1. The Ultimate Literary Criticism???
Deconstruction
The Ultimate Literary Criticism???

2. Derrida – A few points…
Jacques Derrida ( ) was a French Algerian who became one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century.
His theories influenced linguistics, religion, anthropology, metaphysics, literary theory……to name but a few!
The writers of The Matrix claim to have based their movies on Derrida’s work. Though he believed they misinterpreted him completely.
ALOT OF PEOPLE MISINTERPRET DERRIDA!!!

3. This is not really what we’re talking about. This is just rephrasing!
Deconstruction?
This is not really what we’re talking about. This is just rephrasing!

4. What is Deconstruction - rEALLY?
Guess what? You may not have realised it, but you have already deconstructed texts in this very room!!!! From
Texts—composed of language, an unstable sign system that always “defers” meaning.
Truth is constructed, not “given,” so there’s no such thing as A correct interpretation
Look for an apparent meaning of some aspect of the text ; show how the text undermines (deconstructs) it; look again & show how the text undermines the latest interpretation, etc.
Look for oppositions: good vs. evil, e.g. Show how the text undermines first one, then the other so that good and evil are exposed as “empty” concepts

5. In the 1980s, a third linguistic theory emerged in the circles of literary criticism and was fascinating to a group of architectural critics and academics: deconstruction. The principal inventor of literary deconstruction was Jacques Derrida, a French linguist, who argued that meaning in language is completely unstable. He argued that a text cannot have any single meaning, certainly not a meaning that the writer invests in it.
According to deconstruction, meaning is fluid, brought to a text by its readers as well as by its placement on a page, in a journal or a book, and by many other factors that affect the way it is perceived. In fact, these issues are stronger than the intentions of the author, even to the point of arguing that texts have no author, once they have been written. The author sets the words down, but once released, has no more ownership of or control over the text.

6. There is nothing outside the text
Derrida believed that context was very important to meaning saying: “One of the definitions of what is called deconstruction would be the effort to take this limitless context into account, to pay the sharpest and broadest attention possible to context, and thus to an incessant movement of recontextualization. The phrase which for some has become a sort of slogan, in general so badly understood, of deconstruction ("there is nothing outside the text" [it ny apas de hors-texte]), means nothing else: there is nothing outside context. “

7. So while meaning is unstable, it is not and cannot be removed from the context from which it came. That sounds obvious, but readers within other contexts often try to impose meanings that are not there. Readers can (and, in our case, should) provide criticisms and interpretations based on the experience different contexts but the various meanings of a text in its context won’t change. This adds to our experience as readers and we can are free to interpret within these contextual parameters.

8. How to deconstruct
- Recognize the existence and operation of binary oppositions in our own thinking
- Seek differences
- Put aside what you already know—you are taking a “side” you don’t normally take
- According to deconstructors, we cannot simultaneously see both sides of a story
- We simply ignore our first interpretation to accept the second.
This will be useful at A2 where you have to seek alternative interpretaions.
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!!!

9. Activity
1. Let’s briefly look at the handouts on deconstruction. 2. Let’s read through the last paragraph on page 136 to the end of the chapter on p. 137in The Ghost Road. How would you deconstruct?

10. Remember….
Today’s writers are aware of deconstruction and other forms of criticism and analysis. Watch the ways in which Barker, in particular, follows through on her references to symbols. This helps the reader to see Rivers as an astute psychologist and Prior as an excellent reader of people. Not everyone agrees with deconstruction so don’t be afraid to argue!