ii 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
iii 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.
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
ii
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
vii
“
The greatest
ideas
arethe
simplest
.”viii
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.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE……… ii
APPROVAL PAGE………. iii
ACCEPTANCE PAGE……… iv
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN KARYA ILMIAH………. v
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY……… vi
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
x
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
xi
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
xii
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.
1
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:
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
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
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
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
6 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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
…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
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
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
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
26 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
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
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
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
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,
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
32 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
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].
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
