META: Surface Deconstruction vs. Actual Deconstruction
pwerdna at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 08:00:44 PDT 2011
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:
(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
More information about the racc