She Never Could Decide

Derrida presentation: the scariest reading ever

(A bunch of people said they can't wait until they see what I do/how I execute (hah) this presentation. I'm going to try to make this interesting, but, well...just work with me, kay?)

Have you ever met a person who lies often and sometimes uncontrollably? They tell one person they're going home early to feed their cat, one person that they have to turn off their stove, and another that they don't have their paper finished--but really they just don't want to miss American Idol. How do you ever know what's really going on with a person like this? How can you tell which excuse is true this time, and what to believe?

Well how should I know?! I'm not this person, and hopefully you aren't either. Still, this unreliability is similar when applied to any work of literature. Facts are always changing, the world itself will always be different at every given moment (though some argue otherwise). No one work of literature will ever reflect the whole truth about anything.

Authors aren't allowed to claim anything about their characters/works once they're out into the public. It's as Dr. Arnzen said last week in class, it's like making an ink blot and saying, "I made it, so I get to say what it is." Once it's out there, it's the world's to pick apart.

Deconstructionists (or post-structuralists?), like Jacques Derrida, say "Heeey, it's not about you, author-dude." It's about me, the reader. And all the other readers. And the world. And the universe. There is no specific center to any work of literature, because it's up to over six billion people to determine the center.

Well, we can't do all six billion people, so let's check out what some of the class members said about this work...

Dave had written: "Poststructuralists seem to prowl around in the dark looking for these exceptions as a way to say, 'nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,' to anyone who has formed an opinion."

I would agree to that, actually--poststructuralists seem like the professor who takes pride in pointing out inaccuracies or inconsistencies that could potentially shatter an enthusiastic student's entire thesis. On the other hand, it could be said this is the student's fault, since the student left holes in the argument. On the right foot, however, can the student ever clear up EVERY hole enough to say they nailed the right meaning? On the left foot, though, can the professor truly say that, holes and all, the student's interpretation is wrong?

Truth is, they both could be right, they both could be wrong, one could be right and the other wrong, or vice-versa. Welcome to post-structuralism, the realm of "freeplay."

Denamarie said: "The author also talks about origin of the words and creating our own freeplay. Both of these are associated with one another because through the origins and conventions of the words throughout a text we are able to 'freeplay' and apply our own interpretations." Jay also got into the freeplay vibe. It's a welcome concept, I think. Letting criticisms mix freely all they like--for me, it's like a dream!

And now, the tricky part to all of this...

Diana said: "As Derrida put it, the rules of language are used to destroy the rules of language - and it is only because the rules of language are presented through the confines of the medium of language that they can do so."

Oh, but it doesn't stop there, Diana. Not only is this contradiction present, but works sometimes have the power to deconstruct ON THEIR OWN. "According to the link Dr. Jerz provided Tiffany, "Deconstruction is not something critics do to a text, but a way of highlighting things that texts do to themselves and each other."

Say your liar buddy tells his professor his grandmother is ill and he must go home, and then the professor walks in on him in the commuter lounger during the class break watching Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Contradictions in texts aren't always so blaringly obvious, but they're there, especially when an oppositional stance requires a stance in which to oppose (oh dear, God, don't let me speak "elliptical").

So next time you're reading along in...whatever, try to look for some places where the text seems to fight with itself. Derrida will smile (and try to prove you wrong so he can say nah nah nah nah nah).*

*You may note, in this blog, the lack of direct Derrida quotes. This is because I am scared of misinterpreting Derrida (because he's got ONE HECK of a style) even though he'd probably tell me that what I make of his work is what I make of it.

Derrida, ''Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences'' -- Jerz EL312 (Literary Criticism)

Posted by ValerieMasciarelli at March 26, 2007 5:06 PM | TrackBack