I want a fancy-schmancy post modernist to deconstruct this post!
Below is my attempt to fulfill her request (rather than posting this lenghty piece there, I figured that's what my own blog is for)
Deconstructionism suggests a specific set of analytical tools used to de-compose text (both in the sense of taking a composition and stripping it down to its component meanings (even when those components are hidden from the author herself) and 'decomposing' it as turning the original composition into a rotting corpse bereft of any life) (furthermore, when I use the term 'text' I mean it in the absolute broadest sense, hence even the photos, the html code of the page its own, the computer you use to view said composition with, and even the clickity click of the keyboard as the piece is written, constititute 'text'). Before we begin our disambiguation of the text of this post, we must examine the post's title. Convention: intentionally ambiguous meaning here, both in the sense of a 'convention' as meeting, and 'convention' as accepted method of doing things, this double meaning (with a third less obvious, but nevertheless informative meaning of 'convent'ion, given the 'sister'ly nature of the BlogHer conference, this particular 'convention' could be seen as a modern descendent of a 'convent' and therefore 'convent'ional in a secular imitation of the religious 'convent') serves to inform every aspect of the rest of the post. Next the concept space suggested by the term 'convertible', a (no doubt) intentional mimicking of the c-o-n-v-e- of the first word in the title, but with the changed ending a change in inference. Convertibles in many ways are the complete opposite of 'convention', 'convertible' means changeable, indeed even 'convert-able'. With the choice of this word, the author signals her flexibility and openness (just like an 'open top' car). Next we have the word, 'contrex', a made up word for a product, yes, but when put in con-text along with the first two con-words, it suggests that what will follow is both a 'con' and is full of 'tricks' as well as represents a series of 'treks'. This reading is helped along by the fact of the two epic 'treks' the author engaged in just prior to composing the post here in deconstructed. Chardonnay follows, with its sweetness and sharpness. A different word, with completely different associations than all the other 'con' words that make up the rest of the title of this post. To examine Chardonnay as its used in this post's title, one must understand its relationship to other wines. Chardonnay known for its versatility and easy drinkability, finds itself faulted for those very same characteristics. Possibly the author here is professing a kinship of source with Chardonnay, she's neither too tart, nor too sweet, and often considered less weighty or serious than other colleagues due to this nature. The final word in the post title is Condom. One can not examine the word condom without examining the phallic implications given the purpose of the device. In a very real sense, a condom, though sexual in nature given its purpose, is also a 'barrier' between the sexes (but also between members of the same sex often). This barrier prevents the spread of information (in the form of genes, whether it be from sperm, or viruses, all forms of communication nevertheless, genes are just the most basic packet of communication between biological beings) from one person to another. A condom generally doesn't make sense without a penis (though safer sex practices demand using a condom with any 'toys' with porous surfaces, so they could be used sans penis, as well). The placement of the word 'condom' at the end of the title is a reminder of the oppressive hegemony of the patriarchy that lingers over even the most enlightened conference such as the one being attended. Also, the 'dom' ending is often associated with 'domain' or 'kingdom' which suggests the use of the word was meant to bring up thoughts of a 'con-dom', a 'kingdom of lies' if you will. Whether the convention (leading us back to the first word of the post's title) itself is supposed to be the 'lie' or the convention is intended to battle this . . .
[unfortunately, this is just the beginning of the analysis of the title of the post, the deconstruction of the rest of the post goes on for another 40 pages double spaced and can be viewed at www.deconstructionreallyreallysucksmygoditsucksallthepleasureoutofliterature.com]
(also, the above linked Wiki, and the subsequent talk back, regarding Deconstruction is about the funniest (or saddest) thing you'll ever read)
(thanks for dropping by, if you made it this far you deserve some sort of medal, sorry I don't have one for you)
No comments:
Post a Comment