/lit/ - Literature

>>8977442

>racial supremacy
>nationalism
>ideology

>red-pill

No no, my mistake, you really are wise and all-seeing there on your perch from on high.

>>8811188

>NEET

>>7296427

>solipsism

>>6206290

>Garnett was the worst most disgusting translation ever created and P&V was the only acceptable one.

Yeah, nothing about that is opinion whatsoever...

I think I'll confound my critics by devoting this letter not to describing pigheaded Huns in general but OP in particular. It is first necessary, however, to make clear which facts are not in dispute. There is little dispute that the absurdity of OP's hijinks requires no further comment. There is also hardly any dispute that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature, we must develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about his expostulations. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because I can't understand why OP has to be so imprudent. Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence inside OP's head and is making him monopolize the press. It's a bit more likely, however, that his proxies actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these kinds of insolent, nasty cads are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will somehow improve the world in the coming days. In reality, of course, I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness OP is mongering. We need to create new and affirmative conceptions of the self. Finally, no letter about OP would be complete without mention of some of the completely brutal schemes that OP supports. Although there are a plenitude of examples from which to choose, the most brutal would have to be OP's proposal to organize a troika of perverted spoilsports, passive-aggressive beguilers, and cranky demoniacs with the sole purpose of increasing alienation and delinquency among our young people. That's the sort of thing that keeps me up at night.

>>5338571
>pretentious

I've been fathoming you and your type for a long long time.

Schope fans, what is this OP talking about?

>>5211552
>pretentious, apathetic
<-
>>5211536
Scooter, I meant.

>>5211539
There ya go

>>5192152

You keep saying this word...

>>5106247

>pondering

Can we talk about what the hell "deconstruction" actually is? I keep seeing people attribute the term to any number of inane movies, TV shows, books, etc. but the general usage nowadays seems to be so broad that the word has lost its meaning. I see this word thrown around a LOT, and it's become quite irritating when I hear it anymore because I generally have a good sense for when people are trying to use words they don't know the meaning of. But frankly I'm not sure I understand the definition of it either so any clarification would be helpful.

I'm not going to claim that I know what a literary "deconstruction" actually is, and my understanding may be very crude or just plain wrong, but just from skimming a bit of academic information I understand a literary deconstruction to be something performed on the side of those analyzing the work, not necessarily something the author does themselves when writing a work. I thought a deconstruction was a sort of analysis in which the reader looks at the words in a work as referring to other words rather than concrete objects; a sort of shift in conventional perspective of the reader regarding the words themselves and the meaning of sentences. Hell, I'm not even entirely sure what that's supposed to mean in an analytic sense, because it sounds like basically just saying to hell with language structure and definition and just letting words mean whatever you want them to mean.

Are there any examples of an actual book, movie, TV show, what have you, that is itself a deconstruction? I see people use it to describe a work that plays with cliches or tropes. Are those works "deconstructions"? Or I'll see people use the word to describe a show that tries to inject realism into a conventionally fantastical or cliched setting or plot. Is that a "deconstruction"?

Tl;dr: What the fuck is a "deconstruction" and why do people use it to describe everything?