META: Surface Deconstruction vs. Actual Deconstruction

[Andrew Perron]

An aspect of writing I've been considering lately is deconstruction - that
is, not the Heidegger/Derrida what-were-you-even-thinking philosophical
thing, but the act of taking apart a story and putting its tropes under the
harsh lens of reality (or, at least, what the writer things is reality).

My, but that was a rambly paragraph.

Anyway, I've noticed a few things about this.  When a work delves deep into
the tropes of a story or genre, making truly insightful observations, it
can be a thing of beauty... but far too often, they only take the most
surface of observations and "deconstruct" a straw man made of kneejerk
reactions.  For an excellent example:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/12/09/my-little-homophobic-racist-smarts-shaming-pony/
(The "deconstruction")
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/12/24/my-little-non-homophobic-non-racist-non-smart-shaming-pony-a-rebuttal/
(A reaction by the show's creator, showing the difference between the
marketing-materials perception and the actually-watching-the-show reality)

So, my question to you, RACC: Which deconstructions, in your opinion,
actually show the consequences of a trope, and which just show their own
ignorance?  As well, a deconstruction is pretty useless on its own; which
works have been best at constructing a new story that goes above and beyond
the problems the deconstruction addressed?

Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, who wants to be a paperback writer
(pa-per-back wriiiiiteeeeeer)