Deconstruction of the Main Protagonists in Ausma Zehanat Khan’s The Unquiet Dead
Abstract
Jacques Derrida coined two Deconstruction concepts: Binary Opposition and Logocentrism used to analyze the protagonist characters: Esa Khattak and his junior, Rachel Getty, in Ausma Zehanat Khan’s The Unquiet Dead (2013). The binary opposition analysis is used to reveal the binary of the character and its opposition. The results of the analysis show that Khattak as the main protagonist has Good Superior and Resolute traits as his dominant binaries; while Rachel Getty’s central binaries are Forthright and Independent. The concept of logocentrism is decentralizing the dominant binary to create a new center by putting it under erasure. Khattak is symbolized as Justice because his main binary represents the characteristics of justice which is associated with real-world, such as courts. Rachel Getty is symbolized as Feminism because the leading binary represents the characteristics of Feminism which is associated with examples of feminist such as Kartini as the independent women. Thus, Kahn’s novel reconstructs the protagonist characters to question our binary perspectives, such as good/bad, justice/injustice, and feminist/masculine.
Keywords
References
Adawiyah, R., & Hasanah, M. “Melawan Stigma Inferioritas Perempuan: Kajian Novel Midah (Si Manis Bergigi Emas) Karya Pramoedya Ananta Toer Dan Novel Di Balik Kerling Saatirah Karya Ninik M. Kuntarto” LITERA, vol. 19, no. 3, 2020, pp. 414–436. https://doi.org/10.21831/ltr.v19i3.35662
Aprilia, C., & Arianto, T. Binary Oppositions as the Result of Deconstruction Analysis in the Goldfinch Novel by Donna Tartt. JURNAL BASIS, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, pp. 65–74. https://doi.org/10.33884/basisupb.v8i1.2812
Ariwidodo, E. Logosentrisme Jacques Derrida dalam Filsafat Bahasa. KARSA: Journal of Social and Islamic Culture, vol. 21, no. 2, 2013, pp. 340. https://doi.org/10.19105/karsa.v21i2.38
Bressler, C. E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall College Div. 1994.
Faulton, Allen. Are There ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ People?, 29, July, 2022. Medium.
https://allen-faulton.medium.com/are-there-good-and-evil-people-f4f8aaa76883
Hendricks, G. P. A Derridarean critique of Logocentrism as opposed to Textcentrism in John 1v1. Koers - Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, vol. 79, no. 1, 2014. https://doi.org/10.4102/koers.v79i1.50
Khan, A. Z. The Unquiet Dead: A Novel (Rachel Getty and Esa Khattak Novels, 1) (Reprint ed.), 2015. Minotaur Books.
Nassaji, H. Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, vol. 19, no. 2, 2015, pp. 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
Norris, C. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice (New Accents) (3rd ed.). Routledge. 2002.
Nugraha, F. I., Saraswati, E., & Widodo, J. Dekonstruksi Jacques Derrida dalam Novel O Karya Eka Kurniawan. Jurnal Ilmiah FONEMA : Jurnal Edukasi Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia, vol. 3, no. 1, 2020, 27. https://doi.org/10.25139/fn.v3i1.2394
Powell, J., & Howell, V. Derrida For Beginners. For Beginners, 2007.
Powell, J., & Lee, J. Deconstruction For Beginners. For Beginners, 2008.
Putri, A., & Sarwoto, P. Saussurian Binary Opposition as the Narrative Structure of Williams’ Summer and Smoke. Journal of Language and Literature, vol. 16, no. 01, 2016, pp.82–98. https://doi.org/10.24071/joll.2016.160110
Romlah, I., Kuncara, S. D., & Muhajir, F. Deconstruction Perspective toward the Characters in Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper Short Story. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 2019, pp. 185–196.
Royle, N. (Ed.). Deconstructions: A User’s Guide. Red Globe Press, 2000.
Siregar, M. Kritik Terhadap Teori Dekonstruksi Derrida. Journal of Urban Sociology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 65–75. https://doi.org/10.30742/jus.v2i1.611
Skills, Abilities, and Personal Characteristics Desired in a Justice of the Peace. Ontario Court of Justice, 16, September, 2014. https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/jpaac/skills/
Suhada, D. N. Feminisme dalam Dinamika Perjuangan Gender di Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Sociology, Education, and Development, vol. 3, no. 1, 2021, pp. 15–27. https://doi.org/10.52483/ijsed.v3i1.42
Tyson, L. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide (2nd ed.). Routledge, 2006.
Wrangham, Richard. The Goodness Paradox — Why Humans Are So Good and So Bad, 1, March, 2019. CBC Radio. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/mar-2-2019-the-goodness-paradox-secrets-in-poop-converting-carbon-to-coal-and-more-1.5037008/the-goodness-paradox-why-humans-are-so-good-and-so-bad-1.5037033
DOI: 10.15408/mel.v3i1.39451
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.