IbMKELOMPOKUSAHA KECIL KRUPUK DI KENJERAN KOTA SURABAYA

Authors

  • Siti Mujanah Fakultas Ekonomi, Untag Surabaya
  • Tri Ratnawati Fakultas Ekonomi, Untag Surabaya
  • Wiwik Retnaningsih

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30996/jpm17.v2i01.791

Abstract

The purpose of the activities for the community IbM is to provide appropriate
technology for Small Businesses engaged in Krupuk Shells. The objective of this activity
is IbM three (3) business owners in the field of crackers in the area Kenjeran. Problems
faced by Sme Krupuk is the low capability in the production of chips so that their
products are less if the fries are less able to expand and it does not feel as most vitsin,
besides chips business is done by hand in mixing the chips is by churning by hand, as
well as in cooking with pot coming from the drums were very doubtful of hygiene and
health, in addition to the practice of business management has not been in touch in the
conduct of business, for example, to market the production to just wait for customers to
come, and there are no financial records so that they confuse the money business with
the household money. Proposer activities IbM have agreed with all three partners to
procure the technology in the production of which is to buy machinery Mixer material
crackers, pot to cook the dough crackers, accompanied by the also given training in the
production of crackers are tasty and higienes, as well as training in business
management, finance and marketing strategy.
Keyword : Crackers production, appropriate technology, and Business
Management

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Barthes has said that all texts are potentially plural and that they cannot be considered singular objects. What has been clear from the discussion is that Chudori’s Pulang implicitly and explicitly refers to Wispi’s Pulang.

The connections that Chudori established between Pulang and Wispi’s Pulang should be analyzed in order to discover their connotations. The writer argues that Chudori’s Pulang is a pastiche of Wispi’s Pulang in the sense that Chudori has taken the elements from Wispi’s Pulang and reconstructed them. Chudori’s Pulang has made new connections and has added new elements to the original one. On one hand, Chudori’s Pulang has made a faithful imitation, while on the other hand, the pastiche is more subconscious, since Chudori’s Pulang incorporated other texts and influenced into this new text.

Through the analysis, it can be stated that there are connections between Chudori’s Pulang and Wispi’s Pulang. Chudori’s Pulang reconstructs Wispi’s Pulang. Chudori underscores her points of view and elaborates on possible situations that Agam Wispi could not make happen. Rather than deconstructs his work, she enhances it and thereby encourages readers to also read Agam Wispi’s Pulang..

The differences in setting in these two literary works can be ascribed to the different time and place these works were written in and the subsequent differences in attitude the events are interpreted with. For all readers decode the texts differently, depending on their personal and literary backgrounds. Chudori elaborates on Wispi’s Pulang instead of replacing it. For it is almost impossible to appreciate Chudori’s Pulang to the fullest extent if one has not read Wispi’s Pulang. And this is why she considers the relationship among these two works to be continuous.

Tri P. & Y.B. Agung P. – Imagining Indonesia

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016

References

Allen, Graham. 2000. Intertextuality. London & New York: Routledge.

Assem, Al- Faress. 1992. Comparative Literature and Intertextuality: A theoretical Study in Modern European and American Literary Criticism. Indiana University Press.

Bakhtin, Mikhael. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics.University of Minnesota.

Barthes, Roland . 1975. The Pleasure of the Text, Richard Miller (trans.), Hill and Wang, New York.

—— . 1977. Image – Music – Text, Stephen Heath (trans.), Fontana, London.

—— . 1981.‘Theory of the text’ in Young (ed.) 1981, 31–47.

——. 1986. The Rustle of Language, Richard Howard (trans.). Oxford Basil: Blackwell.

Chudori, Leila S. 2012. Pulang. Jakarta: PT Gramedia.

Lodge, David.1992. The Art of Fiction. UK: Secker and Warburg.

Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Ed. Roudiez, L. Translated by Jardine, A., Gora T. and Roudiez, L. New York: Columbia University Press; London: Basil Blackwell.

Kristeva, Julia 1967 "Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman."Critique 33/239, 438-465. - Rpt. in: Kristeva. Semeiotike: Recherches pour unesemanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1969, 143 -173. - Engl. tr.: "Word, Dialogue and Novel." In Kristeva. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia Up, 1980,64-91. - Also in: Kristeva. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1986, 34-61.

Kristeva, Julia 1974. La revolution du langagepohique: L'Avant-garde a la fin du dix-neuviemesiede: Lautreamontet Mallarme. Paris: Seuil. - Eng!. tr. (excerpts): Kristeva. Revolution in Poetic Language.New York: Columbia Up, 1975. - Rpt. (excerpts): "Revolution inPoetic Language." In Toril Moi, ed. The Kristeva Reader.Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1986, 89-136.

Plett, Heinrich F. (ed.) .1991. Intertextuality: Research In Text Theory. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Riffaterre, Michael. 1978. Semiotics of Poetry, Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN.

—— . 1983.Text Production, Terese Lyons (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press.

—— . 1984.‘Intertextual representation: on mimesis as interpretive discourse’ in Critical Inquiry 11 (1), 141–62.

Riffaterre, Michael. “Compulsory Reader Response: The Intertextual Drive.†Intertextuality: Theories and Practices.Ed. Michael Worton and Judith Still. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1990. 56-78.

Wispi, Agam. 2002. “ Pulang†: Di Negeri Orang : Puisi Penyair Indonesia Eksil. Ed. Asahan Alham and Co. Amanah- Lontar.

Downloads

Published

2016-07-12

Issue

Section

Articles