789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − + − + Line 25:
Line 25: + + + +
Talk:Deconstruction (view source)
Revision as of 22:17, February 27, 2008
, 22:17, February 27, 2008→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)
==Alternate approaches==
==Travesty==
This page bears almost no resemblance to the actual literary approach of deconstruction, and {{personal remark ellipsis| 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. 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)
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)
:Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 06:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 06:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::What the article describes is the alternative... and in fact, not recognizable as deconstruction at all. Consider Bressler's '''Literary Criticism''', one of the better introductions to the field:
"...Disavowing the existence of a transcendental signified, deconstruction questioned Western humanity's proclivity toward logocentrism." This article mentions none of the key concepts involved in the topic, such as supplementation or differance (not a misspelling).
::I have removed the "personal remark" left by my other account above, in accordance with your apparent wishes (since you already edited it out of my words, something I find very presumptuous), but I assure you that even a little investigation will reveal that the current article has very little to do with Derrida's deconstruction. Any article on the topic that does not even tangentially mention the foundations of the approach (the privileged binaries of language, the historical prejudice towards speech over writing, the centristic analyses) is nothing but misinformation. A stub would be better, or a direct copy from an open-source encyclopedia.
::I dislike this echo chamber very much, but please fix this nonsense. It is almost painful to see it and think that some home-schooled child might think that deconstruction is the "the postmodern or liberal belief that each person interprets a text in light of their own experiences, biases, and prejudices."--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)