My Brain Has Been Deconstructed

Well, this has been an interesting week...I’ve just learned that words are technically meaningless and cannot express meaning. Everything seemed like a fog last class so just when I thought I was understanding some of Derrida’s language and ideas, I was sucked back into the thoughts of “Huh?...”

 I love the French language, but not necessarily the aggravating philosophers of the 1950s. Maybe it is just the translation to English, but I just get so confused. It seems like he wants to fool with you in his writing. They also claim a text “can be read as something quite different from what it appears to be saying” that means the text can prevent its purpose and betray itself.


That being said, I've looked up pictures of Derrida and was surprised to find this

It's true.

Confused, anyone?

So most weeks I can understand the material fairly well but with deconstruction/ post-structuralism I am at a loss. The way that Derrida writes is a style that I would not read for fun on my own time, but I suppose that is the point. As Professor MB said (don't quote me on it) this sort of criticism is exclusionary.
There was a point that did catch my attention. In Barry's book on page 65 second half of number 4 where he says it "distrusts the very notion of reason," and in Baudrillard on page 368 phase 4. "It bears no relation to reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum." (I know this is from last week)
This way of thinking and criticizing works makes me think of Salvidor Dali's paintings. His works have elements of the world but they create their own.
This is the way I have somewhat interpreted this criticism, and it's not much.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0969/9128/products/Ship_with_butterfly_sails_667b9a7f-1d66-4f25-8c0e-6c7ae77aca96.jpg?v%3D1479734856&imgrefurl=https://www.tallengestore.com/products/ship-with-butterfly-sails-art-by-salvador-dali-art-prints&h=1201&w=1500&tbnid=BzFQ1lyMsY275M:&tbnh=201&tbnw=251&usg=__igcWHRcCiUQkygGqZBFp4ASRK3o%3D&vet=1&docid=rYMxAWdupL5eUM&hl=en-us

The Importance of Language

I really liked the deconstruction chapter in Beginning Theory by Barry, since the methods of how to do deconstruction and the explanation of what it is is very clear and concise. On page 65, it mentions that post structuralism "distrusts the very notion of reason, and the idea of the human being as an idependent entity, preffering the notion of the "dissolved' or 'constructed' subject, whereby what we may think of as the individual is really a product of social and linguistic forces."

Facebook

Facebook seems to construct a person's identity by the comments someone writes, the pictures they post, and the experiences they depict. Therefore, you do not need a physical person to represent who you are. You are constructed by language. That's how others can know you without ever really meeting you.

Being put this way, does it seem like structuralism and reader response criticism are influenced by this theory? He does post structuralism differ? Post structuralism seems to me to go a little further outside the text. The author's intentions do not matter and there's no intent to interpret the text, for post structuralists "seek to show that the text is characterized by disunity rather than unity" (75). The goal is more to understand the inner workings of it based on language (like hermeneutic, semantic, etc in structuralism).

Shhhh, it’s a secret! (and also some rambling)

Hi friends! I’m really sorry I can’t be there with you for this discussion, but I can’t wait to read all of your posts. You’ll have to fill me in after class.

So I actually really enjoyed this week, like my mind wasn’t as blown as it could be because I think about this a lot. Maybe it’s the writer in me, but it always bothers me how we can’t have thoughts we don’t have words for because we understand things through language, which is circular and finite. But anyways, it’s quotes and question week so I won’t ramble anymore.

As you know, I love poetry and e. e. cummings melted my brain the first time I read him (in middle school at some point). Right, now no more rambling... I’ve always love this poem and I think the line “here is the deepest secret nobody knows” does a good job of summing up deconstruction. For me deconstruction is this great secret that explains how language works and how we put it together to make our world, and the beauty of it is that it can never be fully understood.

Would you look at that! Natalie posted an actual picture. No quote. Incredible. I felt like this painting  (Salvador Dali’s Melting Watch) does a good job of representing both the way our minds melt because of this concept, but also the freeing nature of deconstruction. Found at: https://m6tlik.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/salvador-dali-clocks.jpg

Generic Deconstruction Complaint Post

When someone tells me how much they love deconstruction literary theory:

Getting abrasive with my memes, sorry sqwad

Source: https://childrenoftheforce.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/yoda-wonderful.gif?w=634

I don't enjoy my literary skepticism, believe me. And I don't think deconstruction or post-modernism deserve our total scorn, either. They're great ideas. But in terms of practicality???

I grasp and appreciate both theories on a conceptual level: the mere concept of realities existing only through our representations of things nonexistent is staggeringly cool and plausible, and the fluidity and inherent meaningless of language is worthy of discourse. But do both seemingly philosophical discussions warrant application to literature?
.....
Well, yes, apparently. But this skeptic just doesn't get the hype. At some point both disciplines just become exercises in imagination—who can wring the most creative interpretation out of a given text, whether it be a word, sentence, phrase, or stanza?

But maybe that's just the Political Science Guy in me preferring my philosophy as philosophy and my literature as literature, and NO CROSSOVERS. All I can say is we've gotta be careful if we do so, guys, bad things can happen.....

I swear I'm not as cranky as this diatribe sounds you guys, honest

Source: https://media.giphy.com/media/3o72FiKtrMAjIb0Rhu/giphy.gif

Mind=Boggled!!

So sad to miss a PQQ day! :(

I think what captivated me the most about this theory was Dr. MB's diagram/drawing/book/text thing. I'll be honest, I still don't fully understand how this criticism is applied to reading, but the idea of the text being inside of everything else, which is just a larger text, really got me thinking. To think that a single text exists inside of everything else (which is all a text), and that nothing exists outside of everything, is mind boggling. If it doesn't exist in language, it doesn't exist. Trying to imagine something that doesn't exist is absolutely mind-blowing.

https://quotefancy.com/quote/1161514/Jacques-Derrida-There-is-nothing-outside-the-text

My question for today is: if something only exists if it exists within our language, and one language has a word for something while another does not, does that thing really exist for the speakers of the language that does not have a word for it?? Maybe this is a silly question, because to someone it exists, but perhaps not to everyone.

https://www.reactiongifs.us/i-dont-even-project-runway/

Here's Tim Gunn showing exactly how I feel about this criticism because I've watched eight seasons of Project Runway in the last three weeks... someone pls help me

There's Nowhere to Hide - Everything is Text

      To be honest, I'm still trying to fully comprehend Deconstructionist/Poststructuralist Theory. I find it fascinating how this criticism observes all the possibilities of language and 'reality', making everything so multi-faceted and intriguing (in a very, very complex way). Derrida's quote, "For that future world and for that within it which will have put into question the values of sign, word, and writing, for that which guides our future anterior," reminds me of the diagram we made during class - and how it seems to summarize the deconstructionists' agenda as they sift through a work of literature, trying to determine the value of the symbols/language used and the barrier (or non-barrier) between the written text and the text that is reality.
      A relevant question we brought up last time was the importance/relevancy of Deconstructionist theory. So, how valuable is Deconstructionism? What does it bring to the text, and how does it interact with the individual? And lastly, at this point in the semester, how are we seeing all the different theories interact with and counteract each other?

The film "The Maltese Falcon" seemed like a pertinent example with this theory.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/4789fe_bec0f1708437488880aa00c11213cae6~mv2_d_1950_1212_s_2.png/v1/fill/w_630,h_392,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/4789fe_bec0f1708437488880aa00c11213cae6~mv2_d_1950_1212_s_2.png

Mindblown, When Understood... I Think

One thing that stuck in my mind from deconstruction was that there are no outside texts, rather everything is a text. In other theories you stick to what is strictly mentioned in the text or refer to "outside texts" but if everything that is considered "outside" is really part of the main text, there are many more possibilities when exploring meaning. But what also stuck with me is the idea of trying to explain a word without using the opposite of it or the word itself. Something that blew my mind when I finally understood what was being said, with both things that stuck with me. It was an "aha" moment.

This is all still a bit confusing to me, but I think I get a general understanding of the theory. Maybe today will help any questions I may still have, even if I don't know what exactly those questions might be.



https://giphy.com/gifs/neil-patrick-harris-vegas-sin-city-msriR5ybSpQgo

If you can't do it, quote it!

I’m not necessarily sure if I fall underneath the quote, questions, or paragraph assignment this time around, but I simply don’t know what to say on the topic of Deconstruction. Though it is mind blowing, and a little difficult to wrap my head around; I think I may have finally gotten a firm understanding of Derrida. However, with this week ending, I am questioning if there are other types of literary criticism that are just as difficult to wrap my head around in the next few weeks. How does a school of criticism become a ‘School of Criticism’?

Source: https://www.slideshare.net/katherinekhaye/literary-criticism-lens-deconstructionism

Deconstruction. Yay.

Hello English 210 gang, back at it again with our PQQ's.

I have two quotes today, both from the man himself, Jacques Derrida.

This first one I thought could be some interesting food for thought. I would love to hear y'alls interpretation of what you take it to mean. I read it at least a dozen times before I got an idea of what it might mean. What I believe he is saying, is that one of the main points of deconstruction is to limit absolute claims about what things are and what things are not.

Delimiting Ontology Indicative*

This second quote (not a real quote) reminded me of something I thought was funny last class. Mr. Baughman stated that he felt as if Deconstruction might perhaps be a little too theoretical in its nature, that is to say, as Alex said, at times it felt as if it was a series of people simply trying to make overly creative interpretations of a given text. From my view, I thought that perhaps it was at times a little pretensions in its nature.  Not to say I didn't find it interesting, because I did, but rather, as Doctor MB puts it, it can be intentionally non inclusive in its complexity. 

(NOT A REAL QUOTE...obviously) ☺️