<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Concise Overview of Critical Trends
Review: Even though the book was written very nearly 20 years ago, Culler's 'On Deconstruction' remains a good, solid grounding in post-structural theory. But it's no beginner's guide; Culler assumes the reader brings a fair amount of knowledge to the table regarding the topic -- a familiarity with general post/structuralist concepts, plus a good sense of Barthes, Derrida, de Man, and Kristeva.Culler's style is clear and straightforward -- no easy task considering the complexity of his topic. And although Culler calls 'On Deconstruction' a sequel to his 'Structuralist Poetics', 'On Deconstruction' can certainly be read on its own -- or before one tackles 'Structural Poetics'. Culler begins with an emphasis on readers and how readers read, moves to feminist issues ("is it possible to 'read as a woman?' What does this mean? And why would we do this?), and finally moves to elucidate (primarily) Derrida's then-project of 'deconstruction' and its philosophical implications. Culler's book strikes me as one of those essential backgrounders -- in order to move past the book one must read it, understand it, and then understand its implications for how critical thought has changed since it was written. No easy task. But this book -- paired with 'Structuralist Poetics' -- certainly make this a managable task.
Rating: 
Summary: will the real deconstruction please stand up
Review: Jonathan Culler's 'On Deconstruction' is a remarkably lucid analysis of the theory and practice of deconstruction. Not only does Culler introduce the whole concept of deconstruction step by step for beginners, but also analyzes the most complex aspects of Derrida and De Mann's work for the more knowledgeable reader. This in fact, is the beauty of the work. The reader's journey into the murky field of deconstruction begins with an analysis of reading. Focussing on the reader-response theories of Stanley Fish, Culler illustrates how reader's have been seen to take a more active role in the production of meaning in texts in recent years. The role of the reader has gained importance also in the world of feminist criticism. Culler attempts to analyze what exactly it means to 'read as a woman'. So far, so good, even for the beginner. A reader with virtually no knowledge of deconstruction can begin to develop an idea of what the theory is actually based on, reading strategies and the production of meaning. The final two sections, which deal with deconstruction itself are more difficult to grasp without a background in literary theory and terminology. Culler addresses topics such as 'graft', 'traditional hierachies of thought', and the now notorious 'differance'. Yet still, his analysis is clear, thorough and comprehensible. His final section, giving examples of deconstructionist criticism, is interesting in the way that it shows the complexity of the topic. Few of the works he cites have anything in common with each-other, and the meaning extracted from various works proves to be both thought-provoking and original. Isn't this, after all, the whole aim of deconstruction. Fornovices in the world of post-modernist literary theory, this book is still extremely useful (especially if read more than once). Those readers with a background in the subject will also benefit from Culler's extremely detailed analysis of the mysterious world of deconstrution.
Rating:
Summary: Worth Reading a Second Time
Review: Jonathan Culler's 'On Deconstruction' is a remarkably lucid analysis of the theory and practice of deconstruction. Not only does Culler introduce the whole concept of deconstruction step by step for beginners, but also analyzes the most complex aspects of Derrida and De Mann's work for the more knowledgeable reader. This in fact, is the beauty of the work. The reader's journey into the murky field of deconstruction begins with an analysis of reading. Focussing on the reader-response theories of Stanley Fish, Culler illustrates how reader's have been seen to take a more active role in the production of meaning in texts in recent years. The role of the reader has gained importance also in the world of feminist criticism. Culler attempts to analyze what exactly it means to 'read as a woman'. So far, so good, even for the beginner. A reader with virtually no knowledge of deconstruction can begin to develop an idea of what the theory is actually based on, reading strategies and the production of meaning. The final two sections, which deal with deconstruction itself are more difficult to grasp without a background in literary theory and terminology. Culler addresses topics such as 'graft', 'traditional hierachies of thought', and the now notorious 'differance'. Yet still, his analysis is clear, thorough and comprehensible. His final section, giving examples of deconstructionist criticism, is interesting in the way that it shows the complexity of the topic. Few of the works he cites have anything in common with each-other, and the meaning extracted from various works proves to be both thought-provoking and original. Isn't this, after all, the whole aim of deconstruction. Fornovices in the world of post-modernist literary theory, this book is still extremely useful (especially if read more than once). Those readers with a background in the subject will also benefit from Culler's extremely detailed analysis of the mysterious world of deconstrution.
Rating:
Summary: The best introduction to post-structural theory ever.
Review: On Deconstruction delivers lucid explanations of some of the most difficult ideas in post-structural theory. Culler manages to explain the ideas without diluting them, which is no mean feat. Culler reads like an excellent teacher who whets the appetite for further reading. Read this book before you read anything by Jacques Derrida. It may change your whole experience. This book is also helpful as an introduction to a cross section of literary trends including feminist criticism and reader response. I have owned this book for several years and find myself returning to it again and again.
Rating:
Summary: The best introduction to post-structural theory ever.
Review: On Deconstruction delivers lucid explanations of some of the most difficult ideas in post-structural theory. Culler manages to explain the ideas without diluting them, which is no mean feat. Culler reads like an excellent teacher who whets the appetite for further reading. Read this book before you read anything by Jacques Derrida. It may change your whole experience. This book is also helpful as an introduction to a cross section of literary trends including feminist criticism and reader response. I have owned this book for several years and find myself returning to it again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Don't listen to the Derrida snobs!!!
Review: This book is fantastic; if you want to learn about post-structuralist thought - and how to apply it - then this is worth your time and money. To refute the other reviewer below #1) The fact that this represents Culler's opinions of twenty years ago is a neutral fact. Most theory that's considered part of the canon is pretty old, in fact. And if you think that deconstruction has changed that much since '67, well, then you're just wrong. Even if it had, then I would still argue over the pedagogical value of these essays. Fish, in the forward to his "Is There a Text in This Class?", openly says that he no longer holds many of the beliefs that are contained in the book - but does that mean it isn't still a classic? No. When did you think that Grammatology was published? Is it now somehow irrelevant? No. #2) Derrida doesn't own deconstruction. A book about deconstruction isn't always about Derrida. Sorry, kiddo. #3) As it stands, post-strucuralist theory is difficult; in any difficult subject it pays to be familiar with its main tenets before heading into deeper waters. Having said that, Derrida isn't necessarily deeper, but his translations tend to be crap. Hence, a good overview can be a good thing. But, as I said before, Derrida doesn't equate with Deconstruction. Anyone who says otherwise is either a charlatan trying to give you a hard time or is just plain misinformed. I have had to read upwards upwards of twenty full texts on this stuff (not to mention various journals, course packs, etc) and this is by far the best - in my mind's eye. And that's all that I can really say. You already know if you need it or not - but don't let that dimwit below (or his auto mechaninc) influence you to do the otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: Odd response
Review: This is a reprint of the of On Deconstruction, first published in 1982, which is why it says the same thing it said 20 years ago!
<< 1 >>
| 
