A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON PERCEPTION OF GOD THROUGH THE CHARACTER OF AKSIONOV IN LEO TOLSTOY’S SHORT STORY “GOD SEES THE TRUTH, BUT WAIT” AND LENCHO IN GREGORIA LOPEZ’ “A LETTER FOR GOD”.

(1)

THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Letters and Humanities State Islamic

University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya

By: Abdul Jalil

Reg. Number: A83212149

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERISTY OF SUNAN AMPEL

SURABAYA

2016

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

of Faculty of Letters and Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Advisor: Abu Fanani, MA. Keys Term: God, Perception.

In the definition, literary work is not appearing and growing in nothing condition, as short story. In this one, there are many moral messages that stay cool inside. The way is to know the meaning in the short story through comparing one short story with other one. This comparing is to find the similarities and difference both literary works. Because of with comparing two literary works, the result can be founded.

The method that is used in this research is qualitative research method. it is mean that the data is described and interpreted based on the word, fares, clause and sentence. To make it clear, the researcher uses phenomenology theory to find the perception which appears in the main character.

The result of this research is the perception of God through experience of main character in both of short stories. Aksionov in “God Sees the Truth, But Wait”, conveyed god is the lead astray when he judged to be the killer indirectly. Lencho in “”A letter for Gor”, admitted God is the almighty helper when he got a trouble in his life. It can be concluded that God is the Almighty one.

(7)

Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Pembimbing : Abu Fanani, MA.

Kata Kunci : Tuhan, Persepsi.

Berdasarkan pengertiannya, karya sastra tidak melulu hadir dan tumbuh dalam keadaan kosong tak bermakana, salah satunya karya sastra yang berupa cerpen atau cerita pendek ini. Salah satu cara untuk mengetahui makna yang terkandung dibalik karya sastra tersebut adalah dengan membandingkan salah satu karya sastra dengan karya sastra lainnya. Perbandingan ini bertujuan untuk mencari persamaan dan perbedaan diantara kedua karya sastra. Karena dengan membandingkan, suatu karya sastra dapat ditemukan persamaan dan perbedaannya.

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode deskriptif quantilatif, dimana suatu data dijelaskan dan dinterpretasikan secara jelas berdasarkan konteks baik dalam bentuk kata, frase klausa dan kalimat. Dan untuk mengupas tuntas interpretasi dalam penelitian ini, digunakan suatu teori fenomenologi yang mana teori ini bertujuan untuk menemukan suatu paradigm yang muncul dalam tokoh utama di cerita pendek tersebut.

Finding atau hasil penelitian ini ditemukan beberapa persepsi tentang tuhan yang tampak dari tokoh Aksionov dalam cerpen ”God Sees The Truth, But Wait” dan Lencho “A letter For God”. Aksionov, memunculkan persepsi tentang tuhan bahwa tuhan adalam maha menyesatkan yang dilimpah pada Aksionov yang ditudug sebagai seorang pembunuh. Begitu pula Lencho yang mengakui tuhan sebagai mana penelong yang mana Lencho meminta pertolongan disaat dia mendapatkan seuatu musibah dengan perekonomiannya. Sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa tuhan dalam persepsi kedua tokoh tersebut dikategorikan sebagai Sang Maha Esa.

(8)

Inside Title Page ... ii

Declaration Page ... iii

Dedication Page ... iv

Motto ... v

Approval Sheet Page ... vi

Examiner Sheet Page ... vii

Acknowledgement ... viii

Table of Contents ... ix

Abstract ... xi

Intisari ... xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of The Study... 1

1.2 Statement of Problem ... 6

1.3 Purpose of The Study ... 6

1.4 Scope and Limitation ... 7

1.5 Significance of The Study ... 7

1.6 Method of The Study ... 8

1.7 Definition of Key Terms ... 10

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Theoretical Framework ... 12

2.1.1 Phenomenology ... 12

2.1.1. 1 Phenomenology of Husserl ... 15

2.1.2 New Criticism ... 18

2.1.2.1 Character ... 19

(9)

3.1.1.1 The Merciful ... 24

3.1.1.2 The Justice... 26

3.1.1.3 The Grantor Suffering ... 30

3.1.1.4 The Guide ... 32

3.1.1.5 The Auditor ... 36

3.1.1.6 The Knowing ... 39

3.1.1.7 The Forgiver ... 39

3.1.1.8 The Provider ... 40

3.1.1.9 The Protector ... 41

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION ... 46

WORK CITED ... 49

(10)

of Faculty of Letters and Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Advisor: Abu Fanani, MA. Keys Term: God, Perception.

(11)

Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Pembimbing : Abu Fanani, MA.

Kata Kunci : Tuhan, Persepsi.

(12)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of The Study

Lot of authors defines literature as only an entertainment, until the reader only uses a literary work to spend their spare times (Paquette 20). But, there are so many benefits and brilliant definitions about literary work (Rokhmansyah 2). And the first important one, that is more beautiful than drink a black coffee (White 295). Through a measure of resonance with the reader's world, a literary text can “take up residence in its reader's transitional space where his self-other boundaries are temporarily fluid, allowing the text's form to reshape his experience of other and others and his ways of relating to them, a transformation whose repercussions extend to the culture in which he dwells” (Bruns 35).

Literary work was created with choosing good diction, in order that the sentences can be amazing and the reader enjoy to understanding the meaning or moral message that author conveys in their literary work. In addition, the beauty of literature is a part of its rhetoric, and a device which is intended to strengthen the overall persuasiveness and influence of the work on its audience (Richardson 3).

According to Wicaksono, literature is an expression of author‟s

(13)

and its scholar. Besides, it contains a projection of human anxiety with all kinds of cultural, social, and spiritual matter (2).

Wicaksono says that literary work is a form of creativity in a beautiful language which contains a set of internal experience and imagination that comes from the imagination of an author towards social reality (1). Damono, in

Wicaksono‟s book, adds that literary work displays a reflection of life as social reality. It means that literary work is created due to the existence of author internal experience about a reflection of life or social reality.

Boon defines that literature is a creative and universal form of expression that indicates the emotional, spiritual, or intellectual concerns of humanity (214). So, the world presented and represented in literature is adopted from the writer‟s experience of a social and historical reality (Dani and Mohen ed 276). Therefore, these explanations lead to an argument of Dawson toward literature, that literature as a primary artistic product has a creative sense and critical commentary (37). Emotional, intellectual, sense of humanity, social and historical reality will be seen in a work of literature. Commonly, the work of literature can be said as literary work.

Literary work is an integral unity of some elements which construct it. The elements which construct a literary work can be categorized into two aspects: form and content aspect. In this case, Budi Darma through a book Babad Panjalu, states that the form aspect of literary work is a way of an author in delivering his ideas and concepts. Then, the content aspect of literary work is the ideas and

(14)

concepts that an author intends to deliver (Rosyadi, Kusumah, Aswan, and Udansyah 219). Therefore, there are some kinds of literary work, like drama, poetry, and prose in which these are used to deliver the ideas and concepts of an author (Rokhmansyah 2).

The first kind of literary work is drama. As Bloemendal, Eversmann, and Strictman, drama is a form of composition which is designed for performance in a theatre, in which actors take the roles of the characters to perform the indicated action, and utter the written dialogue (1). It also involves a presentation of a situation which tells a story in the term of some kind of physical action (Hartley and Ladu 1). Therefore, drama is the practice of a written work of literature.

The further kind of literary work is poetry. According to Runco and Pritzker, that poetry is the oldest form of literature in which it is an arrangement of words in verse, and always rhythmical and rhymed (409). It is also made up of a distinctive form which uses short sentences in its lines, and contains of rhythmic pattern, rhyming words, and word repetition (Cowen and Cohen 407). As one of genre of literary work, for Webster through Lawrence‟s book, argues that poetry also functions to tell a story and express any kind of emotion, idea, or state of being (149). Therefore, poetry is a beautiful language arranged systematically and with specific pattern within, in which it tells a story designed by the existence of emotion and idea of the poet. .

The last genre of literary work is prose. Mardalena defines prose as writing that is organized in sentences and paragraphs (1). It is also a free composition

(15)

which is not banded with the principle of poetry, and it is usually used to describe an evidence and idea (Intisa 37). Therefore, prose is a piece of creative writing, in which its language is not in verse form, but it has a similar value. It makes the literary work in prose tend to be long as in novel.

Novel and short story are a kind of prose. Jassin through Nurgiyantoro in Wicaksono‟s book claims that novel is a work containing a story which plays within human world. Semi and Atas argue in the same sense of understanding that novel expresses a focus on life, and expresses a deeper aspect of humanity which is delivered smoothly (Wicaksono 76). Somehow, short story can also have its setting on a period of history and it can attempt to convey the spirit, manners, and social condition of a past time. This is what actually called as a historical novel (Kuiper 33).

The researcher is interested in analyzing short story, because short story brings more pressure. Short stories are precise with their delivery; they must capture the attention of the reader extraordinarily quickly, and tell a full tale from beginning to end in roughly a half hour of reading. Short stories will likely never be as widely read as novels, but they do matter to those who are paying attention (Kuiper 42).

The short stories the researcher analysis are God See The Truth, But Wait by Leo Tolstoy and A Latter For God by Gregoria Lopez. The short story of Leo Tolstoy entitled God See The Truth, But Wait tells about a merchant man,

(16)

environment, to the people around him who are so comfortable. Someday there is a problem that afflicts Aksionov, he is accused a murderer because there was a blood-stained knife in his bag. Then, he should be thrown in to the jail. The incident has been shown by the God through his wife's dream. But Aksionov is in ignorance of the dream and still goes to a fair of business venture. For twenty-six years he lived in prison, he decided to be himself and his life to God. All the prisoners in the prison were very happy close to Aksionov, he was wise and humble. Before the end of his life, he met with the accused killer of his time touring business twenty-six years ago. But at the moment, Aksionov is very angry and confused to see the real killer. Surprisingly, Aksionov help him in order that he is not heavily punished. No sooner Aksionov get out of the jail than he is dead.

The second short story is A letter For God by Gregoria Lopez. This short story tells about a poor farmer, the name is Lencho. Lencho is a poor Mexican farmer whose crop of corn and beans is in desperate need of rain. He and his family are delighted when rain finally comes, but to his horror, the rain changes to enormous hailstones which completely destroy his crops. Lencho and his family are facing hunger and perhaps starvation, and they realize that their only hope is God's help. That night Lencho writes a letter to God: "God, if you don't help me, I and my whole family will go hungry this year. I need a hundred pesos to plant again and to live on while the new harvest comes in, because the hail..." He addresses the letter simply “To God” and goes to the village post office to buy a stamp and mail his letter.

(17)

From stories above there were some similarities about two short stories, Aksionov and Lencho. They are the work hard men who want to have a good life, they are husband who already believed in God, and they are asking a help to the God in bad situation. Therefore, the researcher is interested in comparing the two short stories with the title A Comparative Study on Perception of God through the Character of Aksionov in Leo Tolstoy’s Short Story “God Sees The Truth, But Wait” and Lencho in Gregoria Lopez’s “A Letter For God”.

1.2Problems of The Study

This research has some problems of the study as formulated in the following below:

1.2.1 How is Aksionov perception of God in Leo Tolstoy‟s “God See The Truth, But Wait”?

1.2.2 How is Lencho perception of God in Gregoria Lopez‟s “A Letter for

God”?

1.2.3 How is compariosn of God revealed through both characters in both short stories?

1.3Objectives of The Study

As the problems of the study, this research has several objectives as follows:

1.3.1 To know Aksionov perception of God in Leo Tolstoy‟s “God See The

(18)

1.3.2 To know Lencho perception of God in Gregoria Lopez‟s “A Letter for

God”.

1.3.3 To identify comparison of God revealed through both characters in both short stories.

1.4Scope and Limitation of The Study

The scope of the study is made to make the discussion of the research clear and systematic. Therefore, the research stands on the scope or coverage area of Comparative perception of God in short story of Leo Tolstoy entitled „God See The Truth, But Wait’ and Gregoria Lopez entitled „A Latter For God’.

Furthermore, the limitation of the study is trying to make the research focused on the specific discussions which the writer chooses. Therefore, the study intends to give a limitation of the research on the discussion of Aksionov and Lencho character in short story of Leo Tolstoy entitled „God See The Truth, But Wait’ and Gregoria Lopez entitled „A Latter For God’.

1.5Significance of The Study

Theoretically, this research with the title A Camporative Study on

Perception of God through the Character of Aksionov in Leo Tolstoy’s Short Story

“God Sees The Truth, But Wait” and Lencho in Gregoria Lopez’s “A Letter For

God” is supposed to be useful for further study in literature of English

Department Faculty of Letters and Humanities State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya in broadening the knowledge of literature.

In practically, that this research would be much more benefit for readers to know everyone perception of God in the same and different religion.

(19)

1.6Method of Study

In this part of thesis, method of study tries to discuss about how the

research is done scientifically. Therefore, there are several steps used in this study, they are research design, source of data, procedure of data collection, and

procedure of data analysis.

1.6.1 Research Design

Due to the need of analyzing the object discussed, the study applies

descriptive qualitative research method. According to Raco, the data in descriptive research will concern to text (60). This research does not take any concern on data counting, but it concerns on the interpretation and analysis on the object with some helps of library research. Thus, the study applies for qualitative research method based on library research.

1.6.2 Source of Data

Due to the methodology of research used is qualitative research method, therefore, the data will be taken from the text of the novel entitled Short Story Of Leo Tolstoy In The Title „God See The Truth, But Wait‟ And Gregoria Lopez In The Title „A Latter For God‟. The research will then take some quotations in the novel involving both dialogue and prologue which is related to the statement of problem.

(20)

1.6.3 Technique of Data Collection

Technique of data collection is a strategic step in a research. In this case, the technique of data collection can be done in compare both of short stories. As Catherine Marshall and Gretchen B. Rossman‟s statement quoted by Sugiyono that “the basic methods relied on by qualitative researchers for information gathering contains at least several procedures are participation in the setting, direct observation, in-depth interview, and document review” (225). Therefore, due to the methodology of research used, the data is collected through

documentary technique which relies on library research.

Therefore, there are several steps in collecting the data according to the problem of the study, and those will be classified in the following below:

 Reading the short stories of Leo Tolstoy in the Title „God See The Truth, But Wait‟ And Gregoria Lopez in the Title „A Latter For God‟.

 Taking a note and understanding the differences and similarities in both of short stories, Leo Tolstoy in the Title „God See The Truth, But Wait‟ And Gregoria Lopez in the Title „A Latter For God‟.

 Collect some related quotation including dialogue and prologue according to the statement of problem.

1.6.4 Technique of Data Analysis

In qualitative research method, the data is obtained from various sources by using various techniques of data collection, and it is done continuously up to

(21)

the final and considered-sufficient data. Stainback through Sugiyono‟s book says, “Data analysis is critical to the qualitative research process. It is to recognition, study, and understanding of interrelationship and concepts in your data that hypotheses and assertions can be developed and evaluated”.

Technique in this research uses comparing perception of God through main character, Aksionov and Lencho in both literary works.

1.7Definition of Related Key Term

In this phase, the research cedes several clues which will help the readers to understand the topic and problem discussed in this thesis. The clues are

formulated in the form of key term in which it would be defined clearly in order to be a useful point in reading the thesis. Therefore, those related key terms would be in the following below.

Comparative study : A study that explores vicissitude, alternation, development and differences between two literary works or more. In other word, this study constitutes literary research that is not barren and bored, because there are so many new things inside (Giffod 1).

God : The lord is God. It is he, who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture. Enter his gates with thanks giving and

(22)

his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name (Psalin in The Journal of Beth Moore Believing God).

(23)

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1Theoretical Framework

In this second chapter, the researcher will discuss some theories used to analyze the data. It clarifies the whole theory relating to issues in the statement of the problem. The researcher discusses previous studies inside. Those theories are explained as follows:

2.1.1 Phenomenology

Phenomenology is portrayed as the study of essences (Merleau 1962), the science of phenomena (Manen, 1997), and the exploration of human experience (Polkinghorne, 1989). Spiegelberg (1982) opined that phenomenology is a moving philosophy with a dynamic momentum, determined by its intrinsic principles and the structure of the territory it encounters, composed of several parallel currents, related but not homogeneous, with a common point of departure but not a definite and predictable joint destination. Discussions of the work of Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau Ponty, must recognize that phenomenology changed considerably within each philosopher’s work, as well as across the different philosophers (Cohen, 1987). However, when examining

(24)

phenomenological philosophy melds into methodology in many above discussions, it may not be completely delineated from method. And the methodological consideration is especially typical within basic argument in Husserl’s pioneer attempt, which at- tracts loads of continuing criticism. And this article focuses thus on the main components of the phenomenological stances of Husserl.

Some sources mention that the term phenomenology comes from the Greek Phainestai which means „showing’ and „showing for him’. In Indonesian language, phenomenology is usually used as a term of symptom.

Terminologically, phenomenology is a science (logos) about what it seems. From the sense is understood that phenomenology is a flow which discuss the

phenomenon or anything that appears or appeared (Muslih 144).

A phenomenologist loves to see symptoms. He is different to positive science experts that collects data, looks for correlations and functions as well as making laws and theories. In the field, phenomenologist appeared acts in the certain field. The things which appeared themselves are described without leaving the direct field of evidence. Thus, phenomenology is a method of thought: "a way of looking at things" (Bertens 109).

From the description above, it is understood that this refers to the

phenomenological analysis of daily life from the perspective of people whom are involved in it. This tradition gives a big emphasis on perception and interpretation of people about their own experience. Phenomenology of seeing communication

(25)

as a process of dividing the personal experience through dialogue or conversation. For a phenomenologist, the story of an individual is more important and

meaningful than the hypotheses or axioms. A phenomenology of adherents tends to oppose everything that cannot be observed. Phenomenology is also likely to oppose naturalism (also called Objectivism or positivism). So, because

phenomenologist tends to be sure that a proof or facts can be obtained not only from the world of culture and natural, but also ideal, such as numbers, or even the consciousness of life.

Obviously, phenomenology tries to shake off all the assumptions that contaminate the concrete human’s experience. Thus, it becomes the reason of the phenomenology that it is referred to a radical way to philosophize.

Phenomenology stresses its efforts to reach the "thing itself" off of all

presupposition. The first step is to avoid all the constructions, an assumption that was installed at the same and direct to an experience. No matter whether the construction of philosophy, science, religion, and culture, all of which should be avoided as much as possible. All explanations should not be imposed before the experience of its own and explain it in experience of itself (Ardian 21).

Phenomenology stresses the need of philosophy to break away from the historical ties of any kind -whether it was the tradition of metaphysics, epistemology, or science. The main program of phenomenology is a return to the philosophy of Phenomenology comprehension every day in the subject of knowledge. In

addition, phenomenology has also denied the claim of modern representationalism epistemology. Thus, the phenomenology of Husserl which is promoted can be

(26)

referred to as the science without presupposition. This is clearly contrary to the mode of philosophy since Hegel denied the chances of science without the

presupposition, where the presupposition haunted philosophy for this is naturalism and psychologism (23).

2.1.1.1 Phenomenology of Husserl

The term is derived from the phenomenology of Greece: Phainestai meaning "shows" and "manifest themselves". As the flow of epistemology, Phenomenology by Edmund Husserl is introduced in 1859-1938, although in fact that the term has been used by some philosophers before. In general, the view of phenomenology can be seen on two positions, it is a reaction against the

dominance of positivism, and the second as a thought-provoking critique of criticism Immanuel Kant, especially the concept of Phenomenon.

As a reaction against previous thought, the following descriptions will discuss two important principles of phenomenology: epoche principle and eidetic vision. As mentioned before, Husserl proposed a different conception with his predecessors about the scientific process. The main task of phenomenology, according to Husserl weaves human connectedness with reality. For Husserl, the reality is not something different on him of the man who observes. The reality is manifesting them or according to the phrase of Martin Heidegger who is also a phenomenologist: "the nature of reality requires the existence of mankind". Noumena needed places to stay (unterkunft) space to be, and it is human.

(27)

Husserl uses the term phenomenology to show what appears in our consciousness by letting it manifests what it is, without putting our minds to him or the categories according to the expression of Husserl: zuruck den Saxony selbt (return on reality itself). In contrast to Kant, Husserl stated that the phenomenon is reality itself that appears after the liquid with the reality of our consciousness. Thus, Husserl’s phenomenology aims at looking for the essential or eidos (the essence) of phenomenon. The methods used to find the essential is to let it speak for itself without the phenomena of coupled with prejudice

(presuppositionlessness). In this connection Husserl describes

―..that at first we shall put out of action the conviction we have been accepting up to now, including all our science. Let the idea guiding our meditation be at Cartesian idea of science that shall be established as radically as genuine, ultimately all-embracing science.‖ (Hussel 6)

In this case, Husserl proposed the epoche method. The word is derived from the epoche Greek language which means "delaying the verdict" or "emptied him of a certain belief." Epoche may also refer to the brackets (breaketing) to any information obtained from any phenomena that appears, without giving a verdict of true harm in advance (Elliston 297). In this case, Husserl says that the thesis of natural epoche standpoints (thesis on the establishment of the natural), in the sense of that, the phenomenon which appears in consciousness is completely natural without being interfered by observer presupposition.

(28)

The method is the first step to reach the essence of the phenomenon by delaying the verdict. The second step, Husserl called it with eidetic vision or making ideas (ideation). Eidetic vision is also called 'reduction', as it filters the phenomenon to get to the eideos up to its true essence (wesen). The result of the process of reduction is called wesenchau which means „to in fact’ (298).

From the explanations above, it can be known that phenomenology seeks to uncover the phenomenon as „showing itself’. According to the explanation of Elliston, "phenomenology then means ... to let what shows itself be seen by itself and in terms of itself, just as it shows itself by and from itself." (Phenomenology may refer to: ... let what shows itself through itself and within the confines

himself, as he shows himself through and of itself) (298). For Husserl, he uses the term "intentionality", as reality appears in individual intentional awareness or consciousness in capturing the discourse of 'phenomenon for what it is'.

According to G. Van der Leeuw, phenomenology searches or observes the phenomenon as they seem. In this case, there are three principles that are included in it: (1) something that has, (2) something that looks, (3) because of something that looks exactly, then it is a phenomenon (Sharma 68). The appearance that shows the similarities between „appearing’ with „what is accepted’ by the Viewer without making any modifications. Phenomenologist lets the phenomenon talks by itself. Thus, the phenomenology is seen as a rigorous science (a strict science). This is in line with the principle of science as stated by J.B. Connant that: ―The way of thinking scientifically demands a habit in facing unprejudiced reality by

(29)

the previous conceptions. A careful observation and a reliance on experiment is the guiding principle‖ (Dixon 86).

Therefore, to reveal the perception of both characters in both short stories, the researcher applies the theory of phenomenology. In the theory of

phenomenology, the perception which is reflected in the narration of the story can be found through the condition and events happen on the characters in both short stories.

2.1.2 New Criticism

New Criticism emphasizes explication, or ―close reading‖ of ―the work itself.‖ In close reading, one examines a piece of literature closely, seeking to understand its structure, looking for patterns that shape the work and connect its parts to the whole, and searching for uses of language that contribute to the effect (Gillespie 172).

According to Rene Wellek and Austin Warren in Theory of Literature, the natural and sensible starting point for studying a literary work is based on the interpretation and analysis of the work itself (139). Therefore, the most important thing to begin the analysis is to go directly toward the work.

From Wellek and Warren’s starting point, the writer decides to explore the thesis analysis by applying new criticism theory which is focused on the character and characterization.

(30)

2.1.2.1 Character

According to Edgar V. Robert, Writing Themes About Literature,

character in literature is an extended verbal representation of a human being, the inner self that determines thought, speech, and behavior (65). So through

dialogue, action, commentary, and suggests of the details of character’s traits, will help the readers to analyze and make conclusion about a character’s strength and qualities.

Furthermore, Robert states that there are two kinds of literary character round and flat characters (65). Round character can be called dynamic character; round characters are both individual and unpredictable, they are central to

literature, for they are the main point of conflict and interest. They are real human because they grow and develop as they win or lose their struggles (66).

Meanwhile the flat character does not grow no matter what happens. Flat

characters are not individual, but rather useful, and usually minor they end where they begin, because they are not dynamic, they are static (66).

2.1.2.2 Characterization

The foundation of a good fiction is character creating and nothing else. It means that a novel will not be built if it has no characters in it; therefore, a writer usually has many characters in his/her novel and presents the characters in his/her own way. Shaw states that most of good stories, the events follow logically from the natures of the persons involved (51). Also according to Peck and Coyle, the

(31)

people involved in a novel are called characters (105), while according to Hugh C Holman, a character is a brief descriptive sketch of a personage who typifies some definite quality (81).

In the book Mastering English Literature, Richard Gill explains further about the difference between character and characterization. ―A character refers to a person in literary work; while characterization refers to the way in which a character is created‖ (127). It means that the reader can see the personality of a person in the novel through his actions and sayings or through other people’s saying about him. In addition, Jack Salzman says that in fiction, the way the author reveals the characters as imaginary persons and his creation of these imaginary persons so that they exist as lifelike for the readers are called characterization (81).

Jack Salzman also says that there are two ways that an author uses to present the characters; dramatic and analytic method. Dramatic method is also called indirect presentation. It means that the author present a character as he sees the character from the other character’s opinion, his conversation with other characters, his past life, and his action. The second method is the analytic method which is usually called direct presentation. In the analytic method, the author gives clear image of a person of a character through personal description. In other words, in this method the readers can understand a character from the character’s appearance, thought, manner, attitude, and his past life which can be seen from his

(32)

thought. The readers can also know the characters traits of the character from the author’s direct command toward the characters.

So the characterization of the character is important point to analyze in this study. The researcher tries to reveal the perception of God through Aksionov and Lencho experiences.

2.2Previous Studies

The research with the title A Camporative Study on Perception of God through the Character of Aksionov in Leo Tolstoy’s Short Story “God Sees The

Truth, But Wait” and Lencho in Gregoria Lopez’ “A Letter For God”, is mainly

discussing about God perception in two character of two short stories. Therefore, this research with the theory proposed, has been studied by some researchers, in which the previous researchers use different theory and focus.

1. A journal by Jyoti Jayal, entitle ―Stylistic Analysis of Leo Tolstoy’s Short Story:God Sees the Truth, but Waits‖.

2. A research paper by Panji Pradana, entitle Perbandingan Novel

Perempuan di Titik Nol Karya Nawal El-Saadawi Dengan Film Jamali dan Sang Presiden.

In the description, the difference between this research and all related studies are in the theories and focuses of problem. The journal by Jyoti Jayal, entitle ―Stylistic Analysis of Leo Tolstoy’s Short Story:God Sees the Truth, but Waits‖, analyses about stylistic in the dialogue of first character. Jyoti argues that

(33)

there is more use of Speech presentation (60%) than the thought presentation (40%).

One other hand, A research paper by Panji Pradana, entitle Perbandingan Novel Perempuan di Titik Nol Karya Nawal El-Saadawi Dengan Film Jamali dan Sang Presiden, describes that between novel and film above have similarities in the period when the work appeared. Not only that, two work above which was been written in different countries. But also the situation and condition in both country develop in similar one, there are in character of people, economic, and politic.

Therefore, this research would like to describe and give a new knowledge about A Perception of God Through The Character of Aksionov and Lencho In Short Story Of Leo Tolstoy entitled „God See The Truth, But Wait’ and Gregoria Lopez Entitled „A Latter For God’, also it’s the point that differ this research with two previous studies above. To ease finishing research, the writer use comparative theory in literary studies.

(34)

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS

3.1The Perception of God

3.1.1 The Perception of God Through Aksionov and Lencho’s Experience

This research analyzes the perception of God from the experience of two main characters in two short stories. Both short stories are God Sees The Truth, But Waits by Leo Tolstoy and A Letter for God by Gregoria Lopez. The short story God Sees The Truth, But Waits tells about a rich merchant.

In the town of Vladimir lived a young merchant named Ivan Dmitrich Aksionov. He had two shops and a house of his own (page 1).

This short story comes from Russia, and it is written by Leo Tolstoy. But, the setting of place within the story comes from Vladimir. In the island of Vladimir, Aksionov was born and got married. Aksionov also had two characters and his private house.

Aksionov was a handsome, fair-haired, curly-headed fellow, full of fun, and very fond of singing. When quite a young man he had been given to drink, and was riotous when he had had too much; but after he married he gave up drinking, except now and then (page 1).

Aksionov as the main character in this short story depicted a merchant not only rich, but also a man who liked humour, joke, and singing. Although

Aksionov had a bad childhood experience, he was depicted to be a naughty man who liked to drink. Then, all changed after Aksionov married.

(35)

Whereas, Lencho in the second short story, was described as a land rich with convulsions and a vast garden. All results of his convulsion and land always produced abundant food for his family. So, Lencho and his family could live comfortably and in a serene setting.

The house – the only one in the entire valley – sat on the crest of a low hill. From this height one could se the river and, next to the corral, the field of ripe corn dotted with the kidney bean flowers that always promised a good harvest.

This story comes from Mexico, and it was written by Gregoria Lopez. But, the setting of the place in the short story was told over a small valley which was only inhabited by one House.

In the two short stories above, through Aksionov and Lencho’s experience, these were some perceptions of God that appear around them. Those perceptions of God were the merciful, the justice, the grantor suffering, the guide and the auditor.

3.1.1.1The Merciful

The affection of God in this point is revealed indirectly in Aksionov life journey through his wife dream that Aksionov will be back with a grizzled hair. His wife replied: ―I do not know what I am afraid of; all I know is that I had a bad dream. I dreamt you returned from the town, and when you took off your cap I saw that your hair was quite grey.‖(page: 1)

Then, the wife of Aksionov dreamed of Aksionov answered on the way. Aksionov was receiving the disaster in the form of accusations of being the murderer of a merchant who meets at the inn. So, Aksionov should be arrested and taken into the jail in a very long time.

(36)

Through the dream, God showed his affection by giving an instruction to Aksionov not to go to the fair. However, Aksionov ignored it and assumed it was a good clue to him.

At this point, the perception of Aksionov about the God has woken up well. Because of her childhood, Aksionov was always happy and never felt miserable. So, in the regard that God was always with him. The perception of Aksionov was very clear as Vincent said that, one factor that built the perception was the experience of the past (previous) that could affect a person, because human beings would usually draw the same conclusion from what he could see, hear, and feel.

While, the affection of God in Lencho’s experience is evidenced by the state of the economy. Lencho was very good. Lencho possessed rice fields and fields that are quite spacious, and the land was planted with fruit and vegetables. At harvest time, Lencho got abundant profit. His family lived comfortably and peacefully with no hunger throughout the year.

From the two perceptions that are described from the experience of Aksionov and Lencho, the similarity and difference will automatically be found.

The equation of the perception of both the short story is that God gives affection in both figures: Aksionov and Lencho. It was just that in it, the Lord

(37)

Because, Aksionov was being a successful merchant, he had two shops in

Vladimir. All the effort and the work end succeed. Aksionov was known as one of the rich merchants in its territory. The success of the short story that Aksionov was an attribute of God Almighty's affection.

Whereas, in Lencho, God gives an affection in the form of a vast

plantation, and also a very promising harvest each year. Plus more the clear spring water source as bowling crops in farm fields of Lencho. So, Lencho and his family could live a quiet and in a serene setting each year. The circumstances of his family and Lencho were always comfortable and peaceful each year. Here is a form of the nature of God as the Supreme affection.

3.1.1.2The justice

Because of Aksionov do not believe in God-given instructions through his dreams. Aksionov goes into prison on the charge as an assassin. In this instance, justice of God begins where Aksionov had tasted the bitterness of the world. It has been very long, Aksionov always get the glory with his wealth in abundance. So, God should give the road deeply that Aksionov remember to God.

The police-officer ordered the soldiers to bind Aksionov and to put him in the cart. As they tied his feet together and flung him into the cart,

Aksionov crossed himself and wept. His money and goods were taken from him, and he was sent to the nearest town and imprisoned there. Enquiries as to his character were made in Vladimir. The merchants and other inhabitants of that town said that in former days he used to drink and waste his time, but that he was a good man. Then the trial came on: he was charged with murdering a merchant from Ryazan, and robbing him of twenty thousand rubles. (page: 3)

(38)

In the course of its business to the event, Aksionov at his halfway got a tremendous disaster. He was accused of being a murderer with the discovery of some of the evidence inside the bag of Aksionov. This incident is outside the Aksionv’s predictions before, he never thought that he would get problems complicated problem and ruin his life's career. After police found Aksionov and interrogated the Aksionov about the evidence, Aksionov was directly brought to the prison and sentenced to decades.

The events that cannot be expected is a stance that the God is fair. In the past, Aksionov lived with happiness, and always disturbed people around him. If likened to a mountain, a climber will not always climb to the top. There comes a time that climbers have to go down the mountain. As well as lived in the short story of Aksionov, the events that occurred in this time when Aksionov was a reply from God was fair, where there was a success there, and definitely was no failure.

In the next fragment, God justice revealed back when Makar as Aksionov become an enemy, and apologized for weeping outstanding. Makar felt guilty and regretted the actions that made Aksionov imprisoned for a long time.

―It was I who killed the merchant and hid the knife among your things. I meant to kill you too, but I heard a noise outside, so I hid the knife in your bag and escaped out of the window.‖ (page 9)

The story is a partial expression of Treason at Aksionov. Makar told Aksionov about how he made a killing incident to occur at Aksionov. He said that he had killed the merchant saved, and the bloody knife in a bag belonged to Aksionov.

(39)

Aksionov was silent, and did not know what to say. Makar Semyonich slid off the bed-shelf and knelt upon the ground. ―Ivan Dmitrich,‖ said he, ―forgive me! For the love of God, forgive me! I will confess that it was I who killed the merchant, and you will be released and can go to your home.‖ (page 9)

After Makar expressed his guilt, he apologized in such events as Aksionov could return and never repeated itself before. Aksionov only received with anger that could not be disclosed. Makar pleaded as if she really felt guilty and regretted what he had done, by calling the name of the Lord Almighty, so Aksionov is pleased to forgive him. However, with all the anger, Aksionov could not be poured, he just said, "it's not as easy as with what to say. And you can only be aware and go home so only with forgiveness. "

―It is easy for you to talk,‖ said Aksionov, ―but I have suffered for you these twenty-six years. Where could I go to now? . . . My wife is dead, and my children have forgotten me. I have nowhere to go. . . .‖(Page: 9)

In that part of the story, it can be concluded that God would not let Aksionov to be in a miserable state. God gives justice back, to bring Aksionov and enemies in the prison. So, Aksionov can live in peace again, although Aksionov has felt bitter and heavy for twenty-six years of being imprisoned.

While Lencho received the incredible disaster, finally Lencho send a reply letter that contained the money. Although the numbers were not in accordance with what he wanted.

It was impossible for him to gather together the hundred pesos requested by Lencho, so he was able to send the farmer only a little more than half. He put the bills in an envelope addressed to Lencho and with them a letter containing only a signature:

(40)

After the disaster that hit Lencho got the growth of economy growing family. Lencho felt despair over all that are made for a few years before. But after Lencho decided to send a letter to God to ask for help, Lencho got it with some copper coins of money, half of what he wanted. The Lord in this case sent the postman as a reply to a letter and helped grief Lencho’s economy. With the reply, the economy can be a little help for Lencho’s family.

God of justice in this section is revealed when Lencho received a reply letter from the postman.

From both episodes of the story above, a perception of God that is rooted in equality and distinction of how God poured his attitude as the most fair can be found.

The similarities of both these stories is on the way of Lencho and Aksionov, after they got the luxury and his pride for a few years before. The moment came for them to feel the sweet sour bitter world. But, God never off the hands from what God has given his people. After Aksionov’s luxury, he must accept all the bitter life. Lencho also felt the same way, God destroys everything what belonged to him, but the Lord still provides assistance in the form of money is emailed by post. So, in both of these stories, the equation that God the Almighty will help keep his people fair that gets struck can be found.

The difference from the second story above is, God showed himself as the most fair at Aksionov with providing disaster in the form of allegations that make life beautiful. Aksionov should feel imprisoned. Whereas Lencho, the Lord

(41)

provided aid in the form of a reply to a letter containing the money, with the aim of helping the family economy of Lencho.

3.1.1.3The Grantor Suffering

After God misled Aksionov’s life with accused murderer, God also added a pain for Aksionov with a whip punishment in prison. Aksionov whipped up his wounds and bleeding. From this incident, Aksionov felt painful very long and sore.

Aksionov was condemned to be flogged and sent to the mines. So he was flogged with a knot, and when the wounds made by the knot were healed, he was driven to Siberia with other convicts.

For twenty-six years Aksionov lived as a convict in Siberia. His hair turned white as snow, and his beard grew long, thin, and grey. All his mirth went; he stooped; he walked slowly, spoke little, and never laughed, but he often prayed. (page: 4)

For twenty-six years, God gives punishment for Aksionov. Thus, we can conclude that God does not just give love and justice only in its creatures. But God also gives a very deep anguish if they ignored instructions, as experienced by Aksionov in prison.

It is different with Lencho. Everything he has is changed. The soil is dry to the lack of rainfall, adding with hail from the sky, making all Lencho crops

destroyed and die. God changes everything that is on Lencho. God gave suffering on Lencho with scorch the plants in the fields and gardens.

The man went out to look for something in the corral for no other reason than to allow himself the pleasure of feeling the rain on his body, and when he returned he exclaimed: ―those aren’t raindrops falling from the

(42)

sky, they’re new coins. The big drops are ten-centavo pieces and the little ones are fives…‖ (page 12)

When Lencho was out to see the State of the fields, he was very excited because that there appeared before his eyes was new metal coins that fall. With great excitement, he was very happy with the State of the field outstanding promising yields. Lencho predicted with state farm so good that he would be bombarded with coins, metal abundance. But all changed so, only when he saw a black cloud over the mountains.

With a satisfied expression he regarded the field of ripe corn with its kidney bean flowers, draped in a curtain of rain. But suddenly a strong wind began to fall. These truly did resemble new silver coins. The boys, exposing themselves to the rain, ran out to collect the frozen pearls. ―It’s really getting bad now,‖ exclaimed the man, mortified. ―I hope it passes quickly.‖ (page 12)

Black cloud that risen above the Caucasus over and strafed the fields and lawns. Previously, he was expecting the arrival of rain so that the plants will be expected can grow lusher. But God willed, he carried a big enough chunk of ice showered the whole field Lencho, and slaughtering plants promising Lencho.

It did not pass quickly. For an hour the hail rained on the house, the garden, the hillside, the cornfield, on the whole valley. The field was white, as if covered with salt. Not a leaf remained on the trees. The corn was totally destroyed. The flowers were gone from the kidney bean plants. Lencho’s soul was filled with sadness. When the storm had passed, he stood in the middle of the field and said to his sons: ―A plague of locusts would have left more than this… the hail has left nothing: this year we will have no corn or beans…‖(page: 1-2)

It can be concluded that God provides suffering, because Lencho was naïve. He felt the property owned was not from God, but from his own efforts. Then God gives a suffer in order that Lencho and his family realized that nobody else will be able to help him except God.

(43)

From both pieces of story, the difference and similarity of perception of God of both characters can be found.

The equation of perceptions about God in both figures are, God always gives the agony for those who do not follow his orders. Aksionov got a pretty severe suffering in prison. It was a reply from God that Aksionov was the one who had ignored a command from God. Lencho, his story was getting the same suffering of God.

A difference of perception about the Lord in both these stories is the way the Lord give sufferings to the second character in the second story. Aksionov got suffered in the form of a bitter life experiences while at the jail, other than that he separated with his family. Aksionov also sentenced to prison and whipping for tens of years. It is a form of Aksionov’s suffering that God gives. Lencho also gets the same suffering, it is just God bestows on the suffering economy Lencho, fields and his vegetation destroyed massacred by hailstones large enough ice. So Lencho hopes to get a satisfactory harvest, has become a dream unrevealed by regret and hatred towards God.

3.1.1.4The Guide

In this piece of the story, Aksionov implied about the nature of God, the giver of instructions. While in prison, Aksionov got a lot of experience and knowledge as never before, especially Aksionov got in the realm of belief in God. In this prison, Aksionov was called by designation as the wise man. No one can do other than resigned to Aksionov and closer to God. All outside the prison, an

(44)

awful of lot of people who always disappointed others. So Aksionov trusted in God that the Lord would not disappoint him. Aksionov was sure that he would get a clue from the events that befell him. With a language that was not deliberate, Aksionov said that God was the Almighty, the giver of directions on treason.

The attitude of spontaneity was a form of Aksionov her confidence towards God. Because he had been assured that he would never be disappointed by the Lord for he still believed it.

Aksionov trembled with anger as he looked at his enemy. He drew his hand away, saying, ―I have no wish to escape, and you have no need to kill me; you killed me long ago! As to telling of you—I may do so or not, as God shall direct.‖(page: 8)

In conclusion, after Aksionov get a lot of lessons in prison, and he was very close to God. Spontaneously, when he met with his enemies, Aksionov acknowledge that God is almighty clue giver.

This attitude of Aksionov acknowledges that God is almighty clue giver is a real form of influence perception. As said by Vincent, that one factor that makes a person's perception change is the experience of the past (previous) can affect a person because human beings will usually draw the same conclusion from what he can see, hear, and feel.

It happened to Lencho. The incident made Lencho regret and trauma. All night he was thinking that he should ask for help. If Lencho could not be helped, he and his family would be hungry in this year. Then Lencho tried to write a letter that would be sent to the Gods.

(45)

All through the night, Lencho thought only of his one hoe: the help of God, whose eyes, as he had been instructed, see everything, even what is deep in one’s conscience. (page 2)

The events that befall Lencho at that time make a full brood must regret Lencho and anger. Lencho wailed all night and self-introspection, self- thinking about any himself in God, so God gives a natural disaster beyond conjecture.

Lencho was an ox of a man, working like an animal in the fields, but still he knew how to write. The following Sunday, at day break, after having convinced, himself that there is a protecting spirit he bgan to write a letter which he himself would carry to town and place in the mail. (page 2) Based on the story, Lencho, was a farmer who was diligent and hard worker. The work that he was doing anyway always resolved, with her hard work he was known with an animal farm very diligently. Boasting again, though only a peasant, he could still write. Then, with the writing ability he had, Lencho decided to send a letter to God with the purpose of asking for help. Because he was sure that God can help themselves and their families.

The famous Lencho was naïf, hoping to send a letter to God. He was getting help as he wanted. Based on the logic of humans at this time, it is very unlikely that there are human who can communicate directly with God, moreover by sending a letter. But beyond all reasons and the mind of man, God has many ways to help those who ask for help. So in this story, God sent the postman to reply to a letter of Lencho.

In this case the Lord showed himself as the Almighty, as the giver of clues. Lencho was instructed from God by sending a letter.

(46)

―God,‖ he wrote, ―if you don’t help me, my family and I will go hungry this year. I need a hundred pesos in order to resow the field and to live until the crop comes, because the hailstorm…‖ (page: 2)

These events can be concluded that God gives instructions on Lencho by writing a letter and send it by post. Lencho’s trauma affects perception of the God in him. At first, Lencho did not admit that the God who made him and his family have abundant wealth. After all charred, Lencho was aware that there was no God would help him. So, Lencho decided to write a letter to God for help in the form of money as much as a hundred poses.

As Vincent said that one factor that makes the change of perception is the experience of the past (previous) that can affect a person. It is due to a reason that human being will usually draw the same conclusion from what he can see, hear, and feel.

From both stories, the similarity and difference of perception of God of both characters can be found.

The equation of the perception of the two main characters in the story was God gives instructions on both these figures the way out of trouble and the events that befall the second character in the second story.

Meanwhile, Aksionov directly said that God was the Almighty, and the giver of clues while his foes meet Aksionov, named Treason. For Lencho, the story was not recognized directly but by writing a letter to God. In this case, God had many ways to give a hint at his people, so that his people could be exempted from the State that derailed.

(47)

3.1.1.5The Auditor

When Maker was informed to be in such violation again in prison, the judge brought him plots to be given a more severe punishment again. But, before that, the judge asked Aksionov to give an explanation of Makar’s error.

At that time, Aksionov was confused by what he had to say. In these circumstances, God provides estimates of Aksionov. However, aksionov was more reticent and did not blame Makar. So, Makar did not get a more severe punishment of such mistakes. Aksionov considered, if he told the judge, Makar would get severe punishment. But it would not make Aksionov back to his past.

Makar Semyonich stood as if he were quite unconcerned, looking at the Governor and not so much as glancing at Aksionov. Aksionov's lips and hands trembled, and for a long time he could not utter a word. He thought, ―Why should I screen him who ruined my life? Let him pay for what I have suffered. But if I tell, they will probably flog the life out of him, and maybe I suspect him wrongly. And, after all, what good would it be to me?‖ (page 8)

At the time of the requested, in the case of Aksionov description and mediate, Aksionov did not utter a word that appointed an error to the case of Treason. Although in this instance, Makar was guilty of faults who tried escaped from prison. If only Aksionov told the truth, Makar would get heavier penalties than he has ever before.

In these circumstances, God is present as the Almighty, and as the giver of calculation, which takes into account the overall of Aksionov actions. With the intermediaries of Aksionov who at that time already believe strongly in God.

(48)

Aksionov takes into account the impact of bad and good news if he reveals the truth.

―Well, old man,‖ repeated the Governor, ―tell me the truth: who has been digging under the wall?‖

Aksionov glanced at Makar Semyonich, and said, ―I cannot say, your honour. It is not God's will that I should tell! Do what you like with me; I am your hands.‖ (page 9)

The Governor asked Aksionov to explain a truth about the Act of Treason that was very unlawful. But Aksionov did not tell the truth. He could tell the truth or tell the deeds of Treason with excessive. But, what to make of him revenge would not bring him back on the past and fix the annoyance over the years. Finally, Treason did not receive punishment for his deeds.

However much the Governor! tried, Aksionov would say no more, and so the matter had to be left. (page: 9)

In this instance, Aksionov already started to think clearly. Although in the past, Aksionov wanted to revenge on his enemies. But now that, he has been closed to God and God gave him a comfort. Aksionov dissuaded for revenge.

In other side, After Lencho was receiving a letter from God. Lencho replied back with the language of anger and annoyance. He thought the money given to him was taken by the postman.

Lencho showed not the slightest surprise on seeing the bills – such was his confidence – but he became angry when he counted the money. God could not have made a mistake, nor could he have denied Lencho what he had requested! (page 3)

After Lencho received a letter from the Lord who delivered by the postman himself did not feel the slightest. He was surprised, but on the contrary,

(49)

out, the money which was asked by Lencho on God, was not as his willing. It was the thought of Lencho to fault of postman. The postman took part of that money in the mail.

Immediately, Lencho went up to the window to ask for paper and ink. On the public writing table, he started to write with much wrinkling of his brow, caused by the effort he had to make to express his ideas. When he finished, he went to the window to buy a stamp, which he licked and then affixed to the envelope with a blow of his fist.

Then Lencho decided to send back the reply of God, as Lencho was very angry against the attitude of the postman who had taken half the money that God sent him.

In these circumstances, God is presented as the Almighty and the giver of calculation by giving half of what Lencho chill. God aims to provide a little more than half the money requested by Lencho. Lencho want to try and start over his estate. But in other opinions, he thinks that this is a postman, they have taken the Lord send the money allotted to him.

The moment that the letter fell into the mailbox the postmaster went to open it. It said;

―God: Of the money that I asked for only seventy pesos reached me. Send me the rest, since I need it very much. But don’t send it to me through the mail, because the post office employees are a bunch of crooks. Lencho.‖ (page: 3)

In fact, the God gives a half of Lencho needed, that Lencho’s resumption of farming in the rice paddies and fields, and Lencho thought differently. Through this incident, God gives an account to Lencho that Lencho would try to return.

From both pieces of story, the similarity and difference of God perception of both characters can be found.

(50)

The similarity from the second equation is a God shows himself as the power of the Almighty, as the giver of calculation based on what she has suffered during Aksionov and Lencho.

And the difference of both these stories is, on how the Lord made Aksionov and Lencho as intermediaries. In the experience of life, God comes with Aksionov intermediaries on when he was asked about the error clarification of reason. Aksionov takes into account the impact of the good and bad on him when he says the real thing. Whereas Lencho, God is present with an intermediary postman. Lencho got a reply letter from God containing the money. It was just money that Lencho requested does not correspond to his expectations. When the Lord with an intermediary postman gave some money to half of the desired aims in order that Lencho is pleased to start a business and farming again.

3.1.1.6The Knowing

In this part of the story, Aksionov acknowledge directly that God is

omniscient. Aksionov realized when no one else can believe it, including his wife.

When they were gone, Aksionov recalled what had been said, and when he remembered that his wife also had suspected him, he said to himself, ―It seems that only God can know the truth; it is to Him alone we must appeal, and from Him alone expect mercy.‖ (page: 4)

As Vincent said, that one of the factors that create the perception of change is, "the experience of the past (previous) can affect a person because human beings will usually draw the same conclusion from what he can see, hear, and feel."

(51)

3.1.1.7The Forgiver

While in prison, Aksionov get a lot of lessons that cannot be her failure by the previous. When in the jail, Aksionov is very close to his god, he felt God had become friends who always accompany him in prison. So that the heart and mind at ease, Aksionov feeling is indicated in the story fragment called a pious man in the jail.

In prison Aksionov learnt to make boots, and earned a little money, with which he bought The Lives of the Saints. He read this book when there was light enough in the prison; and on sundays in the prison-church he read the lessons and sang in the choir; for his voice was still good. The prison authorities liked Aksionov for his meekness, and his fellow-prisoners respected him: they called him ―Grandfather,‖ and ―The Saint.‖ When they wanted to petition the prison authorities about anything, they always made Aksionov their spokesman, and when there were quarrels among the prisoners they came to him to put things right, and to judge the matter. (page: 4-5)

During his stay in this prison, Aksionov had done so much kindness, so God forgave his sins. Everyone in the prison like Aksionov, generous and

thoughtful demeanor made Aksionov always be consulted if there is a problem in prison.

3.1.1.8The provider

With Lencho situation which have extensive fields and gardens, God gives fortune through the plants was so fresh, and at the time of sale Lencho earn quite much.

The house – the only one in the entire valley – sat on the crest of a low hill. From this height one could se the river and, next to the corral, the

(52)

field of ripe corn dotted with the kidney bean flowers that always promised a good harvest. (page: 1)

Then, God comes back to grant the wishes of Lencho by post. but God did not give on demand Lencho, with the goal of Lencho want to try to go back and start over again.

GOD (page: 3)

3.1.1.9The Protector

Not only that, god almighty also a nurse. That is evidenced by Lencho plants that were so nice and fresh, fertile soil with abundant water every year. So Lencho and his family get the result.

To make a clear cut understanding, the researcher put the similarities and differences in the table below.

(53)

Table I

No Aksionov and Lencho’s Perception about the god

1 Both characters think their god is the most merciful.

2 Both of characters think their god is the most grantor suffering

3 Both of characters think their god is the most justice

4 Both od characters think their god is the most guide

(54)

Table II

No Aksionov Lencho

1 God showed himself as the most merciful through his wife’s dream.

God showed himself as the merciful through Lencho’s wealth.

2 God showed himself as the most grantor suffering through judging a killer.

God showed himself as the moat grantor suffering through destroying all his wealth.

3 God showed himself as the most justice through giving

punishment.

God showed himself as the most justice through giving money to him, a little more than half.

4 Aksionov conveys directly that god is the most guide directly in this short story.

Lencho conveys indirectly that god is the most guides in this short story.

5 Aksionov conveys that god is the almighty audit directly in this short story.

Lencho conveys indirectly that god is the almighty audit in this short story.

(55)

BAB IV

CONCLUSION

Research literature appeal in this thesis took two literary works that have the time and different cultures. In this research, the researcher chooses two literary works which has different period and region. God Sees The Truth, But Wait by Leo Tolstoy is from Russian which has written at 1872, and A Letter For God by Grogeria Lopez is from Mexico which was written at 1940. Both literary works, the researcher uses comparative literature theory which is supported by perception theory. Because the researchers tries to digs a new paradigm that sunk inside. Those paradigms are drawn back using perception theory in order to bring up a pure result of the two main characters in the short stories, Aksionov and Lencho. After analyzing, based on comparative literature, the researcher finds similarities and differences in these two short stories. The similarities and differences it peeled clearly using American school that free the researcher to compares any scope in both literary works.

In the short story, God Sees The Truth, But Wait by Leo Tolstoy can be found a perception about the essence of God. In Akionov life, he got problem and pressure to himself. So this Aksionov condition describes any king attitude and essence of god in the short story. Simply, a figure of God in perception of

Aksionov were the most merciful, the most lead astray, the most justice, the most knowing the most grantor suffering, the most forgiver, the most guide and the

(56)

most almighty audit. All nature of God which is described in the short story based on the perception of Aksionov not all spoken directly. So researchers are looking for the nature of God through dialogue and narrative in the short story.

In the second short story by Gregoria Lopez entitled A Letterr For God, Lencho as the main character in this short story also depicts a figure of God through the experiences of his life. So it appears an interaction between Lencho and God in the short story. These interactions are not described directly with dialogue, but life experiences of Lencho in the short story. So that the nature of God can be described in the Lencho's perception is the most merciful, the most provider, the most protector, the most grantor suffering, the most guide, the most justice and the most almighty audit.

From the nature of God which is described by the first and second character, it can be found the similarities and differences. In the similarities, Lencho and Aksionov portray God as the most merciful, the most grantor suffering, the most justice, the most guide, and the most almighty audit. For the difference, Aksionov often acknowledges the nature and existence of God directly mentioned in the dialogue between the characters in the short story. While in Lencho, he acknowledges the nature of God based on the experiences of his life in the short story.

Thus it can be concluded that the study of comparative literature who took two literary works from different areas, generating a perception about the

(57)

differences and similarities of the God. These similarities and differences are taken from the life experience of the two main characters, Aksionov and Lencho.

(58)

Work Cited

Bloemendal Jan, Eversmann Peter G.F, and Strictman Elsa ed. Drama, Performance, and Debate: Theatre and Public Opinion in The Early Modern Period. Boston: BRILL, 2013

Boon, Emmanuel Kwesi. Area Studies – Africa: Regional Sustainable

Development Review. United Kingdom: EOLSS Publishers, 2009. Online Book

Bruns, Cristina Vischer. Why Literature: The Value of Literary Reading and What It Means for Teaching. United States of America: Continuum, 2011

Cohen Vicki L and Cowen John Edwin. Literacy for Children in An Information Age: Teaching Reading, Writing, and Thinking. Canada, Thomson Wadsworth, 2008

Damono, Supardi Djoko. Pegangan Penelitian Sastra Bandingan. Jakarta: Depertement Pendidikan Nasional, 2005.

Dani A.H and Mohen J.P. History of Humanity: From The Third Millenium to The Seventh Century B.C. Routledge, 1994

Dixon, Keith. Philosophy of Education and the Curriculum: The Commonwealth and International Library: Education and Education Research. Elsevier, 2014.

Doni Gahral Adian, Pilar Pilar Filasafat Kontemporer. Jogjakarta: Jala Sutra, 2002.

(59)

Fedrick Elliston, “phenomenology Reinterpreted: from Husserl to heidger”. In philosophy today, vol. xxi, no 1977.

Galbraith, Robert. The Cuckoo’s Calling. London: Mulholland Books, 2013. Gifford, Henry. Comparative Literature; A Critical Introduction. USA: Blackwell

Oxford UK& Cambridge, 1995.

Gill, Richard. Mastering of English Literature. London: The Macmillan press. Ltd, 1995.

Gillespie, Tim. Doing Literary Criticism. Stenhouse Publishers, 2010.

Hartley, Lodwick Charles., and Ladu, Arthur Irish. Modern Drama. Printice Hall, 1948

Holman, C Hugh, ed. A Handbook to Literature. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: The Bobbs Merril Company, 1978

Intisa, Indra. PUTIKA (Puisi Tiga Kata): Teori dan Konsep. Yogyakarta: Garudhawaca, 2015

K. Bertens. Filsafat Barat Abad XX: Inggris-Jerman. Jakarta: Gramedia, 1981. Kuiper, Kathleen ed. Prose: Literary Terms and Concepts. New York: Britannica

Educational Publishing, 2012

Mardalena. Prose: An Introduction. Deepublish, 2015

Muslih, Mohammad, Filsafat Ilmu, Yogyakarta: Belukar, 2004.

Paquette Jenifer. Respecting The Stand: A Critical Analysis of Stephen King’s Apocalyptic Novel. United States of America: McFarland & Company, Inc, 2012

(60)

Raco, J.R. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Jenis, Karakteristik, dan Keunggulannya. Jakarta: Grasindo, 2010.

Richardson, Jack. Illustrated Dictionary of Literature. New Delhi: Lotus Press, 2006

Robert, Edgar V. Writing Themes About Literature. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc, 1969.

Rokhmansyah. Studi dan Pengkajian Sastra: Perkenalan Awal Terhadap ilmu Sastra. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu, 2014

Rosyadi. Kusumah S.D, et al. Dagang. Babad Panjalu. Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan, 1992

Runco Mark A and Pritzker Steven R. Encyclopedia of Creativity. USA: Academic Press, 1999

Sharma, Arvind . To the Things Themselves: Essays on the Discourse and Practice of the Phenomenology of Religion. Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Wellek, Rene and Warren, Austin. Theory of Literature. New York: Harvest

Book, 1956.

White Hayden. The Fiction of Narrative: Essay on History, Literature, and Theory. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010 Wicaksono, Andri. Pengkajian Prosa Fiksi. Garudhawaca, 2014.