Named after an unrelated pre-existing term: Deconstruction

In literary criticism, Deconstruction is defined as "A method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression."

TV Tropes defines Deconstruction as "Taking a fictional element (usually a trope or genre) that may or may not be seen as a nice thing, and questioning it, examining it, and sometimes showing this element to be much less nice than commonly assumed. In simpler terms, this means taking it apart logically in order to better show the flaws at its core. "

Tv Trope's definition of Deconstruction is not what the word 'Deconstruction' means when used in relation to media.

A rename might help us cut down on the misuse; not many people even seem to stick to the definition we do use.

Notably, Deconstructed Trope is an entirely different page.

This... will not end well.

I am against a rename, personally. I think we should just make a Special Efforts thread for this...

Merriam-Webster lists "to take apart or examine in order to reveal the basis or composition of often with the intention of exposing biases, flaws, or inconsistencies" as a meaning of "deconstruct", so it's not exactly an abuse of the term.

As ide from the buzzwords, I don't see a gaping gulf between:

"emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression."

and

"questioning it, examining it, and sometimes showing this element to be much less nice than commonly assumed. In simpler terms, this means taking it apart logically in order to better show the flaws at its core."

Except that whoever wrote ours was buying into "deconstruction is always a good thing". All that needs to be changed to bring it into line with the official definition is to remove the assumption that what a deconstruction reveals are flaws.

Neither would many of the things I have attempted around here.

Special Efforts is for organizing concerted efforts to get something done. I don't really need a concerted effort for this.

May I hear the reasons why?

Indeed, that's how the term is used in construction, etc.

However, when referring to literary criticism, etc- i.e. the type of term it's used as on this Wiki- it refers to an entirely different concept.

Notably, Deconstruction as used in literary circles cannot even be used in the way we used it, as it is a method of analyzing a text.

For example, others posit this:

I believe this needs a rename.

I specified on the why in a different context than this site a couple of hours ago and I'll just repost what I said back then (I am not honestly planning to join this argument, to be honest. Whether it will be renamed or not, it'll be your choice, and I won't force it, nor try to convince you beyond this text right here)

I'll list my peeves and problems with it here, for your entertainment:

1) It's taking a term that means something different in the academic world and then changes the meaning to allow for maximum pseudointellectual circlejerkery

2) It also has the problem that it brings the implication that the more a work is aware of tropes, the better it is (Anyone with a degree of logic and reason can see why this is flawed logic right there)

3) It also implies that the more a work looks down on fictional trappings, the better it is (This is, a work that looks at fiction and thinks that it should be more realistic)

Now, the problem here is not that this things are bad and should never be done. (Except the first one) They can be done and they can be done well. But they don't imply quality. Good writing implies quality. Not good ideas, but good execution of those ideas is what makes a story.

Overall, my problem as always, is the issue of TV Tropes with accuracy and the fact that renames won't pass due to inbounds and the like. I know the numbers are important, but I think that actually being accurate, useful and descriptive is something we should aim for. Both in terms of the names of the trope articles we write on the future as well as (And specially, even) on the tropes we write on the past.

We, as editors, should be aiming for clarity above all. And misusing a word in order to twist its meaning into something it isn't because of whatever-reason-that-came-up-at-the-time is not clarity.

That is all.

I think we need the SE thread to clean it up, because this is kind of an important trope...

It's got a really clear, concise, short name that is easy to remember and pothole...

I don't know if this needs a rename or not, but I wouldn't mind a tighter description. I don't mind walls of text as a general thing, but this one feels a little all over the map.

Or at least cut it down to just getting across the basic definition, and porting the analysis over to the, well, Analysis/ tab.

edited 18th Aug '11 5:32:09 PM by Jeysie

That I can get behind. The current description seems a little too into talking about the hows and whys and not what the trope (writing style?) is actually done; i.e. how you would do it, and not how it has been done...

edited 18th Aug '11 5:32:05 PM by USAF713

Clean what up? We have not decided on anything to clean up yet.

However, it does not mean what we are using it to mean in terms of literary analysis- which is what this site revolves around, no?

In terms of literary analysis, deconstruction refers to the act of metaphorically deconstructing a work. The deconstructionist takes the work apart, combing through it for subtext, double meanings and other related aspects of the work to see what the work actually presents to the reader. What it does not refer to is taking apart an element of a genre and playing its' consequences realistically.

Using the actual, correct definition of deconstruction as used by people who are experts in this field, a work inherently cannot be a deconstruction, as a deconstruction is the taking apart of a work to show what it presents to the reader.

I am sorry, I need to leave for several hours now.

I think we should rename it in order to avoid Term Confusion.

Well... the only clear rename I can think of is Played For Realism. That would make reconstruction need a rename too, though...

I think it's clear. I guess the site doesn't agree with me, though...

Because half the site seems to think that's what realistic means since most works that tout themselves as being more realistic are also Darker and Edgier and/or Played for Drama so the ideas have become linked in people's minds.

Well, the article makes it clear that Darker and Edgier and Played for Drama are generally caused by the realism, not the other way around...

Maybe most people missed that memo, I guess...

I've seen it used in both senses all over the place, even in academic settings. It's just a big topic.

In one sense, it comes down to the shades of difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertextuality intertextuality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextualism contextualism.

edited 18th Aug '11 5:51:57 PM by ArtemisStrong

Yeah, truth be told, a lot of times when a trope is being picked apart, it's a light-hearted trope that's played for all of the conclusions it'd really have, which frequently aren't pretty.

But you can certainly deconstruct something and have it be sillier/funnier than the original work. (...possibly Mystery Men or Superhero League Of Hoboken? Superhero stories seem to lend themselves to kooky/comedic deconstructions as often as darker ones, for some reason.)

The problem here is that a lot of time a Deconstruction (as we define it) is Darker and Edgier and Played for Drama.

Ninja'ed like six times.

edited 18th Aug '11 5:52:27 PM by Discar

Disregard, misread, etc.

edited 18th Aug '11 5:59:36 PM by juancarlos

We define a lot of things funny around here.

I'd say give the article the full scope in definition it needs. Certainly language isn't frozen, and the "definition" of Deconstruction itself has shifted over the years. It's become quite popular to use it as shorthand to describe works like Chinatown or Watchmen that (though, yes, are texts themselves) seek to analyze genres and their conventions to depths that may not have been attempted yet, usually with the goal of exposing not only how they work, but why.

I think there should be room for a definition like that.

From Through The Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

I very much agree that deconstruction is getting misused as just a Darker and Edgier take on a trope I don't see a way to really fix it though deconstruction as it is right now is used all over the site... There is a thread in the anime forum about "deconstructing Magical Girl" and it's all about a Darker and Edgier Take on a show. Also one about reconstruction of Magical Girl after Madoka Magica (which wasn't a deconstruction it was just a Darker and Edgier take on magical girl with Faust story elements added. but you try and tell the hard core fans that....)

A Deconstruction has to be played for realism (sometimes even unlucky realism) like Deconstructing Transformation Sequence would be someone manually changing right infront of you shouting In the Name of the Moon. (Or extreme Deconstruction to the point of parody would be running to a bathroom to change only to find a line to get in letting the badguy continue whatever he was doing..)

edited 18th Aug '11 6:18:17 PM by Raso

That's an excellent example. The thing is, most people—both writers and tropers—believe that if a little girl who's trying to fight you starts glowing and spinning right in front of you, in real life you would shoot her. So it gets difficult to parse what is misuse and what's simply overlap.