Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − +
Talk:Deconstruction (view source)
Revision as of 11:46, February 25, 2008
, 11:46, February 25, 2008→Wildly inaccurate: => "Alternate approaches"
: 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==
==Alternate approaches==
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.
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.