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).

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

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) ☺️