12
The overall setting of a narrative or dramatic work is the general locale, historical time, and social circumstances in which its action occurs; the
setting of a single episode or scene within such a work is the particular physical location in which it takes place Abrams, 1999: 284.
In that quotation, Abrams mentioned that setting covers three elements
including the one explained by Roberts and Jacobs. He said that setting consists of the depiction of location or place, time, and social circumstance that inspire the
story. The additional elements, time and social circumstance, are important to support the explanation about setting of place since it makes the readers or
audience of literary work find it easier to imagine certain story.
2. Theory of Plot and Conflict
When talking about conflict in a literary work, it is always connected with a discussion about plot. Two theories about plot from Roberts and Jacobs, and
Abrams stated that plot is dealing with what-so-called chronological order of actio
ns. Roberts and Jacobs said, ‗A plot is a plan or groundwork of human motivations, with the actions resulting from believable and realistic human
responses. In a well-plotted work, nothing is irrelevant; everything is related ,‘
1987: 98. There are two important things in that quotation. The first one is their mentioning about ‗groundwork of human motivations‘. It indicates that the
arrangement of plot is a result of human motivations. From the first until the last sequence, there are human motivations that set logical order. This explains the
second important thing that a well-plotted work follows a relevant connection between sequences. They are related.
13
Abrams focused his explanation about plot not only on order of actions but also the difference between a plot and a story. He said that
Narratologists, accordingly, do not treat a narrative in the traditional way, as a fictional representation of life, but as a systematic formal construction.
A primary interest of structural narratologists is in the way that narrative discourse fashions a story
—the mere sequence of events in time—into the organized and meaningful structure of a literary plot 1999: 173.
It can be understood that plot is made from several stories that are
constructed to build a meaningful narrative. Each story occupies different part in the plot. It can be in the beginning, in the middle, or in the last.
There are many ways to understand construction of plot. One of them is introduced by Gustav Freytag. In Glossary of Literary Terms, Abrams explained
about Freytag‘s design of a plot which is known as Freytag‘s Pyramid. This
design divides the order of plot into three levels. The conflicts introduced occupy the first level called rising action. When the development of the conflicts reaches
the highest point, it becomes the second level called climax. The climax then will be followed by the third level called falling action. In falling action, a story
reaches its conclusion as a result of all conflicts presented 1999: 227. From the explanation of plot, there is a significant question of how several
stories develop into a plot. This answer might be answered by the previous quotation about ‗groundwork of human motivations.‘ In a narrative, human
motivations become the sources of plot development. Human motivations lead certain stories develop into a chronological order.
Roberts and Jacobs gave further explanation that the important thing is not how a sequence occurs after another but more about causative issue of how certain thing
14
causes another thing happen. In response to that, they said, ‗It is response, interaction, causation, and conflict that make a plot out of a simple series of
actions‘ 1987: 98. In their explanation, Roberts and Jacobs also signified the importance of
conflicts as a result of human motivation in developing the organization of stories in a
plot. They even said, ‗The most significant element, the essence, of plot is conflict.‘ Conflicts, according to them can happen between two people or between
a person with many people. The point is that conflicts require the existence of certain characters. Even when it is only one character, the conflict may arise.
When a person is confronting with himself or herself, it can be categorized as conflict. To make the term ‗conflict‘ understandable, Roberts and Jacobs
concluded that to notice conflict is to be aware of certain discord of ideas in stories which can develop into a plot 1987: 99.
Harmon and Holman in A Handbook to Literature emphasized that conflicts are not only the presence of two or more opposing ideas but also how the
clash between them grow s the story. ‗The struggle that grows out of the interplay
of two opposing forces,‘ 2009: 123. As they remarked, Harmon and Holman categorized conflicts into at least five different types depended on what the
character faces: ‗1 a struggle against nature, 2 a struggle against another person, 3 a struggle against society, 4 a struggle for mastery by two elements
within the person, 5 a struggle against Fate or destiny,‘ 2009: 123. Harmon and Holman also added their explanation that it could be possible that conflict presents
not only a moment when a character fights against ‗someone or something‘ but
15
also when he or she faces something abstract such as his or her own motivations. In this case, conflict is categorized as inner conflict 2009: 123.
3. Theory of Nationalism
a. Definition and Description
Nationalism , since its emergence in Europe, has been understood,
described, and defined differently by people all over the world. This understanding has kept changing along with the development of human thought
and various problems in many parts of the world. Benedict Anderson, in Imagined Communities
, offered a way to understand nationalism. He, firstly, proposed an understanding that people can understand nationalism if they can understand what
a nation is. Anderson himself gave his definition that a nation is an imagined community
. In an anthropological spirit, then, I propose the following definition of the
nation: it is an imagined political community – and imagined as both
inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never
know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion Anderson, 1991:
5-6.
Thus, his definition implies that a group of certain people believing that they and certain other people are in a unity, though they may not know each other,
is called a nation. He further explained that it is not only a matter of ‗imagining‘ certain people as a unity but also a matter of how they also understand that their
community is different from other communities other nations. Anderson characterized that point with the word limited. It is not about territory. Limited
