Words are the metamorphosis of language. They are the semen that give life to new culture, new dialect, new people.Words carry the authority to dictate peace and war... laughter and tears.. love and hate.
Words have no stable meaning .. continue to create meaning .. multiply .. fuck .. disperse ..disseminate .. reproduce .. bleed, and a word has determined a view of me(Parker 88).
Language is a phenomenon, in that it is melted into relevance, and subjectively interpreted into understanding. Foreign languages are translated for understanding .. new languages created for understanding. Words are models. We are sculptors.
Roland Barthes says the explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it(Parker 58). Does not intentionality fade at the seeking of understanding? Or if readily understood an allie is won. A mind is changed or confirmed; A cult prepares for Rapture, a recipe is successful, a treaty is signed. Does an author not confide in a spectator to comprehend intention? How does one expect such in the midst of cognition(Parker 58)..
... And Roland Barthes said no writers make up the system of writing alone.. He said there is a cultured repertoire of vocabulary .. grammar .. syntax-in the language of writing .. there are social powers engaged(Parker 57,58). Well what then is an "author" .. "the maker of anything(Dictionary.com)?" Producer, consumer? Is the "author" the culture that assimilates language(Parker 58)?
If language is the "center" .. and to what it is entangled the foundation .. does it not rock when challenged by fluidity of Deconstruction. Does the concept of the producer of text(author)not sway at its approach(Parker 88,90)?
Je suis quoi? .. Quoi suis je(Parker 104)?
.. Deconstruction..
Works Cited:
Parker, Robert Dale. How To Interpret Literature; Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. Oxford. U.P., 2008. Print.
With this post, I am assuming the wallpaper is the picture with which the words are intended to interact. As the post is about language and words themselves, I consider the wallpaper a fitting image. Because the background of the post is slightly opaque, the words are easy to read without blocking the wallpaper entirely or the wallpaper distracting too much attention. Personally, I would like to have seen the background image take up the entire page, whether it was tiled, stretched, or scrolled with the page. The colors are simple, complement each other nicely, and are not too bold; but after scrolling down, the purple background is unexpected and almost jarring; it does not seem to match the feel of the top portion of the blog. Additionally, I am curious as to the purpose of the darker colored box on the right side of the page. Unless something will be added there later or it will somehow be incorporated into the blog, I would suggest removing it entirely; it seems like an unnecessary distraction.
ReplyDeleteThe post title, “circumambientdeconstruction”, is a very interesting choice. All one word, I am forced to deconstruct it simply to decipher the words and assign them meaning. This forces the reader not just to think about the idea of textual deconstruction, but to partake in it. I also like that there were phrases in another language (French I would guess?), especially since the ideas of translation and understanding were touched upon in the post. Because the foreign phrase is not only in the post but also acts as the blog’s title, it exemplifies the simultaneous lack of understanding (for one who does not speak French) with the knowledge that the words must be important. Luckily for me, the phrase was easy to translate online (as “I am who I am”), and its simplicity and importance created another interesting dichotomy.
Finally, the “free-play” section at the bottom was a cool idea, and another great example of textual deconstruction. Once again, the usually passive audience is given an opportunity to practice what is addressed in the post, blurring the line between audience and actor.