YandereTheEmo said: PoeticJustice said: Madoka isn't a deconstruction either. I don't see how you can bash one and praise the other, when Madoka is pretty much the School Days of the magical girl genre. I'm sure you have your reasons for not once explaining how they are not deconstructions, but it would be wonderful if some critical reasoning and analysis could go into your responses, rather than just claiming that neither show fits the mold. Shit. Put me on the spot I ain't ready. You go first lol. |
RLinksoul said: nicely saidUuuugh this word again. This has become my most hated word. Shows with this label tend to have pseudo-intellectual fans who claim that other people "missed the point" of a show or "didn't watch the same show" because they didn't interpret the show's symbolism the same way. It's also a breeding ground for "This genre is mindless kiddie crap, but twisting it into something grim is awesome!" The term has so many different meanings to so many different people, that it's become impossible to even pinpoint what shows qualify as a deconstruction. One could argue that "Ima, Soko ni Iru Boku" is a deconstruction because of how the "other world" is depicted, but someone else could just call that a dark subversion. Same goes with Madoka. A lot of people who haven't actually watched magical girl shows would say that Madoka deconstructs the genre by showing the dangers of fighting monsters, how it would take away from your social life, and explains where the mascots come from and why they do what they do, which a lot of magical girl shows actually do. You're just not gonna see a character get their head bitten off on a show targeted toward grade schoolers. The only show kids show that is labeled a deconstruction I can think of is Digimon Tamers. The first season was like "Digimon are real creatures and magic and stuff" but Tamers goes so far as to explain in science terms how Digimon can be created and how they can assume physical forms in the real world. It also shows just how dangerous it can be having a MONSTER in the hands of a school child, and how the government would react to having these things rampaging around. |
 |
offmodel said: PoeticJustice said: "Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary texts which emphasizes inquiry into the variable projection of the meaning and message of critical works, the meaning in relation to the reader and the intended audience, and the assumptions implicit in the embodied forms of expression." You have never read a book before obviously. The Great Gatsby? That is a deconstruction. Critiques by Nietzche on society? That is a deconstruction. I don't want to get too off topic, but you bring up a good issue I'd like to pick up on a little. There is an actual philosophical movement called Deconstructionism, which is where the term originates from. It became popular in academic circles in the 80's, as Marxism began to decline and fade away. At first it was relegated mostly to philosophy departments, leading to analytic philosophy supplanting classical (which is to say Greek, Medieval and Enlightenment) philosophy. Today, you have deconstructionist theories of history, art history/criticism, sociology, psychology, literary criticism, etc. But, what has also happened is that a lot of people go to college, take a few lit, psych, philosophy, whatever courses and only get a very loose understanding of it, which has led to all of these wild uses of the term in regard to tv and film criticism. Anyway, I am not the biggest fan, but I do know of a good article (backed up with academic citations) that explains in plain English what deconstructionism is, it just takes a negative view of it - https://rightperspective.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/deconstructing-deconstructionism-exploring-a-philosophy-that-undermines-itself/ Good article. Basically, people are just using it to describe anything they like that is dark or whatever, without having a proper understand of what the word means or its origins. |
| Deconstruction is really overused when it comes to anime. There are Fate fans that claim it's a deconstruction of a battle shonen anime even though Emiya is a text book battle shonen hero from what I've seen in UBW. |
 |
DrGeroCreation said: Deconstruction is really overused when it comes to anime. There are Fate fans that claim it's a deconstruction of a battle shonen anime even though Emiya is a text book battle shonen hero from what I've seen in UBW. Not saying Fate is a deconstruction, but, films and series can reveal the perceived center that it is trying to deconstruct, while still classifying as a deconstruction. Kickass is a deconstruction of the Superhero genre, but even still it contains many things that are the same of the genre's classical form - Kickass underwent a freak accident to give him his powers, Hit-girl had a traumatic experience in the past a la batman. Deconstruction can not exist fully because it would require straying too far from the things that make it recognizable in the first place, that's why I think it's not that unusual to see common tropes in a film or series that is classified as a deconstruction. I haven't seen UBW yet so I can't really comment on it specifically. |
| Deconstruction is in most cases just a fancy word for something being original and coincidentally very different from most other shows of that genre. Being original doesn't mean the author intentionally tries to do everything backwards. |
| If you generalize, you're wrong. |
DrGeroCreation said: Deconstruction is really overused when it comes to anime. There are Fate fans that claim it's a deconstruction of a battle shonen anime even though Emiya is a text book battle shonen hero from what I've seen in UBW. Triggered |
 Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
PoeticJustice said: Shit. Put me on the spot I ain't ready. You go first lol. I'll just expound on what I wrote earlier for school days. A deconstruction is an evaluation of the themes, meanings, and internal workings implicit within a work, genre, or society through critical analysis (more or less, the definition has been listed a few times throughout this thread). Now, I'm going to solely evaluate the anime, as the work itself stands out as a form of deconstruction, while the same would be harder to argue for its visual novel. While harems tend to dissolve the reality of relationships by asserting that certain characteristics can inherently attract girls who will willingly offer themselves to the character, and force themselves on him for the sake of their love. Schools days fails to properly analyze and critique the genre in this sense, as that trope is relatively unscathed and retained. There doesn't seem to be quite a lot of logic behind the girls inherently pursuing the main character, leading the show to simply utilize it as the framework for further plot intrigue as the story continues. However, school days does evaluate the notion of stringing girls along, and the significance of such flippancy in relationships--especially with the frailty of teenage emotions, and their tendency to flip-flop between different extremes. Which is exemplified in the characters' actions, especially in the latter half of the story. Now, the extremes themselves can't necessarily be considered wholly realistic, but the ideas they present certainly can. They implicitly critique the one-sidedness of typically static heroines in harem works, even offering criticism of possible notions of female objectification within such works. While average harem females tend to have a simply laid out goal that remains ever-stagnant as they pursue their love interest, the girls in school days offer a level of roundness by not solely pursuing Makoto, but rather challenging his flippancy, thus showing a level of realism through the ever-understandable need to feel desired and care-for, even more-so by the ones these girls hold dear. Furthermore, the show delves into the psyche of an inexperienced boy who's impulses overtake his capacity to empathize with those around them, which in some sense is perfectly understandable and logical when coupled with the fact that many girls are literally throwing themselves at him. Once again, paying homage to the illogicality of harem tropes and internal workings. As the story progresses, the damage caused by the MC's inability to forsake his new-found hubris, which he gleaned from sexual contact--a concept that was initially foreign to him--causes harm to both him, and those in his sphere of influence. Once again, offering up the notion of consequences for ones actions, which is so easily forgotten in the immersion of wish-fulfilling fantasy/harem anime. In this sense, the characterization of the MC pulls away from this notion of purity championed by average works within anime as medium--more-so within the ever-dubious harem genre it chooses to critique--and reveals at least one side of heterosexual male teenage sexuality in the face of what is ostensibly a "free-ride" for Makoto. This plays into both power dynamics, and the notion of teenage insecurity in romance and love--once again offering a sense of realism through the emotions of the characters, and to a much lesser extent, their more tangible actions. There's more reasoning behind it, but you get the point. Intent doesn't necessarily have to be there for a series to offer some form of critical analysis--if a theme is present, unbeknownst to the work's creator, that doesn't mean that the theme itself is null. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| Everyone who thinks shirou is a deconstruction of the character has read the VN and is talking about VN shirou. It's more to do with the fact that the stupid shounen protag ideals are challenged and dealt with instead of being matter of factly accepted. |
Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
black1blade said: Everyone who thinks shirou is a deconstruction of the character has read the VN and is talking about VN shirou. It's more to do with the fact that the stupid shounen protag ideals are challenged and dealt with instead of being matter of factly accepted. In the same sense, you could argue that Kiritsugu challenges Byronic heroism, or anti-heroes in general. Which again, like most arguments, can go both ways. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| @yanderetheemo This is probably the best post I have seen in sometime. I thank you. I don't have a rebuttal for it, it is that tight and compact. I concede. |
YandereTheEmo said: black1blade said: Everyone who thinks shirou is a deconstruction of the character has read the VN and is talking about VN shirou. It's more to do with the fact that the stupid shounen protag ideals are challenged and dealt with instead of being matter of factly accepted. In the same sense, you could argue that Kiritsugu challenges Byronic heroism, or anti-heroes in general. Which again, like most arguments, can go both ways. Well kiritsugu's ideals aren't really dealt with. Instead the ultimate result of those ideals is show, as it is in UBW albeit indirectly. I haven't seen or read school days yet so I can't comment :( I am planning on going on a VN reading spree once I get a new PC. Mod Edit: Merged duplicated posts; please use the edit button. |
MasterTengkorakJul 9, 2015 5:47 PM
Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
| Deconstruction is a method of analysis, not a genre, and it is measurable and observable in objective analysis. I rather bring back the 'original' concept from Derrida into the scope of our discussion to rid the doubt of it's purpose: Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc.[30] The first task of deconstruction would be to find and overturn these oppositions inside a text or a corpus of texts. But the final objective of deconstruction is not to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Deconstruction only points to the necessity of an unending analysis that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.[31] Finally, Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively".[32] To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing) In literary criticism, deconstruction is about disintegrating a symbol and rip it of it's narrative and context, and provide an argument to prove that said symbol is devoid of any meanings without it's contextual narrative. You can attempt this by override the original meaning with an alternative without ripping them out from the structure of the story. In that sense, Madoka can be said as a deconstruction analysis of a mahou shoujo genre, not because it is dark nor because of it's plot twist or narrative, but because it manages to 'redefine' the term mahou shoujo without derailing them from the traditional sense, they still do what traditional mahou shoujo do, fighting monsters, go to school, gain power ups, super abilities, etc. but done in such way that we began to question of our understanding of what mahou shoujo is. We still called them mahou shoujo because it fits all the traditional definition, it is not a counterargument nor changes the symbol meaning, it is not a destruction but an reinterpretation without leaving it's intrinsic narratives, that is what deconstruction is. |
azzuReJul 9, 2015 1:57 PM
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
black1blade said: YandereTheEmo said: In the same sense, you could argue that Kiritsugu challenges Byronic heroism, or anti-heroes in general. Which again, like most arguments, can go both ways. Well kiritsugu's ideals aren't really dealt with. Instead the ultimate result of those ideals is show, as it is in UBW albeit indirectly. Kiritisugu's ideals are challenged by the series itself, which in turn challenges social darwinism and nihilism. But that doesn't necessarily make it a deconstruction, the same of which could be said for Shirou. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: black1blade said: Well kiritsugu's ideals aren't really dealt with. Instead the ultimate result of those ideals is show, as it is in UBW albeit indirectly. Kiritisugu's ideals are challenged by the series itself, which in turn challenges social darwinism and nihilism. But that doesn't necessarily make it a deconstruction, the same of which could be said for Shirou. Well in a round about way, it is shirou challenging himself. :p HF shirou is quite interesting. |
Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
silverwalls said: ichii_1 said: Madoka is a semi deconstruction of mahou shoujo (it still had a happy ending) This is a full deconstruction of mahou shoujo http://myanimelist.net/manga/40175/Mahou_Shoujo_of_the_End this isn't even a mahou shoujo, it's a zombie survival story only with 'magical girls' instead of zombies. and it sucks They'e still mahou shoujo and it's more than a survival story if you kept reading. So it is a deconstruction of the highest order. |
 |
FloatsBoats said: Okay that makes sense. A deconstruction must contain similar elements to the genre it's trying to deconstruct.DrGeroCreation said: Deconstruction is really overused when it comes to anime. There are Fate fans that claim it's a deconstruction of a battle shonen anime even though Emiya is a text book battle shonen hero from what I've seen in UBW. Not saying Fate is a deconstruction, but, films and series can reveal the perceived center that it is trying to deconstruct, while still classifying as a deconstruction. Kickass is a deconstruction of the Superhero genre, but even still it contains many things that are the same of the genre's classical form - Kickass underwent a freak accident to give him his powers, Hit-girl had a traumatic experience in the past a la batman. Deconstruction can not exist fully because it would require straying too far from the things that make it recognizable in the first place, that's why I think it's not that unusual to see common tropes in a film or series that is classified as a deconstruction. I haven't seen UBW yet so I can't really comment on it specifically. |
|
| Are we talking about the definition as a literally device or the definition as a trope? Because the two are significantly different from each other. |
 |
Zergneedsfood said: nobody should be allowed to use the word "deconstruction" unless they've actually read like Of Grammatology, Differance, or something comparable by people like Barthes and Paul de Mann. fucking zzzzz Yeah, because your opinion should qualify whether any of this conversation has been of substance. How about rather than complaining about people discussing something you consider yourself an authority on, you join in and prove to them that your opinions are wholly just and correct. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
Zergneedsfood said: oh u read booksnobody should be allowed to use the word "deconstruction" unless they've actually read like Of Grammatology, Differance, or something comparable by people like Barthes and Paul de Mann. fucking zzzzz tell me how much money u make with ur fabulous education |
Forgetfulness said: Then again, I'm pretty sure I don't full grasp what "deconstruction" means even though it's been discussed before in one of my high school English classes lol It is a very fuzzy concept by its own definition, because it is tearing down the concept of forms (established rules, laws, concepts etc.). I don't know how to explain this well if you aren't a little knowledgable about art or philosophy, but I'll try. At the risk of ticking them off, I will say that Evangelion fans are right about that show being an example of deconstructionism. There is a line in that show where Shinji says something like "There are as many truths as there are people". That is what the author of that blog post I linked was getting at when he said: *side note, I don't agree with everything in that article (the Nazi comparison was a bit much), but I think it does a good job of explaining the concept to high school/college age people because it was written by a student. Let me try to give a real world, tangible example, from art. To understand how it applies, you need to know a little about philosophy. Aristotle believed in mathematical forms, which is where the term formula in mathematics comes from. These forms are absolute, but you only find them in their absolute form as a matter of theory. In other words, perfect squares don't exist in nature, but they do exist in mathematics, which we can then apply when using a formula to design something. Impressionism is an example of deconstruction at work in art. Let's look at a cubist painting from Picasso. That is not a painting Aristotle would enjoy, it is completely unsound proportionally. In art, there has always been a debate about whether mathematical proportion is tied to beauty, anyone who finds that beautiful would not be on the side of a classical Greek art critic. Others would say beauty is in the eye of the perceiver (as many truths as people) and that is beautiful to them, so who cares about proportion. Now, let's look at a movement that rose up in response to Impressionism, Expressionism. A good example is Starry Night, an expressionist painting by Van Gogh. Okay, what makes one a deconstruction, but one not a deconstruction? Picasso deconstructs mathematical forms to go against established theories on beauty as they relate to math, specifically proportion - he is deconstructing cubes, by using them in ways that aren't symmetrical. Van Gogh doesn't deconstruct spirals, crescents or circles, he has good sense of proportion and symmetry in that painting. Some would say that while Picasso had raw talent in that painting, it is unsound, whereas others appreciate it. By the same token, others (not me, I love Van Gogh, not Picasso so much) would say Van Gogh was adhering to established cultural or academic standards and his painting wasn't revolutionary or innovative. Neither is trying to be hyper realistic, both are distortions of real things (a person or a night sky), but the thinking behind each is totally different. |
Zergneedsfood said: nobody should be allowed to use the word "deconstruction" unless they've actually read like Of Grammatology, Differance, or something comparable by people like Barthes and Paul de Mann. fucking zzzzz What horrible works. Come back when you've read and understand Baudelaire's "fleurs du mal". |
|
| Wut is goingg on here |
 |
| This discussion is the perfect microcosm for anime elitism. |
 |
| Zerg imputing the knowledge on you plebs. |
Zergneedsfood said: This is the problem with people. They automatically assume that they will be able to understand everything someone else will say simply on the basis that they know how to read. No, that's not what people are assuming--in fact, nobody in this thread has even alluded to the fact that they are assuming such a notion. Once again, you're presupposing the nature of other interactions on this thread because of your asserted authority on the concept of deconstructionism. Furthermore, you have yet to offer even a modicum of information or analysis that individuals in this thread would be challenged to understand. The burden of proof is on you. In order for you to demonstrate any competent understanding of deconstruction, you have to demonstrate an understanding of semiotics, structuralism, poststructuralism, mimetics, and the appropriate readings for each of the categories. No, not necessarily. Mimesis and semiotics, while encompassing their own wide range of meanings within philosophy, have in one form or another been discussed here, as the discussion of deconstructionism intuitively calls the nature of significance, satire, mimicry, and such into question. Similarly with structuralism and poststructuralism, their philosophical concepts have been discussed here, just not directly. Having a form of philosophical and historical reference is helpful in one way or another, but undoubtably not necessary to foster an environment in which such themes and concepts can be discussed and called into question--evidence of which is dotted throughout this thread. Your assertion is relatively ludicrous, even more-so when considering how little effort you've placed into supporting it. As of now, your claims are extremely frail. I don't mean this in an "oh I know more than you way" but frankly people talking about deconstruction like they are in this thread is indicative of them not being prepared enough to understand anything more than the basics, of which I am far from being obligated to elucidating. You've already revealed your charlatanry in stating "like they are in this thread" and asserting that they must have extensively researched philosophical concepts, which you seem to have utilized interchangeably as buzzwords. If you cannot even muster up the will to concretely define the faults in the discussions in this thread, much less support your own bafflingly outrageous assertions, then there's no reason for anyone here to feel obligated to pay heed to your comments. Thus, I reserve my right to scoff at people and shake my head at people. And the rest of us will reserve our right to reasonably discuss the concept of deconstructionism without presupposing an ill-formed authoritative high-horse, void any real foundation. Edit: Wrote this before you copy-pasted your wall of text. Thus certain comments remain tentative. |
YaN333Jul 9, 2015 4:11 PM
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| My favorite anime are the best anime and those who disagree with me have a shit taste. |
 |
v8 said: big wordsWut is goingg on here |
|
| offmodel, your posts were really enlightening and informative. Starting to question my use of the word deconstruction. Hat's off to you. |
| One more thing - deconstruction can mean many different things. Just cause someone said it meant one thing in a book doesn't make it any more legitimate than what was written on TVTropes. In fact, TVTropes probably better reflects common usage which is ultimately what determines a word's use in normal communication. Attempts to "correct" people on semantics when meanings are constantly changing are a fool's errand. Yes, Madoka Magica and NGE are both "deconstructions" as the word is commonly used and if you're going to complain they're not, you should advocate for your semantic interpretation rather than pointing to a book that you know very few people have read under the pretense that its semantic interpretation is somehow more correct than the ordinary meaning. "NGE is not a deconstruction, as defined in ____" is a lot different than saying "NGE is not a deconstruction". It seems very intellectually dishonest or simply myopic to assert the less-used definition has semantic superiority. |
|
offmodel said: SNaG21 said: offmodel, your posts were really enlightening and informative. Starting to question my use of the word deconstruction. Hat's off to you. FWIW, I tried to post a pro-Deconstructionist article with Picasso since I used a negative one to explain the concept. I actually disagree with that one in some ways also, but it does do a good job of explaining why Picasso's cubism is an example of deconstructionism in art. Still, using art, a somewhat esoteric subject (to me, at least), you explained the concept well from origin to application, so I gotta give you tons of credit for that. Super informative. |
| Glasslip is a deconstruction of Slice of Life genre And they all hate it :/ |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
SNaG21 said: offmodel said: FWIW, I tried to post a pro-Deconstructionist article with Picasso since I used a negative one to explain the concept. I actually disagree with that one in some ways also, but it does do a good job of explaining why Picasso's cubism is an example of deconstructionism in art. Still, using art, a somewhat esoteric subject (to me, at least), you explained the concept well from origin to application, so I gotta give you tons of credit for that. Super informative. I agree, and there was no pretense in his post either which is hard to come by around here. |
|
AttackOnTetris said: One more thing - deconstruction can mean many different things. Just cause someone said it meant one thing in a book doesn't make it any more legitimate than what was written on TVTropes. In fact, TVTropes probably better reflects common usage which is ultimately what determines a word's use in normal communication. Attempts to "correct" people on semantics when meanings are constantly changing are a fool's errand. Yes, Madoka Magica and NGE are both "deconstructions" as the word is commonly used and if you're going to complain they're not, you should advocate for your semantic interpretation rather than pointing to a book that you know very few people have read under the pretense that its semantic interpretation is somehow more correct than the ordinary meaning. "NGE is not a deconstruction, as defined in ____" is a lot different than saying "NGE is not a deconstruction". It seems very intellectually dishonest or simply myopic to assert the less-used definition has semantic superiority. So you'd rather take your definition from that website, rather than the words and studies of the people who popularized it... right. |
FloatsBoats said: So you'd rather take your definition from that website, rather than the words and studies of the people who popularized it... right. It's fine to use it as long as you consider it a "trope" instead of a "literary device". The problem is people don't mention it which leads to the appearant confusion about the definition of "deconstruction". The "internet meaning" seems to mostly be the trope version. Then some others come and call out "that's not what it means!" and instead of talking about the initial topic, the thread gets derailed into a pointless "discussion" about the definition of the word "deconstruction". |
|
FloatsBoats said: So you'd rather take your definition from that website, rather than the words and studies of the people who popularized it... right. Exactly. Words change in their assumed meanings over time, and it's meaningless to discuss in context of the semantic origin without making a qualifier. I personally avoid using words like deconstruction in general but if you say it in an anime forum, most people know what you're talking about, and to try to interject an old meaning only muddles the semantics within the community. Words evolve through "misuse" and have since their creation. If you'd really like to be technical you can trace all the English words to their Latin or whatever origin in the spirit of being true, but it serves no purpose except to make you look like a pretentious asshat. |
|
Takuan_Soho said: PoeticJustice said: Good article. Basically, people are just using it to describe anything they like that is dark or whatever, without having a proper understand of what the word means or its origins. It's a bit more evil than that. Deconstructionism undermines the text itself. It says that words do not have a specific meaning, and are actually "encoded" with extra societal meaning that the original author themselves may not be aware of, but which the modern critic can detect. Detaching meaning from words then allows the critics to pretty much define a work anyway they want to, which is why it inevitably ends with it showing the supposed "sexism" or "racism" or "classism" in any work. But funny how it always ends up confirming what the "critic" thought before reading the work. So merely reversing tropes or giving the "helpful magical creature its own motive" is not deconstructionism; what you would need to have for "deconstruction" is to have the images and text reveal that the characters are not aware of their own evil. So a Deconstructionistic version of NGE would show that Shinji really wanted to keep Asuka in her subservient role, or that Madoka fought to preserve the patriarchy, or something like that. But can't you say the same for any form of analysis? |
ItsXolo said: I like how everyone in this topic knows exactly what the tc meant, but is instead just arguing semantics about whether x anime can technically be considered a deconstruction or not. In order to discuss the notion of people always liking "deconstructions" we need to establish what qualifies as a deconstruction. The problem is that we haven't resolved that much yet, so the discussion hasn't progressed to its final stages. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
More topics from this board
» Underrated character designs/outfits you think are appealing / sexyIpreferEcchi - Apr 26 |
24 |
by DefeatingMe
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Upcoming Dubbed Anime ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kenny_Stryker - Dec 17, 2017 |
9094 |
by thatoneguy2440
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Do you guys pretend to hate anime?APolygons2 - 2 hours ago |
15 |
by ProGoddess
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » The most overrated characters that everyone loves ( 1 2 3 )Lizz_Aleister - Dec 1, 2020 |
116 |
by Megaman-is-hard1
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Is the term “weeb” offensive?kusairo - Yesterday |
40 |
by TheMechaManiac
»»
13 minutes ago |