Deconstruction

Deconstruction is doesn't make much sense to me. The whole idea of having a "decentered" planet is a little hard for me to comprehend. A place where there is not absolute or fixed points, allowing 'free play' doesn't quite sit well with me. In the essay, Death of the Author, moving into the post-structuralism era makes the reader disconnect the author from the work, so that philosophical meanings can be derived from the free text. I do not quite buy that! The point is to not take into any consideration what the author intent on writing was. But don't authors write to convey their ideas and opinions? The whole notion that there is 'nothing outside the text' in some ways is false.

I understand that critics should look not only for the parallels as the structuralists do, but also look for the paradoxes, conflicts, ect. It is important to look at literature from all of the different angles, but I think that they need to be put together.

I once saw a deconstruction of the ballet, Swan Lake. When we bought tickets, we had not realized that it was a deconstruction interpretation. Instead of having a female cast, the entire cast was male, and the story was interpreted dramatically different than the traditional interpretation. I feel though that with this rendition of the ballet, the director did not take into consideration of the intent of the ballet to begin with, and the story was lost. The beauty was lost! Even thought this idea spawned creativity, I did not appreciate the deconstruction of the ballet. Sometimes, looking at something more traditionally in my opinion is better.

Structuralism

Compared, Structuralism as a form of critically reading literature makes more sense to me than some previous examples of Liberal Humanism. Structuralism is an organized, systematic approach to look at a piece of writing. For me, it is much easier to look for patterns and opposites in writing than trying to ignore small parts of the big picture and go straight to the meaning and content of the story. By being able to figure out the interrelated parts of the big picture, it is a more concrete way to look at literature. The structure of the sentences determines the meaning as a whole. The best example for me was the watch example. Depending on what type of watch was chosen, the image of the wearer changed. Also, Structuralism is a belief of systems and that structures are what gives meaning to the story. This seems like an upfront way to look at literature, and coming from a business and science background, I appreciate this ordered and technical way of perspective. I especially relate to the different "codes" presented in Beginning Theory. These five codes, such as proairetic, hermeneutic, cultural, semic, and symbolic, all relate to each other, and all five can be found in most literature.

However, I am still a little skeptical of Structuralism for certain types of writing. This type of critic seems a little rigid for certain types of work, such as writing that is deeply emotional. Some authors may feel that the reason for their writing is the emotion and meaning, as found in Liberal Humanism. It is not found in the structure of their writing.