RAHMAT SETIAWAN
092154030
DECONSTRUCTION OF FIRE
AND ICE IN ROBERT FROST’S “FIRE AND ICE”
“Fire and Ice” is a poem of Robert Frost
that commonly people say it about the end of world. It can be summed up from
the first line that written by “Some say
the world will end …” Continued by the contents that show how it will end.
If this poem is observed in details, it will show how Roberts Frost deconstructs
about the end of world. Deconstruction itself is refusing of logo-centrism that
centers the hierarchy in a binary opposition of a sense or meaning. A sense or
a meaning cannot be limited by a sign, because the sign just descends the real
meaning. Therefore, deconstruction is a way of reading text with the result
that text cannot sign a meaning in a hierarchy or single truth (Ratna,
2004:222, Al-Fayyadl, 2005: 68, Norris, 2006:14).
Briefly, to the
title of “Fire and Ice”, it looks
like a binary opposition like black and white, men and women, hell and heaven, demon
and angel, and bad and good. Robert Frost deconstructs this binary opposition
of fire and the opposition. If looking at the binary opposition, it can be
known that “Fire” should opposite
with “water” not the “Ice” because “Ice” itself is the water that reaches
the minimum of temperature. Shortly, “Ice”
is the alteration of water while for the “Fire”
only has a form of “Fire” itself.
Fire that has very high temperature will keep being “Fire”, because it has no the other of form. Based on it, paradigm
of binary opposition of “Fire and water”
has moved to “Fire and Ice”.
Continuously, in
binary opposition, there is always one thing that is hierarchy. This hierarchy
is considered as the center or ordinate while another is subordinate. However,
this hierarchy is not totally the center. Based on the concept of decentering of Derrida, center is not
singular but it is plural. In other word, decentering
is structure with no center and hierarchy (Ratna, 2004: 225). In “Fire and Ice”, the hierarchy or the
center is in “Fire”. “Fire” is powerful, symbol of brave,
identical with red. Red is a symbol of brave. “Fire” is like men that are more powerful than women are. Women are
as “Ice” that is powerless. However,
in this poetry, this hierarchy is moved to the other. The other here is the “Ice”. The “Ice” itself is not very powerful than “Fire”. Both of them can destruct the world. “Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice” (Line 1-2).
This means that both of them can destruct the world. “To say that for destruction ice, Is also great And would suffice”
(Line 7-8) here shows “Ice” is also
great. The word of “also” means the similarity and it does not mean it is more
powerful to destruct. It finally shows that the center or the hierarchy of
destruction the world is not only the “Fire”.
It moves to the “Ice” while the “Ice” itself is not the only thing that
destructs the world because it has same power with the “Fire”.
Next, the word
of “FIRE” here implies in perishing
or ending the world and it is compared with the “ICE” that has same power. It must be more than the “Fire” commonly, because “Fire” is commonly compared with water
not “Ice”. To sign “the thing” that
can destruct the world, water can become “ICE”
while “Fire” will keep being “FIRE” to destruct. In this case, “ICE” is more powerful than water while “FIRE” is more powerful than “Fire”. Looking at the word of “FIRE” (powerful fire in this poem that destructs
the world) and “Fire” (commonly), it
shows how weak the sign of “FIRE” here.
The sign of “Fire” itself never changes although the
power, the temperature increases to destruct. It will be keep being signed with
“FIRE”. It means that there is no
other sign to explain the “FIRE”
whereas the “FIRE” here has the other that is unsaid and is not revealed
through any signs. The other here is
the power to destruct the world. In other word, sign has limit or is very
limited to show the real sense. Sense is always free and unleashed with sign
because sign cannot hold all of the real sense up. Therefore, meaning
indirectly exists in a sign. Because the meaning is attributed in text, so the
rest is trace. Trace is considered as absence of presence (Ratna, 2004:226). When
the word of “FIRE” is erased, then
the meaning of it will always exist in memory, the memory of the fire’s power.
This is known as
term of differEnce/differAnce. It is from the word of to
differ and to defer (delay). Derrida (Ratna, 2004:226) relates space and time
to the signifier and the signified. It means that the signifier is the
representative of the signified or the thing. This signifier represents the
presence that is delayed. In this case, “Fire”
that has power to destruct the world is signified with “FIRE”. The sign of “FIRE”
here does not perfectly represent the “Fire” that destructs the world. There is
something that is unsaid clearly in the sign such as fire with full of power,
power with full of pain, pain that can perish, and many realities. These unsaid
things are the presence that is delayed. Then, the meaning of “Fire” that destructs the world has
different thing. This different thing is the presence that is always delayed.
The presumption of
those does not emerge with off hand; it also purposes to show about destruction
that is caused by it. In hierarchy opposition, “Fire” always places itself as the hierarchy of breaker, desolation,
dangerous. Through inter-text way, it can be proven the hierarchies of it. Inter-text
itself is linking a text with the other texts (Ratna, 2004: 172). Devil is
always identical with fire in all of mythology, Shidarta is asked to walk
through fire path to test his proper power as Buddha before entering the world
(fire is the symbol of desire of human that will destruct the world). The “Ice” is closer to impression of cool and
fresh that contains of pleasure than destroying. In Islam and Christian, there
is belief of Hell and Heaven, where Hell is the place to punish the bad people
with fire while Heaven is pictured full of pleasure.
In this poem,
those assumption does not exist anymore; “Fire”
is not totally as the hierarchy of destruction, it seems as if doing shift to
the “Ice”. “To say that for destruction
ice, Is also great” (Line 7 and 8), it shows the other of “Ice”. “Ice” is not always as the other of “Fire” because it can be also determined and implied to destruction.
“Fire” is not always the source of
destruction, the assumption of “Fire”
that is the source of destruction moves to the “Ice” as the source of destruction.
All of these are
finally concluded, deconstruction is a thought that is used to reject against
logo-centrism. Derrida, with concepts of decentering,
trace, and difference/differance has
shown the weaknesses of structuralism where there must always be a center and a
meaning can be signified in a sign. This thought also can be used to analyze
the literary works, one of them is poetry. Poetries of Robert Frost always show
a deep understanding and deconstruction. One of them is “Fire and Ice”. In “Fire and
Ice”, Frost tries to give assumptions that the most dangerous thing of
desolation world is not only from a single hierarchy. In this poetry, Frost
gives two things that will end the world, “Fire
and Ice”. Although, “Fire” is
identically considered as the hierarchy of destruction than “Ice” but in this poetry, Frost delivers
that it is not only from “Fire”. It
is also from “Ice” that can destruct
the world. The position of them is same to end the world.
References
Al-Fayyadl, Muhammad. 2005. Derrida. Jogjakarta: LKis
Norris, Christopher. 2006. Membongkar
Teori Dekontruksi Jacques Derrida. Jogjakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media
Ratna, Nyoman Kutha. 2004. Teori, Metode, dan Teknik Penelitian
Sastra. Jogjakarta: Pustaka
Pelajar
Note :
The letter of capital “FIRE and ICE” in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraph
mean the “Fire and Ice” of the poetry.
