Culture The Case against literary 'Deconstruction'

tl;dr: 'Deconstruction' is a vague misnomer that can easily backfire on users, and there are better words and concepts which can replace it.

There is a form of writing and literary analysis which is not well-defined, not often used effectively, and perhaps not even necessary/worthy of existence. If you are thinking 'literary deconstruction', you just might have the right idea.

Spoiler: 1. What does 'deconstruction' mean?

Claiming that 'deconstruction' is a vague misnomer would be like saying the ocean is full of water.

Philosophical Origins

The term was coined by philosopher Derrida, who feels it is best described by 'what deconstruction is not, or rather ought not to be.' - for example, it is 'neither an analysis, nor a critique', and that it would be inaccurate to describe it as a method/act/operation etc. With such a 'definition', the following should probably be unsurprising:

Wikipedia: Deconstruction is a critique of the relationship...
Encyclopedia Britannica: Deconstruction, form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived...
Merriam-Webster: A philosophical or critical method which asserts that meanings...

In fact, Derrida himself states that 'deconstruction loses nothing from admitting that it is impossible.' This quote is clearly out of context, but good luck to anyone who thinks they can do better, for it won't be enough - 'deconstruction' itself makes it rather impossible to even provide a definition.

There is little need to delve further within philosophy, but at this point it is increasingly clear that any attempt to translate this term into literature is already a misnomer.

The Subtleties of English

While 'deconstruction' is originally coined in French, the blind idiot translation of said term into English and applying it to literature leads to even greater confusion. As one is undoubtedly aware, de- is a common negative prefix in the English language; words such as 'decrease', 'devalue' and 'derail' carry a meaning of not/opposite to the original term. The term 'deconstruct' has often been used in a similar fashion to 'un-build', ie completely tearing down the original work - ie arguing that said work/trope won't work at all. And one could argue that this definition isn't actually wrong when considering the subtleties of the English language.

Some may argue that words can be coined however people wish to - language is a flexible thing after all, and the meaning of words can morph over a variety of factors such as time, location, and subjects of discussion. This is of course true, yet when nine people have ten different interpretations of 'deconstruction', and when this ambiguity is impeding its proper usage, one cannot help but feel that a better word could have been chosen at the very least.

But to avoid tilting at windmills, let's define literary 'deconstruction' as taking a 'something'/trope/work apart, showing what consequences should 'realistically/logically' happen based on said trope/plot of said work as a result, hence allowing the audience to gain a greater understanding of said trope/work's value/meaning/relevance. With a definition now available, we then take 'deconstruction' apart in #2, showing what realistically/logically happens as a result, which allows us to gain a greater understanding of ''deconstruction's' value (or perhaps the lack of it).

Spoiler: 2. What could possibly go wrong?

There's something wrong with this painting - it just doesn't look complete or 'realistic' with these gaping holes. With my absolutely amazing painting skills (I've won an art competition in Kindergarten before), let me try to apply 'deconstruction' to fix it while you read the rest of this section, and show you the results when both of us are done. I'm absolutely positive the 'deconstructed' painting will not only rival, but exceed the works of Da Vinci and Michelangelo!

Before 'deconstruction': Ecce Homo (Behold the Man)

*******

Using the previously provided definition, one could infer that successful 'deconstructions' in a literary work would require the following:

• The writer understands the trope/material/work they plan to 'deconstruction'
• The writer can see flaws or less-than-perfect aspects relating to logic/'realism'
• The writer is able to present a logical/'realistic' interpretation of what should happen

At its core, 'deconstruction' requires a bellicose 'you're wrong, I'm right' mentality. After all, there is little point in 'deconstructing' a trope/work/genre which one views as already logical or 'realistic' - there must be something wrong with it before one could even begin to 'deconstruction'. Then of course one would need to demonstrate a convincing alternative that is more logical/'realistic'. Small wonder that most 'deconstructions' arise out of frustration or pride. These are not necessarily bad things, but it also makes 'deconstruction' ridiculously susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Just as listening is often harder than speaking, being able to absorb the works of other people and carefully dissect what went wrong while still injecting one's own ideas etc. represents a much higher level of skill than simply creating your own work.

Many would have heard of the 'A Song of Ice and Fire' series, often noted for its 'deconstructions' of Tolkien's works. The books' author, George R.R. Martin, once gave an interview on Rolling Stone. The relevant passage quoted below:




It should be obvious that GRRM dislikes some tropes Tolkien codified in the fantasy genre - or to put it more bluntly, a backlash against Tolkien. His intent to 'deconstruct' is essentially to show that Tolkien's tropes are not 'logical' or 'realistic' at times, and that GRRM can do better in that department.

But in his obsession to dethrone Tolkien, GRRM doesn't even know what LoTR is about. The Reunited Kingdom of Gondor and Arnor was reforged after the climax where 'Big Bad' Sauron was defeated, or in other words, the story had all but ended by the time Aragorn actually became king. With that in mind, why would Tolkien include details about tax policy, disaster relief etc. which are completely irrelevant to the story he has to tell? It is true that Tolkien didn't ask the questions GRRM proposed, but what the latter did not realise is that there are questions that probably shouldn't be asked if a clear narrative is to be maintained.

Now to the 'realistic interpretation', where GRRM also falls flat. In LoTR, Aragorn II Elessar is the greatest war hero at the end of the Third Age who was instrumental in Sauron's final defeat. Nevertheless he demonstrates political savviness on multiple occasions and carefully prepares his ascent to the throne. His skills, along with royal lineage, conspire with fate to place him on the throne of a kingdom and re-found another ancient realm at the conclusion of the story. It was a combination of those 3 factors which enabled his eventual success, not GRRM's take of 'the king was a good man', and it shouldn't stretch one's imagination that a man with such ability and decades of experience would be quite competent in ruling the realm he has earned.

GRRM is a writer who, to many, can write engaging character and gripping storylines. Yet he isn't even remotely comparable to Tolkien, a meticulous writer, world-builder, linguist etc. who practically codified the fantasy genre as we know it today. It is not without accident that LoTR and The Hobbit are both in the top 10 bestsellers of all time (LoTR in the top 3), while ASoIaF comes nowhere near to either work. GRRM trying to present himself as an equal to Tolkien is a rather obvious example of Dunning-Kruger effect in action, his analysis of Tolkien is sufficient to demonstrate that he couldn't even begin to realise just how wide the disparity is. But given the 'backlash' factor which 'deconstruction' is dependent on, this should not come as a surprise.

ASOIAF is successful in spite of 'deconstruction', not because of it - GRRM's writing skills and ability to tell his own story propelled him to become a famous author, not ranting against Tolkien. On the other hand, 'deconstruction' not only led to plot-holes in worldbuilding, but also extreme bloat in the plot and meandering storylines to the point where reading the later books is now a slog, while it is quite possible ASOIAF would never be finished at all. One thing is certain though; if GRRM focused more attention on building his own tropes rather than tear down Tolkien's, ASOIAF would probably be better off.

Sure, 'deconstruction' might patch the logical/realism holes present in tropes or works; but it could easily introduce even worse problems in doing so. Backfiring is not only a real, but ever-present possibility given the high level of skill required.

Oh, and my 'deconstruction' of the painting is done.

*******

Lo and behold:

After 'deconstruction': Ecce Mono (Behold the Monkey)

There, I've fixed the holes! Realism FTW!

Spoiler: 3. Can we do any better?

Michelangelo rises from the grave and gently scrapes off the new paint, before tinkering with the original artwork. The holes are soon patched, but the painting is no longer the same as before - its weaknesses are now fixed, resulting in something that is different but arguably better. Seething at the mouth, I struggle to come up with a word to describe what he has done - he's clearly 'deconstructed' the work as many would call it, but also did something more, and the latter was why he succeeded and I failed. So what is it?

Sure, the original was taken apart, but more importantly it was put back together again in a good way. Maybe a different combination this time after realising the issues with the original - this part added in, that part removed. It is now something successful, something new. Something that is reconstructed.

A successful 'deconstruction' will by definition require it to be put back together; if it is left in pieces, then it wouldn't be a trope/work of literature at all, at least not one others would use or read. Therefore a successful 'deconstruction' would also be a 'reconstruction', a word which carries far more positive connotations, less ambiguity, and focuses on producing something viable instead of simple one-upmanship. 'Deconstruction' may ask (possibly irrelevant) questions, but it is 'reconstruction' which provides the path to an answer.

But of course there are other words which could be used depending on exact context. Not all subversions are deconstructions, but the vast majority of 'deconstructions' contain a subversive element to it; after all, 'deconstructions' challenge whether a trope can provide a logical/'realistic' consequence. One can replace 'deconstruction' with 'subversion' in many cases, with the latter being less ambiguous and more accurate. Then there are times when one wishes to 'deconstruct' an entire genre or trope, discrediting it entirely from the very outset. Thankfully the English language also comes equipped with words such as 'satire' and 'parody'. Or if one is particularly vengeful, why not simply use 'discredit' or 'take apart' itself?

A Ford Pinto can be driven safely most of the time, but that still doesn't change the fact that it was poorly designed, could easily explode, and you would probably be better off driving another car. Similarly, 'deconstruction' is a vague misnomer, can be easily used to ill effect, and there are better alternatives - we now have 'reconstruction', 'subversion', 'satire', 'parody', 'discredit', 'take apart'. I suspect the vast majority of 'deconstruction' usage can be replaced by the first two words depending on context, while the other cases can be replaced by the rest - perhaps yet more words are required in some fringe cases. 'Deconstruction' is a vague neologism coined in the 1960s at the earliest. The world has seen centuries of literary analysis and classics without using this word. We can definitely survive, and almost certainly thrive, without it.

This pretty much sums up my attitude towards 'deconstruction':


So what do you think? Do we really need deconstruction, or are we better off without it (or at least coining a better word)?

Lord Invictus TheBlueHour

Archive

 

[PunkinMan]

What a fascinating post to make.

 

[Toolbox]

What is with the formatting of the OP? There's also two links to users that seem to no longer exist too, unless they're simply made up for some reason. Searching their users leads to nothing unless I'm screwing something up. I know people wiped their accounts out a few years back, and truly banned users can become impossible to search for with the forums' search. The quoted user Fierymatter doesn't exist either. I'm guessing this is some bizarro work of fiction? Not even the archive.is link actually seems to lead to a real archived page, it defaults to home. This is a special kind of post. Not sure I've actually seen anything like it here.

 

[PunkinMan]

What is with the formatting of the OP? There's also two links to users that seem to no longer exist too, unless they're simply made up for some reason. Searching their users leads to nothing unless I'm screwing something up. I know people wiped their accounts out a few years back, and truly banned users can become impossible to search for with the forums' search. The quoted user Fierymatter doesn't exist either. I'm guessing this is some bizarro work of fiction? Not even the archive.is link actually seems to lead to a real archived page, it defaults to home. This is a special kind of post. Not sure I've actually seen anything like it here.

It's because it's essentially an archived html transcribed as an article.

 

[Toolbox]

It's because it's essentially an archived html transcribed as an article.

Or, we just aren't from the same reality OP is. I blame the Mandela effect.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

Deconstruction was how colleges justified creating bogus courses like “Freud in Shakespeare” to sell worthless degrees

 

[Pokemon Conquistador]

Deconstruction often means going back into the past and censoring/redoing all of the things that are considered problematic now. Or, it could mean taking something from the past that was stylized or formulaic and saying "well, what would happen in we applied real world rules to the situation?" Oftentimes, this results in the creation of derivative works with more violence, nudity and swearing than appeared in the originals. And gayness. Especially gayness.

Also, GRRM didn't "deconstruct" Tolkien's work. He basically said "What if we took high fantasy, mixed it with the War of the Roses and put gore, sex, modern sensibilities, and a naked dragon chick in it? It turns out people love gore, sex, modern sensibilities, and naked dragon chicks. People act like he did an entirely novel thing by killing off protagonists, but the literary world and anime had been doing that sort of thing for decades. All GRRM did was make nerd shit on an epic scale right before Prestige TV exploded, and thus, make it acceptable for normies who usually stuff people into lockers for liking this kind of thing.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Deconstruction of someone else's work is always childish, especially when it assumes characters are always rational/work by some political standards. You don't try to take apart something because you like it, you do it because you are butthurt by its success.

Works made to deconstruct other works almost always are so cynical they become just as unbelievable. Game of Thrones amount of betrayal would make any irl kingdom collapse immediately. Even Zimbabwe is more functional as a country.

 

[Bulk Bogan]

Deconstruction is a first step, not the end goal. You deconstruct the conventions of the work to examine them, then use the pieces to build something, usually something new, but sometimes the point of the deconstruction is to examine why these things work well. Hack writers forget that the point of deconstruction is reconstruction and think they did a high literature by smashing something and pissing on the shards.

 

[LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]]

Deconstruct usually means injecting demoralization into stuff that has simple or positive premises. Cynicism , nihilism and marxist politics is what academics belive makes something really smart and worthy of being real art.

>Dragon Ball: strong good natured boy goes on an adventure, beats bad guys and gets stronger

>The deconstruction of Dragon Ball: Goku only fights because he secretly hates himself and because the system never taught him other forms of conflict resolution except violence, he wants to cry but toxic masculinity won't let him instead he imposes generational trauma onto his son and is akshually the bad guy all along.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

Also, GRRM didn't "deconstruct" Tolkien's work. He basically said "What if we took high fantasy, mixed it with the War of the Roses and put gore, sex, modern sensibilities, and a naked dragon chick in it? It turns out people love gore, sex, modern sensibilities, and naked dragon chicks. People act like he did an entirely novel thing by killing off protagonists, but the literary world and anime had been doing that sort of thing for decades. All GRRM did was make nerd shit on an epic scale right before Prestige TV exploded, and thus, make it acceptable for normies who usually stuff people into lockers for liking this kind of thing.

Whether or not he started out with the intent to, he's certainly become high by huffing his own farts to the point that he's not only convinced himself that was his intention, he's fooled a generation of low-IQ "media literacy" twats.

 

[Rei is Shit.]

This is just another example of why the average person shouldn't go to college. What works for the top 5% doesn't work for the rest.

 

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

What is with the formatting of the OP? There's also two links to users that seem to no longer exist too, unless they're simply made up for some reason. Searching their users leads to nothing unless I'm screwing something up. I know people wiped their accounts out a few years back, and truly banned users can become impossible to search for with the forums' search. The quoted user Fierymatter doesn't exist either. I'm guessing this is some bizarro work of fiction? Not even the archive.is link actually seems to lead to a real archived page, it defaults to home. This is a special kind of post. Not sure I've actually seen anything like it here.

The archive.is now goes to a forum called SpaceBattles. The users don’t exist because they aren’t users of kiwifarms. Perhaps the archive link was broken before?

 

[frozen_runner]

Not reading the article, lmao.

You can learn a lot about something by pulling it apart. Unfortunately, in some sense you destroy it by doing so. A person can't actually eradicate a genre of literature, obviously, but incessantly pointing out its flaws, real or imagined, can delegitimize it in other peoples' eyes. You can even poison people against great worlds of art by brute-forcing your "critical" opinion of it into mainstream acceptance.

And that's my problem with artistic "deconstruction." You can use it to create great, meaningful works. But very rarely do you get, for example, a script as magnificent as David Webb Peoples's Unforgiven, which questions the tenets of the western as a film genre (and specifically Clint Eastwood's westerns) in order to find the truth at its heart. Most of the time, deconstruction is merely a tool used by lazy leftoids to denigrate artistic work they don't like for some reason, and often that reason is that the art in question isn't about their obnoxious pet activist issues. And sometimes it's because the art is an accomplishment of beauty that the "activists" themselves could not create if they tried, and its existence is a reminder of their inadequacy. Because they can't achieve, they criticize and destroy greatness because they know that's the closest they can get to greatness themselves.

 

[Safir]

1.

'Deconstruction' is a vague neologism coined in the 1960s at the earliest. The world has seen centuries of literary analysis and classics without using this word. We can definitely survive, and almost certainly thrive, without it.

I had a philosophy professor who was a fan of Derrida and a pedophile. I think that anyone who uses the word without knowing its origin is a retard, and anyone who uses and knows needs his hard drive checked.

2.
The Martin-bashing in the OP is unfair, especially because the OP ate his actual words. I mostly agree with the sentiment in the OP, except it applies not to Martin but to his retarded soyfandom.
I'm old, I grew up in the days of overwhelming nerd worship in the "fandom" (it had another but equally dumb name), when historical "fun facts" were treated like Operating Thetan levels. "Deconstruction" soyfaces stink of the same. They don't understand Tolkien, they don't understand Martin, most importantly they don't have any historical knowledge to appreciate (or not) Martin and don't read history books, but they think that because they are "fans" of Martin, and they "know" Martin beats ("deconstructs") Tolkien, then by proxy they're better than you.
Also, sex in fantasy predates LotR, Martin wasn't doing anything new.

3.
I hate Tolkien. I'm not anglo or Christian. Yes I understand what he was doing, I've read anglo Catholics who are fans, I just hate it, it's not my culture.
But, many fans don't understand what he was doing and treat the books as a hack and slash backdrop; it's not unfair to grab these fans' attention and say "eckshually".

4.
"Ecce mono" is a completely inappropriate metaphor:

• the fresco was realistic to begin with, no one took issue with the painter's skill or intent
• the fresco objectively degraded from time (works subjected to "deconstruction" do not)
• Ecce Mono was a good-faith (but unskilled) attempt at repair, not an improvement over the original
• the woman who fucked it up acknowledged she fucked it up and never pretended she did not

The literary equivalent of Ecce Mono would be a terrible poet's attempt to patch missing fragments in ancient Greek tragedies.

5.
No, Tolkien did not "codify" fantasy, and I suspect he would be horrified to be credited with the modern state of the genre (that page is almost 20 years old, but it's what people think about when they say "codified"). If any single person deserves the honor, it's Gary Gygax.
IN FACT
the biggest and worst influence Tolkien had is "realistic": the fandom's retarded obsession with "lore".

6.
Making Martin the face of "deconstruction" or "realism" is unfair, he's just one guy:

• Robert Jordan (Tolkienist) died with books left unfinished.
• Patrick Rothfuss, prime #MeToo candidate, likes Tolkien (minus the male feminism) and has a much worse work ethic, given he's pulled a Paula Bean on his publisher and bankrupted her.
• The necrophile lizard rapist ("high fantasy", but very """realistic""" when it comes to his fetishes) shat out like two dozen books and is still tragically alive.
• For an uplifting example, KJ Parker (his books only qualify as fantasy because the Romans are negroes in them) keeps cranking out epic trilogies about the tensile strength of horsehair and whatnot.

Game of Thrones amount of betrayal would make any irl kingdom collapse immediately. Even Zimbabwe is more functional as a country.

1. No, not really, medieval history everywhere (Europe, Russia, China, Japan) is so full of betrayal that putting all of it in a book would bore and annoy the reader, who won't understand why a medieval "protagonist" can't just kill "the villain".
2. It is collapsing.

Game of Thrones is unrealistic because Martin wants a "satisfying" (to soyboys) story with characters, his characters are playing Nightmare but with cheats. It doesn't mean Nightmare is the wrong difficulty, it means they should fucking die.

The other major fault is the lack of religion and religious mentality. I blame commission on the early fantasy writers (Howard etc.) and omission on Tolkien; yes I know what Tolkien's justification was but it contributed to an explosion of stupid.

 

[TowinKarz]

Subversiveness/deconstruction is the last refuge of a bad writer.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

1. No, not really, medieval history everywhere (Europe, Russia, China, Japan) is so full of betrayal that putting all of it in a book would bore and annoy the reader, who won't understand why a medieval "protagonist" can't just kill "the villain".
2. It is collapsing.

There was a good comment in the Multimedia Game of Thrones thread about how the amount of intrigue was way lower on that time period than how media portrays it. Being a traitor was always a really fucking awful survival strategy as you are an acceptable target of both sides.

The reason why people remember the great betrayals in history was how they came just at the right time for maximum damage.

Of course it could be mistaken, but it makes sense and is inline with basic human behaviour.

Also I'd say that if we look at Fantasy 20 years ago, it was more Tolkien based. While modern Fantasy is way more anachronistic and chaotic.

 

[Throng of Titans]

Deconstruction is like parody, it's only good if it comes from a place of respect or at least genuine understanding of the work it's deconstructing.

Watchmen is a good deconstruction of superhero stories because Alan Moore knows how to write superhero stories, and where to pick at or play with things.
The Boys is a bad deconstruction of superhero stories because it's just Garth Ennis projecting his hatred of traditional heroes onto the whole thing.

Game of Thrones is a terrible deconstruction because it's not really a deconstruction so much as just miserable and gritty. I don't think it was even meant to be a deconstruction, but brainlets these days seem obsessed with making sure that traditional high fantasy remains a dead genre because it's too trad and optimistic for them.

 

[Bulk Bogan]

Game of Thrones is a terrible deconstruction because it's not really a deconstruction so much as just miserable and gritty. I don't think it was even meant to be a deconstruction, but brainlets these days seem obsessed with making sure that traditional high fantasy remains a dead genre because it's too trad and optimistic for them.

It was a deconstruction, but as per my comment above Martin is a hack and lost the plot both figuratively and literally. The first book is a damn good deconstruction of fantasy tropes: honor may make you a good person, but slavishly adhering to its tenants will get you killed if you're playing for keeps. The big scary barbarian horde would be absolutely positively fucking bodied by knights in armor. Just because you win a good and righteous war against an evil insane king doesn't mean you'll be a good and righteous king. Similarly, good intentions does not inherently equal good outcomes. Children are not immune to bad things, and an ally is not a friend. There's more, but it's setting up something interesting... but honestly, most of it was by accident, or an artifact of Martin being a hack, or else forgotten as his inherent nihilism poisoned the story and setting.

It's a good book despite its flaws, but what came after is not a good series of books because those flaws were not corrected and often exacerbated.

 

[X Prime]

"What if we took high fantasy, mixed it with the War of the Roses and put gore, sex, modern sensibilities, and a naked dragon chick in it? It turns out people love gore, sex, modern sensibilities, and naked dragon chicks.

Excuse me, you appear to have forgotten a rather legendary passage:

Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water. The more she drank, the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew, and her thirst sent her crawling to the stream to suck up more water.

I request that you amend your post for greater accuracy.