nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − ==Wildly inaccurate== − This page bears almost no resemblance to the actual literary approach of deconstruction, and I suggest that whoever wrote it has been strongly misled. What is described seems to be some form of reader response theory, as explored by such postmodernists as Stanley Fish. While they are both arguably postmodernist, deconstruction is absolutely not what is described here. Apparently the problem is the primary source, which I see is not available online and so I can't check that out. The other sources appear to be much on target - the Britannica Online and Bartleby articles describe Derrida's approach fairly well. − − Deconstruction is an approach which emphasizes a great deal of language analysis... examining "what is not said" (much like a Pinter play) as well as the dichotomy created by so many language "pairs" whose connotative comparison implies strength in one. The end implication is that there is not one meaning, but this is different from reader response, wherein meaning is derived through personal interpretation or Fish's reader communities, in that the meaning is ultimately said to be "undecidable", but rather a subtle elimination of the underlying assumptions behind the meaning. Derrida himself resisted defining the approach his entire life, and it is exceedingly hard to summarize in English the process, but that is certainly much closer than the nonsense on this page.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 20:08, 21 February 2008 (EST) − Line 15:
Line 10: + + + + +
Talk:Deconstruction (view source)
Revision as of 01:56, February 22, 2008
, 01:56, February 22, 2008New topics go at the end.
== He or She? ==
== He or She? ==
: Go ahead and explain that in a new section in the entry, if possible!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: Go ahead and explain that in a new section in the entry, if possible!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)
==Wildly inaccurate==
This page bears almost no resemblance to the actual literary approach of deconstruction, and I suggest that whoever wrote it has been strongly misled. What is described seems to be some form of reader response theory, as explored by such postmodernists as Stanley Fish. While they are both arguably postmodernist, deconstruction is absolutely not what is described here. Apparently the problem is the primary source, which I see is not available online and so I can't check that out. The other sources appear to be much on target - the Britannica Online and Bartleby articles describe Derrida's approach fairly well.
Deconstruction is an approach which emphasizes a great deal of language analysis... examining "what is not said" (much like a Pinter play) as well as the dichotomy created by so many language "pairs" whose connotative comparison implies strength in one. The end implication is that there is not one meaning, but this is different from reader response, wherein meaning is derived through personal interpretation or Fish's reader communities, in that the meaning is ultimately said to be "undecidable", but rather a subtle elimination of the underlying assumptions behind the meaning. Derrida himself resisted defining the approach his entire life, and it is exceedingly hard to summarize in English the process, but that is certainly much closer than the nonsense on this page.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 20:08, 21 February 2008 (EST)