>sitting in my literary criticism class
>Professor starts talking about deconstruction during the lecture
>"Oh boy, here we go"
>Since only one person in class knew what it was, our professor starts explaining it
>It's absolutely nothing like /a/ says it is
Well, I'm never listening to /a/ when it comes to shit like this again. Nearly made a fool of myself thinking I knew it was. Was about to raise my hand and explain it to the class. Glad I didn't.
Well now you've learned your lesson: don't just believe things because a few anon say it's so.
So how is it different, then?
Nice blog. What exactly did you think it meant?
>literary criticism class
this, explain yourself OP
also don't believe everything a teacher told you so.
Here is the funny part, the moment i stopped listening to my teachers i started to ace all my tests
>thinking a random anon is more likely to be right than a professor
Stupid blogshit aside, I didn't enjoy that Kishi Bashi album very much.
Deconstruction deals with the relationships of "binary oppositions" and the so-called supposed "inherent nature" meaning behind words, symbols, etc. Deconstruction deals with the concept of signs and signfiers and the heiarchy of their "meanings" (i.e. how we value light vs dark, etc). Deconstruction is steeped in the Western tradition of binary opposition and the nature of X vs Y. It has nothing ot do with making a genre "dark" or "more relaistic" or saying this is what would really happen "if x situation was real." or "let's take X Y Z and make it A B and C instead."
>implying geniuses can't make it through college
>therefore the highschool drop out is a genius
Yea but in english.
Your teacher is shit, he just read wikipedia
>don't believe everything your teacher told you
>but believe some random anon instead
Aren't you just talking about language? What about deconstruction applied to the arts?
maybe you don't understand what deconstruction is in practice and you have only thought about it now that you've heard a textbook definition just a thought homie
Wow. No. If this is really what your teacher said and you're not trolling, you should drop that class and ask for a partial refund.
I didn't say that. I said you shouldn't "always" trust what the teachers say. When a teacher or any other person of authority or knowledge says something that is contrast to what you have known for years now, its fine to be a little skeptic and research the topic on your own.
What? That is exactly what we are talking about when we talk about deconstruction.
> It has nothing ot do with making a genre "dark" or "more relaistic"
Of course not, but those just happen to be the opposites of the usual genre when we talk about this
It Was Hot, We Stayed In The Water > The Glow Pt 2
well see while your impression of what /a/ said is wrong, the concept of deconstucting their referencing is different to the one your professor was talking about it, look at the goddam definition of the word, to deconstruct. Eva/Madoka are deconstuctions not cause they're dark, but because they examine and subvert the tropes of their respective genres, critically anylysing them, taking them apart, deconstructing.
What your prof on the other hand is talking about is deconstruction of language/symbolism, not genre. A la Finnegans Wake or if you were deconstructing narrative and not language Thomas Pynchon.
mount eerie>glow pt 2
>op claims /a/ is stupid
>gets ass raped and in turn is proven to be the stupid one
Same exact thing, hence "signifier" and "signified."
No, we we talked about it and looked at deconstructing "Mending Wall". And I can say that it's nothing like what talks about when they talk about Eva or Madoka or whatever.
You do know that the word was invented by Derrida and he coined it given it a specific meaning, right? It's not some common term.
you were deconstructing the language of the text and your relationship with it fuckface, of course that'd be different than a piece of fiction demonstrating deconstruction of its respective genre
Words can mean more than one thing. Language evolves.
Please, explain it to me, then.
Deconstruction and postscructuralism are bad. You should poke out your own ear drums before you listen to another lecture on the topic.
weather or not the word has that specific meaning as intended by derrida is irrelevant, my point isn't that OP's professor was wrong, but that he/she and /a/ were talking about different concepts. you can't deny that what /a/ uses the word for isn't a definition in an of itself, it's not like they're the only ones that use it as such.
You know citing is basically proving that you didn't understand a meaning right?
Just try to use that same meaning and apply it.
Theory in Practice 101
You suck and are a faggot unless you prove you know more than Anno and his Deconstruction of the Mecha/Shounen genre.
because there is no such thing as deconstructing a genre. Deconstruction deals with meaning, and how looking at how flawed the belief of structuralism is. Deconstruction has its relation to the post-structuralist movement (though it's not post-structuralist). >>101060848
The only people that use deconstruction the way people on /a/ do are people on /a/, and other forums. The word is a scholarly word and no scholarly person would ever use it the way you lot do.
>it's not like they're the only ones that use it as such
Because /a/ browsers go to other sites, start using the false definition there, and it spreads. What /a/ is trying to say is "parody" or "subversion", but "deconstruction" sounds more intelligent - despite being wrong.
i have looked this up and have been proven wrong /:
I retract my previous comments with the exception of the fact /a/ is the only place that uses my assumption and /a/ denizens (I don't even come here that much).
Also what do you call a text "deconstructing" a genre then if deconstruction is incorrect?
Subverting or parodying.
>It has nothing ot do with making a genre "dark" or "more relaistic" or saying this is what would really happen "if x situation was real." or "let's take X Y Z and make it A B and C instead."
What the hell ever gave you the idea that was what it meant?
The Evangelion of _____.
This mother fucker has never heard of a homophone.
Poststructuralist literary theory is actually the OPPOSITE of scholarship. One of its goals is to discredit the very notion of scholarship based in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. I tell you this as a Grad Student in an English department of a major university (I'm an MFA though, so I'm spared from the madness - indeed, the Creative Writing and straight English professors exist in a state of intellectual segregation, with both seeing the other as the containment ward). The worst part is that, if you're a young scholar in English, you have no choice but to parrot Derrida and Deluze if you want to be published, whether you agree with them or not.
Both of those have different definitions than what people use deconstruction as.
Subvert is close but doesn't imply the analytic disassembling.
That's what people on /a/ have said it meant for the longest of times along with other things.
The word deconstruction was invented by Derrida.
Both words are broad enough to include that categorical nature. Comedies don't need to be "comedic deconstruction" to pull apart a topic for humor.
How's neworleans workingfor you, Ignatius?How'syour valve?
>Professor says steve jobs invented the smartphone
They're always right.
but well I could easily call free! a subversion of Moe Fanservice shows but I couldn't call it a "deconstruction" could I?
Tvtropes made up and spread their own nonsensical meaning of deconstruction. It has a very specific meaning but it's not what retards on the internet think it is.
It's not subversion though (or deconstruction), and has no relation to all-girl shows. Stop regurgitating hyperbolic nonsense you heard on /a/.