HAVE I TOLD YOU LATELY

Lagu ini adalah lagu kesukaan sahabat saya "Dessy"...
Dan tidak perlu menunggu lama,,lagu ini menjadi salah satu lagu ke sukaan saya setelah ia menyayikan lagu ini berulang-ulang...Lagu ini tekenal karena dibwakan oleh Rod Stewart dan sangat manis bila dinyanyikan oleh Kenny Rogers Nice song!


Have I told you lately that I love you?
Have I told you there's no one else above you?
Fill my heart with gladness, take away all my sadness,
Ease my troubles, that's what you do.

For the morning sun in all it's glory,
Meets the day with hope and comfort too,
You fill my life with laughter, somehow you make it better,
Ease my troubles, that's what you do.

There's a love less defined,
And its yours and its mine,
Like the sun.
And at the end of the day,
We should give thanks and pray,
To the one, to the one.

Have I told you lately that I love you?
Have I told you there's no one else above you?
Fill my heart with gladness, take away all my sadness,
Ease my troubles, that's what you do.
There's a love less defined,
And its yours and its mine,
Like the sun.
And at the end of the day,
We should give thanks and pray,
To the one, to the one.

Have I told you lately that I love you?
Have I told you there's no one else above you?
Fill my heart with gladness, take away all my sadness,
Ease my troubles, that's what you do.

Take away all my sadness, fill my life with gladness,
Ease my troubles, that's what you do.

Take away all my sadness, fill my life with gladness,
Ease my troubles, that's what you do.

Maju-Mundur (Indonesia Tanah Air Beta)

Huft2,,
Aduuuuuuuh,,
bagaimana ini,,
Malam ini,,sendiri...saya merenung mengenai masa depan saya...
Tuhan Yesus,,saya mundur saja yaaa....(Tuhan Yesus,,kali ini saya benar-benar takut..)
Kisah ini membuat saya "stuck" bagaimana tidak,,,rasanya tertekan bila harus membayangkan kehidupan di luar sana (teman-teman cenayank saya pasti tahu mengenai ini...)Saya merasa kehidupan di Amerika bakalan berat dan susah...apalagi dengan segala macam kerumitannya (mau kerja apa saya di sana???,,)...Terlebih lagi,,saya harus masuk dalam keluarga yang memiliki kelas sosial dan nilai-nilai yang sangat berbeda dari keluarga saya di Indonesia...(hello,,kalo yang ini bikin saya drop tujuh turunan...)

Huhuhuhuhu,,saya takut...
Bagaimana jika "dia" tidak mencintai saya dengan sungguh? atau bagaimana jika kelurganya tidak menyukai saya?...
Tuhan Yesus,,saya takut,,,
Takut sekali...

Bagaimana kalau saya mundur saja....(tiba-tiba saya menjadi ragu dengan perasaan saya...)
Daripada pusing tujuh keliling lebih baik saya memikirkan cara untuk memagari hati saya agar tidak terlalu menyukainya...(saya bukan pesimis,,saya khawatir...walau saya tahu Tuhan Yesus selalu sertai saya...betapa berdosanya saya)
Bagaimanapun,,hujan batu di negeri sendiri lebih baik dari pada harus tinggal di negeri orang...

Saya benar-benar tidak punya kekuatan lagi untuk memikirkan indahnya Amerika,,padahal hal tersebut merupakan impian saya dari kecil...
Saya benar-benar tidak ingin lagi memikirkannya...

Kalau begini judulnya menjadi,,"Indonesia Tanah Air Beta"....

He is Liam Neeson...

i dedicate this to Mr.Liam Neeson whose charm has enchanted me...He leaves me breathless...Anyway,i have heard about his magnificent name since i was a high school student but, i didn't even think about him. I thought he was an ordinary Hollywood actor. However, when a friend gave me files of his films i am totally in a deep amazement. My friends told me that he is a old actor but i don't care...he is very superb...Yeah,, i am in love with him...(my boyfriend will be mad at me...hahahhaha,sorry hunny...i don't mean to cheat but he's very irresistible).He has wonderful hazel eyes,,brown hair and he is very tall...

He is an Irish born actor,he was born in Ballymena, County Antrim, and educated there and at Queen's University Belfast. He moved to Dublin after university to further his acting career, joining the renowned Abbey Theatre. After leaving the university, Neeson returned to Ballymena and worked in a variety of casual jobs, from fork-lift operator at Guinness to truck driver. He also worked at a teacher-training college in Newcastle for two years before again returning to his home-town. Neeson would get his first film experience in 1978, playing Jesus Christ and Evangelist in the religious film, Pilgrim's Progress directed by Ken Anderson. Following a bet from co-workers at the architects' office where he worked, Neeson successfully auditioned at the Lyric Players' Theatre in Belfast,[11] appearing in successful adaptations of plays such as Brian Friel's Translations. After two years there, Neeson moved to Dublin in 1978 after he was offered a part in a production at the Project Arts Centre. The play was Ron Hutchinson's "Says I, Says He", a drama about The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Neeson acted in several other Project productions and joined the Abbey Theatre in 1978. In 1980, film-maker John Boorman saw him on stage, acting as Lennie Small in Of Mice and Men, and offered him the part of Sir Gawain in the upcoming Arthurian movie, Excalibur. After Excalibur, Neeson moved to London, where he continued working on stage, small budget movies and TV series. He lived with the actress Helen Mirren at this time, whom he met working on Excalibur.[12] Between 1982 and 1987, Neeson starred in five films; most notably alongside Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins in 1984's The Bounty and Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons in 1986's The Mission.

In 1987, Neeson made a conscious decision to move to Hollywood in order to star in high-profile roles.[12] That year, he starred alongside Cher and Dennis Quaid in Suspect. The role brought Neeson critical applause, but it was 1990's Darkman that would bring his name to public attention. Although the film was successful, Neeson's following years would not give him the same recognition. In 1993, he joined Ellis Island co-star and future wife Natasha Richardson in the Broadway play Anna Christie. (They also worked together in Nell, released the following year.) Director Steven Spielberg, impressed by his performance, offered him the coveted role of Oskar Schindler in the film about the Holocaust, Schindler's List.[13] His critically acclaimed performance later earned him a nomination for a Best Actor Oscar; however, the award went to Tom Hanks for his performance in Philadelphia. Neeson also garnered BAFTA and Golden Globes nominations for Schindler's List.

Schindler's List established Neeson as a widely sought after leading actor. He later starred in period pieces Rob Roy (1995) and Michael Collins (1996), the latter earning him another Golden Globe nomination and a win for Best Starring Role at the Venice Film Festival. Neeson went on to star as Jean Valjean in the 1998 adaptation of Victor Hugo's Les Misérables and in The Haunting (1999) as Dr. David Marrow.

For his personal life, he married Natasha Richardson (1994-2009), now he is widower and lives with two sons in New York.I think he is a loyal and loving person...He loves his wife...Therefore, i love him very much...

The Story of Lilith

I remember,i walked alone at night,,the wind blew in my ears and brought me an untold story. the story which has been sealed for years,,the story of one who has been cursed, abandoned, neglected and buried under
the remnants of the ancient skulls...
I remember,
I was frozen by the gusty air.The wind whispered in little voice,,
I couldn't move,,it said,"hark,this is a truth,the truth which is sealed in the bottom of graveyard"
The wind dragged me into a small alley,,the place which was so dark,chill, and smelley,,
it dragged me,,at the end of the alley,, i saw a tip of light,,it shed the darkness upon me,,
i was so scared,,then i listened..a trembling sound....the sound of misery,,a woman sound.
Then, i could hear her,,her sound was so deep...she told me a story of her life...

"They call me First Wife. Such a lie! I was simply first".

"They name me Hag, Screecher, Vampire, Succubus. Don't listen to them. The tale has been perverted".

"I am Lilith, the ancient and sacred name for the fatal owl with feathers soft as snow".

"I am the darkness that balances the light to make Wisdom. The Tree at the center is my home, and my garden is lush and luxuriant and free, fantastic with the growth and death of the living things of this profound and sacred Earth. Who could have brought all this into being? Not a male God, surely. Have you ever heard of a man giving birth?"

"In this garden that is the heart of the world the Tree of Wisdom grows. Into the branches of the Wisdom-tree was set the slender serpent, as a reminder that renewal can only be had by shedding the old, and as an augury of the irresistible immortality of the Life-force. The fruit of this tree is given to nourish Humanity; for Wisdom and Knowledge are essential in this world. Knowledge, it is true, can bear bitter fruit as well as sweet, but truth must be tasted to awaken growth. So was the Garden made".

"That is what I know to be true, for I was there, in the beginning".

"But the Story was stolen".

"In the new version, Life became Death, Knowledge a Curse, and Woman, who is Mother, became Sin. Pleasure and rightness were beaten back on themselves, to eat away at the soul as a cancer. Sweet innocent sex was forbidden yet coyly acknowledged as irresistible, and when Man inevitably succumbed he was berated and shamed, and Woman was damned for being seductive and beautiful. Curiosity and the thirst for knowledge were savagely punished, and Humanity was severed from the Divine, to live lives of pain and longing".

"The infinite color of the world was reduced to Black and White, which were then set at war".

"And in their new tales I have become a demon, the faithless first wife of a man made of clay, a night creature that deceives men with joyous cruelty and devours her own children. I would weep, were I not so angry!"

"And this Earth, this good and beautiful and divine living home, this infinite and ingenious matrix of Life, this holy and precious Paradise we all inhabit, was given to Man to rule over in tyranny, to devour and consume like locusts, until all is exhausted and extinguished, while Woman, who carries the seed of life and renewal, is made a slave."

Now, i know,,why she is so sad...she always laments her days...even,,the past which none will not remember...

(Semarang, the 14th of February,2010...at my room)

Ketika Cinta Di persimpangan

Rasanya sakit banget ketika tahu orang yang kita cintai membagi cinta dengan yang lain,,rasanya remuk,hancur dan pahit. Barangkali,setiap kita memiliki pengalaman itu. Sebenarnya hal itu tak seberapa,,dengan mengetahui pasangan kita berselingkuh telah membuka mata hati kita bahwa orang tersebut tidak baik untuk kita. Dan kita pasti akan mampu menatap ke depan dan mencari penggantinya...

Namun,bagaimana bila orang yang kita cintai ternyata tidak merasa sanggup untuk mempertahankan cintanya?padahal,kita tahu dia sangat mencintai kita dan demikian sebaliknya. Saya rasa,hal tersebut lebih sakit daripada sebuah perselingkuhan...
Saya pernah merasakannya, ketika menatap masa depan hubungan kami berdua bagaikan menatap pada sebuah danau yang keruh airnya.Saya tidak mampu melihat jernihnya air atau ikan-ikan yang berenang-renang di dalamnya. Dengan kata lain, danau itu bagaikan lubang tanpa dasar. Saat itu,,semua kenyataan yang kami hadapi begitu susah. Masalahnya bukan pada cinta kami,tapi pada keadaan kami yang sungguh tidak dapat terprediksi. Masa depan, seperti sebuah momok yang menakutkan bagi kami...

Tentu saja,saya sangat mencintai pasangan saya...tapi apabila diperhadapkan dengan situasi yang serba sulit tentulah,cinta tidaklah cukup. Saya mencoba berpikir rasional, menanggapi semua dengan pikiran jernih saya...jadi itu bohong jika menganggap perempuan itu cuma mengandalkan emosi saja,,perasaan saja...

Bagi kita, yang telah menginjak usia dewasa,,permasalahan cinta tidak semudah ketika kita berusia remaja. Yang hanya memandang cinta dan hubungan percintaan sebagai romansa yang penuh dengan canda tawa.Walaupun,ada juga rasa sakit.Akan tetapi, sebuah hubungan yang dewasa pastilah memiliki banyak pertimbangan di dalamnya. Kita tidak bisa secara serta merta menganggap semua tampak baik-baik saja. Banyak pertimbangan dan keputusan yang diambil haruslah bijak. Selain itu,,kita tidak bisa menganggap pasangan kita secara negatif,,tapi mereka pasti punya pemikiran yang mampu dicerna secara rasional...

Dalam posisi tersebut,,saya merasa berada dipersimpangan...ingin mencoba mempertahankan tapi saya sendiri juga sadar bahwa semua yang akan dihadapi sungguh berat. Permasalahannya tidak bisa dilihat secara hitam dan putih melainkan ada area abu- abu diantaranya.Dimana, kita harus berkompromi dan berbesar hati menerima...

(curhat colongan,,kadang cinta tidak melulu soal romansa)

Lullaby

Wah,,saya sedang menghadapi yang namanya persoalan cinta yang saya anggap tidak rasional...Kadang memang terlihat indah semua...sampai-sampai semua keburukan pasangan menjadi tidak ada di mata para pemabuk cinta...hasyah...saya harap saya tidak menjadi seorang pemabuk cinta...Bukannya egois,tapi cinta yang buta adalah cinta yang membunuh..walau saya adalah seorang perempuan bukan berarti saya mudah dibutakan dengan istilah " cinta"...bukan apa-apa,,sudah banyak saya merasakan getirnya cinta...(bukannya trauma) tapi hal-hal tersebut merupakan pembelajaran...nyata!
Saya tidak mau menggurui,,tapi hendaklah apa yang kita perbuat dipikirkan lebih jauh segala konsekuensinya,,mungkin terdengar mudah tapi sang pemabuk cinta tidak akan memikirkan segala konsekuensi tindakannya. Sebagai contoh, seorang perempuan yang tega merebut pasangan hidup orang lain,,,hal itu sangat-sangat tidak berperasaan...dia tidak memikirkan apa yang terjadi selanjutnya...kemudian...apa yang terjadi selanjutnya?? dia merasionalisasi segala tindakan buruknya,,dia menganggap itu semua rencana Tuhan...(hello,,Tuhan tidak pernah berencana buruk pada umatnya)...
Terlebih,,jika kita adalah perempuan,,perempuan merupakan sebuah entitas yang rapuh baik secara sosial ataupun secara budaya...segala tingkah laku perempuan disorot bak ratu panggung...walau,sebenarnya dia juga berhak bersembunyi di belakang panggung...
Sebaiknya, kita (perempuan) melihat segala sesuatu dengan bijak jangan mentah-mentah mempercayai pasangan...(yang ternyata tidak baik). Perempuan selalu berada dalam pihik yang dirugikan..
...agar bersifat objektif ada baiknya jika mendengar pendapat sahabat, dan orang terdekat karena mereka ammpu melihat permaalahan secara objektif,,setelah mendengar permasalahan secara objektif barulah kita mengadakan tindakan bersifat reflektif,,sehingga kita mampu memiliki pemikiran yang jernih,,,,

Sudah cukup belajar dari kesalahan orang lain,,jangan sampai menderita lagi atau terperosok pada lubang yang sama....

Happy Holidays " i am coming"

Weitzzzz,,,
aku mauw travelling lagi...asikkkkk...kali ini mungkin aku maw jalan-jalan ke Lampung masalahnya aku harus berjibaku dengan perasaan takutku....harus naik speedboat ke Krakatau...
Tapi sebelum liburan yang menyenangkan aku harus bekerja mengumpulkan uang...menjadi tukang susu untuk anak-anak SD...hahahahha...
lumayan dapat uang saku,,asiiikkkkk...
Tempat liburan kedua adalah pulau Bali(again!!!)kangen dengan suasana Ubud yang adem,,
suasana pantai di saat matahari tenggelam,,here we go again Bali...
Nah,,dampak dari jalan-jalan yang menyenangkan itu adalah kulit kecoklatan terbakar matahari...(kata orang bule siy eksotik),tapi kata bapak (kamu item banget siy...)...
Mulai deh mengembalikan wwarna kulit menjadi lebih cerah...perawatan ini itu...fiuuuuh...

Sekilas mengenai Kritik Sastra Feminis

Feminisme merupakan sebuah istilah plural yang mengacu pada teori dan sikap politik atau gerakan. Dalam istilah pertama, teori feminisme direlasikan dengan konsep jenis kelamin yang digunakan untuk mengatur kehidupan sosial, hal ini mengacu pada hubungan struktural antarjenis kelamin. Adapun, gerakan feminisme berhubungan dengan gerakan sosial yang mendukung terciptanya keadilan bagi kaum perempuan pada segala aspek kehidupan (Barker, 2000: 225). Dengan demikian, feminisme adalah serangkaian gerakan sosial, budaya dan politik serta teori dan filosofi moral yang ditujukan untuk menentang ketidakadilan gender dan diskriminasi yang terjadi pada perempuan.
Dalam perkembangannya ketidakadilan yang menimpa perempuan melebur dalam karya sastra karena dominasi budaya patriarki pulalah produksi dan penerimaan karya sastra berada ditangan kaum pria. Kebanyakan karya sastra ditulis dan juga dikritik oleh kaum laki-laki. Dalam dunia sastra yang penuh dengan imajinasi karakter tokoh laki-laki digambarkan sebagai seseorang yang memiliki ciri-ciri kepahlawanan dan tentu saja, penggambaran perempuan sesuai pula dengan imajinasi mereka. Tokoh perempuan dapat menjadi pahlawan (heroine) apabila sesuai dengan konsep-konsep yang telah ditentukan kaum laki-laki. (Hellwig, 2008: 10-11) Helen Cixous mengungkapkan mengenai gaya penulis laki-laki (l’ecriture masculine). Gaya menulis laki-laki merupakan tulisan “phallogosentrik” (phallogocentric writing) yang mengakar pada libidonya, sehingga mengaggap perempuan sebagai mahluk yang tidak diperhitungkan. Cara berpikir yang menekankan pada maskulinitas laki-laki menimbulkan kecenderungan misogini bagi tokoh-tokoh perempuan yang ada dalam tulisan tersebut (Arivia, 2003: 129). Cixous menjelaskan bahwa dalam tulisan laki-laki oposi biner banyak ditemui. Budaya patriarkhal mengasosiasikan laki-laki sebagai yang positif, aktif, tinggi dan hal-hal yang baik lainnya. Sementara perempuan berada dalam pihak yang negatif, pasif, rendah dan lain sebagainya. Sehingga menempatkan posisi perempuan sebagai pihak yang tak diperhatikan dan hanya menjadi yang lain (other) (Arivia, 2003:130).
Karya sastra yang pada umumnya adalah karya laki-laki menampilkan stereotype perempuan sebagai isteri dan ibu yang setia dan berbakti, perempuan manja. Pelacur dan wanita dominan. Sehingga mengkonsepsikan perempuan sesuai fantasi dan imajinasi laki-laki hal itu tentu saja tidak adil karena jauh dari itu semua perempuan juga memiliki perasaan-perasaan yang sangat pribadi, seperti penderitaan, kekecewaan, cinta dan hal tersebut tentu saja hanya mampu diungkapkan secara tepat oleh sang empunya tubuh yaitu sang perempuan itu sendiri ( Djajanegara, 2000: 19).
Djajanegara (2000:27) menulis bahwa kritik sastra feminis berawal dari hasrat para feminis yang ingin mengkaji karya-karya penulis perempuan di masa silam. Djajanegara menjelaskan bahwa dalam meneliti citra perempuan, kritik sastra feminis menekankan pada cara-cara mengungkapkan tekanan-tekanan yang dialami oleh tokoh perempuan dan diharapkan sang peneliti mampu mengungkapkan perlawanan-perlawanan yang dilakukan oleh sang tokoh perempuan dalam mengatasi tekanan-tekanan yang dialaminya.
Untuk memahami perempuan dan segala masalahnya maka kritik sastra feminis merupakan jalan yang tepat untuk dipilih .Kritik sastra ini memiliki tiga paradigma yaitu pada tahap pertama meneliti dengan kritis mengenai citra stereotipe perempuan. Hal ini menunjukkan cara pandang pengarang pria memandang dan menilai citra kaum perempuan dalam karyanya. Tahap kedua adalah menitikberatkan penelitian kepada karya-karya penulis perempuan pada masa lampau dengan kata lain meneliti dan mengevaluasi kembali penulis perempuan dan karyanya. Tahap ketiga adalah berusaha memecahkan masalah-masalah teoritis dan mempertanyakan keabsahan cara penilaian tradisional yang telah diterima masyarakat mengenai membaca dan menulis yang didasarkan pada pandangan laki-laki. Demikianlah sekilas mengenai kritik sastra feminis dan paradigmanya (Showalter, 1985: 3-17).

Social Criticism in Literature

Many authors receive their inspiration for writing their literature from outside sources. The idea for a story could come from family, personal experiences, history, or even their own creativity.

For authors that choose to write a book based on historical events, the inspiration might come from their particular viewpoint on the event that they want to dramatize. George Orwell and Charles Dickens wrote Animal Farm and A Tale of Two Cities, respectively, to express their disillusionment with society and human nature. Animal Farm, written in 1944, is a book that tells the animal fable of a farm in which the farm animals revolt against their human masters. It is an

example of social criticism in literature in which Orwell satirized the events in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. He anthropomorphises the animals, and alludes each one to a counterpart

in Russian history. A Tale of Two Cities also typifies this kind of

literature. Besides the central theme of love, is another prevalent

theme, that of a revolution gone bad. He shows us that, unfortunately,

human nature causes us to be vengeful and, for some of us, overly

ambitious. Both these books are similar in that both describe how,

even with the best of intentions, our ambitions get the best of

us. Both authors also demonstrate that violence and the Machiavellian

attitude of "the ends justifying the means" are deplorable.

George Orwell wrote Animal Farm, ". . . to discredit the Soviet

system by showing its inhumanity and its back-sliding from ideals [he]

valued . . ."(Gardner, 106) Orwell noted that " there exists in

England almost no literature of disillusionment with the Soviet

Union.' Instead, that country is viewed either with ignorant

disapproval' or with uncritical admiration.'"(Gardner, 96) The

basic synopsis is this: Old Major, an old boar in Manor Farm, tells

the other animals of his dream of "animalism": " . . . Only get

rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost

overnight we would become rich and free.'" (Orwell, 10) The other

animals take this utopian idea to heart, and one day actually do

revolt and drive the humans out. Two pigs emerge as leaders: Napoleon

and Snowball. They constantly argued, but one day, due to a difference

over plans to build a windmill, Napoleon exiled Snowball. Almost

immediately, Napoleon established a totalitarian government. Soon, the

pigs began to get special favours, until finally, they were

indistinguishable from humans to the other animals. Immediately the

reader can begin to draw parallels between the book's characters and

the government in 1917-44 Russia. For example, Old Major, who invented

the idea of "animalism," is seen as representing Karl Marx, the

creator of communism. Snowball represents Trotsky, a Russian leader

after the revolution. He was driven out by Napoleon, who represents

Stalin, the most powerful figure in the country. Napoleon then

proceeded to remove the freedoms of the animals, and established a

dictatorship, under the public veil of "animalism." Pigs represent the

ruling class because of their stereotype: dirty animals with

insatiable appetites. Boxer, the overworked, incredibly strong, dumb

horse represents the common worker in Russia. The two surrounding

farms represent two of the countries on the global stage with Russia

at the time, Germany and England.

Orwell begins his book by criticizing the capitalists and ruling

elite, who are represented in Animal Farm by Mr. Jones, the farmer. He

is shown as a negligent drunk, who constantly starved his animals.

"His character is already established as self-indulgent and uncaring."

(King, 8) Orwell shows us how, "if only animals became aware of their

strength, we should have no power over them, and that men exploit

animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat."

(Gardner, 97) What was established in Russia after the Bolshevik

Revolution was not true communism ("animalism"), which Orwell approved

of, where the people owned all the factories and land. Rather, "state

communism" was established, where a central government owned them.

Orwell thought that such a political system, "state communism," was

open to exploitation by its leaders. Napoleon, after gaining complete

control, did anything he wished - reserved the best for the pigs, and

treated the animals cruelly. The animals could not do anything, unless

they again realized their strength in numbers against their own kind.

Unfortunately, they were too stupid to realize this and accepted the

"status quo." It began when the milk and apples were appropriated to

the pigs, and continued to when the pigs could drink and sleep on

beds, until finally the pigs were the "human masters" to the rest of

the animals. Orwell criticized Germany, representing it as Pinchfield

Farm, which betrayed Animal Farm by paying for lumber with counterfeit

money. In real life, this represents the Soviet-Germany non-aggression

pact during World War II which Germany eventually broke. Eventually,

towards the end of the story, the term, "absolute power corrupts

absolutely," is proven, as the pigs, who retained all the privileges

for themselves, have evolved into a different caste from the other

animals. Orwell's implication is that "real" communism cannot exist in

the countries which claim to be communist. The ruling class -

politicians - own everything and ironically are therefore in total

control.

A Tale of Two Cities is a love story which chronicles the lives of

Charles Darnay, a Frenchman who renounced his link with the

aristocracy, and Sydney Carton, a wastrel who lived in England. Both

these characters fall in love with Lucie Manette, the daughter of Dr.

Alexandre Manette, unjustly imprisoned in France for 17 years. Though

Lucie marries Darnay, Carton still loves her and in the end, gives his

life to save Darnay for her. Dickens, who was fascinated with French

history, especially the French Revolution, begins by criticizing the

aristocrats' treatment of the poor people of France. In the seventh

chapter of book two, the Monsieur the Marquis had accidentally driven

his carriage over a young child, killing him. Instead of worrying

about the child's welfare, the Monsieur's reaction was to worry about

his horses: "One or the other of you is for ever in the way. How

do I know what injury you have done to my horses."(Dickens, 111) He

deemed their lives inferior and insignificant, as illustrated when he

threw a gold coin to the child's devastated father as compensation.

The Monsieur the Marquis revealed his true sentiments to his nephew:

"Repression is the only lasting philosophy. . . fear and slavery, my

friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip. . ."(Dickens, 123)

Dickens makes it abundantly obvious that the aristocrats are to meet

doom, with symbolic references to fate and death. For instance, as the

Monsieur the Marquis rides through the country, a glowing red

sunset appeared over him, signifying his bloody death. In the words of

the author, ". . . the sun and the Marquis going down together. .

."(Dickens, 114) Madame Defarge's knitting is also a symbol of

impending doom, as she records the names of all those who are to die

when the revolution takes place.

Dickens also expresses his disillusionment with some of the

outcomes of the French Revolution. He believed that the people did

not just liberate themselves, but also took vengeance towards the

aristocracy. This is confirmed in the conversation between the

revolutionaries: " Well, well, but one must stop somewhere. After all,

the question is still where?' At extermination,' said

madame."(Dickens, 341) Madame Defarge embodies this attitude, as she

wants to have Charles Darnay killed, not because he has done something

wrong, but because he is related to the Evr‚monde family, which killed

her relative. Though "Dickens seems almost to regard violence as the

one way to bring about social change,"(Lucas,288) he then began to

denounce the actions taken by some of the revolutionaries. The

citizens let their righteous cause turn into vengefulness. Even

servants and maids to the aristocrats were beheaded, although they had

not really done anything wrong.

Animal Farm and A Tale of Two Cities were written to express their

authors' disenchantment with the state of evolution of human nature.

They seem to be saying, that even when we begin with honourable

intentions, there will be some of us who will let their base instincts

take control. Orwell, in Animal Farm portrays this nature by parodying

events in real history. Given the right conditions, those events could

happen anywhere - a leader becoming overly ambitious, to the point of

harming his people for morepower. In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens

examines the inner soul, and shares with us how people are driven to

the valley of human emotions, where desperation and anger reign, and

what could happen afterwards if we let these emotions build up inside.

Every human being is capable of becoming a ruthless, opportunistic

being like Napoleon or Madame Defarge, if placed in the right place,

at the right time.

cintailah aku sepenuh hati

Saya mulai meragukan yang namanya cinta apabila itu sakit dan membuat perih. Saya berani jamin itu bukan cinta melainkan salah satu bentuk penindasan. Maka benar pendapat Sartre cinta mengakibatkan satu pihak menjadi liyan (the other) dan pihak lainya menjadi pusat dan penindas. Saya tidak percaya kalau itu cinta apabila dia menyakiti saya, berkata kasar dan melukai hati saya...
Itu hanya sebuah fatamorgana yang tak ada ujungnya...
Sekarang tanyakanlah pada dirimu sendiri...apakah itu benar itu cinta apabila menyakitkan?Padahal cinta itu harmoni jiwa yang membuat segalanya tampak indah walau sebenarnya busuk. Inikah yang disebut cinta?apabila berujung pahit...pikirkanlah lagi apakah itu cinta...

Permasalahan ini bukan pada para pengajar,,

Saya sungguh terkaget-kaget,,ketika seorang bertanya kepada saya...
"Bagaimana membuat Reading class menjadi kelas yang tidak membosankan?"
Tentu saja saya terdiam sejenak,,tentu saja hal tersebut menjadi agak mustahil mengingat dan menimbang adanya penyakit"daya baca yang sangat-sangat rendah" pada diri anak-anak Indonesia. Bukankah itu pertanyaan yang sungguh ironis,,,semua tergantung pada individu masing-masing. Tetap saja, jika saya sebagai pengajar, saya akan memberikan tugas membaca,,akan tetapi mungkinkah akan dibaca dengan baik??? Para pengajar hanya mampu memberikan cara-cara memahamai teks.Bukan metodenya yang harus diubah melainkan bagaimana meningkatkan kesadaran membaca di kalangan intelektualis...
Lagi-lagi saya harus mengelus dada,,,,

An Introduction to Deconstruction

In traditional disciplinary of literary criticism, structuralism has played a crucial position in text signification. Structuralism has conquered the areas of humanities and social sciences for years; for example, it provides objective account of all social and cultural practices, in range that includes mythical narratives, literary texts, fashion, and more. The structuralism requires the rules of signs and procedures to achieve the cultural significance and to specify what significance is (Abrams, 1999: 300).

The name of structuralism is a more methodical approach to the kind of criticism that has long been accepted as a canon of academic teaching (Norris, 2004: 20). Structuralism is based on Saussure’s influential and radical insights, as follow (Habib, 2005: 634):

· Language has prominent role in shaping world because it can provide understanding of world.

· Language is a system of signs. Its signification depends on its difference from other signs and generally on its situation within the entire works of signs.

· Language has two dimensions: langue (it refers to language as a structured system grounded on certain rules) and parole (the specific acts of speech or utterance which are based on those rules).

In literary studies, structuralist criticism views literature as a second-order signifying system that uses the first-order structural system of language as its medium, and is itself to be analyzed primarily on the model of linguistic theory. There are several salient concepts which relate to the relationship between literature and structuralism, as follow (Abrams, 1999:301):

• A literary work is deemed as “text” which follows the certain pattern of literary conventions and codes. It assumes that there is no reality which can be obtained outside literary system.
• The conscious “self” is declared to be a construct that is itself the product of the workings of the linguistic system and the mind of an author is described as an attributive part within which the impersonal, existing system of literary language, conventions, codes, and rules of combination into a particular text.
• Structuralism replaces the author into the reader as the central agency in criticism; however, the traditional reader, as a conscious, purposeful, and feeling individual, is replaced by the impersonal activity of “reading” and what is read is not a work fills with meanings, but writing. The focus of structuralist criticism, hence, is on the impersonal process of reading which, by taking into the requisite conventions, codes, and expectations. Therefore, it makes literary sense of the sequence of words, phrases, and sentences as merely a text.

The structuralism has evoked the disagreement because structuralism is an outlook that lends support to traditional ideas of the text as stable meanings and the critic as a faithful seeker after truth in the text. It means that literary meanings are determined by a system of invariant conventions and codes (Norris, 2004: 3). The ideas of structuralism are confronted by the school of poststructuralism, according to Abrams, the poststructuralism is “ a broad variety of critical perspectives and procedures that in the 1970s displaced structuralism from its prominence as the radically innovative way of dealing with language and other signifying systems” (Abrams, 1999: 238). In other words, poststructuralism is a continuation and simultaneous rejection of structuralism. Therefore, the roots of poststructuralism are the concepts, procedures, findings and ideas of structuralism because the thoughts of poststructuralism cannot be invented without structuralism.

The salient features or themes that are become the characteristics of poststructuralism perspectives include the following (Abrams, 1999:238-242):

• The word theory often designates an account of the general conditions of signification that determine meaning and interpretation in all domains of human action, production, and intellection. In most cases, this account is held to apply not only to verbal language, but also to psychosexual and sociocultural signifying systems. The postructuralist theory covers the ways of thinking in all provinces of knowledge. The poststructuralist theory tries to undermine the foundational concepts in traditional modes of discourse in Western civilization (including literary criticism).
• The decentering of the subject. To decenter, in other words, is to delete what is often called the “agency” of the author as a self-coherent, purposive, and determinative human subject.
• The decentering or deletion of the author causes the reader, or interpreter, as the focal figure in poststructural accounts of signifying practices. The meanings of literary works are lain on readers’ mind to interpret texts.
• In poststructural criticism, discourse has become a very prominent term ; discourse has become the focal term particular social conditions, class-structures, and power-relationships that alter in the course of history.
• The poststructuralism views that the surface or overt meanings of a literary or other texts serve as a ‘disguise’ or ‘mask’ of its real meanings, or subtext.

The poststructuralist movements entail deconstruction; deconstruction is avowedly ‘poststructuralist’ in its refusal to accept the idea of structure as in structuralism has been provided. Derrida via Abrams (1999:60) briefly states the concept of deconstruction which is often cited from The Critical Difference:

“Deconstruction is not synonymous with destruction. The de-construction of a text does not proceed by random doubt or arbitrary subversion, but by the careful teasing out of warring forces of signification within the text itself. If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another”.

Deconstruction is an intellectual movement which is considered as a breakthrough to confront the absolute truth in a single interpretation of a text, mainly, in Western Philosophy. It designates a theory and practice of reading which has a purpose to subvert or to undermine the assumption that the system of language provides grounds that are adequate to establish the boundaries, the coherence or unity, and the determinate meanings of a literary text (Habib, 2005: 649). In other words, the deconstruction has been manifold way of reading, a mode of writing, and, above all, a way of challenging interpretations of texts based upon conventional notions of the stability of the human self, the external world, and of language and meaning.

The theory had been invented by Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), an Algerian-born French philosopher. It provides procedures for deconstructing the foundations of Western metaphysics:

“Deconstruction as a mode of interpretation works by a careful and circumspect entering of each textual labyrinth.... The deconstructive critic seeks to find, by this process of retracing, the element in the system studied which is alogical, the thread in the text in question which will unravel it all, or the loose stone which will pull down the whole building. The deconstruction, rather, annihilates the ground on which the building stands by showing that the text has already annihilated the ground, knowingly or unknowingly. Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself “(Miller via Abrams, 1999: 60).

Thus, the deconstruction has given a new perspective to dig out the meanings which build a text. This theory tries to re-interpret the text so that the hierarchy of structure which contains unbalance position of one another (one structure is positioned higher compares to other structure) can be reformulated into the new structure. The new structure can reverse the hierarchy of former structure.

The concepts of deconstruction have several focal points which have been summarized by the writer into four main concepts, as follow:

1. Deconstruction is Confronting Logocentrism

Deconstruction is a reaction toward Western philosophy which tends to focus on one single interpretation or one main truth; for example, divinity, rationality, existentialism and more. Those concepts play important role in Western philosophy. In other words, logocentrism (the metaphysic of presence) is defined as the belief which is based on one reality or the center of all truths which are deemed as basic foundation of human’s activities. Because there is one single truth, the thought has created that there is a center of everything and other thoughts are considered as marginal parts (other) which are neglected (Castle, 2007: 79-80). Hence all Western culture, are logocentric; that is, they are centered or grounded on a “logos” or, as stated in a phrase Derrida adopts from Heidegger, they rely on “the metaphysics of presence” (Abrams, 1999:56).

Derrida uses the term of logocentricm as the substitution of “metaphysic” to highlight the concept of logos. The concept of logocentrism is defined as the concept which becomes the fundamental belief. Western philosophy assumes that there is an essential truth taking important role as foundational belief. Therefore, the transcendental signifier is longed to create stability of meaning (Sarup, 2008:52-53).

The principle is created because there are accepted and rejected concepts. Thus, the binary opposition appears in signification process. Binary opposition is a classification which relates to two different things. The classification consists of differences (dichotomy) and hierarchy. Hierarchy is a sequence which brings concept of superiority to another. From its concept, a part plays a superior or center position. According to Derrida, the binary opposition entails signifier/signified, tangible/intangible, langue/parole, diachronic/ synchronic, space/time, passive/active so that the binary opposition can be deconstructed (Sarup, 2008:53).

The way of thinking which poses dichotomy point of view creates the text which has phallogocentrism perspectives. The ideas create women in inferior position so that they are alienated and distorted. Deconstruction can show the dichotomy perspectives in a text and it can contribute the deconstructive approach to reveal discrimination toward women. Derrida confronts logocentricm ideas because there is no single meaning which stands as a center of everything. Consequently, deconstruction has given opportunity to minor meaning to stand as a new center. Derrida states that it is important to destruct or to reorganize binary opposition in order to show that a meaning cannot be divided from other meanings (Sarup, 2008:53-56).

2. Deconstruction is Questioning the Relationship between Signifier and Signified

Derrida insists that the distinction between signifier and signified cannot legitimately be made; for him, the means of expression is inseparably bound with its content. Consequently, Derrida claims that, there is no fixed conceptual order amongst signifiers (Stokes, 2006: 189-190).

Derrida criticizes Course in General Linguistics which was written by Saussure. He declares that there are distinct differences between signifier and signified. Signifier and signified in structuralism is closed and restricted so that there is no opportunity to create new meanings. Derrida rejects those concepts; he states that the final signification can be achieved if there is a final meaning or a fixed meaning which has stability. If the concept is absent in the application, every signified as its turn will function as signifier in signification process (Sarup, 2008: 56). For instance, signifier (speech) C-H-A-I-R refers to signified (concept) a wooden tool to sit which has four racks. Derrida refuses the concept; he states that there are wide signification process because signification is a continuity.

3.Deconstruction is Questioning the Ultimate Position of Phonocentrism

Utterance or phonocentric is considered as higher level compares to writing. Utterance is more privileged because it is near to the presence. The utterance stands in superior position since the utterance represents spontaneity of speakers. The meaning in utterance is immanent meaning. It is also deemed as closer entity to psyche of human being than the writing which has distance of speaker. Thus, the writing derives from utterance. Derrida denies the concept; he proves that the writing has crucial position. He uses the word differance which is constructed from two different words, to differ and to defer if the word is read will be said in the same sound. Therefore, the differences in meaning just only be known through writing. As a consequence, the writing challenges the structure which has distinct concept. Derrida also uses the concept “to defer” to show the signification of a thing will be retarded in its signification process. It means that the meaning always change and it does not have stability and it is retarded because there is no subject who speaks (Sarup, 2008: 63-64).

4. The Concept of Trace and Intertextuality

A text always refers to other texts. The text has correlation with other texts and it creates unlimited link. Every part of text contains meaning even in the smallest part of text and each part brings trace from the past. It can be connected to other texts. As a result, there is no independent text because every text has relation with other texts. The trace and intertextuality can be seen from the reader who interprets the text. Hawthorn states that intertextuality is a relation between two or more texts which has an effect upon the way in which the text within which other text reside (1994:99). The interpretation of a text refers to the active role of reader to interpret the text. Deconstruction gives wide space to reader to obtain meanings from a text so that the role of the author becomes useless. All in all, the reader has crucial part to reinterpret the text (Sarup, 2008: 78-79).

The deconstructive approach can be applied in literary works. This method contributes the invention of new meaning in literary text. According to Subur Wardoyo (2004: 351), the application of deconstructive approach in a literary work covers several steps, namely:

1. To locate binary opposition in a text
2. To determine which member is more privileged
3. To reverse and to undermine the hierarchy of the structure

(now,,you can learn about deconstruction approach)

Sastra dan Kehidupan Manusia

Sastra merupakan bagian integral dalam kehidupan manusia. Karya sastra memegang peranan yang sangat penting dalam kehidupan manusia, walaupun pada hakikatnya karya sastra merupakan hasil imajinasi. Daiches mengacu pada Aristoteles menyatakan bahwa karya sastra merupakan suatu karya yang menyampaikan suatu jenis pengetahuan yang tidak dapat disampaikan dengan cara lain (Daiches, 1974: 24-25). Dengan kata lain, karya sastra merupakan sebuah media komunikasi yang sangat penting bagi kehidupan manusia. Terlebih, karya sastra adalah sebuah prototipe dari perilaku sosial masyarakat, sehingga penciptaan karya sastra tidak dapat dilepaskan dari masyarakat. Sastra merupakan sebuah produk budaya yang tercipta dari budi masyarakat sehingga karya sastra tidak tercipta secara tiba-tiba melainkan melalui sebuah proses pemikiran dan daya kreatif pengarang. Karya sastra yang telah diciptakan oleh pengarang tentulah sarat dengan nilai-nilai yang terkandung dalam masyarakat. Dengan demikian, sebuah karya sastra merupakan sebuah cermin atau refleksi dari masyarakat yang ditangkap oleh pengarang melalui sudut pandangnya. Akan tetapi, tidaklah bijak apabila mengganggap karya sastra sebagai sebuah cerminan masyarakat yang mampu membidik semua persoalan yang ada dalam masyarakat, karena pengarang memiliki sudut pandangnya sendiri (Damono, 1978: 1-2). Seperti telah diketahui, seorang pengarang merupakan anggota masyarakat yang telah dibentuk oleh lingkungannya melalui serangkaian proses formal dan informal sehingga seorang pengarang telah dibekali oleh pengetahuan-pengetahuan yang kelak akan dituangkan kedalam karyanya yang secara langsung maupun tidak langsung dapat menjadi manifestasi dirinya maupun refleksi semangat zaman (the spirit of age). Semangat zaman atau zeitgeist dapat membentuk fantasi pribadi pengarang, fantasi pribadi pengarang selanjutnya tertuang secara tersurat maupun tersirat dalam karya sastra ciptaannya (Rockwell, 1974:3-7). Sebagai sebuah dunia imajiner yang terbentuk berdasarkan fakta-fakta sosial yang ada dalam kehidupan masyarakat karya sastra dapat dijadikan sebuah acuan untuk memahami masyarakat pada suatu masa, walaupun kejadian yang digambarkan dalam karya sastra tersebut bersifat remeh bahkan absurd sekalipun. Oleh karena itu, karya sastra dapat memberikan informasi tentang fakta-fakta mengenai ragam kebudayaan (adat, norma, struktur kelas sosial, dll) yang ada dalam suatu masyarakat dan juga serangkaian sistem nilai dan perilaku yang bersifat subtil. Dengan demikian sastra bukan saja sebatas cerminan masyarakat namun juga memiliki kandungan fakta yang layak untuk diperhatikan (Rockwell, 1974: 4). Sastra dalam hubungannya dengan hasil kreasi dan imajinasi pengarang, karya sastra tidak dapat dipisahkan dari masalah psikologis ataupun kejiwaan dari sang pengarang yang tertuang melalui tokoh-tokoh dalam karya sastra. Tokoh dalam karya sastra merupakan imitasi dari manusia yang ada dalam kehidupan nyata. Dengan demikian, tokoh dalam karya sastra juga memiliki karakteristik yang bersifat manusiawi (Ratna, 2008: 342-343). Oleh karena itu, karya sastra yang hanya dianggap sebagai sebuah karya yang tercipta dari daya imajinasi ternyata mampu memberikan suatu cerminan nyata bagi kehidupan manusia sebagai individu secara pribadi namun juga sebagai bagian dari masyarakat yang hidup pada suatu masa.