never said deconstruction is a bad idea -- perhaps that is where the
misunderstanding lies. My understanding of deconstruction is that it
questions our ability to know or define or distinguish anything, and, as I have
said repeatedly, there is much to be said for that argument. Such
theories are especially useful in undermining accepted knowledge or definitions
or distinctions, which, when examined closely, have a tendency to fall
apart. I do have some familiarity with this form of criticism, since it
is often put to good use in the legal field.
Perhaps you are giving too much meaning to my assertion that deconstruction
leads to meaninglessness. I don't see that as a negative statement at
all, or a positive one either, for that matter. As I said in another
post, it doesn't mean anything that it doesn't mean anything. Once we
abandon the attempt to do everything the right way, we are free to do the best
we can.
So does that help? Or is my thinking still too unsophisticated? If
so, can you point out the flaws for
me?
“I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)” (From Tolkien Letter # 131.)
