The Arjuna Myth within Two Indonesian Novels and One Sundanese
Novel: A Comparative Literature Analysis
Sumiyadi Sumiyadi
Department of Indonesia Language Education and Literature, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No.
229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Wayang Myth, Literary Reception, Comparative Literature.
Abstract: This article is intended to find out the reception of the novel writer towards the wayang (Javanese puppet)
myth and the Mahabharata epic, particularly Arjuna. The novels analysed were Arjuna Mencari Cinta,
Arjuna Mencari Mati, and Mapag Perang Barata. The analysis was done by applying a comparative
literature approach and literary reception theory, while the method employed was comparative analytical
descriptive. The findings showed that the wayang myth in the story of Arjuna Mencari Cinta was utilized by
its writer to make readers have a glint towards the wayang characters, specifically Arjuna. Seeing the tittle,
the novel Arjuna Mencari Mati parodied Arjuna Mencari Cinta, but the content was the deconstruction of
wayang epic itself. While the Sundanese novel Mapag Perang Barata described the comeback of wayang
basic aims as ideal shadows of human life.
1 INTRODUCTION
In Indonesian modern literature, in 1977, a novel
entitled Arjuna Mencari Cinta by Y.A.N.M.
Massardi was published, followed by a novel
entitled Arjuna Mencari Cinta Part II in 1980 and
Arjuna Wiwahaha…! In 1984. Then in Panuju
(2014) wrote a novel with a similar title, Arjuna
Mencari Mati, and also in 2004, a novel entitled
Trilogi Komplet: Arjuna Mencari Cinta wrote by
Y.A.N.M. Massardi was published.
Arjuna is the third of Pandawa Lima, the son of
Dewi Kunti. He is famous as Panengah Pandawa.
Pandawa means ‘the sons of Pandu’, for Pandu
Dewanata is their father. The word “Arjuna” in
Sanskerta language means ‘white or clear and pure’
and a popular wayang character for his divine
power, handsomeness, and his involvement in many
wayang stories as well (Tim Penulis Sena Wangi,
1999).
We can watch, see, and read Arjuna’s image and
myth when watching Indian dramas, wayang stories,
epic of Mahabharata and comic. However, Arjuna
character in the modern or contemporary Indonesian
literature shows a variety of profiles. In the poem
entitled “Kayal Arjuna” written by Subagio
Sastrowardoyo in 1995, Arjuna was ilustrated as a
knight with exceptional power which never be seen,
neither in the stories nor wayang performance. In the
poem, it was mentioned that Arjuna was able to win
the battle, either in wars or sexual lives, although all
was done by only imagining the enemy to battle or
women to marry. In the drama Semar Gugat by
Riantiarno (1995), Arjuna despised Semar as the
reincarnation of Sanghiyang Ismaya, in which he
forced Semar to cut off his tuft for Arjuna’s pregnant
wife. While in the novel of Arjuna Mencari Mati by
Panuju (2004), Arjuna tried to kill himself for not
being able to bear his sufferings from not having a
genital organ.
This article aimed at finding out reception or
response of novel writers towards wayang myth and
Mahabharata epic, particularly the myth of Arjuna
character. Martin dan Ringham (2000, p. 89) explain
that myths are symbolic narratives often involving
gods or heroes and offering an explanation of some
fact or natural phenomenon.
Some previous research focusing on Arjuna have
been conducted by a number of scholars, such as by
Nurgiyantoro (1998; 2003), Koesoemadinata (2012),
Nengsih (2013), Kurniawan (2015), Hartati (2016),
and Sumiyadi (2016). Nurgiyantoro (1998; 2003)
pointed out, in the novel Arjuna Mencari Cinta,
there were name and character transformation of the
wayang characters including Arjuna. He argued that
802
Sumiyadi, S.
The Arjuna Myth within Two Indonesian Novels and One Sundanese Novel: A Comparative Literature Analysis.
DOI: 10.5220/0007175408020807
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 802-807
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

the transformation seemed to be a superficiality of
Arjuna figure. Koesoemadinata (2012) analyzed the
complexity of Arjuna’s teacher character, Pandita
Drona, which was illustrated to have physical
disability and craftiness thus his divine power was
defeated by Arjuna. Nengsih (2013) examined the
spoken tradition of Banjar spell in South
Kalimantan. The spell was named Panah Arjuna,
used by men to conquer women they loved.
Kurniawan probed Arjuna figure in Cempala
magazine in July 1996 and January 1997 edition by
applying a deconstruction method and theory. He
concluded the legend of Arjuna as a lelananging
jagad or the man of the world should be criticized,
for being an archer knight, a war commander, and a
noble knight, does not mean he is an ideal man
without any imperfections in his life. Arjuna is less
skilled compared to Adipati Karna and Bambang
Ekalaya; Hartati (2016) concerned her research on a
poem by Subagio Sastrowardoyo entitled “Kayal
Arjuna”. Hartati (2016) concluded that Arjuna was
illustrated as a man who was only good at
daydreaming, although he was described responsible
for his family. While Sumiyadi (2016) focused on a
comparative study between a Sundanese novel and
an Indonesian short story with the same title, Burak
Siluman. In those two stories, it was mentioned that
a woman was getting crazy over Arjuna figure that
she frequently saw in wayang shows, so when the
creature resembling Arjuna asked her to marry him,
the woman agreed.
2 ANALYSIS APPROACH
The approach used in this article was comparative
literature. Damono (2009) says comparative
literature is a literature approach which does not
result on a theory. Therefore, any theory can be
utilized in the comparative literature. In this article,
the researcher applied literary reception as the
theoretical foundation for the research objective is to
find out a writer reception towards the Arjuna myth.
The writer, in this case, can be regarded as super
reader, such as Riffaterre’s statement, which views
that Baudelaire is a super reader when reading his
poetry (Segers, 2000).
The reception or aesthetic reception are also
corresponding with literary response theory, talking
how readers give meaning towards literary works
they read in order to give responses (Junus, 1985).
The responses can be passive realized in readers’
understanding or views on literary works aesthetic
values, or can be in active action realized in readers’
responses realization, such as by writing a literary
work. Reception performance is similar to
transformation and intertextuality. Nonetheless,
transformation has a relation with changes and shifts
from one discourse to another, intertextuality is
connected with literary texts bonding to other texts,
while literary reception refers to readers’ or writers’
responses towards the works they receive
(Sumiyadi, 2009).
3 ANALYSIS METHODS
The novel used as the source of the present research
is a novel entitled Trilogi Komplet: Arjuna Mencari
Cinta (AMC) published in 2004 by Massardi. The
novel was then compared to other Indonesian
novels, Arjuna Mencari Mati (AMM) written by
Panuju published in 2004. Those two novels were
compared intentionally as seen from the title, AMM
novel seemed to response AMC novel. Afterwards,
for the requirement of literature comparative
approach is that the novels compared should be in
different languages, so that the comparison was
conducted to literary works with two different
languages, namely Sundanese novel entitled Mapag
Perang Bharata (MPB) written by a Sundanese
writer Ahmad Bakri published in 2009.
The present article employed an analytical
descriptive method and comparative descriptive
(Ratna, 2008). Those two methods could be
combined in accordance with the work procedure to
be comparative analytical descriptive method. In
analysing the three novels, the writer used semiotic
narrative analysis suggested by Greimas. Although
Greimas analysis was first developed for folklore,
Perakyla (in Denzin and Lincoln, 2011) argues that
the analysis can be applied into a variety of texts.
The analysis procedure of the comparison and
reception are presented in figure 1.
Figure 1: analysis procedure of the comparison and
reception in this study.
Note:
: novel comparison
: reception/response of the writers as super readers
towards Arjuna myth
The Arjuna Myth within Two Indonesian Novels and One Sundanese Novel: A Comparative Literature Analysis
803

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Arjuna Mencari Cinta (AMC)
Novel by Yudhistira A.N.M.
Massardi
Arjuna in AMC was described as a person who had a
lot of girlfriends. It was a teenager novel and Arjuna
was described as a teen who had just become a
twelve grader of senior high school.
The women characters admiring Arjuna in AMC
were Setyowati, Arimbi, and Anggraeni. Whereas,
the one that Arjuna loved was Pergiwati. In the
wayang story, Setyowati referred to four people,
namely Dewi Satyawati or Dewi Pujawati (the wife
of Narasoma or Prabu Salya), Dewi Durgandini (the
queen of Prabu Sentanu), Dewi Rekatawati (the wife
of Prabu Matswati), and Dewi Citrawati, the wife of
Prabu Arjuna Sasrabahu (Tim Penulis Sena Wangi,
1999). From those four people, nobody had a
relation with Arjuna, such as loving or being loved
by Arjuna, moreover getting married to Arjuna.
Further, another character who loved Arjuna was
Arimbi. Arimbi was the second wife of Bima or
Bratasena and they had a son, Gatotkaca. So, Arimbi
was the sister in law of Arjuna. In the story of
wayang and Mahabharata epic, it had never
mentioned that Arjuna had a relationship with
Arimbi. Still, in AMC Arjuna was mentioned to be
engaged to Arimbi, although it seemed he did it only
for fun (Massardi, 2004).
Anggraeni was mentioned as the other one who
loved Arjuna. In the wayang story, Dewi Anggraeni
was the queen of Bambang Ekalaya or Palgunadi,
the king of Nisada country or Paranggelung. In the
wayang story, she was frequently become the
symbol of wife loyalty towards a husband. It was
shown when she was tempted by another man,
although the man was Arjuna who was famous for
his look and divine power. She preferred dying to
betraying her love to Palgunadi (Tim Penulis Sena
Wangi, 1999). It was found in AMC that Arjuna had
a relationship with Anggraeni. Nevertheless, their
relationship was in the contrary compared to the
wayang story, for in AMC, Anggraeni was described
as a woman who easily betrayed her love to other
men (Massardi, 2004).
Another woman character of wayang emerging
in AMC was Pergiwati, her full name was Endang
Pergiwati. She was Arjuna’s daughter and
Pancawala’s wife, the son of Yudistira. In the novel,
she was illustrated as a woman who easily turned her
heart to other men, same as Anggraeni. The
difference lied on how Arjuna saw them; Anggraeni
was a very young girl and innocent, while Pergiwati
was considered more mature. Moreover, Pergiwati
was his father’s secretary. She was the one who
actually thought Arjuna was still a little kid so she
liked the father better than him (Massardi, 2004).
Arjuna’s relation with other characters seemed to
disapprove the family tree. Arimbi was Arjuna’s
sister in law (Bima’s wife) and Gatotkaca’s mom,
his own nephew. Therefore, it was taboo for Arjuna
to date her. So was Pergiwati. She was Arjuna’s
daughter, who got married to Pancala, Yudistira’s
son.
Abimanyu was the son of Arjuna from Dewi
Wara Subadra. In the novel, Abimanyu was Arjuna’s
school mate, who invited him when Abimanyu got
his birthday. Kresna was Arjuna’s brother in law for
he is the brother of Dewi Wara Subadra, Arjuna’s
wife. Howbeit, in AMC, Arjuna and Kresna were
not in laws, but they made friends. Their relationship
was just because they needed each other. Arjuna
needed Kresna once he got quarrel with his dad so
he was not able to borrow his dad’s car anymore. In
that kind of situation, Kresna would usually appear
as Arjuna’s saviour. Kresna would need Arjuna for
Arjuna was considered intelligent at the school, so
he leant on Arjuna for tests (Massardi, 2004).
Another character emerged in AMC was Burisrawa.
Burisrawa was Dewi Banowati’s big brother and the
son of Prabu Salya. Burisrawa loved Dewi Wara
Subadra a lot, although she had got married to
Arjuna. However, in AMC, Burisrawa and Arjuna
were presented at a different age. He played a role as
Arimbi’s father (Massardi, 2004).
4.2 The Arjuna Mencari Mati (AMM)
Novel by Redi Panuju
The novel Arjuna Mencari Mati (AMM) presented a
wayang world in the dream of Tegar character. In
his dream, Tegar came into a Goddes’ country called
Junggring Salaka. There, he and his spouse, Ratna,
was welcome by Bathara Guru, for his reason that
Tegar was a ”saviour” sent to Junggring Saloka to
overcome pagebluk ’epidemic’ occurred there.
According to him, Tegar was the promised one, as
mentioned in jitabsara. Jitabsara or Jitapsara was a
book written by Batara Panyarikan based on the
instruction of Batara Guru (Tim Penulis Sena
Wangi, 1999). Afterwards, Tegar was ordered to do
a mission impossible, changing wayang texts by
observing the real wayang life.
Another element which explicitly came into the
wayang world was Holy Qur’an texts as the diseases
healer charm, such as when Tegar was asked to cure
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
804

Bathari Guru or Permaisuri Retno Dewi Utami
(Panuju, 2004) The women who also had a very
close relation to Arjuna in AMM were Srikandi and
Banowati. Those two characters were presented as
Arjuna’s wives. In the wayang world, these two
women were indeed Arjuna’s wives. Dewi Srikandi
was described as a beautiful woman, good at
military knowledge. Moreover, some puppeteers
mention, Srikandi wore a complete military costume
when she was delivered to this world. She was good
at archery for Arjuna taught her (Tim Penulis Sena
Wangi, 1999).
In AMM, Srikandi’s skill at archery was not
visible. The dominant thing about her was that her
jealousy. She was jealous for Arjuna loved Banowati
so much (Panuju, 2004, p. 127). In the wayang story,
Dewi Banowati was a beautiful and spoiled princess
of Prabu Salya from Mandukara Kingdom. She was
the wife of Duryodana, although she was badly in
love with Arjuna. All puppeteers agreed that Dewi
Banowati was a kind of disloyal wife. After getting
married to Duryodana, she kept on loving Arjuna
(Tim Penulis Sena Wangi, 1999). In AMM, it was
told that Banowati married Arjuna although her
husband was still alive, and it was shown as if
Arjuna was the one who admired her, not Banowati.
Whereas, Banowati herself still felt affection to her
husband, that was why she was determined to do
emasculation to Arjuna (Panuju, 2004).
In AMM, the story fact element, particularly the
setting and characters, were not slightly different.
Even so, the sequences and characters’ behaviour
got reversed and diverged. For instance, Cakil or
Buta Cakil was a giant character in the wayang
world, but he had small body. He appeared in many
stories with various names, such as Ditya Kala
Gendir Penjalin, Ditya Kala Carang Aking, Kala
Klantang Mimis. He was the one and only giant
weapon called keris, not one but two, but sometimes
three. But he always died being stabbed by his own
keris. Because of this, in Javanese society he was
frequently used as a model of bad behaviour. When
somebody got trouble because of his/her behaviour,
he/she was considered resembling Buta Cakil (Tim
Penulis Sena Wangi, 1999) Nonetheless, in AMM
Cakil was a protagonist character for his help to
Tegar when he was robbed by mask burglars
(Panuju, 2004).
In the wayang and Mahabharata epic, Dursasana
was Duryodana’s young brother. In wayang shows,
especially living actors, he was easily recognized for
his big tall body and hands and legs movement. He
was the symbol of less educated, unethical, and
uncivilized person (Tim Penulis Sena Wangi, 1999).
In the contrary, in AMM, he was a kindly-hearted,
polite and tried to help others (Panuju, 2004).
The characters who also showed different
characteristics are punakawan or servants, namely
Semar and his sons. Semar or Ki Lurah Semar, was
the main servant in the wayang world. Like other
servants, he was the original wayang figure from
Indonesia. In Mahabharata epic, nothing mentioned
about these unique characters. Semar and his sons
were narrated to always follow Pandawa clan. It
pointed out that they went along with the right
people. In the opposite, in AMM, Pandawa clan was
the center of corruption, collusion and nepotism, and
Semar was supposed to resuscitate them.
Unfortunately, Semar, who was mentioned as
Goddess offspring, even conspired with the clan and
tried to betray Duryodana, Sengkuni, dan Tegar
(Panuju, 2014).
In the wayang story, Arjuna finally married to
Dewi Banowati. Yet he did it after Banowati became
a widow, as her husband died in Kurusetra battle
field. In AMM Arjuna arrogated Banowati from
Duryodana after Yudistira shoving aside Duryodana
from Astina Kingdom. Here Arjuna seemed to love
Banowati so much, while Banowati still admired her
husband so that she was determined to emasculate
Arjuna.
Manliness and Pasopati were Arjuna’s pride.
From that moment, Arjuna did not live his life any
longer so he went for adventure to look for death.
Loosing those two weapons led him to give up his
life. He thought everything came to the end (Panuju,
2004).
4.3 The Mapag Perang Barata (MPB)
Sundanese Novel by Ahmad Bakri
The MPB were generally same as the wayang story,
particularly Mahabharata and Bharatayuda. Even so,
there were some differences emerged. There was no
punakawan or servant appeared, such as Lurah
Semar and his sons, whereas they were the special
characteristics of wayang characters, especially in
Indonesia, which has never found in Mahabharata
epic.
Relating to Mahabharata epic, there were a
number of similar facts discovered. However, in
terms of plot, it seemed that the novel removed the
event of dice match between Pandawa (Yudhistira)
and Kurawa (Sakuni). In fact, this was slightly
crucial event that led to the Barata or Bharatayuda
war. In MPB, the event considered crucial was
Pandawa adventure after the incident in
Waranawata, or in the wayang story, it was well-
The Arjuna Myth within Two Indonesian Novels and One Sundanese Novel: A Comparative Literature Analysis
805

known as the incident of “Bale Sigala-gala” (Bakri,
2009).
Another different thing was the absence of
Kresna figure. He was Arjuna’s brother in law. In
Mahabharata epic, it was mentioned that he was God
Wisnu’s realization therefore Wisnu’s behavior as a
god in him was much more dominant than human
side. Kresna had a very close relation with Pandawa,
specifically Arjuna. He was the one who tried to
restrain the Bharatayuda war to happen. In
Mahabharata it was told that Kresna or Narayan
fulfils Pandawa request, saying, “Demi kau, aku
akan mengunjungi Kurawa di kerajaan mereka. Jika
aku bisa mendapatkan perdamaian tanpa
berkompromi, tanpa mengurangi hak-hak kalian, aku
akan berbuat begitu” (Narayan, 2009).
In the MPB, it was also told that Drona figure
loved Arjuna more than anybody else. He admired
and was rightfully proud of Arjuna so all of his
divine power was transferred to Arjuna completely.
His amazement to Arjuna was vividly seen when he
tested Pandawa’s and Kurawa’s archery ability
(Bakri, 2009).
4.4 The Comparison between AMC
and MPB
In AMC, the setting and sequences are not connected
to the wayang world. In AMC Arjuna is a teenager
who tries to find out his identity in the centre of
metropolitan town and in the modernization era.
Meanwhile, the women characters who love and be
loved by Arjuna are not parallel with the wayang
world. In Anggraeni’s role, there is a little
connection. However, in the story it is mentioned
that Arjuna is the one who loved Anggraeni, not vice
versa.
Both in AMC and the wayang story, Arjuna is a
fine man and admired by women. Besides, he has an
authoritative bearing. In the wayang story or
Mahabharata epic, Arjuna relies on Pasopati arrow,
in AMC Arjuna leans on Toyota jeep, his dad’s
office car.
In MPB, the story facts (plot, characters, and
setting) have a relation with the wayang myth. Yet,
the cause of Bharata war is narrated different here. It
is identified that Pandawa strives for their rights
after a long odyssey for the combustion planned by
Kurawa. In the wayang story, Pandawa strives for
their rights after they finish their punishment of
thirteen years exile as they lose to Kuwara in a
gambling game.
In short, although AMC and MPB link to the
wayang myth, both of them possess differences in
utilizing the story facts. AMC tries to free the myth
by combining it with teenagers’ daily life in
metropolitan in their era, while MPB puts up a
sturdy attempt of the myth, but by trying to filter
sequences which regarded as not suitable with
commendable attitude, either by noble knights or us
as readers, namely gambling games.
4.5 The Comparison between AMM
and MPB
When it relates to the wayang myth, MPB the
Sundanese novel seems to affirm or strengthen the
wayang myth as a life shadow to emulate by men, so
the bad side of wayang characters, such as the
gambling game, is intentionally hidden by the writer.
Meanwhile, in AMM, it is found an inclusion of the
new elements and divergence, also inversion of the
wayang characters’ behaviour. The facts consisting
of setting, character and plot in AMM, possess a
close relation with the wayang myth. The text or
story of wayang within AMM is framed in a
character’s dream named Tegar for around nine
months. Nevertheless, at the end it is shown an
“estuary” or confluence between the world and the
hereafter, where Tegar lives with the wayang world,
when Ratna delivers his baby named Gendir
Penjalin. The baby absurdly emerges in the same
shape as found in the wayang world:
“Gendir Penjalin!” sapa Tegar sekali lagi.
“Papa…!” Suara si Bayi membalas, membuat Tegar
sangat terkejut. “Papa…!” kata bayinya lagi membuat
Tegar nyaris lemas. “ha…ha…ha…!” disusul tawa
bayi. Mulutnya terbuka. Tegar melihat dari mulut
bayinya mencuat dua gigi yang besar. Kemudian di
bagian bawahnya juga mencuat dua gigi taring yang
mencuat ke bawah. Tegar teringat pada gigi yang
dimiliki Vampir dalam film-film horror. (Panuju,
2004).
The inclusion of Gendir Penjalin into the real
world seems to be equal to Tegar’s entrance into the
wayang world. The difference is Gendir character
stops at the end of the story and does not play further
roles as he is still a baby, while Tegar colours the
wayang world by healing the diseases through the
Holy Qur’an verses. Even, the divine power of the
wayang world does not work by the prayer that
Tegar says while healing the wayang characters.
The dominant difference between AMM and the
wayang myth lies on the event sequences and
characters showing divergence and inversion of
characters’ behaviour. The divergence and inversion
of characters occur, for example Srikandi’s archery
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
806

skill, is not visible, and the dominant behaviour
emerged is that she is full of wife jealousy,
Banowati is married to Arjuna (although Duryodana
is still alive) and Arjuna is the one who loves
Banowati and not vice versa, Cakil is the protagonist
that helps Tegar once he is robbed by masked
robbers, Dursasana is a kindly-hearted man and tries
to help others, Duryodana hands the throne to
Yudistira and Dursasana informs that there is no
Bharatayuda war in fighting the Astina Kingdom
power, Duryodana is presented as a very wise
ascetic, the Pandawa sons are appeared as bad boys
just because the father has power, Sengkuni pleads
Pandawa, Semar does not take side of truth (he
conducts a betrayal), Bisma does not accept the
reality that his death destiny is on a woman’s hand,
Drona prefers Pandawa and dies hit by Arjuna’s
arrow, Arjuna arrogates Banowati from Duryodana,
Yudistira succeeds in getting rid of Duryodana from
Astina Kingdom, Yudistira dies by Banowati’s
arrow, Kresna passes away because of Sikandi’s
arrow.
5 CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis result, it comes to the
conclusion about the reception of the three novels
towards Arjuna in the wayang story and
Mahabharata epic. The AMC novel presents the
myth and epic by using similar character names. A
number of characters emerged within the novel, but
they never refer to the three dimensions of the
characters (physiological, psychological,
sociological dimension). The one and only character
possessed allusions with the wayang character is
Arjuna, though the relation is only on physical
appearance, brawny, good looking and admired by
women.
In the contrary, the AMM novel does not only
have allusions towards the wayang setting, but also
deconstruct it by inversing the characteristics of the
characters so that Kurawa seems depicting propriety
and Pandawa represents depravity. While the
Sundanese novel, MPB perceives the wayang world
and Mahabharata epic as a story to emulate and to
have a perfect emulation, bad behaviour and attitude
should be avoided, such as Arjuna’s perfect
emergence and the dice match or the gambling
game, although the trigger of Bharata war is
diminished by the writer.
REFERENCES
Bakri, A., 2009. Mapag Perang Barata. Bandung: Kiblat.
Damono, S. D., 2009. Sastra Bandingan. Ciputat: Editum.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., 2011. The Sage Handbook
of Qualitative Research 2 (translated by Dariyatno).
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Hartati, D., 2016. Kisah pewayangan dalam puisi
indonesia modern serta pemanfaatannya sebagai
alternatif bahan ajar apresiasi sastra di SMA (Thesis).
Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia.
Junus, U., 1985. Resepsi Sastra. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Koesoemadinata, M. I. P., 2012. Kompleksitas tokoh
pandita drona dalam artefak wayang kulit Cirebon.
Jurnal Seni dan Budaya Panggung, 22(3).
Kurniawan, B., 2015. Dekonstruksi karakter arjuna dalam
majalah cempala. Jurnal Harian Sastra Budaya,
33(66).
Martin, B., Ringham, F., 2000. Dictionary of Semiotics.
London & New York: Cassell.
Massardi, Y. A. N. M., 2004. Trilogi Komplet: Arjuna
Mencari Cinta. Jakarta: Gaya Favorit Press.
Narayan, R. K., 2009. Ramayana Mahabarata (translated
by Nin Bakdi Sumanto). Yogyakarta: Bentang.
Nengsih, S. W., 2013. Keunikan bahasa mantra banjar:
panah arjuna. Jurnal Meta Sastra, 6(2).
Nurgiyantoro, B., 1998. Transformasi Unsur Wayang
dalam Fiksi Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada
University Press.
Nurgiyantoro, B., 2003. Wayang dalam fiksi indonesia.
Jurnal Humaniora, 15(1).
Panuju, R., 2004. Arjuna Mencari Mati. Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Pelajar.
Ratna, N. K., 2008. Teori, Metode, dan Teknik Penelitian
Sastra. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Riantiarno, N., 1995. Semar Gugat. Yogyakarta: Pustaka
Bentang.
Sastrowardoyo, S., 1995. Dan Kematian Makin Akrab.
Jakarta: Grassindo.
Segers, R. T., 2000. Evaluasi Teks Sastra (translated by
Suminto A. Sayuti). Yogyakarta: Adicita Karya Nusa.
Sumiyadi, 2009. Kajian Sastra dalam Perspektif Teori
Kontemporer. Bandung: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa
dan Sastra Indonesia FPBS UPI.
Sumiyadi, 2016. Revitalisasi novel burak siluman karya
mohamad ambri ke dalam cerpen “burak siluman”
karya ajip rosidi. Jurnal Litera, 15(2).
Tim Penulis Sena Wangi, 1999. Ensiklopedi Wayang
Indonesia (1 to 6 edition). Jakarta: Sena Wangi
Sekretariat Wayang Indonesia.
The Arjuna Myth within Two Indonesian Novels and One Sundanese Novel: A Comparative Literature Analysis
807