[lbo-talk] How to Deconstruct Almost Anything

[Andy F]

On 12/21/06, bitch <bitch at pulpculture.org> wrote:
> At 08:33 AM 12/21/2006, Andy F wrote:
> ><http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html>
>
>
>
> Out of curiosity, why should you want to take someone's word for it when he
> says that deconstruction involves looking at a sentence and making up what
> it means? He did not provide an example of someone doing this. Doesn't it
> raise a red flag?

I'm not taking his word for it, which is part of why I posted it.

If  "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want..." were
central to his point, I doubt he would describe the process as
anything but bullshit.  It sounds more like a snarky dig along the
lines of "getting points for being French" -- more of a comment on the
practice.

Nor does he completely dismiss the notion that geeks can be bad communicators.

Do you think that his basic description, or the beginner's example
that he used are off?

[...]
Buried in the muck, however, are a set of important and interesting
ideas: that in reading a work it is illuminating to consider the
contrast between what is said and what is not said, between what is
explicit and what is assumed, and that popular notions of truth and
value depend to a disturbingly high degree on the reader's credulity
and willingness to accept the text's own claims as to its validity.
[...]

-- 
Andy