Media Consumer
I want to add an example from a direct-to-video miniseries. Where should I put it?
Question: to what extent is reconstruction TV Tropes jargon, instead of a term TV Tropes has adopted from literary criticism? I've heard "deconstruction" elsewhere, but this is the first place I've heard "reconstruction."
Thanks.
Hide / Show Replies
Even if it was a jargon from this wiki, what's wrong with it?
135 - 161 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
The entries for Cloverfield and Pacific Rim seem to be at odds with each other. The Cloverfield entry says that it's a reconstruction of the Kaiju genre because it depicted the monster as terrifying; like how the original Godzilla was depicted. However, Pacific Rim's entry says it's a reconstruction of the Kaiju genre because it depicted the monsters as being awesome instead of terrifying, in contrast to Cloverfield.
So which one is really a reconstruction of the Kaiju genre?
Hide / Show Replies
Well.
The thing is, the original Godzilla is a bit of an Unbuilt Trope... it started off deconstructed. But the genre as a whole is much more light-hearted and "monsters are awesome" than the original. Cloverfield basically deconstructed the kaiju genre as a whole while reconstructing the original Godzilla, if that makes sense (much like Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack! did).
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Man, I just have to say. The page quote is REALLY good.
Not to mention that it invokes Watchmen by referencing taking apart and rebuilding watches, and that's the book that's largely credited with deconstructing the comic books that Astro City is reconstructing...
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Almost any Deconstruction that's an ongoing saga (rather then a stand alone story) will inevitably become a Reconstruction over time. The Venture Brothers example here is the most extreme example of that, but I believe that will inevitably be the destiny of A Song Of Ice And Fire and Game Of Thrones.
That's why Moore was so offended I think by the idea of a Sequel to Watchmen, because he doesn't want Watchmen reconstructed.
I also definitely see The Dark Knight Strikes Again as Reconstructing what Dark Knight Returns deconstructed.
The reason is that a Deconstruction has no need to be ongoing, once you've made your point continual repeating it is just a predictable and cliche as the cliches you originally Deconstructed where. But another reason is that it is what fans want, those who like Deconstruction the most like them because they loved the original genre, and ultimately do want it reconstructed latter.
Edited by MithrandirOlorin
PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING
Sorry to break convention and put this at the top of the page but I think its important because there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what reconstruction is. Lets start out with what it is not.
- Reconstruction does not simply strip out the commentary of previous deconstruction. Disneyfication or Adaptation Distillation are not reconstructions.
- Reconstruction is not merely referencing or making fun of a deconstruction. Parody, homage, and reference can be tools of a reconstruction but they are not simply by their nature.
- Reconstruction is not just "going back to basics". A Continuity Reboot or return to a [[Retraux "classic" model]] does not constitute a reconstruction.
A reconstruction must confront a previous deconstruction, addresses its criticisms, and then integrate that into a reconstruction. Please read the articles again if you are confused, and if you aren't sure ask here before hand. Its a very tricky and subjective concept, but there are some things that clearly don't belong here. —Petro
Hide / Show Replies
Alas, you'd have to weed out a hell of a lot of the examples on the page for it to actually follow those guidelines.
I believe this bit may need a bit of trimming, for obvious reasons:
- And, in fact, if Mazinger Z was not the Trope Codifier for the Super Robot genre, it would seem like a Deconstruction or parody. The Professor (in the original manga) was a Mad Scientist nearly as mad as the Big Bad, and said Big Bad is a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds; the main character nearly destroys the town while he's trying to figure out how to pilot the mecha (and in the anime he was close to accidently stomping his little brother into paste), he almost got killed in his first battle because he had no idea of how to handle it (and he only survived because Mazinger-Z was so powerful) and took a long time to learn how to pilot Mazinger; Kouji got his Cool Helmet and and Latex Space Suit to protect his body because the mecha, though nearly indestructible, didn't provide much safety for the pilot inside; Mazinger needed to be constantly upgraded and improved because the Big Bad mechas kept on getting stronger and more dangerous and attacking its weak points; The Hero and his Love Interest nearly got killed several times due to their quarrels diminishing their combat effectiveness; people DID NOT appreciate the destruction and death toll caused by the battles between Humongous Mecha, and often blamed the heroes; and the Big Bad is smart enough to send the "Mechanical Beasts" in groups to attack Mazinger, try alternate strategies or improve on effective tactis. And that's before the villains take over a Japanese village in a very Nazi-like manner, including a systematic slaughter of the civilians that they considered "useless" and usage of the women of the village as human shields for their latest Mechanical Beast. And then you have that, at the end, the heroes are defeated, Mazinger Z and all mechas are destroyed, and the base is demolished. Keeping in mind Great Mazinger was Darker and Edgier, Go Nagai's penchant for Gorn and Getter Robo in reality is a Cosmic Horror Story, and Zambot3 was already deconstructing the genre back in 1977, we can conclude the Humongous Mecha genre has been going through a constant cycle of Deconstruction and Reconstruction since its birth.
Trying to understand Recon & Decon here, but still unclear for the time being. Does a Recon has to be preceded by a Decon? Does it need to be by the same creators? And does the Decon need to be recognized/known by a majority for the following Recon to work or to be actually considered a Recon?
P.S: It'd be quite useful for the Reconstruction and Deconstruction pages to have their own "Playing With" section.
Hide / Show Replies
A reconstruction doesn't have to be part of the same canon as a deconstruction, just part of the same genre. And no reconstructions aren't decided by majority rule, like most tropes. Basically a deconstruction takes an idea to its rational, usually horrible conclusion. Small Girl, Big Gun? Gunslinger Girl. The Cape? Watchmen. Space Opera? Battle Star Galactica (the new one). What a reconstruction does is try to bring back the optimistic and heroic elements of the original idea while still acknowledging and addressing the problems pointed out by the deconstruction. To give a blow by blow example:
- Original: Silver Age batman is a Lawful Good crack detective who always saves the day.
- Deconstruction: Dark Age batman is a tortured vigilante who teeters on the brink of Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil due to his traumatic childhood and outlaw lifestyle.
- Reconstruction: Modern Age batman struggles with his desire for vengeance and lack of faith in humanity but in the end stays true to his Lawful Good ideals, even when he seems to be the only one.
Note: I'm not a huge comics fan and this is just meant to illustrate a point, dont pick me apart on this one. >_<
Edited by Petro
Therein lies the problem with both concepts, I think. Well, mostly just deconstruction. Here's the issue.
"Basically a deconstruction takes an idea to its rational, usually horrible conclusion."
Why are "rational" and "usually horrible" considered synonymous, or at the very least inextricably linked? What if you don't think we live in a Crapsack World where everyone's a neurotic wreck? Deconstruction as it stands is a misnomer on this wiki. It doesn't take things apart for examination. It just uses them to make a cynical point about how lousy everything is and how naive you are for enjoying any entertainment that plays its tropes straight.
The reconstruction page quote from Busiek is pretty accurate on both counts. Deconstruction, if we're actually going to define it as such, is simply the act of taking apart a trope or genre to see what factors go into its basic concept and structure — not necessarily saying "look how shitty this old stopwatch is," but "here are all the bits and pieces of this old stopwatch; now that we know how it works, how can we improve on the design?"
By way of example, let's look at Mass Effect. There was no grand burning in effigy of the 1980s space opera films and TV shows that inspired it; it just took a lot of tropes and genre conventions that hadn't been used for years, improved upon them by making them much more complex and internally consistent, and assembled them into something more entertaining than the material that inspired the game in the first place. Reconstruction without deconstruction.
Where does "reality" even enter into it? We're talking about fiction here, yet there's this underlying notion on both pages that a thing just isn't worth our consideration unless it's 1) "realistic" and 2) relentlessly cynical.
Straight from the deconstruction page.
"That said, deconstruction is often seen as inherently clever and "better" when, in fact, it isn't. Tropes Are Not Bad, and if every aspect of a fictitious work were seen through the often harsh lens of reality, there would be no enjoyment in escapism — nor, indeed, any tropes to deconstruct in the first place. Not to mention the fact that everybody's version of what's "realistic" is different. Deconstruction is indeed not bad, but nor is it good; it is simply another way to play with a trope and as such it can be done well or done awfully. "
I get what you're saying. But idealized works often fall apart (that is, stops being idealistic) when you try to examine them in detail. That is, when you step outside the world the writer has presented and say, "what would actual people do?" They generally aren't designed to withstand that kind of scrutiny.
And that's usually the difference between an idealized work and a work that has gone through the deconstruction/reconstruction process. The result can withstand greater scrutiny before falling apart.
"By way of example, let's look at Mass Effect...Reconstruction without deconstruction."
Glad to see this brought up. It's why I'm checking the discussion page. Mass Effect does not seem to be a Reconstruction to me. It just seems to be regular Space Opera.
Edited by 216.201.214.146
"But idealized works often fall apart (that is, stops being idealistic) when you try to examine them in detail. That is, when you step outside the world the writer has presented and say, 'what would actual people do?' They generally aren't designed to withstand that kind of scrutiny."
You don't think works at the other end of the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism have the same problem?
Edited by gfrequency
"Mass Effect does not seem to be a Reconstruction to me. It just seems to be regular Space Opera."
Admittedly, my experience with the genre is limited to a few episode of Star Trek, Star Wars, and some Transformers interpretations, but I would still say that Mass Effect is a reconstruction precisely because it feels natural. The internal physics reflect our updated understanding of science, the presented cultures are sufficiently alien but not utterly illogical to the point they're not relate able, and the Alliance (Federation stand-in) is more logically a military organization but still maintains the ideals of discovery and sentient rights. If it were an old-fashioned Space Opera the Krogan would just be Klingon stand-ins rather than on the verge of extinction with signs of recovery due to smart governance, the Asari would be eye candy with little elaborated upon their wisdom and longevity, they would be using lasers and latex suits rather than guns and armor, the species would each be planets of hats instead of outliers being abound while still gravitating to certain traits, and the Reapers wouldn't even exist. By that logic, the Reapers could be seen as the idealistic Space Opera's "take that" to the cynical Cosmic Horror Story.
What's the argument being made for Mass Effect not being reconstruction? I can elaborate on the explanation given, I'm just wondering why you don't think it is.
This makes it an Affectionate Parody, not a reconstruction:
- Yu Gi Oh Abridged can be seen basically as a Deconstructive Parody over how stupid some plotlines and characters were in the anime. But in the episode Joey Wheeler: Ace Attorney, Joey (And in a sense LK) basically says that they only parody the show because they are fans on it, and in turn have increased the fanbase of the original show in turn.
someone
- Lagann-Hen then somehow manages to out-do itself.
- It is interesting to note that Studio Gainax, the people who made Neon Genesis Evangelion, also made Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. The people who created the greatest deconstruction in Mecha Anime history basically just put the whole thing back together... and they made it even better.
Removed the above stuff from the Gurren Lagann example, for improper linking (Sinkholes) to Beyond the Impossible.
something
Could somebody explain what is meant in the LXG section about the Black Dossier reconstructing 19th c. and deconstructing 20th c. stuff.
Yeah, I get "if you aren't somewhat confused, then Alan Moore hasn't done his job" but could somebody try, please?
I don't care for this passage: "Basically, if a Deconstruction is Fridge Logic as applied to an entire genre, a Reconstruction is its Fridge Brilliance."
The first part is an accurate enough application of the trope, but the latter is way off. Fridge Brilliance refers to only understanding the true significance of some plot element or other after the initial exposure to the work in question. This is not what Reconstruction means.
Edited by Tal9922
I think the Alan Moore quote is a fake. The only refrences on google are here and a signature in a polish forum.
I removed the following from the description:
"Often confused with Adaptation Distillation. Reconstruction is when a genre is rebuilt after being hit with a criticism; Adaptation Distillation is when a specific work is revitalized, without any new objections needing to be answered in the process."
I tried to rewrite it, but there's no sensible way to do it. This is because it relies too much on the mistaken idea that Adaptation Distillation means an adaptation that's good or better than the original, whereas it really means a condensed adaptation (not necessarily different in a well-defined way from Compressed Adaptation).