Is a deconstruction of a story based on real life possible?

Can you deconstruct a story based on real-life events? I've been reconsidering Cuba Libre, thinking of turning it into a deconstruction of Evita. Is a deconstruction of a story based on real-life events even possible? How would you go about it, assuming it is? After all, deconstruction, if I'm right, is about taking a work and showing its contradictions by showing how it'd play out in real life.

EDIT: The question has now slightly changed. Read last post (4.20 20 PM).

edited 7th Jun '13 7:31:55 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

A true deconstruction is much more complicated than simply playing tropes straight in critical, self-consciously realistic ways; rather, it is a work that in and of itself is an in-depth critique and point-by-point analysis of the concept that it is deconstructing through a narrative in a given genre. A deconstructive fictional work asks why a work or genre is what it is, how, and in what ways, then attempts to demonstrate the underlying meanings, flaws, motives, reasons and logical consequences (both "realistic" and not) as elements of the story in plot, structure, theme, setting and character. Real deconstructions are, by their very nature, dense, usually deceptively so, with many layers that cannot necessarily be observed solely from the surface.

In other words, yes, if it is a real deconstruction, then it is possible. But those are relatively rare.

Any tips on how to do a good one? I want to make this a good story in its own right.

edited 4th Jun '13 9:44:17 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

bump

bump. Still looking for help on this.

Well, first, the way you are using the term seems technically incorrect. Deconstruction is a highly formalized form of literary criticism, and doesn't really apply to another fictional work. Are you sure that you dont really mean to invert or subvert the tropes of the genre contained in the original work?

Assuming that that is what you really intend to do, then there is no reason that you couldn't do that to non-fictional works just as easily as fictional ones. Biographies and memoirs, after all, have their own tropes.

I do mean deconnstruction. What I'd be "deconstructing" (I'm using the term in a similar sense to "Deconstruction Fic") would be a piece of historical fiction: Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's Evita.

edited 6th Jun '13 7:43:58 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

Well, a work can serve as a deconstruction in the critical sense, as I described earlier, but it is rare. More often than not people misapply the word to mean something much less sophisticated, which is what seems to be the case with the OP. The confusion is a longstanding one that is reinforced by how this site uses the word, and so it is understandable, but it is nonetheless an error.

Subversions are a slightly different matter.

Again, a misuse. Such works are actually a very specific kind of subversion.

edited 6th Jun '13 7:43:55 PM by JHM

@JHM: Oh, OK. That's a better explanation. So how would I do a critical deconstruction of a historical musical?

edited 6th Jun '13 7:57:43 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

Ask a lot of questions. Learn as much about the work as possible. Try to decipher why the work is the way it is and why the author wrote it that way, whether consciously or not. Analyse why you are yourself drawn to this work and what that says about you. Analyse why the author would want to write about that subject and what that says about them. Read about the history of the actual events and compare them to the changes, what was glorified or modified, and then figure out why they were changed and what that means.

Then make that a story.

AFAIK, Tim Rice wrote Evita (it was his idea, not Webber's) in response to/inspired by a radio play about her. I think part of his influence may have been the Thatcherism in England at the time.

edited 6th Jun '13 9:22:26 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

"...When applied to tropes, or other aspects of fiction, deconstruction means to take apart a trope so as to better understand its meaning and relevance to us in Real Life."

So, correct or not, this is what we are doing, right?

Presumably, one starts by looking at the Tropes in the work:

"...This play angers many people, some claim it has multiple historical inaccuracies, while others are just angered by the simplistic portrayal of a controversial figure that is still beloved by many."

Looks like it's ripe for this sort of treatment. Even though you arent doing the other kind of deconstruction, this might still help.

Where do you want to start?

Actually I am planning on doing the other type of deconstruction. The OP was written when I had no idea what a deconstruction really was (I first heard the word on this site).

So, answering JHM's queations:

1. Why is the work the way it is? Why did the authors write the work, consciously and unconsciously?

It was Tim Rice's idea to write Evita, and consciously, he wrote it in response to a radio play on Evita he happened on while he was in his car. As a child, he'd collected stamps, including some from Argentina with Evita's official portrait on them. He knew very little about her except that she had died young a few years earlier, and that she was the First Lady of Argentina. As he researched her, he became more and more fascinated with her. Subconsciously, the story may have been a response to Margaret Thatcher's rise. This political climate may have influenced Rice to write about his subject.

Webber reuses musical themes and motifs throughout the score, maybe to highlight parallels between characters and events. For example, "The Actress Hasn't Learned The Lines You'd Like To Hear" features the melody of “Another Suitcase In Another Hall”, sung by Peron’s mistress as she is shut out from his life by Eva. It’s sung by Eva as she is shut out from the aristocratic social circle. The "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" melody is sung in different contexts and reappears throughout the score, associated with Eva and others' perceptions of her. Lines like "So what happens now? Where am I going to?" reinforce the parallels. First it is sung by the mistress, then by Eva as both of them are uncertain about the future after being cast out in the case of the mistress and learning that she's dying of uterine cancer in the case of Evita.

2. What is different from the real events?

The most significant difference from reality is the presence of Che. Che Guevara never met Evita, and IRL he left Argentina soon after her death. Eva never met Agustin Magaldi, the singer depicted in the musical as the first of her lovers; there is no evidence that he was in Junin in 1934. By all accounts he was a family man and actually a very successful recording artist and competent singer. There is also no evidence that Eva willingly slept her way to the top- one quote from someone she knew says that she could have got better parts if she'd done it more often. The casting couch was an expected part of the acting industry at the time. Also, Eva did not have any part in springing Peron from prison on October 17, 1945. Before she met Peron or became his mistress she had no interest in politics. The Rainbow Tour was more successful than the song of the same name makes it seem.

3. Why were these changes made?

These changes were made to reinforce Rice and Webber's theme of the deception and manipulation of truth practiced by extremists. The symbolic presence of Che highlights the fact that extremism breeds more extremists who will act in similar ways and be honoured similarly to their predecessors. Che has a strong cult of personality in Cuba, as demonstrated by songs such as "Hasta Siempre Comandante." Like Eva, his body was placed in a government mausoleum.

4. What does it say about you that you are drawn to this work?

I think what it says about me is that I am also potentially vulnerable to the manipulation of political extremists. The whole purpose of the musical is to highlight political manipulation and the various forms of deceptions used in creating modern heroic myths and icons.

@De Marquis: I think we could start with Che. In what I've got written so far, he's a clone of Che Guevara who works as a servant and is very snarky. Or trying to be — I'm not sure how well that side of him comes out.

edited 7th Jun '13 10:58:45 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

bump

Wow. You've actually done serious homework here.

If you really feel this passionately about the subject and are willing to go into this much depth analysing it, I think that you probably could at least take a stab at writing a truly deconstructive work. But questions remain: How will you challenge the form? What are you trying to say about the original work and why? How can you turn these layers of meaning into narrative material?

Well, the main challenge here is that Evita (the musical) is already a deconstruction (of the political legend). So what are you "deconstructing" exactly? The way history sees Eva Person? The musical? Do you want to write something that is closer to historical reality? Depict the complexity of real people caught up in politics? The compromises one must make if one is to "Give the people what they want?"

We need some indication of what direction you want to go in.

The musical.

And what point or theme are you interested in making?

To put it simply.

"...and then shit got real."

Or try.

"...and then bad stuff happened. The fairy tale ended. Real life happened."

The complexity of politics and manipulation needed to sway public opinion.

Ok, so what effect will this have on the MC's?

@Marquis: I was actually going to post when I saw your (edited) post.

Eva: Becomes harder, more ruthless, and more manipulative.

Che: Becomes more cynical and an outspoken political critic.

edited 9th Jun '13 6:33:57 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

Well, ok, but... isn't that what the musical did? Oh, wait, I get it, you dont think they took that idea to it's logical conclusion?

I'm focusing more on Che than Eva, although Eva and her legacy are still obviously a crucial part of the whole thing. Since Che is a clone, the novel focuses on the manipulation of truth and history through the cult of personality, from the perspective of the person the cult is centred on, who is also close to another person honoured in a personality cult.

@Natasel: Who are you replying to?

edited 9th Jun '13 9:11:36 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

Ah, ok. So it's all about how the MC knows he isn't the same person the mob is in love with, but still doesn't know who he really is?