Here , there and everywhere

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Cerita yang memang Sedikit

Sedikit Cerita tentang Menulis

“Selamat pagi Bu Atwin, ini Bab 1 saya setelah diperbaiki dan direview lagi. Makasih bu, hope this one is better J” (dikirim pada 5 Juni 2014).

Kutipan tersebut tak hanya merupakan sebuah kalimat yang senantiasa saya kirimkan kepada ibu Aquarini Priyatna selaku pembimbing utama dalam penulisan skripsi, namun juga sebuah kalimat yang menandai proses pembelajaran mengenai menulis dengan hati dan kaitannya dengan tanggung jawab. Saya ingat betul ketika kali pertama saya bimbingan dengan Bu Atwin di hari Senin, beliau berkata bahwa 45 menit yang kami gunakan ketika itu terbuang sia-sia disebabkan oleh cara menulis saya yang begitu sulit dimengerti dan penulisan dalam Bahasa Indonesia yang juga buruk. Saya terkejut.

Di hari Kamis, saya bimbingan lagi dengan Bu Atwin di kantor beliau. Giliran pertama adalah Kak Nita, lalu Kak Fania yang sukses mendapatkan pujian dari Bu Atwin atas tulisannya. Lalu majulah saya yang ketika itu yakin bahwa tulisan saya juga tak kalah baik dari tulisan mereka berdua. Namun yang kemudian terjadi di ruangan itu adalah tulisan saya yang justru merakit mesin penenun hujan untuk kedua mata saya. Bu Atwin masih menolak, beliau berkata bahwa tak ada perbaikan yang signifikan. Saya panik. Saya harus kembali ke kursi tunggu, lalu berusaha kembali lagi ke Bu Atwin, namun ketika menghadap beliau, tak tahu mengapa koneksi internet buruk, lalu saya pasrah dan kemudian pipi saya basah.

Lucu memang jika diingat saya sampai menangis. Ketika itu saya menyadari betapa gawatnya situasi saya yang apabila menulis tidak dapat langsung menyentuh inti, tidak benar menggunakan tanda baca, dan tidak tepat menggunakan berbagai macam kata. Terlebih lagi baru Bab 1. Saya menyadari kebodohan tersebut dengan tangisan, namun kemudian Bu Atwin mengatakan sesuatu yang pada akhirnya memberikan perubahan besar bagi pola pikir saya mengenai menulis. Saya ingat beliau berkata bahwa menulis bukanlah ajang pamer. Beliau juga berkata bahwa menulislah dengan jujur sehingga makna tulisan dapat sampai kepada siapapun yang membacanya. Saya harus menulis dengan hati.

Mulai saat itu, saya berusaha lebih keras. Usaha saya di Bab 1 belum selesai karena harus menempuh proses kurang lebih 5 kali bolak-balik ke Bu Atwin. Namun pada tanggal 14 Agustus kemarin akhirnya saya berhasil mendapatkan nilai A untuk skripsi saya dan janji yang pernah saya ucapkan untuk bisa sedikit meringankan beban Bu Atwin pun terpenuhi.

Ibu Aquarini Priyatna, saya benar mensyukuri segala dukungan dan nasihat ibu, terutama ketika peristiwa menangis itu. Peristiwa itulah yang membuat saya sadar bahwa saya masih begitu egois dalam menulis. Terimakasih untuk selalu menginspirasi. Much love for you bu J.

Namun tak berhenti disini, 
saya juga ingin menyampaikan pesan rahasia ke Pak Ari Jogaiswara bahwa saya bangga dengan tulisan saya. Saya bahagia bisa membuat tulisan mengenai George Eliot sebagaimana rekomendasi bapak ketika oral test Critical Theory berlangsung. Saya bahagia karena Pak Ari lah yang pertama kali membimbing menulis skripsi sekitar 6 bulan lalu. Saya bahagia karena bulan April lalu Pak Ari mengetik nama saya berada di urutan pertama untuk maju pada SUJS. Saya mengucapkan terimakasih banyak kepada bapak dengan harapan bahwa Pak Ari tidak akan bertanya “kenapa?”. Thank you sir for always being that amazing.

Lalu untuk Pak Taufiq Hanafi, terimakasih banyak untuk nasihat dan masukan dari bapak agar saya lebih berhati-hati lagi ketika membahas posisi perempuan dalam novel. Terimakasih banyak telah membuat saya memikirkan lagi arti kata representasi yang senantiasa saya gunakan dalam skripsi saya. Terimakasih telah menunggu saya dan Ira selama dua juta tahun lamanya untuk bimbingan ketika itu. Terimakasih untuk sidang kemarin. Saya bahagia bisa dibimbing Pak Taufiq karena membuat banyak mahasiswi iri khusunya angkatan 2011 (this one is not serious). Thank you Pak Taufiq.

Begitu juga untuk Pak Sandya Maulana dan Ibu Linda Rachman yang telah menguji dan turut memberikan nilai kepada skripsi saya. Saya ingat betul ketika sidang ada satu pertanyaan tentang perbedaan metode dan metodelogi penelitian dari Bu Linda yang kemudian Pak Sandya bantu arahkan kepada saya. Thank you.   

Dan terakhir, selamat untuk teman-teman yang juga berhasil menempuh Sidang Skripsi dan terimakasih juga dukungan dan bantuannya selama ini! 

 Monicha Nelis  
     
   

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Projection and the Lower Class Body in Purgatory

Purgatory (1953) is a play written by William Butler Yeats which only consists of two male characters in the story, Boy and his father, Old Man. The two characters are set outside from an old house which is actually the house where the young Old Man stabbed his own father using the knife he uses to cut food and to kill the Boy. Purgatory presents the different treatment of representing the class distinction not only in economy but also in gender. Boy is represented inhabiting the lower economic place while the Old Man is on the higher place. Boy is also represented only as Purgatory’s hearer while Old Man is as its speaker. Boy is placed by the play as subordinate to Old Man as if woman to man. It represents Purgatory’s another treatment of class-distinct body not only in economy but also in gender. The representation is gathered in two ways, first is done by Purgatory’s process of projection of images, and second, by Purgatory’s properties of stage. 
Old Man’s head which is operated as the play’s images projector signifies his power of control. It can be seen on the play that Old Man’s voices dominate the whole plot. The story goes as well as Old Man speaks about his own story. He projects his whole body and soul not only to Purgatory’s audiences but also to Purgatory’s entire theatrical sphere (to the house, tree, and windows) which I argue as one of the aspects of discriminating “the silent Boy” as Purgatory’s lower body. It is Old Man who projects his voice to Boy who can only follow and even absorbs the voices, as writes Breen (1989) “talking and seeing, not listening, determine the father's (Old Man) relation to his son (Boy)” (51). It is indeed that Boy is also given the voices too in speaking but not for showing his independence and existence, but rather to speak for echoing the image which is projected by Old Man. In replying to Old Man’s image projection to Boy about “…come to sixteen years old my father burned down the house when drunk” (432), Boy is presented as a mimic of the Old Man in the same term of “almost the same but not quite” (Bhabha 1949). Boy tries to be the same as the Old Man by replying “but that is my age, sixteen years old,” (ibid) which signifies that the way Purgatory projecting its images supplies Old Man’s autonomy power in Purgatory.
Boy who plays the role only as an Old Man’s dark side reflection also represents how Purgatory deal with the class distinction. Old Man holds a power in projecting his father’s image to Boy by assuming that Boy will be the same as his father if he gives him the money (434). This scene of Boy’s failures in taking Old Man’s bundle of money represents Old Man’s economical power and Boy is economical-weakness. The situation which presents Old Man as economically powerful is also symbolized more thoroughly by the appearance of property belong to Old Man, “Grand clothes and maybe a grand horse to ride” (432). Boy as the subordinate body which is presented entirely not having any kind of property, not appreciated in speaking his equal economy privilege but only to lose and still following Old Man’s muttering, identifies that Boy is placed in a lower economy class than Old Man by the way Purgatory projecting its image to Boy and audiences only through Old Man.
Old Man asks the Boy to ‘study that house’, ‘study that tree’, and ‘look at the window’ without answering Boy communicatively represents that Old Man does not hear or even see Boy equally with him. Boy is only presented to hear the Old Man and Old Man is presented to come in a monologue (not communicating with anyone beside himself) implies Purgatory’s significance in representing Boy as an image of female which produced by the male’s point of view, as Breen writes;
In a play which focuses simultaneously on the inextricability of male from female identity and the irreconcilability of upper- and lower-class voices, language does not exist so much between characters as within the ear of each (1989: 51).

Purgatory represents its specific treatment of class-distinct body not only through its image projection but also through the stage and actor’s properties. The knife is to symbolize the Old Man’s both economical and sexual power over the Boy. Knife is also economical because it represents the situation of man owning property like what I argue before. Boy is designed as an object to Old Man since he is presented to follow all of the Old Man’s passions and to have nothing at all even his own privilege in controlling himself are one of the Purgatory’s elements of the subjectivity of Old Man over-controlling the Boy’s body and soul through a symbol of knife. Knife is economical when it extends Old Man’s mental and physical strength to control the body and soul of the weaker who owns nothing, the Boy Boy’s but it is also sexual when knife is used to kill Boy’s body and soul which is presented as a place of Old Man to project his sexual desire to reach an orgasm ;
“My father and my son on the same jack-knife! That finishes- there- there- there- [He stabs again and again. The Window grows dark.]” (435).

That Old Man kills Boy with passion. The play presents the character’s tension of a very strong feeling of satisfaction by “he stabs again and again”. The Old Man which is presented enjoying the sensation of stabbing the Boy’s body is regarded as sexual. Purgatory claims Old Man’s sexual power and desire over the body-without-soul by that stabbing action (put a vital ‘tool’ in and out towards a body). Through that sexual representation, it is Old Man who is presented as a subject who does something to Boy, as an object. Old Man is only satisfying himself but leaving a sorrow to Boy just like the cases of woman who is rapped by a man. It then comes as a representation of how the lower class body is treated sexually yet violently in Purgatory.      

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Compartmentalized or Separated?

 A Short Response to The Projection of Images in M. Butterfly and Queen’s Garden

Hwang’s M.Butterfly presents its image projections within two ways, first directly through the voice of the character;
GALLIMARD. … This Chinese diva- this unwilling Butterfly- what did she do to make her so proud? The room was hot, and full of smoke. Wrinkled faces, old women, teeth missing – a man with a growth on his neck, like a human toad. All smiling, pipes falling from their mouths, cracking nuts between their teeth, a live chicken pecking at my foot-all looking, screaming, gawking … at her (20).
Second, the image which is projected through stage direction which is presented following character’s part above;   
(The U.S. area is suddenly hit with a harsh white light. It has become the stage for the Chinese opera performance. Two dancers enter, along with Song. Gallimard stands apart, watching. Song glides gracefully amidst the two dancers. Drums suddenly slam to a halt. Song strikes a pose, looking straight at Gallimard. Dancers exit. Light change. Pause, then Song walks right off the stage and straight up to Gallimard.) (20).
Those two images are presented separately, and continuously being projected by ‘the head’ of Gallimard as the projector of the images in M.Butterfly. Those two distinct images have been projected not only in a separation but also in a compartmentalization. Each of the projected image’s worlds is not able to affect another world’s image or even to recognize each other although they both are literary projected on the same stage. They have been compartmentalized.
Hwang’s M. Butterfly is in a bit contrast with Aoki’s The Queen’s Garden in projecting its images. In Queen’s Garden the images have not been totally compartmentalized-projected. The projected images are only separated. One of the projected images is under control by another one. The images which are constructed as Narrator’s imagination are projected somehow as similar as how it is done by Gallimard in M.Butterfly which is projected separately into parts by the ‘head’ of narrator but the Narrator in this play also takes another important role in regulating the drama’s image projection; she (as Brenda, female main character) has the privilege to regulate the story. Narrator in Aoki’s Queen’s Garden is given a very exclusive power related to that regulating role. It is possible for Narrator, if only Aoki let her be, to disturb the world of another projection outside her (Narrator). It is because she is presented to recognize everything about the story, because the image is totally constructed and projected only through her head, through her voice (Narrator’s dialogue) in the drama. Narrator’s world can be regarded as the first world while the other part is the second world. The whole play consists of two worlds where the first world, Narrator’s fantasy and imagination which is presented in the play, controlling the second world outside Narrator’s.  

Class-distinct Bodies in Purgatory

Purgatory (1953) is a play written by William Butler Yeats. Purgatory is a drama which only consists of two male characters, Boy and his father, Old Man. They are set outside from an old house which is actually the house where the young Old Man stabbed his own father using the knife he uses to cut food and to kill the Boy. Purgatory represents its specific treatment of class-distinct body through its dialogues, stage, and actor’s properties. The knife is to symbolize the Old Man’s both economical and sexual power over the Boy. It is economical because it represents the situation of man owning property, a knife which extends Old Man’s mental and physical strength to control the body and soul of the weaker who owns nothing, the Boy. The situation which presents Old Man as economically powerful is also symbolized by the appearance of another poverty belong to him, “Grand clothes and maybe a grand horse to ride” (432). Old Man’s economical power and Boy is economical-weakness are presented more thoroughly in the scene of Boy’s failures in taking Old Man’s bundle of money (434). Old Man is presented to have everything when Boy is nothing. Boy is designed as an object to Old Man since he is presented to follow all of the Old Man’s passions and to have nothing at all even his own privilege in controlling himself. Old Man’s asking Boy to “study that tree” and to ”study that house” without replying or giving his attention to Boy’s following opinion are one of the Purgatory’s elements to represent the subjectivity of Old Man over-controlling the Boy’s body and soul. Boy’s body and soul is presented as a place of Old Man to project the image of him as a sinner (he recognizes his error) and even his sexual passion also desire to reach an orgasm by killing Boy;
“My father and my son on the same jack-knife! That finishes- there- there- there- [He stabs again and again. The Window grows dark.]” (435).
That Old Man kills Boy with passion. The play presents the character’s tension of a very strong feeling of satisfaction by “he stabs again and again”. The Old Man which is presented enjoying the sensation of stabbing the Boy’s body is regarded as sexual. Purgatory claims Old Man’s sexual power and desire over the body-without-soul by that stabbing action (put a vital ‘tool’ in and out towards a body). Through that sexual representation, it is Old Man who is presented as a subject who does something to Boy, as an object. Old Man is only satisfying himself but leaving a sorrow to Boy just like the cases of woman who is rapped by a man. It then comes as a representation of how the lower class body is treated sexually yet violently in Purgatory.      





Monday, June 9, 2014

A Thinking of My Family: I Try to Be Honest so I Write

I am happy I was born as the first children in my family. I am happy to have parents like mom and dad. I am happy to have one sister who is 2 years younger than me and one brother whose age is almost 17.

My father is a big man. He got a big body also a big mind. He is a strong-willed person with big ambitions. But he never knows that in this world a man could never be so right. The world often beats him down but he tells me to never lose hopes. I love my father though he told me that he has failed to be a good father for our family. I love him though his words have placed us in the cruelest trouble of world but my father still could fulfill the time with laughs at when we watch our favorite sports together at home. My father does not bring my family a good fortune but for me he is that fortune. He is the father, the pride, my superhero.

My mother is a strong woman though the tears often rolled down on her cheeks. She is a good wife and a great mother but she does not see the world as same as my father. I love her though she says that I am her wretched girl.  I love my mother though she always denies all my decisions in life but she will ask God in her day-to-night prays to give her daughter the best way in dealing with the life.  My mother is the one that I will never understand. But I love her. She is my most supporter and I will always love her with the most love a woman can give. He is my mother and my angel of the house, my pure love.

My sister is a good girl. She loves God, the family, her friends, and local singer. I love her though she is very lazy to help me cleaning up the dishes but I can be just fine when in the morning she comes and offering me a cup of coffee. I love her though she is easy to make things in the family to be messier but she’ll love to tell us a fine story which makes everything easier. I love her though she easily cries on all problems but she will come as the toughest girl who can help me facing the problem. My sister is not the sweetest but she is the best friend of mine. My sister is not the nicest girl but my world will not be the nicest one without her. My sister is the sister. She is the life, my sunflower, and my happiness.          

My brother is a hard guy. His dream is to own money. I love him though he is very lazy to wake up every morning to go to school but he can safely pick me to the bus shelter in a very early Sunday morning. I love him though he is cruel in never replying me any messages but he will sit beside me on one evening to teach me the Oasis song and will pleasantly hear my guitar plays. I love him though he does not pay attention to my advice but he will angry to the stranger who annoys me on public. I love him though he has weeds on his pocket and alcohol on his desk but he never treats girl as toy. I love him though his ignorant of the world is the most part of himself but he will frequently ask me on the afternoon, “… then, how’s about mom and dad?” My brother is not the strongest or the weakest. Not the cruelest or the kindest. He is just the human, a growing up man, a boy, my favorite firelight in the cold snow.  

We have been through the hard times, the easy too. Family is a beautiful thing, a honest too. 
We have been through the worst times, the best too. Family is a peaceful thing, a modest too. 



Monicha Nelis, 
Goodnight.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Seminar on Literature Draft

(due to the academic regulation of Skripsi, text is narrated with Bahasa Indonesia)

This is not the final draft, this document is uploaded only to give a brief description about the thesis problem as well as how it was required.
  
Draft 1

Tokoh anak perempuan bernama Maggie Tulliver di dalam novel The Mill on The Floss karya George Eliot dihadirkan sebagai tokoh yang cerdas dan gemar membaca buku. Maggie lebih mampu berhasil dalam menggunakan imajinasinya daripada melakukan suatu kegiatan yang melibatkan tubuhnya. Maggie yang cerdas dan gemar membaca buku memberikan pandangan kepada Maggie untuk mengembangkan dirinya, untuk memiliki kesempatan yang sama dalam mendapatkan pendidikan, seperti apa yang laki-laki dapatkan, dipandang sebagai hal yang bukan sepantasnya perempuan lakukan pada masa itu karena adanya dominasi laki-laki yang begitu kuat mengatur struktur hidup masyarakat, yang seolah-olah sukses melemahkan perempuan.  Penyajian tersebut akan mengawali bahasan mengenai keinginan novel dalam membentuk konsep perempuan baru, perempuan yang ingin keluar dari keterbatasannya, yaitu dengan menghadirkan tokoh perempuan yang ingin menjadi seperti laki-laki, yaitu dengan cara meniru. Proses meniru yang dihadirkan novel mengindikasikan adanya kesadaran perempuan, hasil dari dominasi laki-laki, akan keterbatasan yang dimiliki perempuan sebagai perempuan itu sendiri, bagaimana konsep tersebut dihadirkan melalui Maggie Tulliver dalam The Mill on The Floss, dan Dorothea Brooke dalam Middlemarch. Namun, tokoh perempuan yang dihadirkan meniru laki-laki, dengan berusaha menjadi sebagai subjek, justru membuat ambivalensi dalam mendefinisikan konsep perempuan itu sendiri, karena dengan meniru laki-laki, berarti perempuan telah secara tak utuh juga menjadi laki-laki, walaupun tidak mungkin bisa didefinisikan sebagai laki-laki karena perempuan juga tetap perempuan, jadi dengan bentuk meniru ini (perempuan yang menjadi seperti laki-laki), perempuan secara sadar telah melepaskan label “gender” yang ia miliki, walupun bukan secara biologis namun secara filosofis, dan terindikasi bahwa novel memunculkan paham “genderless”, yang apabila dikaitkan dengan teknik narasi novel, yaitu dimana narrator mahatahu bertindak seperti laki-laki, dimana narrator memegang “wewenang” penuh terhadap ceritanya dengan memberi instruksi, persuasi dan regulasi terhadap tiap pemikiran karakter dan alur cerita yang dinarasikan secara detail. Namun, unsur perasaan dan sensibilitas yang kuat juga ditekankan oleh pemilihan kata yang dinarasikan oleh narrator,  layaknya perempuan. Wewenang narrator yang begitu kuat dalam mengatur cerita, seakan berlaku seperti God, semakin memperkuat keambivalensian gender yang dibangun oleh novel, dimana dikutip dari Lynn Alexander yang mengutip F.W.H. Myers yang menulis mengenai George Eliot, bahwa “She… taking as her text the three words … God, Immortality, Duty,… how inconceivable was the first,…” (1988: 152), dimana novel melalui suara narrator mahatahu yang hadir seperti sosok “God” yang “inconceivable”, seperti sosok yang tak terdefinisi dalam apapun, terutama gender dalam penelitian ini. Ambivalensi gender diperkuat dengan signifikansi tokoh Silas di dalam Silas Marner, dimana Silas yang secara biologis adalah laki-laki namun dibangun memiliki konsep seperti perempuan, dan konsep ini juga tersaji dalam tokoh Phillip di The Mill on The Floss dan juga Mr. Causabon di Middlemarch.        

Draft 2
Helene Cixous dalam essaynya The Laugh of The Medusa berbicara mengenai keterbatasan perempuan dalam mendapatkan pendidikan yang setara dengan laki-laki, terdapat ketika Cixous menjelaskan permasalahan sosok perempuan yang menulis yaitu sebagai suatu hal yang menurut lingkungan sosial kala itu, tidak sesuai dilakukan karena pandangan yang muncul memandang perempuan sebagai sosok yang lemah dan menulis hanya “reserved for the great-that is, for "great men"” (1976: 876)
George Willis Cooke dalam bukunya George Eliot; A Critical Study of Her Life, Writings and Philosophy: Theory of The Novel (1884) berbicara tentang suatu konsep perempuan di dalam dunia sastra ketika ia menjabarkan beberapa point mengenai pemahamannya dalam mendefinisikan penulis perempuan berdasarkan tinjauan detailnya terhadap karya- karya George Eliot:
1.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai diri perempuan yang menulis sebagai perempuan, bukan untuk menulis sebagai laki- laki yang menulis.
2.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “literary artist” yang bertujuan “to interpret the feminine  side of life”.
3.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “new element” dalam menginterpretasikan kehidupan khususnya melalui pengalaman dan cara pandang perempuan terhadap kehidupan.
Ketidaksetaraan kedudukan antara perempuan dan laki-laki banyak disuarakan dalam bentuk pemikiran yang melawan, juga mendeskontruksi paham mengenai perempuan itu sendiri. Margareth Fuller dalam tulisannya Woman in the 19th Century, menjabarkan konsep baru mengenai perempuan dimana untuk mendapatkan kesetaraan, perempuan bukan berarti harus berusaha untuk menjadi seperti laki-laki, yaitu berusaha untuk mengambil alih subjektivitas serta dominasi dari tangan laki- laki, namun perempuan hadir sebagai subjek untuk sisi kehidupan yang  bukan “wewenang” laki-laki, atau sama halnya dengan penjabaran Cooke mengenai perempuan sebagai “new element”, dan pemahaman Fuller bahwa perempuan adalah “the heart” dan laki-laki adalah “the head”. Namun, hal tersebut memunculkan ironi, walaupun perempuan tidak berusaha untuk masuk ke dalam dunia laki-laki dan seperti memunculkan kesan bahwa perempuan memiliki dunia sendiri yang ada diluar dunia laki-laki, kehadiran perempuan sebagai “the heart” atau “new element” justru menghadirkan pandangan bahwa perempuan juga secara sadar atau tidak memiliki keinginan untuk menjadi seperti laki-laki, menjadi subjek seperti laki- laki, menjadi sebuah dominasi seperti laki-laki. Perempuan tidak mendapatkan pengalaman yang sama dengan laki-laki dalam masa tumbuh kembangnya dan hal ini yang menyebabkan ketidakmampuan perempuan hadir sebagai subjek dimana menurut Rosseau dalam penjabaran Mary Wolstencraft bahwa “the first year of youth should be employed to form the body” (179), dimana perempuan pada masa kecilnya diajarkan untuk memahami diri mereka sebagai “ornament”, seperti anak perempuan yang senang bermain boneka dan menganggap diri mereka adalah boneka tersebut, yang nantinya membangun pemahaman anak perempuan tersebut terhadap diri mereka sebagai objek (177), dimana apa yang mereka pahami tentang perempuan adalah perempuan seperti benda yang memiliki kemampuan untuk “mendekorasi” diri mereka agar terlihat cantik, dimana cantik dipandang, bagi perempuan, sama halnya dengan kelemahan, karena mereka hadir hanya sebagai objek yang memberi kesenangan kepada subjek, kepada laki-laki, dimana perlakuan yang perempuan lakukan tersebut, merupakan hal yang sangat menyenangkan bagi laki-laki (178). 

Thank you,
Monicha Nelis

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Seminar Draft

Dalam The Mill on The Floss karya George Eliot tampak disajikan:
-keterbatasan yang dialami tokoh perempuan utama dalam memenuhi keinginannya memiliki pendidikan yang sama dengan laki- laki, karena statusnya sebagai perempuan
-keterbatasan yang dialami, tidak hanya oleh para karakter, namun juga pembaca, dan alur ceritanya sendiri dikarenakan kekuasaan penuh narator yang seperti memberikan aturan, layaknya hal yang sering dilakukan laki-laki, dan hal tersebut menunjukkan adanya paham laki- laki sebagai pusat ruang gerak segala aspek kehidupan,  dan menunjukkan adanya permasalahan dimana teks seperti memiliki keinginan dalam membentuk konsep baru mengenai perempuan yang dapat bergerak tanpa berpusat dengan laki-laki. Helene Cixous dalam essaynya The Laugh of The Medusa berbicara mengenai keterbatasan perempuan dalam mendapatkan pendidikan yang setara dengan laki-laki, terdapat ketika Cixous menjelaskan permasalahan sosok perempuan yang menulis yaitu sebagai suatu hal yang menurut lingkungan sosial kala itu, tidak sesuai dilakukan karena pandangan yang muncul memandang perempuan sebagai sosok yang lemah dan menulis hanya “reserved for the great-that is, for "great
men"” (1976: 876)
George Willis Cooke dalam bukunya George Eliot; A Critical Study of Her Life, Writings and Philosophy: Theory of The Novel (1884) berbicara tentang suatu konsep perempuan di dalam dunia sastra ketika ia menjabarkan beberapa point mengenai pemahamannya dalam mendefinisikan penulis perempuan berdasarkan tinjauan detailnya terhadap karya- karya George Eliot:
1.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai diri perempuan yang menulis sebagai perempuan, bukan untuk menulis sebagai laki- laki yang menulis.
2.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “literary artist” yang bertujuan “to interpret the feminine  side of life”.
3.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “new element” dalam menginterpretasikan kehidupan khususnya melalui pengalaman dan cara pandang perempuan terhadap kehidupan.

Kaitannya dengan laki-laki sebagai pusat kehidupan, sepertinya saya harus membaca tulisan Charlotte Perkins Gilman mendefinisikan sebuah paham Androsentris yang menunjukkan bahwa perempuan tidak akan pernah terlepas dari dominasi laki- laki yang sudah ada dan Simone de Beauvoir dalam The Second Sex, Lacan dalam On The Names of The Father, dan mengenai permasalahan ketidaksetaraan atau keterbatasan yang dialami wanita,  selain Cixous dalam The Laugh of The Medusa, juga merujuk kepada Virginia Woolf dalam The Room of One’s Own, Gibert & Gubart dalam The Madwoman in The Attic, dan mengenai permasalahan dominasi narator merujuk kepada Chatman dalam Story and Discourse, dan terbentuknya konsep perempuan  yang bisa saya rujuk kepada konsep penulis perempuan milik George Willis Cooke dalam analisanya terhadap George Eliot.