The "True" Meaning Of Deconstruction

You're assuming that for something to be a genuine deconstruction rather than the shallow kind that so often gets called this, that it must only be the extreme exegetic kind? Have you ever read Watchmen? Any short story by Donald Barthelme? *

True deconstruction takes many forms, and while a full, no-holds-barred deconstructive analysis may be several times longer than a work, a "simpler"—but by no means shallow—deconstruction of a concept may require only as much ink as a song lyric.

edited 19th Jun '12 11:38:42 AM by JHM

Oh, I thought Morven thought our deconstructions were shallow, as in, our critiques. In the forum and such.

The instances of deconstruction in works... well... Honestly, Watchmen is not that deep of a deconstruction, because, well, it doesn't really deal with super-hero tropes as such, just something approximate that would show up in a "realistic" world. The human psychology isn't that deep either, and I feel there's too much reliance on stylistic drabness, visual puns, and other such artistic tools. It's just very very well written.

As a matter of fact, we should try not to talk about Eva or Watchmen when speaking of Deconstruction, because they come to mind so easily one might feel like they're the only decon works available. How about we talk of Don Quixote, which turns basically every storytelling trope of its era on its head, including such a simple thing as the Literary Agent Hypothesis, and doesn't limit itself to savagely mocking chivalry tropes, but examines the whole concept of Chronic Hero Syndrome, Wide-Eyed Idealist (pushing it to the point of I Reject Your Reality, which is sort of the main idea behind escapist fiction anyway) in a thoughtful, measured way. Shit is deep-deep man.

EDIT: Btw, been browsing the Unbuilt Trope page. 'Tis a credit to this wiki.

edited 19th Jun '12 12:31:29 PM by TheHandle

You're really not giving Moore enough credit here. But then again, most people don't have the background in the particular ideas that Moore was taking apart in this day and age due to them basically becoming discredited in his wake. For example, Rorschach is possibly the first and last notable, serious examination of the mentality necessary to produce a true Objectivist "hero" in the vein of Steve Ditko's Mr. A in mainstream comics, and up until the revival of The Question circa 52 was basically the death of that type of character in comics.

But you are right about people reaching for Watchmen or Evangelion too often when wanting to name a prime example of a deconstructive work. Admittedly, I cited those two because I was unsure if you'd know about most of the other stuff that I would have cited: Anything by John Barth or Angela Carter, for instance.

edited 19th Jun '12 12:45:23 PM by JHM

Your fears were justified. Enlighten me (or at least show me the way). Because the person who wrote this sounds like a rear end in a top hat.

edited 19th Jun '12 1:05:03 PM by TheHandle

Go buy a copy of The Bloody Chamber, or take it out from the library. Read it, especially the short stories "The Tiger's Bride" and "The Company of Wolves". All shall be revealed. And yes, Ms. Carter wins all the Freud. But seriously, do this. If you don't understand what it means, call me.

edited 19th Jun '12 4:21:55 PM by JHM

I think one of the problems is that a very successful deconstructive work changes culture sufficiently that someone who wasn't there before doesn't get easily how much of a shock to the system they were. Obviously, this depends on how popular and influential the deconstruction.

Same for any sufficiently game-changing work, really.

The same can apply for changes at a personal level. I've been an atheist for years now, and I'm having lots of trouble remembering why it was such a big deal back then. More recently I've gone through some ego death, and now I'm having trouble remembering why I cared so much what others thought of me or "who I was".