut down some trees.
Weeks after he regains his health back after getting treatment from the Indians who is his colleague in trading with Rocky Mountain Fur Company, Glass walks to Fort Atkinson. He also gets a new rifle named Kentucky rifle. In the middle of the storm, he finds his fellows who have abandoned him before. He is given four horses and two companies by Captain Henry. He also gets some knives. He continues his journey to Fort Atkinson and that is when he sees a group of buffalo which is stuck because of the storm. Glass and his two friends shoot eleven buffalo for their food. This clearly makes a major impact to the environment.
“Five minutes later eleven bulls lay dead in the little vale. It was
more than they needed, but Red and Chapman were caught in a frenzy once the shooting started. Glass pushed his ramrod hard to reload. The flurry of shooting had fouled his barrel. Only when the charge was seated and the pan primed did he approach the closest bull. “Chapman, get up on
that ridgeline and take a look around. That’s a lot of noise we just made. Red, start putting that new knife to use.”(Punke 260)
They even make a boat from the buffalos’ skin. Killing one for their food may
cause a minor impact to the environment, but killing eleven might be not. It causes a major impact to the animals’ lives. They also throw the unused cow’s
D a r u m i | 41
“…the great benefit of the bullboat was its draft−barely nine
inches. The mountain runoff that would flood the banks was still months away. In early spring the Platte hardly trickled.
Around noon Glass sent Red back to camp to set fires for jerking meat.
Behind him Red dragged the cow’s hide across the snow, piled
high with choice cuts. They took the tongues from the bulls, but otherwise worried only about the hides. “Roast up that liver and a couple of those
tongues for tonight,” yelled Chapman.”(Punke 261)
They hunt wildly without even thinking that what they have done can harm the environment around them. They all share the same thought, which is nature is a profitable thing that means a lot for them if they can exploit it. Their thought, at the end, might cause the balance of the nature change.
3.2.2 The Effects on the Human
Besides effects on the nature, there is also effect of the relationship on the human themselves. Mostly, the one who suffers the impact is Hugh Glass. The impact on him is catastrophic.
“The growl crescendoed as she stepped into the clearing, black
D a r u m i | 42
folding into massive shoulders, and above all the silvery hump that identified her as a grizzly.”(Punke 25)
In the middle of his scout hunting, Hugh Glass sees cubs play around and he comes closer to them without knowing that their mother bear sees him not far from them. She sees him as a threat because he is holding his rifle and coming closer to her cubs. She runs towards Hugh Glass and attacks him brutally. The attack shows the mother bear’s fear of human and she tries to defend her cubs
from the hunter. It is the form of her alertness towards something that she sees as a threat. For Hugh Glass, it is the impact of him who brings the rifle and hunts animals. The way he treats the nature can be reflected from the way the nature acts towards him.
“Glass slipped in and out of consciousness, though one state
differed little from the other. He could occasionally take water, but the throat wounds made it impossible to swallow solid food. Twice the litter spilled, dumping Glass on the ground. The second spill broke two of the stitches in his throat.”(41)
“…His wounded throat rendered him mute, his only sound the pathetic
wheeze of his breathing.”(41)
He has to accept the consequence and bear the pain from the attack because of his deeds towards the nature. His injuries are bad enough and it makes him disable to do anything by himself, even it is only breathing. His throat’s wounds do not
D a r u m i | 43
from the bear can make him to become a little bit aware that what he has done can endanger him.
“Glass had no idea how long he had been lying there when the
snake appeared.”(Punke 72)
“Finally the snake dropped, its long body perpendicular to Glass’s
torso. Before Glass could roll away, the snake rewound itself and struck again. Glass couldn’t scream this time. The serpent had buried its fangs in
his throat.”(73)
A day after his fellows has abandoned Glass; he wakes up after being unconscious only to find a snake is in alert because of his presence and attacks him straight in his wounded throat. It seems that the nature (the nonhuman world) reacts to him the way he has treated the nature before.
“Hugh Glass began to crawl.”(3)
His feet’s bones are also broken and disable him to walk. He goes to seek his
revenge for those who has abandoned him to the Fort Union which is still miles away from his place now, the Grand, with crawling. He crawls for weeks until two Indians, the colleague of Rocky Mountain Fur Company, find him.
“One of the Indians managed to pinch a twisting white worm
D a r u m i | 44
They find worms living in Glass’ back wounds and decide to take care of him.
D a r u m i | 45
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
I. CONCLUSION
After analyzing the novel, the researcher concludes that human actually has a close relationship with the environment. Human is a part of ecosystem in which environment include inside it. Absolutely, that relationship affects each other. In the development, humans tend to be destructive to the environment and bring damage to the environment.
Reflecting to the data analysis, the conclusion is firstly shaped to the relationship between the main character, Hugh Glass, and the environment or the nonhuman world. He tends to be indifferent with the environment. He believes that nature can provide what he needs and he keeps hunting and cutting the trees to support his life and his group’s life. He damages the environment by shooting the
animals and using it as his foods or his business with his company, Rocky Mountain Fur Company. It is pictured that the hunting stains the environment. Carcasses and some fell trees are scattered around the forest. There are also the buffalos’ skins that
are used as the boat by Glass and his fellows after Glass shoots down eleven buffalos with his rifle. However, there is no further deed that is expressed as protecting the environment. Thus, the relationship is disadvantageous.
D a r u m i | 46
the carcass and the other nonhuman living in the forest becomes imbalance. The population of the hunted animals is decreasing. Physically, Hugh Glass also gets the impact of the relationship. He gets attacked by the grizzly bear and injured badly until his life is almost over. Thus, it can be concluded that the effect on the nature and on the human’s life is major impact. Therefore, the relationship between the main
character and the environment is very disadvantageous to each other and imbalance,
and the effect of the relationship is the damage to the environment and Hugh Glass.
II. SUGGESTION
Based on the conclusion above, there are some suggestions given by the researcher to the other researchers in order to do a better research in the future. 1. There are some environmental issues in the novel The Revenant: A Novel Of
Revenge that come from the lack of understanding of the importance of the
nature and environment that have not been explained in this thesis yet. Thus, the readers can establish a new analysis using the issues that have not been covered. 2. If the readers want to analyze further about nature writing or ecological texts
D a r u m i | 47
The writer hopes this thesis can give a contribution to the English major students who want to analyze about the same topic. Hopefully, this research can make all of
D a r u m i| 48
WORKS CITED
Arif, Nofrialdhi. The Arrogance Of Geneticists Over Nature As Reflected On DR. Henry Wu Character In Michael Crichton‟s Jurassic Park Novel. Thesis:
Universitas Andalas. 2016.
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory An Introduction To Literary And Cultural Theory, 2nd ed. UK. 2000.
Buell, Lawrence. The Environmental Imagination. Harvard: Harvard University Press. 1996.
Buell, Lawrence. The Future of Environmental Criticism: Environmental Crisis and
Literary Imagination. USA: Blackwell Publishing. 2005.
Dunlap, Riley. The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to
worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3-18. 2008. Enger, Eldon D. and Bradley F. Smith. Environmental Science: A Study Of
Interrelationship, 9th ed. USA: McGraw-Hill. 2004.
Garrard, Greg. Ecocriticism. New York: Routledge. 2004.
Garlow, Ariel. “5 Types of Animal Exploitation Considered „Normal‟ in the US”. www.onegreenplanet.org, 2014. Web. 19 Jul. 2017.
Glotfelty & Fromm. TheEcocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, University of Georgia Press. 1996.
D a r u m i| 49
Green, Honey. “What is the difference between physical environment and
environment?”.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-physical-environment-and-environment. Web. 23 July 2017
Kerridge, Richard and Neil Sammels. Writing the Environment: Ecocriticism and
Literature. USA: Zed Books Ltd. 1998.
Leksono, Fahmi & Inda, Fithriyah. Devastation of Earth: an Ecocriticism Study in
Cormac McCarthy‟s The Road. Journal: Universitas Negeri Surabaya. 2013.
Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There. London: Oxford University Press. 1949.
Magdoff, Fred and Williams, Chris. Creating an Ecological Society: Toward a
Revolutionary Transformation. NY: Monthly Review Press. 2017.
Newton, Andrian C. Forest Ecology and Conservation. UK: Oxford Universty Press. 2007.
New Literary History, Vol. 30, No. 3, Ecocriticism. The John Hopkins University
Press. Summer. 1999.
Philip, Dana. The Truth of Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003. Pope, Rob. The English Studies Book: An Introduction to Language, Literature and
Culture. 2nd ed. NY: Routledge. 2002.
Punke, Michael. The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge. United States: Picador .2015. Romadhon, Rohmah. An Analysis of Environmental Issues Using Ecocriticism in
James Cameroo‟s Film Avatar. Thesis: Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
D a r u m i| 50
Rowe, Stan J. Ecocentrism: the Chord that Harmonizes Humans and Earth. The Trumpeter 11(2). 1994.
Rueckert, William. Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism. 1978. Tošić, Jelica. Ecocriticism – Interdisciplinary Study of Literature and Environment.
Faculty of Occupational Safety, University of Niš. 2004.
Woods, Mark. “Ecocentrism”. home.sandiego.edu. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.
