Deconstructing Deconstruction

[Shadowknight12]

Deconstruction, as defined by Wikipedia, is the act of incessantly pursuing a concept's logical ramifications to their bitter ends, to demonstrate that the very foundations upon which it is built are indeed logically contradictory or invalid. I will be referring to this philosophy from a literary point of view, to its application in the stories we write. Are you a fan of deconstruction? Do you enjoy writing a story that pulls apart the clichés and conventions upon which it's built, to show the reader what would happen, perhaps, if one were to forgo the rules of drama, sex, hilarity and whatnot, in order to explore what would happen in reality with those conventions? Or are you perhaps abhorred by such pretence, seeing deconstruction as the surest way to kill a story, to murder that ineffable connection between the reader and the author? Or are you utterly apathetic one way or another?

To help spark the debate:

Deconstruction can (and often very much WILL) shatter the story's illusion or 'mystique' by breaking the conventions between reader and author. The author will, very deliberately, betray the reader's expectations in order to explore the ramifications of a concept. Perhaps the sex between two characters who love each other very much is, in fact, simply awful; or perhaps the antagonist of the story does not seek to do anything villainous at all, and appears to be so merely because it opposes the protagonists (or perhaps the story is, in fact, told the other way about!). Maybe the protagonists do not overcome their flaws, maybe magic isn't handled the way we always see it, mayhap realism trumps escapism and the cheerful, happy story has a dark, depressing finale that solves absolutely nothing. There is no climax, no denouement, no happily ever after. It is, then, a waste of the reader's time. Do we not seek escapism in fiction? And especially in genres like fantasy, are we not attacking the very metaphysical core of the genre itself, its ability to transport us to another world to escape our daily lives? Is deconstruction a bad thing, then?

But why is it, then, that it is often held in such high regard? Why do readers cheer when they see something handled logically, that brings a refreshing breeze to revitalize a dying genre? Is it perhaps the old craving to see something new, something fresh? Or do we all seek to deconstruct the very conventions we hold dear? Or is it once again a question of temperance, to know exactly how much to deconstruct a story to present a new point of view, but leaving enough conventions intact to enable the escapism so often sought? And what about reconstruction, the act that may follow a deconstruction, in which the broken bits and pieces of the concept are put back together under a new light? Is reconstruction the 'saving grace' of its catabolic counterpart? Or does it ruin the very purpose of deconstructing in the first place?

Let me hear your thoughts!

[foeofthelance]

A story is a story, first and foremost. Whether it is good, bad, or horribly entertaining depends entirely on the author and their skill at story telling. A deconstructing story, one that assumes the standards of its genre and breaks them, is absolutely no different in this regards. For a point of comparison, take Neon Genesis Evangelion and Tengen Toppa Gurren Laggan. Both are very popular giant robot shows by the studio Gainax, and both exploit some of the same tropes. That said, Evangelion is one of the single most depressing and sadistic animes in existence, while Gurren Laggan attempts to redefine the word awesome every five minutes and generally succeeds. They are different stories, told in different methods, with a few commonalities. That is all. if someone doesn't handle how one story is told, then they should simply find a different story.

[Asexual Biped]

Side note:

while Gurren Laggan attempts to redefine the word awesome every five minutes and generally succeeds.

OMG, you are now my hero!

Back to the point at hand:

I like a bit of realism in my stories, but with enough whimsical crap to make things interesting. Too much realism (especially modern, normal stories that are ALL about drama) become way too much like real life and are, therefore, boring. I also like when normal conventions, such as in fantasy worlds, are broken. An example would be the novel Summon the Keeper by Tanya Huff. The 'hottie' in the story wears glasses and is a clean freak. At one point, he volunteers to go to Hell, which is sentient, and proceeds to sweep the brimstone before being sent back. I LOVE that she adds random bits on the real world into a completely whimsical story!

Although, if you make EVERYTHING logical in a fantasy world, it ruins the point of calling it 'fantasy'.

But, also as Foe stated, the person has to be a good story teller, or else it'll suck no matter what they do.

[BronxWench]

Hmmm... interesting topic, and not one I've actually sat down and intellectualized. For the most part, my writing is seat-of-the-pants, without outlines, and subject to changes as the story develops. I might have thought I was going in one direction, and will wind up somewhere else entirely.

I think some small amount of deconstruction is almost inevitable if you want to shake life into something that's become the literary equivalent of a raddled whore, such as anything involving vampires these days. But, and it's a big but for me, there is a point when it's too much and you do lose sight of the escapist nature of fiction. Even realistic fiction offers a form of escape, if only from our own lives and into someone else's shoes for a bit.

I'm put in mind of Mary Doria Russell's absolutely gorgeous books, The Sparrow and its sequel, The Children of God. Her protagonist is absolutely wrecked, destroyed utterly and left devoid of faith. It's brutal. I can count on one hand the number of times a book has moved me to literal tears like those did. But it is a journey towards redemption, and in spite of all it cost him, he does find some measure of peace. Those two books will haunt me, always.

[Guest Snowfall]

Deconstruction, as defined by Wikipedia, is the act of incessantly pursuing a concept's logical ramifications to their bitter ends, to demonstrate that the very foundations upon which it is built are indeed logically contradictory or invalid. I will be referring to this philosophy from a literary point of view, to its application in the stories we write. Are you a fan of deconstruction? Do you enjoy writing a story that pulls apart the clichés and conventions upon which it's built, to show the reader what would happen, perhaps, if one were to forgo the rules of drama, sex, hilarity and whatnot, in order to explore what would happen in reality with those conventions? Or are you perhaps abhorred by such pretence, seeing deconstruction as the surest way to kill a story, to murder that ineffable connection between the reader and the author? Or are you utterly apathetic one way or another?

But why is it, then, that it is often held in such high regard? Why do readers cheer when they see something handled logically, that brings a refreshing breeze to revitalize a dying genre? Is it perhaps the old craving to see something new, something fresh? Or do we all seek to deconstruct the very conventions we hold dear? Or is it once again a question of temperance, to know exactly how much to deconstruct a story to present a new point of view, but leaving enough conventions intact to enable the escapism so often sought? And what about reconstruction, the act that may follow a deconstruction, in which the broken bits and pieces of the concept are put back together under a new light? Is reconstruction the 'saving grace' of its catabolic counterpart? Or does it ruin the very purpose of deconstructing in the first place?

Let me hear your thoughts!

Something for you to take into consideration when considering the answers you receive-- 'often held in high regard' is subjective because a story may not sell well to the masses, but be held in high regard by a small, but socially prominent crowd (who would most likely be seen as elitist by the masses), and a book may sell well to the masses, but be held in low regard by the same small crowd. Am I 'deconstructing' your question, because I'm not certain I understand deconstruction all that well? A large portion of the general masses that make up the reading public, and that fill the pockets of authors, are not usually educated to the point that they are capable of engaging in an intelligent discourse concerning the history, study, and philosophy of written language. Therefore, except for the better educated, or those willing to research and attempt to understand your question, the answers you receive will most likely not be representative of said masses, but of a very small number who could have a vastly differing perspective from a large portion of the general reading masses.

Now, to actually answer your question (if my understanding of deconstruction is correct-and I read the entire article); I do enjoy some deconstruction. I like the imperfect protagonist, the happy antagonist that sees nothing wrong with his behavior. I like making the socially unacceptable, acceptable. I don't mind mixing it up with things like the antagonist having a rock solid case legitimizing his actions. Rock the damn boat. I also want my escape from real life as well. Another reader might want to know the history and underpinnings of the story from the very beginning. Not me. Withhold information and make me dig for the answers so that my mind can be solving a puzzle while you run me through a maze before giving me the answers. Tease my mind with what is left unsaid. Don't tell me that biological physics makes it physically impossible for wings on a human form to lift the form off the ground unless the form becomes horribly deformed. Let me believe the lie, but don't think I'm stupid either--ice doesn't fall in seawater. *facepalm* Was that the Hunt for Red October? Everything in balance. However, not everyone's desired balance is the same--similar maybe, but not exactly the same. There are always preferences.

In the past few years, I haven't read a purchased book that has given me as much joy as some of the fan fiction that I have read. Publishers can stick that in their pipe and smoke it. Dan Brown is passable. Twilight...slit my throat. Hamilton is less than mediocre, managed to entertain me somewhat, but totally failed as a whole. Nora Roberts can be formulaic, but I found one work that was actually fun because of the characters. My favorites are still Frank Herbert and Isaac Asimov, though my tastes have changed. I've gone from sci-fi to paranormal, which I believe lowers the level of quality.

Overall, entertain me. I can believe contradictions because humans in general are so very contradictory, but work hard to make me believe it. You can't make me believe that vampires sparkle in the sun, unless they are exploding. I'll believe a vampiric tribe has a compulsion to run around naked at night because that's based in ancient lore. Because we have big metal planes that seem to hang suspended in the air, you can make me believe that anything can fly. Go ahead, try me. I'm not a physics professor, so it should be easy. Just don't give me too many details or I'll look it up and might find out that your physics principles are fucked up.

Er, I hope that answered your question?

[Keith Inc.]

But why is it, then, that it is often held in such high regard? Why do readers cheer when they see something handled logically, that brings a refreshing breeze to revitalize a dying genre?

Well, think of Sky High. It was deconstruction. After years of comic book heroes doing their thing, someone asks: Hey? If there are that many meta humans, would they be in public school or something more for their unique natures?

They played with it a bit, referring to themselves with 'my supervillain speech' and such. But it's a natural progression.

Everyone already has a pretty firm grasp on side kicks and heroes, villains, action sequences and secret identities. So playing further in the field can be captivating, rather than just holding the genre up to a bright light and listing the problems or the illogical natures.

My madscientist fics tend to ask questions like: If madscientists are real, what sort of courses would they have taken in college?

How do they select the Sexy Lab Assistant? Is her sexiness aimed at the Mad's interests or the likely interests of the Hero who'll be knocking at the door some day? HOpefully i don't take it too much into the theoretical, so that, as stated above, there's still a story in the story.

But still, the logical progression of a setting, taking it as real and asking whathappens outside the scenes we see on the TV, that's a great source for fanfic.