Draft: Hero and Sidekick in Sherlock Holmes.

As I keep reading Sherlock Holmes for my example of sidekick figure, which is dr. John Watson, I realize that the narrator, which is Watson itself, using the word ‘I’ that refers to himself. The contradiction is between Spivak’s Can the Subaltern Speak? and Belsey’s The Subject in Ideology of Constructing the Subject: Deconstructing the Text. I was thinking that positioning a figure as an object makes the figure submissive. However, the using of ‘I’ by Watson shows that this character is subject of this text, which should make Watson’s figure dominant.

Nevertheless, although the using of I shows that Watson is the subject, Watson is still the weaker figure. Belsey’s The Case of Sherlock Holmes in Constructing the Subject: Deconstructing the Text will be the text that I will talk to for this argument.

I also interested in Watson’s desire of woman compared to the misogynist side of Sherlock Holmes that (for me) the desire shows the humanity characteristic of Watson. The strange characteristic of Sherlock Holmes, which does not have as much desire of woman as Watson, maybe emphasizes its hero side. As in many superhero story like Superman, Batman, and Daredevil, the superhero has the factor that differentiate them from human, the strange characteristic of Holmes shows that he’s not really has the characteristic of human, specifically man, that has desire of woman.

And what’s the signification of woman? Is the woman, “as an object or as a subject of insurgency” has the role in developing the text? Beside all of that, I want to know why the sidekick is created. If a hero is intended to be a great figure, why would he or she need a sidekick? Why he or she did not work alone? Is it actually intended to prove that a hero is not that great without the sidekick? 

That is the outline, but I’m not really sure I only talk about that in my paper. Maybe when I write, I will find any intertextuality of many texts that has been studied in Critical Theory class that will be helpful in developing this paper.

Freudian slip, Unconsciousness, and Orality.

Freudian slip, Unconsciousness, and Orality. Posted By: dinavionetta Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:52 pm  | Options

I am interested in the concept of unconsciousness that is presented in some works in Critical Theory class. The idea that I have got is everything is happen for a reason, even if it is accidental. It is like the campaign of Mitt Romney in president election when he and his family, which was his supporters, tried to arrange the letter on their shirt to be "ROMNEY" but it turned out to be "RMONEY". In other case, he also said United States as "a company" instead of "a nation". Some people called this kind of accident as Freudian slip. Febi Laraswati, Isnan, and Lia Arisyanti discussed this with me. Febi Laraswati agreed with a passage in Freud's essay, "The Interpretation of Dreams". Freud said that "Such material is generally in the unconscious because it has been repressed, or driven from consciousness by a mental censor that judges what is fit for expression." From that expression, can we say that it was unconsciously represented Romney's desire of, let me say, money? In line with that, the example that Freud gave in his essay is desire of sexuality. Isnan has the question in this statement. What kind of unconsciousness that has something to do with sexuality? Jacques Lacan mentioned it in his essay "The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason since Freud". What we desire is always a signifier of something else. What we desire is desirable because it is connected to our needs and experience with mother's body, but how? Isnan also added this question to our discussion. If a person did not get an experience of mother's body, how is about that person's desire? Lacan connected that to Saussure's concept of structural linguistics. One desire stands for any other desire that stands for other desire and so on. Is it happening to us unconsciously? We may not know it since Freud said that it has been repressed. Besides that, I think it has some connection with discussion in class about the resistance of theory that refers to Paul de Man's "Resistance of Theory". The idea that I got is when people try to resist a theory, it does not help to disappear that theory. Nevertheless, it is even make the theory keep continued. What if it is connected with our unconscious? Like if we do not like something, we actually do not want that thing to vanish, but to still exist, so we can always beat that. Lia Arisyanti also added the statement about orality. Problem about the concept of unconsciousness is also emerged in the beginning of writing that she is sure it was made by men to express human's language. Unconsciously, they made this kind of language with incision, carving, or scratch. It is also a kind of men's image that they have instinct to violent, consciously or unconsciously. It is different with women whom have the image of suavity, like when some women meet, it will be common if they are hugged each other, but the men? Maybe they are not. Otherwise, they like violent things that are commonly being the theme of many Hemingway's novels. Dina Syahrani Vionetta 180410100199

Sidekick in a Story

For my skripsi, I really have an interest about a character whom always in a shadow of a bigger figure. It is like a person whom got a role as a ‘sidekick’, like Robin in Batman and Robin, Ron Weasley in Harry Potter serial, or Watson in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. I am interested in sidekick’s viewpoint in a story and how they see themselves in a story (or how the viewpoint of narrator about them).

For me, they have many similarities as a character. For example, they have the same purpose or goal with the character that is positioned as a ‘hero’. The purpose could be ‘to save the world’, ‘to find something precious’, and many more. For the example, Robin in Batman and Robin has an intention to save Gotham City. That is why he followed Batman and became his partner. Whatever it is, sidekick existed to accompany the figure of a hero in the story.

Nevertheless, they do not have contribution as much as the hero. If they meant to achieve the same goal, why did not they work in the same portion? For me, it is actually possible. Like in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction movie, Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield have same profession, which is as assassins. They have the same role and no one became a hero or a sidekick. They work together as partner in crime. In the other words, they have the same purposes.

Maybe, it is because a sidekick is more fragile than the hero. Sometimes, sidekick is portrayed as an insecure and weak figure. They actually wanted to be considered as great as a hero in the story. The bold example is Watson in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Since Watson is the narrator of the story, it is easier to find how he sees himself.

In the first chapter in Sign of Four, which is The Science of Deduction, we can see Watson’s feeling about Holmes. In the last sentence of paragraph two, Watson boldly said, “His great powers, his masterly manners, and the experience which I had of his many extraordinary qualities, all made me diffident and backward in crossing him.”

I can also see that Watson was disappointed because his “Study in Scarlet” pamphlets, which he made for Holmes, were criticized by Holmes. Besides, he made in to please Holmes.

However, I see his intention to prove that Holmes is not that great. In the same chapter, he gave him a polished watch to be analyzed. For Watson, it might be more difficult to analyze because it did not have many sign to analyze since it is very clean. Nonetheless, actually Holmes could do it.

It reminded me to “Self and Desire” discussion in the class about Sartre. Sartre has explained about human existence, which are “being for others”, “being for itself”, and “being in itself”. Watson wants to be acknowledged as a great person, which proves his desire of power (or just desire of existence?). For me, he has an intention to “being for itself” or “being in itself”, but it turned out that he is only “being for others”, because he only wanted to be as great as Sherlock Holmes.

The other example is Ron in Harry Potter serial. In Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows, when Ron tried to destroy a horcrux, the horcrux showed his desire, which is actually to defeat his friend, Harry Potter. It also showed his fear of losing his girlfriend, Hermione, because of Harry Potter. It showed that Ron had some insecurity about Harry Potter, the same insecurity with Watson to Sherlock Holmes.

Beside all of that, I want to know why the sidekick is created. If a hero is intended to be a great figure, why would he or she need a sidekick? Why he or she did not work alone? Is it actually intended to prove that a hero is not that great without the sidekick? 

Response of "LITERATURE and THEORY: Classical Ideas about Literature"

As there was only poetry which considered as literature, like Plato, Aristotle, and Boccaccio was talked about, the function and use of literature is still debated until now. According to what Socrates said to Ion, the constant separation between good and bad poetry is the inspiration that it gives to reader. Good poets itself compose their poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed. It is like God takes away the mind of poets and makes them only the interpreters of God.

Since this belief was considered by the society as an abnormality, Horace concluded in "Art of Poetry" that the function of poems (literature) is to inform or to delight (utile et dulce). Beside to give pleasure to the reader by using desire and carefulness of composing words, author can use his writings to give information, thoughts, and instruction. For the example, Socratic reading could be about duty for the nation, love according to friends, parents, brothers, and guests, the role of senator, judge, and general in that time.

According to Paul De Man’s “The Resistance of Theory”, literature theory is compatible with teaching as a reflection of method. Yet, if there is something like discrepancy between Wahrheit and Methode, then theory are no longer compatible. The common principles are cultural and ideological rather than theoretical. The example of New Criticism is T.S Elliot whom has the combination of talent, traditionalism, and moral earnestness. Then for him, there is resistance to theory because it reveals the mechanics of society’s working; it opponents tradition which beauty of words is a precious part; it upsets the established foundation of literary works and blurs the boundaries between literary and non literary discourse.

It does not mean that theory becomes unimportant. Otherwise, it assumes that “literary theory is not in danger of going under, but even flourishes. What we do not know is whether this flourishing is a triumph of fall.” (1986: 1327)

However, Scholes, who in my opinion opponents against theory, said in his essay “The English Apparatus”, that students now exist in most manipulative culture human being. Scholes said that students are bombarded with signs and rhetoric in many times and deprived of experience in thoughtful reading and writing of verbal texts. What students need from literature, which for myself became the use of literature, are having “knowledge and skill that will enable them to make sense of their worlds, to determine their own interests, both individual and collective, to see through the manipulation of all sort of texts in all sorts of media, and to express their own views in some appropriate manner.” (1986: 15)

Note: I will provide further elaborations later.