Deconstruction (Tvtropes) and Deconstruction (Criticism)

Is there a difference between the deconstruction that we use and the deconstruction that that the literary critics use? It seems that most where I go online seem to loathe the meme and they seem to want to correct (more like demonize) for someone using it on a show that may or may not have these elements. I know Postmodernism is a hard to define thing and even the tropes can be played straight while being self aware but is there a difference between the two? Or can they be used interchangeably?

Fixed the thread title.

Thanks.

Is our deconstruction different from academia and literary critics use it? I have seen other sites use defconstruction especially the one I read on horror movies that deconstructed common movie cliches. do they count as deconstruction? Do you even need a binary?

Yes, it is different. What critics use is the old definition, which had become warped as time passed, resulting in most people using it to mean ... well, what they use it to mean nowadays.

The definition of postmodernistic deconstruction is ... a bit hard for most people to understand unless they find a source that explains it more clearly, but essentially, deconstruction is about literary (and not only) works having not only one meaning, but multiple meanings, some of which might contradict each other, and about finding those meanings. One could even say that deconstruction is about taking the whole thing apart and trying to find out all the possible ways to combine those elements into anything.

Deconstruction as we know it nowadays (and as we use it when referring to any tropes), on the other hand, can be likened to taking a work apart, not for the purpose of doing the above but rather to point out internal defects and suboptimalities in how those elements interact, and then to create some sort of combination that works better than the original one. But only one possible combination.

Of course, I am simplifying the explanations quite a bit, to the point where those who know how to explain it properly might feel the need to exclaim "wrong!" (I invite them to provide a better explanation, while they're at it), but that's the gist of it. Exploration of possibilities and meanings on one side, and following a single thread on the other side.

edited 28th Jan '15 10:18:46 PM by Kazeto

Hmmm postmodernism is tricky to define as it is not meant to have a set definition to begin with. Still, if the deconstruction we use is different than what does qualify as a deconstruction in the 'traditional' sense?

Well, you could say that, rather than a method of writing, it is a method of analysis.

As for examples, well ... I don't have any right here and right now as collecting examples of deconstruction is not how I tend to spend my time, but you'll have an example if you take any work, ignore the meaning it is supposed to have, and then spend time analysing it and trying to find every possible meaning it could have.

If I'm not getting what Kazeto said wrong, I think this might be an example of the critics' version of deconstruction. Again, keep in mind that I might be an idiot.

I might have to watch that critique later but I can see how that might be an example. I had no idea that deconstruction was than taking something apart but now I have to have something to compare it to..

edited 31st Jan '15 10:58:16 AM by GAP

Well, even the TV Tropes definition has elements of "taking it apart." It's just that we add a step: "take it apart for realism."

That is true. I know the two are different but can the definitions overlap?

It's ... hard to say if they can overlap.

Deconstruction as criticism is about interpretation so its "taking apart" is not the same "taking apart" as in our deconstruction. It is possible for a deconstruction as criticism to end up with—among many different interpretations—something that could count as our deconstruction, but there's no telling if it will actually be one or if it just appears to be but isn't.

That's why it's hard to say. Technically there is a possibility of that potentially happening, but whether or not it will be a true overlap or a faux one is anyone's guess.

Deconstruction in literary studies is an attack against the idea that a literary work can have a single, "universal" meaning that applies equally to all readers. Instead, all works are treated as only having meaning in relation to other works, social trends, and cultural norms and expectations. In particular, literary theorists are interested in the ways that works can be used to "deconstruct" those external meanings and provide a completely unique way of understanding. As such, it's almost the opposite of the way we use the term here at TVT.

Do deconstructions need binaries? And is the TV Tropes way of deconstruction still a valid tool?

edited 16th Feb '15 4:41:09 AM by GAP

I don't see the reason why it would not be valid, to be honest. That something is not the same as something else does not make it any less valid ... well, unless it's a doppelgänger contest.

An actual deconstructionist critic would insist that the tvtropes methodology is as valid as any other. They would probably have a point.

To add to what Kazeto says on deconstruction - there is also an element of defining ambiguities about it, and how two opposite sides that seem totally opposed are in fact related to one another.

Take for example darkness and brightness. One part pointed out by many deconstructionists is that both are defined in terms of each other. Darkness can be defined as the absence of lightness and brightness, and how brightness can be defined as being in opposition to darkness too. Thus rather than there being two elements which exist not in a binary which is absolute, but exists on a spectrum, and it goes on from there to have a certain ambiguity in how it is. That they are both defined in relation to one another allows them both to be seen in other lights, and where it goes from there.

In a literary text which focuses on the ideas of darkness and brightness as core themes, a deconstructionist would take apart these elements because as a result of them not being defined as a binary, they can in fact be read very much in many other ways. Thus reading the work becomes not a matter of simply pure darkness and pure light, but very much something else based because a deconstructionist can find so many ways because of the ambiguity of the concepts involved in the work.

I think what makes the way the internet uses it diverge from deconstruction in literary criticism is the media-on-media approach. A literary critic deconstructs a text as a non-fiction critical exercise, while TV Tropes talks about works deconstructing other works like, "Work X deconstructs Work Y or Genre Z or Trope Alpha." Essentially, every time we say "deconstruction" we're stating, "The use of tropes in this work serve to analyze an existing use of tropes elsewhere so directly that it's comparable to a literary critic's deconstruction of that usage elsewhere." It's not that degraded in meaning, as casual uses of fancy terms go.