FAILURE IN LITERARY CENCORSHIP OF

RATIH KUMALA'S TABULA RASA

Literary censorship is an impactful aspect of how a work is able to represent

virtue from its content. However, in a reality where many phenomena cannot
be controlled by people, many literary works miss out on these virtues. In
fact, good literary works are those that are able to lead society to good
morals and truth. Referring to Suharianto, a person's way of thinking about
life, about good and bad, about the truth and wrong, and about their own way
of life and the nation's can be affected by literature . This shows that the
creation of literary works should not pass the control and standardization of
appropriate works to be enjoyed. People must receive positive content and
values from a work, because according to a citation , literature has a function
that is able to educate its readers by utilizing the truth value in it. If literature
loses this function, it can be said that literary works fail to bring truth and
virtue to society by establishing morals and character. This can be found in
the novel titled Tabula Rasa by Ratih Kumala.

Ratih Kumala's Tabula Rasa tells the journey of a woman named

Raras in discovering her identity. With a bleak personal childhood
experience, Raras is portrayed as a woman faced a crisis in identifying
herself and her essence as a woman since her young. Set in Russia and
Indonesia during the turbulent times after independence and the many
governmental system changes, the novel has many dark elements in
representing the situation. The romance, family, and friendship experiences
in this novel are misrepresented because of the many distorted values within
them. By presenting a variety of points of view in narrating the story, Ratih
Kumala conveys the content of her work with many elements that fail to
comply with the values of truth and virtue as literature should be created.
Some of them provide experiences of characters that are not in accordance
with moral values, expressions of characters who directly or indirectly
underestimate heroes and famous men, and actions of characters that are
contrary to religious and norm values. These things, of course, contrast with
Plato's theory regarding the literary censorship that is appropriate to be
consumed and is allowed to be presented to the public.

According to Nurrachman, Plato believes that literature has the power

to impact the character of individuals and society. Therefore, he considered
that literature should be kept away from the promotion of negative values
and emotions so as not to ruin the morals of the nation. Therefore, in
avoiding moral destruction brought by literature, Plato explicitly provided
restrictions called literary censorship in the following terms: 1) literature
should not contain false or bad representations of God and men; 2) literature
should not exert an impact that damages the character of its readers; and 3)
literature should not create complex problems that cause individual feelings
and sensibilities to be affected by them. (Nurrachman)

According to Plato, regarding the first point in censoring literature,

Tabula Rasa fails to accomplish it because Ratih Kumala narrates the
unfavorable opinion of famous men, namely one of the Russian heroes
known in the novel as 'Lenin'. It can be found in the quote:

“Kebangsaan orang Rusia sangat kental. Kebanggaan akan negaranya

sangat jelas. Mereka bahkan meletakkan karangan bunga di bawah
kaki patung Lenin yang berserakkan di manamana. Hal ini untuk
menunjukkan rasa cinta mereka kepada Lenin, pahlawan Rusia yang
sekarang jasadnya terbujur kaku dan masih bisa dilihat kalau kita
 bersedia antre masuk ke Mausoleum. And that’s exactly what I am
doing now.” (h. 5)

Lenin is the grandfather of the male character named Galih. In the

quote above, it is mentioned that Lenin is placed in Mausoleum in Russia. At
first, Lenin's existence, which is the center of the Russian people's curiosity,
is made special by the description of the long queue of people who want to
visit him. However, when Galih finally gets the chance to see Lenin up close
with his own eyes, Galih responses that there is nothing special to be found
in Lenin's dead body.

“Jauh dari yang kuharapkan, saat aku melewati Lenin yang kuingat
hanyalah seonggok mayat. Tanpa gambaran kejayaan masa lalu,
tanpa sejarah. Padahal sejak awal aku berharap bayangan masa lalu
akan berputar di kepalaku.” (h.14)

“Dan, saat aku ikut melewatinya yang ada di pikiranku hanyalah

“oo... ternyata Lenin itu begini’. Cuma itu. Saat aku keluar, Diaz
langsung bertanya “Gimana Lenin?” “Ah... biasa aja.” (h.14)

The two quotes above show the misrepresentation of the hero's

portrayal, which Plato mention as ‘fault’. “Whenever an erroneous
representation is made of the nature of gods and heroes, -as when a painter
paints a portrait not having the shadow of a likeness to the original” (p.23)
Plato likens a painter who fails to paint an object because it does not
resemble the original. Here, Ratih Kumala gives a portrayal of Lenin that
many people want to see but also portrays him with a mediocre response
from his own grandson. This makes it seem as if Lenin is not just a dead
body without a history that touches the heart when seen. If Lenin was
portrayed as an influential figure from the beginning, then he should have
been portrayed as a grandfather who was able to touch his grandson’s heart
with the depiction of feeling emotional, remembering the deeds he did during
his lifetime for the nation. This also gives the impression of exaggeration,
which shows an attitude of trivializing the death of a hero. In addition, this
misrepresentation can also be seen in the quote that is still related to Lenin's
death:

“Ajaran Karl Marx agaknya sudah bercokol cukup lama sehingga

bangsa ini menganggap bahwa negara adalah agama dan mungkin
menganggap Lenin sebagai ‘Tuhan’ mereka.” (h.10)

The passage shows a misrepresentation not only of Lenin, but also of

Karl Marx, a German philosopher. The misrepresentation is shown by the
narrative that makes it seem as if Karl Marx's ideas are doctrine. The same
goes for the narrative from Galih's point of view about government figures:

“Kupandangi televisi dengan bahasa Rusia yang sampai sekarang

bikin aku pusing. Iklan Pizza Hut. Gorbachev jadi bintangnya. Apa
ini... salah satu usaha Gorbachev untuk membersihkan namanya?
Atau hanya suatu taktik marketing Pizza Hut di negeri sosialis
komunis yang mencoba menjadi kapitalis ini?” (h. 35)

“Gila! Kenapa Gus Dur minta maaf segala atas perlakuan kita selama
ini terhadap PKI Terutama atas sikap represif pemerintah selama ini
terhadap orangorang yang dianggap PKI. Ketetapan MPRS itu juga
mau dihapuskan! Apa yang ada di pikirannya? Aku tidak bisa
mengerti. Apa karena saat ini musim reformasi? Semua direformasi.
(h. 39)
Some of the passages above show a poor portrayal of famous
government figures, namely Gorbachev and Gus Dur. Of course, this
becomes Ratih Kumala's failure regarding literary censorship because
it is against the thought of Plato. Although both discourses are
described as satire and possibly real, this is not justified by Plato
because basically, literary censorship should only tell good tales and
avoid bad ones. Even if the bad story is real, for Plato it should not be
told to readers, especially to the young generation. For Plato, they
and many people are not able to understand bad tales even if they are
just told as satire both literally and figuratively. Plato revealed that
the bad things would be better kept and hidden in literature
(Nurrachman). The first passage shows the fact that the leader of
Russia is ironically a proponent of the products of his enemy country,
America. This illustrates the ugliness of Gorbachev that Ratih
Kumala should not have exposed in her work. Similarly, the second
and third passages discuss Galih's views on Gus Dur's government.
Whether it is a negligence or a tactic of Gus Dur's government, it
should not be presented in the narrative of a literary work because it
gives negative emotions that will be perceived by readers and society.
It can be concluded that the passages above illustrate Ratih Kumala's
failure to create a literary work that contains virtue, so Tabula Rasa
should not have passed the literary censorship.

In addition to erroneous representation of heroes and famous figures,

problems in literary censorship are also identified from literary
affects that can potentially ruin the character of readers and society as
well as complex issues that can affect their feelings. In this context,
Tabula Rasa is again proven to not be worthy of passing the literary
censorship because, as already stated, the characters' portrayals and
experiences are narrated incorrectly, which will have an adverse
effect on the readers.

First, the character-damaging influence can be seen through Ratih

Kumala's mischaracterization of Raras who is supposed to be able to
find her identity as a woman. This is also a proof of the complexity of
Raras' life problems that she even has difficulty recognizing herself
as a true woman.

”She doesn’t even know I was a lesbian, I never told her. I

was too afraid..."

The passage is Raras's expression to her friend Argus about

her feelings for Violet, her best friend. Raras' expression also
indicates Ratih Kumala's failure to avoid bad and destructive impacts
in her literary works because it shows a social deviation in Raras that
is strongly opposed. It is mentioned in (Martiasari) that this attitude is
considered a form of violation of norms and morals, as well as
against the rules of law. Besides happening to Raras, this deviation
also happens to the gay couple, Argus and Zack.

”Kami bisa menikah di Belanda, pasangan gay boleh kawin di

sana!” (h. 160)

The passage shows that there are no restrictions or prohibitions on

sexual deviance in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, this still does not
justify Ratih Kumala to include it in her literary work, because in
reality, Tabula Rasa is an Indonesian novel and published in
Indonesia, which strictly forbids the existence of sexual deviations in
the form of gays and lesbians. For Raras and Argus, being lesbian
and gay may not be a deviancy, but this shows that Ratih Kumala
only shows the good side of sexual deviancy for the characters, but
not for its effect on the morals of readers and society. Ratih Kumala,
who in this context is positioned as an imitator (writer) has failed to
imitate the characters of Raras and Argus because their characters
and thoughts are far from the ideals for which women and men were
created. According to Plato, in reality there are indeed different ways
of looking at an object. However, he also said that although the way
of looking at the object looks different, in reality all are the same and
have no difference: "I mean, that you may look at a bed from
different points of view, obliquely or directly or from any other point
of view, and the bed will appear different, but there is no difference
in reality." (h. 35). So Raras should be portrayed as a woman
naturally loves a man and Argus as a man loves a woman.

Complex problems are also seen in Violet's experience, who is told to

be a drug user until she has to go through rehabilitation. Violet's
falling into this error shows the imitation of bad human actions. So,
this can also damage character because the influence of this action
will lead to bad results as stated by Plato that imitating human actions
intentionally or unintentionally will produce good or bad and show
happiness or joy. (Nurrachman)

“Bolpoin yang tak lagi bertinta kubuka tutupnya dan kucucupkan

ujungnya ke kulit lenganku. Tak lagi kurasakan perih, darah mulai
terlihat di sela daging putih dan kulit yang sobek. Kucucup
merahnya dan menikmati yang bukan unsur darah merah di antara
kelir nya. Ada kenikmatan di dalamnya.” (h. 82)

The passage above is the situation of Violet's confusion over the

narcotics she consumes. In this part of the story, Violet is portrayed
as a drug user who is so intoxicated that she loses her ability to think
logically and behaves foolishly. Violet's stupidity would not look bad
in Violet's eyes because in this situation, she is in the position of
being 'ignorant' so that she is unable to distinguish between good and
bad things, which is why she hurts herself under the influence of drug
use. Violet's attitude proves Plato's statement that Violet's character is
the result of imitation by the author who focuses on the good in
building the character's character, without considering whether there
will be bad or good effects from his work. The imitation of Violet's
intoxication is proof of "to imitate only that which appears to be good
to the ignorant multitude" (Nurrachman).

Furthermore, the part of Tabula Rasa's storyline that is still very

strong in the supernatural belief in mantras also shows the failure of
literary censorship, because it illustrates the strange rituals that Raras
performs in fulfilling her desires and lusts, which are referred to as
'Mantras to Get True Love', one of which contains:

“Kuikat hati dan jiwamu dengan diriku. Sampai kuputuskan untuk

melepaskanmu. Kukirim mantra ini untuk menghubungimu. Dan
kutaburi dengan kemauanku.”

The mantra excerpt above shows a discourse that comes from passion
and anxiety. The existence of this mantra recitation ritual is
motivated by Raras' desire to get love from Violet, which can be seen
in all parts of the story. In addition to reading the mantra, Raras also
carries out several directions, such as using Violet's photo as the
focus of the mantra. In addition to passion, the ritual of reciting this
mantra is also motivated by Raras' anxiety who cannot express her
feelings of love for Violet directly, but she also really wants her
feelings to be reciprocated. This is based on Plato's statement that "he
(the imitator) will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is
easily imitated." (Nurrachman). Of course, this can affect the
destruction of character because according to Plato, by lamenting
about the problems we have, there will be a feeling of never being
enough until it ends in problems "we may call irrational, useless, and
cowardly." (Nurrachman) From Plato's expression, it can prove that
again, Ratih Kumala's Tabula Rasa fails literary censorship by
proving the influence of moral damage by actions that are irrational
and do not illustrate virtue.

Lastly, the influence of character decay in Tabula Rasa can also be

seen from the ending narrative that shows no change from Raras, who
consciously knows the deviation of her identity. The plot that finally
leads to Raras admitting her true identity to Galih shows the
complexity of the problem that triggers the influence of the reader's
feelings and sensibilities that also affect her character.

“Saya harus memilih, Pak. Dan saya memilih mencintai sejenis saya
dan Violet, bukan sejenis Bapak. Bukan lakilaki.”

“Aku tabula rasa, aku adalah dogma dari aliran empiris dan aku
terbentuk dari perjalanannya hidup. Aku tak pernah menyesalinya.
Aku tak menyesali jalanku.”

In the end, Ratih Kumala is consistent in her representation of Raras

by still making her a woman who goes against her nature in love. It is
clear that Tabula Rasa should not have passed the literary censorship
because it can be said that Ratih Kumala makes Raras feed and water
her lust for passion, anger, pain, and all her feelings by indulging in
her actions that she realizes have deviated from what she was created
to be as a true woman. This is what Plato calls, "instead of drying
them up; she lets them rule, though they ought to be controlled, if
mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue." (Nurrachman).
If until the end Ratih Kumala does not change Raras' fate as a real
woman, then for her, this misrepresentation is a source of command
that is considered as virtue. In the end, it can be concluded that Ratih
Kumala's virtue is a virtue that contradicts Plato, contradicts morals
and truth, contradicts how a work goes through literary censorship. If
there is a failure of literature to carry out its function as an influence
and disseminator of virtue in society, then Tabula Rasa is one proof
of the failure of censorship of works because according to Plato (in
Nurrachman) "if we suppose a change in anything, that change must
be affected either by the thing itself, or by some other things."