After years of reading stories about someone attending a wedding of ex-lover, that same thing finally happened to me last weekend. The holy matrimony of my very first love, the girl who occupies a special place in my heart.
You think it would hurt? Don't ask me. I felt so damn numb at that moment. She was my first girl capturing my heart, but at the same time she is also one of my best friends. As if that does not complicate thing, we've known each other since we were five. Going back further into the past, her uncle happened to have a crush on my mother. Yes, even from childhood, my love life has been that complicated.
Coming back to the wedding ceremony, I didn't have any choice rather than attending the church blessing. Yet, the pressure from the air inside the church brought me rehearsing the "Final Lair" act from the Phantom of the Opera. In that scene, I was Erik the Phantom and she was my Christine. After trying so hard to seduce her, she finally entrusted my heart to me. Yet, due to the circumstance, my Christine had to leave me despite her feeling only to marry Raoul.
Yes, I was imagining that despite her being in front of the altar, she was still in love with me. And I repeatedly rewinding the scene of me trying to woe her with my "Music of the Night".
But it never happened.
I'm just a phantom without my Christine........
Monday, August 27, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Merindu Sastra
Ini adalah sebuah pemikiran yang hinggap ketika saya berjalan-jalan ke Gramedia untuk menghilangkan suasana hati yang sedang memburuk. Di sana saya melihat beberapa buku yang mendapat pujian dari mantan. Kebetulan ada satu buku tersebut yang sudah terbuka dari plastiknya, buku kumpulan cerpen dari beberapa penulis yang mendapatkan ketenarannya dari dunia maya.
Terdorong oleh rasa ingin tahu, saya mengambil buku tersebut dan membacanya di tempat. Betapa terkejutnya saya ketika membaca bahwa kebanyakan tokoh dalam cerita itu memiliki nama yang sangat kebarat-baratan. Mungkin bukan sesuatu yang salah, tapi dalam benakku praktek seperti itu biasanya akan mengarah ke suatu cerita yang sangat dangkal. Mungkin ini hanyalah sebuah prejudice pribadi, mungkin.
Tapi membaca beberapa cerpen yang ada di sana sekilas, ada sesuatu yang terasa kurang dari tulisan-tulisan itu. Semua cerpen yang ada di dalam buku itu serasa seperti cerpen-cerpen yang pernah dimuat di beberapa majalah remaja. Cerpen yang bisa dibaca dan dipshami maknanya dalam waktu kurang dari 5 menit. Cerpen yang tidak akan meninggalkan jejak dan kesan yang mendalam di dalam ingatan.
Cerita-cerita yang tersaji di dalam kumpulan itu terjebak di dalam batasan satu dimensi, dimana cerita tersebut akan selalu diinterpretasikan dan dipahami secara seragam oleh orang yang berbeda di waktu yang berbeda. Tidak ada multi interpretasi yang biasanya dimiliki leh karya-karya sastra klasik. Pengarang-pengarang cerita itu seolah ingin menegaskan posisi mereka sebagai pemegang otoritas tertinggi, sebagai satu-satunya sumber kebenaran. Hal ini menyebabkan tertutupnya ruangan dan tempat bagi para pembaca untuk memasukkan diri, ide, pikiran, gagasan, dan interpretasi mereka sendiri ke dalam karya tersebut.
Sebuah gagasan lain segera menyusul menembus pikiranku, apakah ini pengaruh dari kebudayaan dunia maya yang mulai menyebar di kehidupan masa kini? Dunia maya yang menyuguhkan kecepatan mengakses data dalam waktu singkat. Sebuah kemudahan instan dan cepat yang tidak menuntut pemakainya untuk berpikir dan menggunakan logika secara menyeluruh. Hanya cukup mengetikkan sesuatu, informasi yang dicari akan langsung didapat. Tidak perlu susah-susah mengetahui prosesnya, yang penting adalah jawaban akhirnya. Lalu, apakah paradigma itu sudah juga masuk ke dunia tulis-menulis dan sastra kita? Dengan hadirnya karya-karya yang tidak membutuhkan tafsir dan multi interpretasi? Dengan ditutupnya ruangan tempat para pembaca bisa memasukkan pengalaman mereka sendiri ke dalam cerita?
Dan pertanyaan yang paling signifikan, sadarkah para penulis itu bahwa begitu sebuah karya telah dipublikasikan, pengarang akan telah mati?
Terus terang, walaupun saya pernah sangat membenci Atheis-nya Achdiyat Kartamihardja, tapi saya merindukan karya semacam itu. Karya kontroversial tetapi tidak dangkal. Karya semacam Olenka-nya Budi Dharma yang walaupun membuat saya mengernyitkan kening berjam-jam, tetapi membuat saya bisa tercekat dalam proses membacanya. Karya seperti Pengakuan Pariyem yang membawa saya ke dalam orgasme sastra lebih tinggi dari orgasme biologis melalui kata-kata sederhana. Atau bahkan Burung-Burung Manyar yang membuat saya berpikir kembali tentang kebenaran dan kehidupan. Bukan hanya gimmick yang ternyata hanya sebatas footnote berpanjang-panjang yang tidak ada kaitannya dengan perkembangan cerita (I'm looking at you, Supernova!).
Saya rindu membaca karya baru dengan level itu!
Terdorong oleh rasa ingin tahu, saya mengambil buku tersebut dan membacanya di tempat. Betapa terkejutnya saya ketika membaca bahwa kebanyakan tokoh dalam cerita itu memiliki nama yang sangat kebarat-baratan. Mungkin bukan sesuatu yang salah, tapi dalam benakku praktek seperti itu biasanya akan mengarah ke suatu cerita yang sangat dangkal. Mungkin ini hanyalah sebuah prejudice pribadi, mungkin.
Tapi membaca beberapa cerpen yang ada di sana sekilas, ada sesuatu yang terasa kurang dari tulisan-tulisan itu. Semua cerpen yang ada di dalam buku itu serasa seperti cerpen-cerpen yang pernah dimuat di beberapa majalah remaja. Cerpen yang bisa dibaca dan dipshami maknanya dalam waktu kurang dari 5 menit. Cerpen yang tidak akan meninggalkan jejak dan kesan yang mendalam di dalam ingatan.
Cerita-cerita yang tersaji di dalam kumpulan itu terjebak di dalam batasan satu dimensi, dimana cerita tersebut akan selalu diinterpretasikan dan dipahami secara seragam oleh orang yang berbeda di waktu yang berbeda. Tidak ada multi interpretasi yang biasanya dimiliki leh karya-karya sastra klasik. Pengarang-pengarang cerita itu seolah ingin menegaskan posisi mereka sebagai pemegang otoritas tertinggi, sebagai satu-satunya sumber kebenaran. Hal ini menyebabkan tertutupnya ruangan dan tempat bagi para pembaca untuk memasukkan diri, ide, pikiran, gagasan, dan interpretasi mereka sendiri ke dalam karya tersebut.
Sebuah gagasan lain segera menyusul menembus pikiranku, apakah ini pengaruh dari kebudayaan dunia maya yang mulai menyebar di kehidupan masa kini? Dunia maya yang menyuguhkan kecepatan mengakses data dalam waktu singkat. Sebuah kemudahan instan dan cepat yang tidak menuntut pemakainya untuk berpikir dan menggunakan logika secara menyeluruh. Hanya cukup mengetikkan sesuatu, informasi yang dicari akan langsung didapat. Tidak perlu susah-susah mengetahui prosesnya, yang penting adalah jawaban akhirnya. Lalu, apakah paradigma itu sudah juga masuk ke dunia tulis-menulis dan sastra kita? Dengan hadirnya karya-karya yang tidak membutuhkan tafsir dan multi interpretasi? Dengan ditutupnya ruangan tempat para pembaca bisa memasukkan pengalaman mereka sendiri ke dalam cerita?
Dan pertanyaan yang paling signifikan, sadarkah para penulis itu bahwa begitu sebuah karya telah dipublikasikan, pengarang akan telah mati?
Terus terang, walaupun saya pernah sangat membenci Atheis-nya Achdiyat Kartamihardja, tapi saya merindukan karya semacam itu. Karya kontroversial tetapi tidak dangkal. Karya semacam Olenka-nya Budi Dharma yang walaupun membuat saya mengernyitkan kening berjam-jam, tetapi membuat saya bisa tercekat dalam proses membacanya. Karya seperti Pengakuan Pariyem yang membawa saya ke dalam orgasme sastra lebih tinggi dari orgasme biologis melalui kata-kata sederhana. Atau bahkan Burung-Burung Manyar yang membuat saya berpikir kembali tentang kebenaran dan kehidupan. Bukan hanya gimmick yang ternyata hanya sebatas footnote berpanjang-panjang yang tidak ada kaitannya dengan perkembangan cerita (I'm looking at you, Supernova!).
Saya rindu membaca karya baru dengan level itu!
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Simple Things
I enjoy every simple things that we did,
Grabbing your hand and holding it in the cab
Feeling your head leaning on my shoulder
Sharing the earpieces from my iPod
and watching you sleeping in peace.
Because those simple things
Are what make our togetherness meaningful.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Digital Natives and the Critical Thinking
Standing in front of the class this year has led me to a bitter assumption of our
education system –that we should look at the newest generation in a completely
different perspective. Yes, in a glance, this might seem like a light of tolerance
and understanding to younger inhabitants in our society. However, daunting
feeling and frowns coming along with the assumption imply a slur in disguise
towards the problem.
The emergence of the first digital-natives wave turned out to stir previously-non-
existent problem in their dependency to cyber sources. As a first generation to be
familiarized with the rise of Web 2.0 (which gave birth to the new interactivity
level in the internet), recent students demonstrated their so-called cyber
addiction. What was then known as cozy library filled with musky smells of
old antiquarian books is now considered as a relic of beautiful past. When
students are seen flocking the library, what they are mostly doing is finding air-
conditioned room with free internet access.
This kind of attitude went further in the trivialization of library’s function itself.
With the over-worshipping of cyberworld and nostalgic view against physical
library, attitude to potential of sources in library started to change as well.
Students started to feel demotivated in going and carefully looking for books
as part of their references. They would prefer to go online and consult Google
Almighty –and its twin brother, Saint Wikipedia- for essential information in
their research. Consequently, library research is now toppled down by Google
research. No longer students carefully scrutinize piles of books next to the
notebook and pen, as they can easily type the keyword and get the appropriate
quotations.
Indeed the easier information finding process facilitated by the internet, more
times can be saved. Therefore, information chaining browsing is completely
feasible. Some experienced scholars might even be able to find the key terms
they need to dig and explore deeper by this faster processing. Yet, these
experienced scholars already posses the basic of critical analysis forged by their
times working together with heaps of papers. Their constant scrutiny of key
terms in the index and scanning ability for the whole book –instead of reading
cover by cover- proved to be a training ground to look for more references. By
comparing these various references, these scholars also developed skepticism
against the validity of the information. This skepticism, in turn, triggers them to
constantly find some contested views against the subject matter and gave birth
to fresh critiques and even breakthrough.
The birth of Web 2.0 –to be more specific, Saint Wikipedia- has since gave space
to document the journey of various subject matters. Yet, due to the easy access,
most of the information is compressed and squeezed, leaving only the surviving
core problems and theories. Contested views are rarely elaborated in the same
manner with main subjects, thus rendering them only as some flaw concepts in
the development. Seldom are these concepts explained as some contributions
in the revision of main concept. Thus, the digital natives take only the surviving
main concepts as granted.
Acceptance of something as granted leads the digital natives to lose touch with
their critical thinking. Well, I might be exaggerating as not all of this generation is
losing their critical analysis ability, but speaking from my classroom experience,
a great deal of them suffer from this lack. When they are asked to write a paper
or invoke the analysis on the subject matter, they tend only to quote the main
theories without any carefully crafted logic behind. The concept is only seen as
the “only” product, not as “final” product. Thus, no flaws of the theories are found
in the philosophical basis. Concepts and theories become merely black and white,
only correct and incorrect.
This rendition of concepts and theories as merely two sides of the coin –
leaving no space between- is very much detrimental in education and academic
world. Polarized truth like this may lead to the shallow prejudice of the views,
regardless of the logic behind their conception and development. Being spoilt
by type-search-find process, the habit of scrutinizing whole texts is also slowly
disintegrating from the current generation. Without the scrutinizing ability, the
shallow prejudice will chain into shallow attack when these students disagree
to the concepts, attacking only the surface level of their understanding on the
concepts –leaving behind the philosophical basis. The virtually non-existent
space between polarized truths has left no room for neither compromising nor
development opportunity.
So, from what perspective should we see this current generation? I try to exempt
myself from aligning with the negative force by not saying that they are beyond
repair. However, I found a great difficulty in motivating them to raise critical
thinking in all their papers. Being spoilt by the blessing of Google Almighty
and Saint Wikipedia has changed their perspectives of scrutiny and deeper
investigation. These cyber patrons have freed them from academic skepticism
and bestowed upon them the salvation from constant questioning and long
debates of subject matter.
Then, what needs to be done? I will sound like an old man here, but the
preservation of remnants from pre Web 2.0 should be done. There needs to be a
historian and note keeper for the ancient critical tradition and attitudes towards
knowledge and scholarship. We, the surviving members of pre digital native era,
should shoulder the responsibility of guiding these newer generation, ensuring
that the old tradition should blend seamlessly to the new digital culture. Thus, it
will give birth to a better coming generation of scholarship.
education system –that we should look at the newest generation in a completely
different perspective. Yes, in a glance, this might seem like a light of tolerance
and understanding to younger inhabitants in our society. However, daunting
feeling and frowns coming along with the assumption imply a slur in disguise
towards the problem.
The emergence of the first digital-natives wave turned out to stir previously-non-
existent problem in their dependency to cyber sources. As a first generation to be
familiarized with the rise of Web 2.0 (which gave birth to the new interactivity
level in the internet), recent students demonstrated their so-called cyber
addiction. What was then known as cozy library filled with musky smells of
old antiquarian books is now considered as a relic of beautiful past. When
students are seen flocking the library, what they are mostly doing is finding air-
conditioned room with free internet access.
This kind of attitude went further in the trivialization of library’s function itself.
With the over-worshipping of cyberworld and nostalgic view against physical
library, attitude to potential of sources in library started to change as well.
Students started to feel demotivated in going and carefully looking for books
as part of their references. They would prefer to go online and consult Google
Almighty –and its twin brother, Saint Wikipedia- for essential information in
their research. Consequently, library research is now toppled down by Google
research. No longer students carefully scrutinize piles of books next to the
notebook and pen, as they can easily type the keyword and get the appropriate
quotations.
Indeed the easier information finding process facilitated by the internet, more
times can be saved. Therefore, information chaining browsing is completely
feasible. Some experienced scholars might even be able to find the key terms
they need to dig and explore deeper by this faster processing. Yet, these
experienced scholars already posses the basic of critical analysis forged by their
times working together with heaps of papers. Their constant scrutiny of key
terms in the index and scanning ability for the whole book –instead of reading
cover by cover- proved to be a training ground to look for more references. By
comparing these various references, these scholars also developed skepticism
against the validity of the information. This skepticism, in turn, triggers them to
constantly find some contested views against the subject matter and gave birth
to fresh critiques and even breakthrough.
The birth of Web 2.0 –to be more specific, Saint Wikipedia- has since gave space
to document the journey of various subject matters. Yet, due to the easy access,
most of the information is compressed and squeezed, leaving only the surviving
core problems and theories. Contested views are rarely elaborated in the same
manner with main subjects, thus rendering them only as some flaw concepts in
the development. Seldom are these concepts explained as some contributions
in the revision of main concept. Thus, the digital natives take only the surviving
main concepts as granted.
Acceptance of something as granted leads the digital natives to lose touch with
their critical thinking. Well, I might be exaggerating as not all of this generation is
losing their critical analysis ability, but speaking from my classroom experience,
a great deal of them suffer from this lack. When they are asked to write a paper
or invoke the analysis on the subject matter, they tend only to quote the main
theories without any carefully crafted logic behind. The concept is only seen as
the “only” product, not as “final” product. Thus, no flaws of the theories are found
in the philosophical basis. Concepts and theories become merely black and white,
only correct and incorrect.
This rendition of concepts and theories as merely two sides of the coin –
leaving no space between- is very much detrimental in education and academic
world. Polarized truth like this may lead to the shallow prejudice of the views,
regardless of the logic behind their conception and development. Being spoilt
by type-search-find process, the habit of scrutinizing whole texts is also slowly
disintegrating from the current generation. Without the scrutinizing ability, the
shallow prejudice will chain into shallow attack when these students disagree
to the concepts, attacking only the surface level of their understanding on the
concepts –leaving behind the philosophical basis. The virtually non-existent
space between polarized truths has left no room for neither compromising nor
development opportunity.
So, from what perspective should we see this current generation? I try to exempt
myself from aligning with the negative force by not saying that they are beyond
repair. However, I found a great difficulty in motivating them to raise critical
thinking in all their papers. Being spoilt by the blessing of Google Almighty
and Saint Wikipedia has changed their perspectives of scrutiny and deeper
investigation. These cyber patrons have freed them from academic skepticism
and bestowed upon them the salvation from constant questioning and long
debates of subject matter.
Then, what needs to be done? I will sound like an old man here, but the
preservation of remnants from pre Web 2.0 should be done. There needs to be a
historian and note keeper for the ancient critical tradition and attitudes towards
knowledge and scholarship. We, the surviving members of pre digital native era,
should shoulder the responsibility of guiding these newer generation, ensuring
that the old tradition should blend seamlessly to the new digital culture. Thus, it
will give birth to a better coming generation of scholarship.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
An Evening Retreat
The firm bookshelves stood still in the corner against the claws of shadow surrounding them. Brownish wood constructing those shelves emitted some kind of warmth covering the whole library. Trying to break the nocturnal stillness, a standing lamp in the corner buzzed its way alongside the warm yellowish light.
You entered the room and brought me a cup of coffee. Black, hot, smoky, and strong. Just the way I always liked it. Your eyes rolled and scanned the whole room, trying to check that there was no possible distraction lurking in the corner of our small library. I glimpsed at you, ensured you the calmness of the night, the soft embrace of mother moon, and the protection from stellar soldiers.
On my lap, Kafka laid down enveloped by brown leather cover. Did you remember how precious is this book? How we ventured the dodgy marketplace only to smirk gaily after laying our hands on this rare masterpiece?
You slowly tiptoed your way towards me with that cup of coffee. Call me crazy, but nothing beat coffee next to my books. You, on the other hand, were and still are quite fussy about the possibility of spilling the cup onto the papers. If only you knew at the moment, that your presence posed stronger caffeine than the coffee.
Shrugging your way next to me, I slowly moved my hand from the book and embraced your existence. Still, nervous, quirky. That was how you reacted at first. But then, I caught a glimpse of comfort in the corner of your lips. That bashful look, the cheeky smile, and finally the tilting of your head to my shoulder. All those gestures encouraged me to further divorce Kafka’s mesmerizing words.
My palm moved to your head, stroking your black hair. With no hesitation, you placed your head on my laps; your eyes stared directly to my eyes. As I moved my head closer to yours, your fair hand reached to the back of my head. I could hear the soft voice penetrating every layer and fiber in my ears. “Read it for me….”
That was what you wanted, us reaching brain orgasms together in the threesome with Franz Kafka. Your other hand reached the leather bound book and gave it to me. I opened the first hand and started reading it next to you. “As Gregor Samsa woke one morning from uneasy dream…..”
You shut your eyes and got ready to embrace the aural pleasure. Sometimes you sighed, sometimes you just murmured, but I know that you wanted me to continue.
And I continued……
And the lamp was still buzzing while the night was still.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)