Carnivalization of reality through nonsense in Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker`s guide to Galaxy : a deconstruction study - USD Repository
CARNIVALIZATION OF REALITY THROUGH NONSENSE
IN DOUGLAS ADAMS’ THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE
GALAXY: A DECONSTRUCTION STUDY
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters
By
EKA JAYANI AYUNINGTYAS NIANDITA
044214022
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
The Smiths – “Handsome Devil” to mates, to kin, and to caffeine
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Almighty for the life I have been granted. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Ms. Maria Ananta, S.S., M.Ed for her kindness and guidance to help me finish this thesis, as well as my co-advisor, M. Luluk Artika W., S.S., for her invaluable advise to improve this thesis.
My everlasting gratitude goes to my mother, father, and sister, as well as my grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins for their support and affection thus far. A person is nothing without friends to share joy and woe with, hence I sincerely thank everyone from the groups Nervous and Brilliant at Breakfast and the communities DeadMediaFM, House of Natural Fiber, Indiepop Rising
Club, and Studio DG, including Argha Mahendra, Budi Prakosa, Desiree Aditya,
Irfan Sylvanto, Marcello Vishnoe, Muhammad Ridho, Mumu Najib, Radian Kanugroho, Ramii, Silvia Faradila, Sutanto Effendi, Arkham Kurniadi, and many more. I thank everyone at Wisma Bahasa, Mas Bagus, Mbak Sisca, Mbak Tatiek,
Mas Agung, Pak Adrian Coen, Angga, Fajar, Gde, Laily, Prima, Ronnie, Wayan,
Yuan, Mas Djanu, Mas Sugeng, and the others for being more than just colleagues but also friends and mentors. I also thank my former classmates from the English Letters Department’s class of 2004 and from SMA Kolese Gonzaga.
I especially thank Risky Budiman, who has opened a whole new world for me, jammed to obscure pop songs with me, and incidentally, been a very important part of my life. Thank you for everything and let us grow old together.
No less deserving of gratitude are all the lecturers and the secretariat staff members of the English Letters Department, the Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University for the invaluable knowledge and assistance. Finally, I would like to thank every author whose writings I have read, every artist whose songs I have listened, every acquaintance who has wished me well, and everyone else whom I cannot mention by name.
Eka Jayani Ayuningtyas Niandita
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Eka Jayani Ayuningtyas Niandita Nomor Mahasiswa : 044214022
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
CARNIVALIZATION OF REALITY THROUGH NONSENSE IN DOUGLAS ADAMS’ THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY: A DECONSTRUCTION STUDY beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 5 Desember 2010
Yang menyatakan,
Eka Jayani Ayuningtyas Niandita
TABLE OF CONTENTS
C. Theoretical Framework .......................................................................... 16
Galaxy ..................................................................................................... 37
B. Binary Oppositions from Nonsense in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
3. Juxtaposition of Incongruous Contexts ............................................ 31
2. Nonsequitur ...................................................................................... 27
1. Inversion of Received Ideas ............................................................. 22
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 18
A. Object of the Study ................................................................................ 18 B. Approach of the Study ........................................................................... 19 C. Method of the Study ............................................................................... 20CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 22
A. Instances of Nonsense in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ............ 224. Theory on Deconstruction ............................................................... 14
TITLE PAGE ........................................................................................................... i APPROVAL PAGE ................................................................................................ ii ACCEPTANCE PAGE .......................................................................................... iii MOTTO PAGE ...................................................................................................... iv DEDICATION PAGE ............................................................................................. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................... vi LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN .................................................... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ix ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... xi ABSTRAK ............................................................................................................ xii
3. Theory on Carnivalization ............................................................... 13
2. Theories on Binary Opposition ........................................................ 11
1. Theories on Nonsense ........................................................................ 9
2. Oky Febianto’s “A Deconstruction Study of Dickens’ Canon in A Christmas Carol” ............................................................................ 7 B. Review of Related Theories ..................................................................... 9
1. Michelle Sala’s “Lear's Nonsense beyond Children Literature” ....... 6
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
A. Background of the Study ......................................................................... 1 B. Problem Formulation ............................................................................... 3 C. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................ 4 D. Definition of Terms ................................................................................. 4CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW ....................................................... 6
A. Review of Related Studies ....................................................................... 61. Human / Alien .................................................................................. 38
3. Nature / Science ................................................................................ 45
C. Carnivalization of Reality in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ...... 49
1. The Inversion of Human / Alien Hierarchy ...................................... 49
2. The Inversion of Fact / Fabrication Hierarchy ................................. 54
3. The Inversion of Nature / Science Hierarchy ................................... 57
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 62
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 67APPENDIX .......................................................................................................... 69
ABSTRACT
EKA JAYANI AYUNINGTYAS NIANDITA (2010). Carnivalization of Reality
through Nonsense in Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: a
Deconstruction Study. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of
Letters, Sanata Dharma University.
This thesis is a deconstruction study on the novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide
to the Galaxy. The novel is chosen because of the high amount of nonsense
contained in it. This study intends to prove that nonsense in literature is not really meaningless or purposeless, but may serve as a particular device – in this case, a device of carnivalization. Carnivalesque or carnivalization is a concept in culture which subverts everything official or conventional, but unlike other forms of subversion or rebellion, is distinguished by its comic nature. Thus, this study aims to discover how reality is carnivalized through the means of nonsense in the novel.
Three problems are formulated in this study, namely to identify the instances of nonsense in the novel, to discover the binary oppositions from the instances of nonsense, and to identify how the binary oppositions in the novel carnivalize the idea of reality.
The object of this study is a novel by Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s
Guide to the Galaxy. Library research is used as the method, while post-
structuralism is used as the approach of this study. After the topic was chosen and the research questions were formulated, the writer gathered related studies and theories. Gurewitch and Kronenberger’s theories of nonsense, Saussure and Derrida’s theories of binary opposition, Bakhtin’s theory of carnivalization and Derrida’s theory of deconstruction were used to analyze the novel. As the final step in the research, the findings of the analysis were written in this thesis.
The first part of the analysis examines the instances of nonsense in the novel, which can be classified into three types: the inversion of received ideas, the nonsequitur and the juxtaposition of incongruous contexts. The second part of the analysis examines three prominent pairs of binary opposition derived from the instances of nonsense in the first part, namely human/alien, fact/fabrication, and
nature/science. The final part of the analysis examines how the idea of reality is
carnivalized in this novel, namely when the hierarchies in the aforementioned binary oppositions are inverted and the values or meanings in each opposition are questioned.
ABSTRAK
EKA JAYANI AYUNINGTYAS NIANDITA (2010). Carnivalization of Reality
through Nonsense in Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: a
Deconstruction Study. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra,
Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Skripsi ini ialah studi dekonstruksi atas novel berjudul The Hitchhiker’s
Guide to the Galaxy. Novel ini dipilih justru karena banyak mengandung unsur
nonsense. Studi ini hendak menunjukkan bahwa nonsense dalam sastra bukan
sekedar kata-kata tanpa makna atau tujuan, namun dapat berfungsi sebagai alat tertentu – dalam hal ini, sebuah alat karnivalisasi. Carnivalesque atau
carnivalization/karnivalisasi merupakan sebuah konsep budaya yang
menjungkirbalikkan apapun yang resmi atau lazim; namun berbeda dengan bentuk-bentuk perlawanan atau pemberontakan yang lain, karnivalisasi mempunyai ciri khas sarat humor. Studi ini sendiri bertujuan meneliti bagaimana realita dikarnivalisasi dengan menggunakan media nonsense pada novel ini.
Topik ini diformulasikan dalam tiga masalah, yakni mengidentifikasi contoh-contoh nonsense dalam novel, menemukan oposisi-oposisi biner dari contoh-contoh nonsense tersebut, dan mengidentifikasi bagaimana oposisi-oposisi biner tersebut mengkarnivalisasi gagasan akan realita.
Obyek studi ini ialah novel karya Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide
to the Galaxy. Studi pustaka digunakan sebagai metode penelitian, sedangkan
post-strukturalisme digunakan sebagai pendekatan dalam penelitian ini.Pendekatan ini dipilih karena sangat erat hubungannya dengan topik dalam studi ini, dekonstruksi dan karnivalisasi. Setelah ditentukannya topik dan dirumuskannya masalah, penulis mengumpulkan teori dan studi yang mendukung. Teori nonsense Gurewitch and Kronenberger, teori oposisi biner Saussure dan Derrida, teori karnivalisasi Bakhtin serta teori dekonstruksi Derrida digunakan untuk mengkaji novel tersebut. Sebagai langkah akhir, hasil kajian lalu dituliskan dalam skripsi ini.
Bagian pertama dari analisa mengkaji contoh-contoh nonsense dalam novel, yang dapat digolongkan menjadi tiga: pembalikan gagasan umum,
nonsequitur, serta penyandingan konteks yang tidak sebanding. Bagian kedua
mengkaji tiga pasang oposisi biner utama yang dapat diambil dari contoh-contoh
nonsense pada bagian sebelumnya, yakni manusia/alien, fakta/kebohongan, dan
alam/ sains. Bagian terakhir mengkaji bagaimana gagasan atas kenyataan
dikarnivalisasi dalam novel ini, yaitu dengan diputarbalikkannya hirarki-hirarki di oposisi-oposisi biner di atas dan dipertanyakannya nilai atau makna pada setiap oposisi.
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study Gurewitch in Comedy: The Irrational Vision describes how the renowned
psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud views nonsense as something that can restore the joys derived from freedom in our infancy, beaten in efficiency only by alcohol.
Nonsense is not the only restorative of the joys of infantile freedom. Actually the most efficient, Freud observes, is alcohol (Gurewitch, 1975: 109).
With this implicit comparison, this notion undoubtedly suggests that reading nonsense literature is a milder version of drinking liquor, one might note with amusement. Despite that – or perhaps because of that – nonsense literature has existed for centuries. Nonsense literature, also known as literary nonsense, is described as a genre “associated with wit techniques and wit motives” and “bedeviled by a certain lack of clarity and a certain confusion of priorities” (Gurewitch, 1975: 109). Some examples of notable nonsense writers hail back from the Victorian era, such as Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear, followed by newer writers, including Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy .
Published in 1979, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is the first novel of the five-novel Hitchhiker “trilogy”, loosely adapted from BBC Radio 4 series by the same title. The novel has garnered major achievements: it made Adams the first British author after Ian Fleming who had three books in both the New York to win a Golden Pan for 1,000,000 paperback sales in 1984, with Adams as the youngest author to win the award, and it reached number 24 in the Waterstone’s Books/Channel Four’s “One Hundred Greatest Books of the Century” list in 1996 (http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/bio.html).
The novel follows the adventures of Arthur Dent, the only remaining Earthman after Earth is destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass, who was rescued by Ford Prefect, his friend from another galaxy. Regarding the genre, the novel is described as a “gently clever comedy science fiction” which Adams invented “to combine the fun of science fiction with a satire on society” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jun/09/douglasadams). Indeed, the appeal of this novel lies in its unusual content which is funny, full of wit and dry humour; the adjective dry, when referring to humour, is defined in Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary as “pretending to be serious” (Hornby, 1995: 359). Robert
McFarlane in The Observer discusses Adams’ works as follows.Few recent writers have had such an infectious prose style as Adams. With his fondness for paradox, his galactic perspective on things and his wonderful way with meaningful nonsense ('The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't'), his are the books which have launched a trillion quips (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/aug/ 12/sciencefictionfantasyandhorror.douglasadams).
Abound with nonsense, this work lends itself as the perfect object of study. However, is all that nonsense really nonsense, a random piece of text with no meaning or purpose whatsoever? McFarlane hints otherwise in his article, writing that Adams “had serious satirical points to make about the dogmatisms of their respective ages” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/aug/12/ theory of deconstruction, in which texts might not “mean what they say” (Chandler, 2002: 233). The procedures of deconstruction which are often used in literary criticism include identifying and subverting the hierarchy in the binary oppositions found in the text (Abrams, 1999: 58). This theory corresponds well with what is known as carnivalization, a literary mode that subverts and liberates the assumptions of the hegemony though humour and chaos (Honeycutt, 1994: 2). Thus, it is possible that as the carnivalization is dismantled, it would reveal that the work which seems crazily out of touch with reality, featuring literally alien setting and characters, in fact describes none other than reality.
For that reason, the writer chooses this topic for the study, with Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy as the object of the study. The writer seeks to analyze how reality is carnivalized in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to
the Galaxy through nonsense as the device, by means of deconstruction
procedures, namely identifying and subverting binary oppositions to find the meaning of the text.
B. Problem Formulation 1.
What instances of nonsense are shown in Douglas Adams’ The
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy ? 2.
What binary oppositions can be drawn from the instances of nonsense in the novel?
3. How do the nonsense and binary oppositions carnivalize the idea of reality?
C. Objectives of the Study
This study aims to answer the questions in the problem formulation. The first objective of the study is to identify the instances of nonsense in Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The second objective is to discover the binary oppositions out of the instances of nonsense in the novel. The third objective is to identify how the nonsense and binary oppositions in the novel carnivalize the idea of reality.
D. Definition of Terms 1. Nonsense
Nonsense literature, also known as literary nonsense, is described in
Comedy: the Irrational Vision as a genre “associated with wit techniques and wit
motives” and “bedeviled by a certain lack of clarity and a certain confusion of priorities” (Gurewitch, 1975: 109).
2. Binary Opposition
Binary opposition is defined as “Pairs of mutually-exclusive signifiers in a paradigm set representing categories which are logically opposed” (Chandler, 2002: 224), or “a pair of terms differentiated by their opposition to one another” (http://www.sou.edu/English/IDTC/Terms/terms.htm), such as light/dark and alive/dead.
3. Carnivalization Carnival refers to the condition in which “hierarchies are turned on their
heads, opposites are mingled, the sacred is profaned… Everything authoritative, rigid or serious is subverted, loosened and mocked” (Selden, et al, 1997: 43).
Carnivalization is “the term Bakhtin uses to describe the shaping effect of
Carnival on literary genres” (1997: 43). The adjective carnivalesque “refers to all those cultural and literary practices which draw upon popular-festive energies to relativise or even to overturn the authority of the discourses of power and authority” (Dentith, 2000: 190).
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Review of Related Studies
1. Michelle Sala’s “Lear's Nonsense beyond Children Literature”
The first related study is a paper entitled “Lear's Nonsense beyond Children Literature” by Michelle Sala. The object of study is Edward Lear’s nonsense short stories, The Story of the Four Little Children Who Went Round the
World and The History of the Seven Families of the Lake Pipple-Popple. Lear is
known as one of the first authors of nonsense literature.Carroll has often been considered as the initiator of this kind of literature - Nonsense Literature - and as the best writer of prose nonsense. But some years before Carroll, another English writer was experimenting in the same field: Edward Lear (http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/m_sala.html).
This study uses Greimas’ theory of narrative levels. According to Greimas, there are two narrative levels in all literary texts: a surface structure, such as the plot, the characters, the language, and a deep structure, such as the motivations. All narrative texts are characterized in their deep structure by a basic opposition between contradictory elements. The reactions between those opposing elements result in the series of events in the surface structure (in http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/m_sala.html).
As a result of this study, Sala discovers that the surface structure, or the way the story is presented, is “over-detailed”. Lear’s nonsense stories are “strongly characterized” by “wit, humor, derived form 'topsy-turvy' inversions or alliteration” (http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/m_sala.html). Meanwhile, the deep structure is blurred. Unlike most children stories that feature Good/Evil opposition, there is no clearly discernible opposition in Lear’s stories. Even if Good and Evil can be found in the deep structure, they are not in opposition.
Good and Evil, if they can be found somewhere in the deep structure, are not in opposition: they are instead perfectly interchangeable, both viable ways to deal with the world (http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/m_sala.html).
Without opposition, there is no possible hierarchical relationship. In conclusion, the nonsense in Lear’s works is “a free play of words and strange events on the surface structure, caused by the lack of meaningful opposition in the deep structure” (http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/m_sala.html). Sala also mentions other readings that identify Bakhtin’s concept of “carnival” in Lear’s works, which “celebrated temporary liberation from the prevailing truth and the established order; it marked the suspension of all hierarchical rank, privileges, norms, and prohibitions” (http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/m_sala.html).
2. Oky Febianto’s “A Deconstruction Study of Dickens’ Canon in A
Christmas Carol”
The second related study is an English Letters undergraduate thesis by Oky Febianto. The object of study is Charles Dickens’ novel A Christmas Carol.
The theories used in this study include Derrida’s theory of deconstruction, Hope, Louck and Hoot’s theory of capitalism, and Gibson’s theory of representation.
This study uses Socio-historical approach, which considers the background of this novel in the Victorian period, in which there was considerable poverty among the
Febianto examines the surface and depth representations to deconstruct the supposed canon of this novel as a Christmas story into what is actually a capitalistic story. As the result, the surface representation provides the canon of the novel, namely that “love, sympathy, morality, and sincerity based on Christian teachings” are the “most important things” in life rather than money (Febianto, 2006: 61). However, the depth representation shows that the novel “is a capitalistic story”, in which money has the most important role in all the characters’ life (2006: 62).
Both studies above have some similarities with this study. The first study is a deconstruction study, as seen in its characteristic examination of surface structure and deep structure, which turn out to be contradictory. It also examines a work of nonsense literature as the object of study. The second study is also a deconstruction study that examines the surface representation and depth representation of a literary work.
However, there are also some differences between these related studies and this study. This study combines deconstruction with the theory of carnivalization, which has not yet been used in the studies above. Unlike the related studies, the surface and depth structures or representations do not become focus and are not presented in detail in this study, although they are actually featured in the discussion of binary oppositions, which reflects the surface representation, and the dismantling of carnivalization, which reflects the deep representation. Therefore, this study develops the topic with new insights.
B. Review of Related Theories
1. Theories on Nonsense
The word nonsense is defined in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as “spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense; foolish talks, ideas, etc” (Hornby, 1995: 787). In literature, nonsense literature, also known as literary nonsense, is described as a literary genre that is “bedeviled by a certain lack of clarity and a certain confusion of priorities” (Gurewitch, 1975: 109).
Literary nonsense often becomes part of comedy. Freud describes wit and nonsense as the two comic forces that allow us to “gambol on the green fields of lawlessness” (Gurewitch, 1975: 44). According to Freud, “Only wit and nonsense are the comic powers that grant us a therapeutic reprieve from our bondage to civilization’s rules and scruples” (1975: 52). Because of its “frequent levity and irreverence”, the art of comedy can temporarily nullify the superego, which exhausts us with feelings of guilt. Therefore, people’s satisfactions of comedy may be derived from their discontents of civilization, especially the discontents produced by legality and morality (1975: 51-52).
Nonsense can be used in various ways to achieve its effects. As one of those ways, nonsense can be used to neutralize satire, so that “our mental delight in detecting idiocy is subordinated to the joys of unreason” (Gurewitch, 1975: 118). Discovering somebody else’s idiocy brings delight to human beings, and as described above, nonsense or unreason does, too. Since the former is not regarded as a good thing and might bring anxiety or guilt, the delight from detecting idiocy is attributed to the delight from nonsense. Louis Kronenberger describes three techniques of nonsense literature, based on his study on Oscar Wilde’s comedy: the inversion of received ideas, the nonsequitur, and the juxtaposition of incongruous contexts (Gurewitch, 1975: 118-120).
The first technique is “the preposterous inversion of received ideas” (Gurewitch, 1975: 118). It is revealed through words or actions of the characters that reflect a sense of values which is completely against the normally received sense of values. The inversion of received ideas is exemplified by Kronenberger when Lady Bracknell asks the question “Now to minor matters. Are your parents living?” to Jack. Normally, the matter of parents is regarded as a major matter. Therefore, to regard it as a minor matter like Lady Bracknell does is a preposterous inversion of a received idea.
The second technique is “the ludicrous nonsequitur” (Gurewitch, 1975: 119). The word nonsequitur itself is a Latin expression meaning “a statement that does not follow in a logical way from the previous one; a piece of false reasoning” (Hornby, 1995: 747). The technique of nonsequitur is described further below.
The second, the ludicrous nonsequitur (which is as likely to be built on ridiculous premises as to collapse into silly conclusions), is the technique that provides the principal nonsense savor of the comedy—in the form of crackpot opinions, zany observations, lunatic repartees, foolishly fey quips, and mad bons mots (Gurewitch, 1975: 119). This technique takes the form of utterances that are “marvelously infatuated with illogic” or “unreason”. It is exemplified by Kronenberger through Miss Prism and Canon Chasuble’s reactions to Jack’s statement about his brother’s death due to severe chill. Miss Prism states her hope that the death can be a lesson to Jack’s brother, while Canon Chasuble relates Jack’s brother’s wish to be buried in Paris to his lack of serious state of mind. It is extremely illogical and unreasonable to expect dead men to learn a lesson and to describe Paris cemeteries as a place for people lacking serious state of mind.
The third technique is “the crazy juxtaposition of incongruous contexts” (Gurewitch, 1975: 119). The word juxtaposition is defined in Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary as “the placement of people or things next to each other or
very close together, especially to show a contrast” (Hornby, 1995: 646).In an absurd juxtaposition, emphasis is not on a jolting advance from a possibly sound premise to an obviously cracked deduction, but on a collision of two weirdly incompatible worlds (Gurewitch, 1975: 118). For example, Lady Bracknell is outraged upon discovering that Jack, who is proposing her daughter, was found in a handbag as a baby. She considers it as “a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life” comparable to the French Revolution (Gurewitch, 1975: 120), and rejects him. However, Jack turns out to be her nephew. This is a collision between Lady Bracknell’s accusation to Jack of threatening the decencies of family life and her actual family ties with Jack.
Kronenberger’s three techniques of nonsense above have their own difference and similarity. The difference between the inversion, nonsequitur, and juxtaposition lies on the focus of each technique. The inversion focuses on a thing or an idea which is too far different from what we always regard as how it should be. The nonsequitur focuses on the disparity in a cause and effect relationship. The juxtaposition, although sometimes seemingly similar to the nonsequitur, is not always about cause and effect relationships; it focuses on the disparity between two things or ideas which are placed together, which may or may not have a causal relationship. The similarity is that these techniques all show at least two concepts or two things which are either not connected or connected in the inappropriate way. Thus, these techniques of nonsense echo Gurewitch’s statement that nonsense “exposes erroneous fantasies or strategies of unification by clarifying the real disconnections between things” (1975: 113).
2. Theories on Binary Opposition
Binary opposition is a “pair of mutually-exclusive signifiers in a paradigm set representing categories which are logically opposed” (Chandler, 2002: 224), or “a pair of terms differentiated by their opposition to one another” (http://www.sou.edu/English/IDTC/Terms/terms.htm). This concept originated from Saussure’s structuralist theory. As discussed by Fogarty, Saussure defines binary opposition as the “means by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined against what it is not” (http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=122). For instance, we can understand the meaning of bad when it is contrasted with its opposition, good.
Jacques Derrida develops Saussure’s theory on binary opposition by proposing the idea of hierarchy. In Western culture, people tend to think in terms of opposition, so binary opposition serves as the foundation of their thought. Furthermore, in each binary opposition, one term has a positive or higher value, while the other term has a negative or worse value, as explained below.
Western philosophy, writes Derrida, has analyzed the world in terms of binary oppositions: mind vs. body, good vs. evil, man vs. woman, presence vs. absence. Each of these pairs is organized hierarchically: the first term is seen as higher or better than the second (Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 343).
Although the concept of binary opposition originates from structuralism, it can still be employed in various other approaches. As discussed by Chandler in his article, binary opposition might also be used in post-structuralist deconstruction process. However, post-structuralists believe that hierarchy in binary opposition cannot be established, and that the opposition itself cannot function as a stable foundation of meaning, as described below.
Poststructuralists insist that no hierarchy of meanings can ever be established and no solid underlying structural foundation can ever be located. ... Other deconstructionists have also exposed culturally- embedded conceptual oppositions in which the initial term is privileged, leaving 'term B' negatively 'marked'. Radical deconstruction is not simply a reversal of the values given in an opposition but a demonstration of the instability of the opposition (Chandler, 2002: 233).
3. Theory on Carnivalization
Carnivalization is one of the key concepts coined by Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian literary theorist, which form his theory of the novel. In A Reader’s Guide
to Contemporary Literary Theory , Selden defines carnivalization as “the term
Bakhtin uses to describe the shaping effect of Carnival on literary genres” (1997: 43), while Carnival itself is described as follows.
Hierarchies are turned on their heads (fools become wise, kings become beggars); opposites are mingled (fact and fantasy, heaven and hell); the sacred is profaned. The ‘jolly relativity’ of all things is proclaimed. Everything authoritative, rigid or serious is subverted, loosened and mocked (Selden, et al, 1997: 43).
Meanwhile, Leitch describes Bakhtin’s carnivalesque, the adjective form of carnivalization, as follows.
The carnivalesque—an idea first introduced in Rabelais and His World (written in the 1930s and 1940s, published 1965)—is Bakhtin’s term for those forms of unofficial culture (the early novel among them) that resist official culture, political oppression, and totalitarian order through laughter, parody, and “grotesque realism” (Leitch, 2001: 1187). Selden also mentions that Bakhtin’s carnivalization “has important applications both to particular texts and to the history of literary genres” (1997:
43). Furthermore, the novel is described as the literary text on which carnivalization can be significantly applied.
In the modern world this carnivalized antitradition appears most significantly in the novel. Just as the public ritual of carnival inverts values in order to question them, so may the novel call closed meanings into question (Guerin, et al, 2005: 364).
Based on the explanations above, carnivalization involves elements like laughter, parody, “grotesque realism”, and more importantly, the subversion of hierarchies and the mingling of opposites in a novel. While the closed meaning of the novel itself, which another article describes as “totalised, fixed and closed meaning” (http://www.squidoo.com/postmodernist_techniques_in_fiction), refers to relations between elements in the novel which are clear-cut, perfectly sensible, and able to explain each other completely. A clear example of closed meaning can be found in the typical ending of detective fiction, when the murderer is finally discovered and all the apparently unintelligible clues and events become intelligible to the reader (http://www.goodessaywords.com/2010/02/narrative- closure-and-postmodernist.html).
Meanwhile, an example of early carnivalization is found in the Menippean satire, in which earthly inequalities are dissolved in the underworld. Emperors lose their crowns and become equal with beggars. Another example is found in Dostoevsky’s novel Bobok. In this novel, the dead enjoy a few months’ period when they are released from all the obligations and laws of normal existence before losing their earthly consciousness completely. One of the characters proposes everyone to tell the truth “just for fun”, as on earth it is “impossible to live without lying” (Selden, et al, 1997: 43-44).
4. Theory on Deconstruction
Regarding the background, Guerin states that “deconstruction arises out of the structuralism of Roland Barthes as a reaction against the certainties of structuralism” (Guerin, et al, 2005: 377). According to Derrida, deconstruction cannot be easily defined or classified, whether as a “set of rules and transposable procedures”, analysis, an act or an operation (in Coyle, et al, 1990: 781). However, Barry in Beginning Theory tries to describe deconstruction as the process of deconstructing the text, which is “often referred to as ‘reading against the grain’ or ‘reading the text against itself’ with the purpose of knowing the text as it cannot know itself” (2002: 71). Meanwhile, Culler defines deconstruction as follows.
Deconstruction is most simply defined as a critique of the hierarchical oppositions that have structured Western thought: inside/outside, mind/body, literal/metaphorical, speech/writing, presence/absence, nature/culture, form/meaning (Culler, 1997: 122).
Deconstruction views all texts as “open-ended constructs” that are always changing, and that “meaning can only point to an indefinite number of other meanings” (Guerin, et al, 2005: 377), as described further below.
Deconstruction views texts as subversively undermining an apparent or surface meaning, and it denies any final explication or statement of meaning. It questions the presence of any objective structure or content in a text. Instead of alarm or dismay at their discoveries, the practitioners of its own internal contradiction, as a never-ending free play of language (Guerin, et al, 2005: 377). Unlike formalism, deconstruction does not aim to discover one ultimate meaning. The objective of deconstruction is to show the disunity which underlies the text’s apparent unity (Barry, 2002: 72).
The practice of deconstruction involves “textual harassment” or “oppositional reading”, namely to read with the aim of unmasking internal contradictions or inconsistencies in the text (Barry, 2002: 72), or in Guerin’s term, “taking apart any meaning to reveal contradictory structures hidden within” (Guerin, et al, 2005: 377). Thus, deconstruction does not mean to destroy, but rather to give “different structure and functioning” (Culler, 1997: 122).
In this study, the deconstruction process is done by finding apparent binary oppositions on the surface of the novel, and then showing how those oppositions carnivalize reality after deeper analysis. As explained above, to carnivalize means to subvert hierarchies and mingle opposites. By demonstrating carnivalization through the binary oppositions in the literary work, the writer demonstrates that the oppositions themselves are contradictory and interchangeable, thus showing the disunity and contradictions in the work.
C. Theoretical Framework
This part will discuss the contribution of the theories above to answer the formulated questions. The theories on nonsense by Gurewitch and Kronenberger will be used to answer the first question about the instances of nonsense in the answer the second question about the binary oppositions that can be drawn from the nonsense in the novel. The theory on carnivalization by Bakhtin will be used to answer the third question about how the nonsense and binary oppositions carnivalize the idea of reality in the novel. Lastly, the theory on deconstruction by Derrida, Culler, and Barry will be used as the procedure to guide the process of answering the second and third questions.
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY A. Object of the Study The object of this study is a novel entitled The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by British author Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
started out as a radio series aired by BBC Radio 4 in 1978, with Adams as the script writer. The script is loosely adapted into novel and published in 1979 by Pan Publisher. It is the first of the five-book Hitchhiker “trilogy”, followed by four other books (http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/books/author/adams).
The novel tells the story of Arthur Dent, the sole remaining Earthman after Earth is destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass. He was rescued by his friend Ford Prefect, who turned out to be from another planet and worked as a researcher for the encyclopaedia The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. After surviving the Earth’s destruction by hitchhiking on a passing spaceship, they were coincidentally saved by Ford’s distant cousin, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Then they went through a bizarre intergalactic adventure. In one of the reviews, the novel is described as a “gently clever comedy science fiction” that Adams invented “to combine the fun of science fiction with a satire on society” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jun/09/douglasadams).