Named after an unrelated pre-existing term: Deconstruction

I admit that I just don't see the fact that it's a pre-existing term to be that big an issue here, simply because it's not very likely to be misused in that sense. It's hardly, for better or worse, the only term on TV Tropes used for something than the outside academic/technical meaning, and the academic sense doesn't strike me as something that would show up in most works.

Misuse in being treated as a synonym for darker and edgier sense is a much bigger deal, and isn't related to the academic usage AFAIK. I could see arguing for a rename on those grounds.

But yeah, rename or not, better-written description and cleaned up examples and wicks are muchly needed.

edited 18th Aug '11 7:28:19 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

I'm going to start by saying that we use the term as I've always heard it off site. This thread is the first place I heard hints that there might be a different definition so it seems REALLY odd to me, but I'll take it with a grain of salt that some academic might use the term a different way. They do that a lot and I generally don't pay attention to them.

That said, I don't think this is a place where a rename is going to fix the misuse. It's not tied to the name. It's tied to people's preconceived ideas of the concept and what realism is. People seem to have this idea that real is gritty, violent and dark. That's our big problem with this idea. It's that people can't seem to wrap their heads around this happening in ways that aren't dark and edgy and thus they lump anything that makes a work Darker and Edgier into being more realistic.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Still dont think it would often end up Darker and Edgier really a True Deconstruction of a lot of tropes would be Boring or Funny more often than Darker and Edgier.

The misuse I really have no idea how to clean up. Fandoms love to call their show a Deconstruction of anything even if it isnt. Locking this trope and just making a Played For Realism page might be better.

edited 18th Aug '11 7:31:16 PM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

You're referring to this bit?

Because if so, I don't see how that definition syncs up with ours. At all.

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

I think one of our problems here is that, like with the Not A Subversion problem, it's one of those words that sounds like whatever it means must be cool, so people just love to talk about how their favorite work is full of deconstructions and subversions.

^Well, our definition is an attempt to demonstrate that a trope, if it occurred in reality, wouldn't play out as it does in most uses. As such, the "position" that's being argued against would be something like "Power Glows," while the proof of incoherence would be "all the most powerful characters would be blind." (example courtesy of Playing with a Trope)

In other words, both mean applying real-world logic to a hypothetical to see what happens.

edited 18th Aug '11 7:36:35 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

I think everyone agrees that misuse needs to be cleaned up. The problem I'm seeing is that its very difficult to tell what is misuse for Darker and Edgier and what is correct usage, but which also happens to be Darker and Edgier.

Let me give an example I added to the Maken Ki page, under Wouldn't Hit a Girl (I did the second bullet, first one is for context).

• Wouldn't Hit A Girl: Takeru. Justified by the fact that he developed this complex because of the tragic death of his mother. Other characters, however, repeatedly warn him that he has to get over this.
  • Arguably full-out deconstructed when someone asks him what he would do if he saw a girl beating up another girl (a very real possibility in this school), and he can't come up with an answer. "Unless you're saying it's all right for girls to beat up girls?"

At first glance, it seems like misuse. The trope Played for Drama. But its also Played For Realism, since this is a fighting girl manga, and its perfectly possible for two girls to start beating each other up.

Is that making the problem more clear, or am I just confusing everyone?

Wait, I thought that our position wasn't necessarily that a trope is incoherent, but that a trope, when brought into a realistic context, wouldn't work the way it normally works in fiction?

I mean, yes, this normally ends up being the trope taken to the backyard and beaten over with a probervial bat, but it isn't always the case, is it?.

But arguments and postions already use real world logic, anyway.

Not to mention that the definition there is the same as the old definition but with the added bonus that it is now a conscious effort, rather than a unconscious effort

edited 18th Aug '11 7:41:04 PM by juancarlos

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

^^Sounds like a legit example, though possibly one written by someone who thought deconstruction meant something else.

Lemme rephrase. The argument shown to be incoherent would be the idea that the trope would work the way it normally does in fiction.Oh, how I wish this were always true.

edited 18th Aug '11 7:42:32 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

It doesn't have to be full-out incoherent - you just have to show that it won't work that way when followed to its logical conclusion. Reduction ad absurdum when applied to tropes.

MAL || vndb || Blog

Here's a image clipped from that article I mentioned (it's a pdf scan, so this is the best I can do in relation to my general laziness) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/decoe.jpg/

It actually surprised me to read it, as it not only provides example of the "other" use of deconstruction as a work that examines genres from a realistic view, but also my point about it serving as a point of genre renewal. Which made me happy.

Don't get me wrong: I amm very serious about meanings and rhetoric and the value of words. It is just in this case it seems we have a term that multitasks if you will, despite what the coiner provided for as a definition. IN fact, Derrida seems to assert that in fact it is a flexible term that alludes pigeon-holing.

edited 18th Aug '11 7:57:30 PM by ArtemisStrong

Get a slant at this glossary of Pulp Detective terms. It rates. Pipe that?

I still think that using the academic term will reduce confusion, since we have a rather different definition.

Our definition is "taking some concept and putting it into a realistic context in order to show how it would work in reality" whereas the definition given on the first page is more like "how is this thing put together in terms of linguistic expression."

We're talking about different things here, really.

edited 18th Aug '11 9:48:22 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

We have Reality Ensues. How does it differ from our definition of "deconstruction"?

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

^It...actually, it doesn't. At all.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

They're... yeah, they don't differ. Huh.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

...well, that settles that then.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

As I understand it, Reality Ensues is for individual scenes while Deconstruction is for works. A guy trying to make a window escape and failing because Soft Glass doesn't exist is Reality Ensues, a work showing the flaws of an Idiot Hero is a Deconstruction. However, I'm not sure if that's the definitions or just how I see them used, and either way it's a pretty thin distinction.

edited 18th Aug '11 10:21:37 PM by nrjxll

I'm not sure if that distinction would really be worth two entirely different tropes though.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Wait...isn't Deconstructor Fleet supposed to be for works?

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

I think Deconstructor Fleet is "work applies reality to many tropes", but we really need to start up that thread again, as it had even worse misuse then Deconstruction itself does.

And I agree it's a fairly thin difference; I'm just going by how I see them used around here in general.

Yes.

And, now that I look closer, this article really already is split. There is Genre Deconstruction (that really works fine for the less academic use of the word) and Deconstruction.

So why not take the history of the term as a lead in, then point to Genre Deconstruction to point to works that break tropes.

edited 18th Aug '11 10:31:50 PM by ArtemisStrong

Get a slant at this glossary of Pulp Detective terms. It rates. Pipe that?

So...basically, a deconstructor fleet is "Deconstruction...but MOAR"?

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

So we have Deconstructor Fleet for works that play many tropes realistically, and Genre Deconstructor for works that play a genre realistically.

So... Deconstruction applies to... what?

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

It's the supertrope. It applies when people don't know where to put things. It shouldn't show up in actual examples, but its fine for potholes.

I'm guessing it's tropes?

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

You can have your way with Deconstruction if it points to Genre Deconstruction.

Get a slant at this glossary of Pulp Detective terms. It rates. Pipe that?