Report Moneta's Profile

I saw it as a tale warning about unintended consequences and the folly of chasing ephemeral desires.

What did you find so objectionable about Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo?

Your command of the English language, in written form, is excellent. The way you express yourself allows for your ideas to be conveyed in a more coherent manner in contrast to those who prefer the "short and simple" approach. I loved reading your posts in the "Some MAL users are pretentious..." thread. Rarely do I get to see such language used on a website akin to this one.

Hey, I just read your posts in the "blabla SJW blabla" thread and I wanted to share that blog. Well, you probably know it already.
http://ladyloveandjustice.tumblr.com/tagged/revolutionary-girl-utena-reviews

(Please don't hit me T_T)

"Genre Deconstruction" literally means to myself and to my audience, to literally take apart a genre, that was my point, sorry for the misunderstanding,(the wording was a little weird). "Deconstruction" before Derrida's influence simple meant, "to deconstruct" to take apart. When did genre deconstruction arise? I'd say during the 80's and 90's as a response to the golden, silver age of comics, and as a response to the baby booming generation by the readers of generation X. Spaghetti Westerns, which were popular among baby boomers, went through this too; films like Unforgiven and books like Blood Meridian are what I would call, "genre deconstruction" . That's a little summary of my observations, though I don't have a PHD in literature, so take it for what little it might be worth. Though I do not know its exact origin, I do know that for the last few decades the word has been used in that capacity, by individuals other then myself.

The reason I called your views, "dogmatic" is due to their strictness, and the absolutism that you wanted me to use the word; all due to the fact that you hold Derrida's beliefs in high esteem. I don't believe anybody is free from criticism, believe me, or even that all criticisms are created equal. I was simply responding to this sentence about Derrida's Deconstruction in one of your responses: "As far as Deconstruction is concerned, art is indeed subjective, but ideas of criticism are not."

By the way did you just kind of imply that I haven't been responding to criticism? Really? After what a 3000+ word discussion? Just because I'm not going to adhere to your critique regarding the use of a word, does not mean I'm unresponsive. I just disagree, to an extent, with your criticism, that's all.

I apologize, if you misunderstood my use of "sophism" I was using it as an example of the proverbial rabbit hole that these debates usually succumb to. I wasn't trying to play "gotcha" I was simply using it, among other terms, as kind of a stop sign. As I feared this discussion was going in that direction, as these types of disagreements often do, and I wanted to prevent that. I don't think either one of is being a sophist, or anything. We just have a fundamental disagreement about the use of a word.

You seem to think writers have this duty to Derrida and other academics when it come to language. Not only that, but to correctly interrupt their ideas, (the way you see it) which is a laughable concept. The only duty a writers has is to their audience, and the conveying of ideas to them in the best possible way. Both the audience and the writer are subjective beings, with their own personalities, ideas, bias...etc But, that is the only duty a writer has, other than the ones they impose on themselves. I as a writer believe that I have no duty to post-structuralism, nationalism, nihilism, communism...etc unless I impose that on myself. I do not believe that I have a duty to post-structuralism, at all, hence I will continue to perpetrate the use of of the word, in the context I used, when referring to genres. If you, all the post-structuralist, and other academics disagree with that; then it is what it is. Post-structuralist are still free to critique and analyze all writers, using their methods. If they disagree with my literal use of the word Deconstruction when referring to genres, well I can assure you that I will find a way to live with myself.

Feel free to respond, I appreciate the feedback and criticism as always. But this will be my last response regarding this topic. I'm a little behind on my next article. Thank you.

This is getting repetitive as were just regurgitating our arguments. We simply disagree about the merit of the term, "genre deconstruction", you don't think it holds any water, I do. Deconstruction did mean, before Derrida btw, "to take apart". "To take apart a genre" this is where I would argue that "Genre deconstruction" came about and not from some misunderstanding with Derrida's ideas but simply from the basic definition of the actual word. After Derrida's influence the word grew, (evolved) to mean a lot more, and I'm simply arguing that it is still developing. And will likely continue to evolve like many words, and mean something very different 100, 200 years from now.

And by the way, I believe the vast majority of ideas and criticisms are subjective,(otherwise rotten tomatoes is the final authority on films which is moronic) unless such ideas are mathematical proofs or scientific laws that can be proven using perfect data, they are inherently subjective to a certain extent; some more than others (especially critiques of any type of art). Then you starting getting into debates about the burden of proof, threshold of proof, sophist like arguments, appeals to ignorance...etc. A rabbit hole of all the different ways one can try to argue a point.

I'm stating that deconstruction can have more than one meaning to different people, you do not believe so. I will say that I have provided evidence of best-selling writers and Hugo winners using the word as I have, but you disregarded their opinion to a degree, because you believe you are right and they are wrong. Likewise I don't want to shackle myself to how post-structuralist philosophers, and others think a word should be used. Because I don't think they are entirely right. They can use the word how they want, and I can as well. My readers have the right to disagree with its usage, as you have, or agree with it, as some others have. This is getting tedious and repetitive though, as neither one of us is willing to concede our point.

So I will simply add: I feel like I did an adequate job, within the confines of the guidelines outlined by my editor, in explaining my opinion and providing background information on the topic manga/anime to my audience. You disagree to a certain extent. Thank you for the feedback and the criticism, you seem like a very bright individual, and enjoy your night.

Agree to disagree, we have two very different ideas about the topic, you do realize we are discussing art, which by it's nature is subjective. I will add that I do not believe "Monster" exclusively belongs to the monster genre; it is very much a suspense, crime thriller too. I, unlike you apparently, do not hold such rigid interpretations of a fictional work, and can easily see why many people, like myself and others, can interpret "Monster" as belonging to the monster literary genre as well as other genres. And even if someone interprets another fictional work differently then from myself I will never call their POV on it inherently wrong. A story like a picture means many different things to different people. Their is a lot of ideas going on with Monster, which is expounded upon in the article and the word limit I had to work with.


To me it seems like your getting upset because a portion of my critique is done using a word you think is inappropriate for what I'm trying to describe, because you think its subjective, unreliable, and does a disservice to the term "Deconstruction". Because in an entirely different context that is completely unrelated to the point I'm trying to make in the article, it means something completely different. I ask you why the word itself, "Deconstruction" can not be, for instance a homonym?



Why hold such an dogmatic definition? Also realize that words are by their nature are, "subjective" and that the word "deconstruction" holds no value in of itself, other than what the writer and reader give it. It's definition like all words is relative and can change depending on the context in which it is used. Language is an organism that is constantly developing and evolving. I will continue to use the word in the "inconsistent" and "atrocious" manner that I've done. Because to myself, and many other people that is what the word means to them in the context of my article. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to read my articles.


Your trying to police language, and how I use a particular term. Because your offended by the way I used it to such a degree, that you told me not to perpetuate that usage, because in your mind no self-respecting writer should dare to use the term "deconstruction" outside of your rigid definition because I'm robbing its meaning from the ideas of a french philosopher which you hold in high esteem. If his ideas are so bright and good, then I'm sure they'll be able to outlast my tropey use of the word on MAL in a single article. In fact, I'm almost positive that they'll outlast all the horrible misuses of the term by myself and numerous others. Or maybe...just maybe...both definitions can be attributed to the word, relative to the context that it is used. O my god what a crazy idea, what other words do that...oh wait their are numerous words that do that in the English language:

Platonic-can be used to describe the ideas of Plato or to describe an intimate but not sexual relationship.
(this is the most relevant to are discussion I think) All those platonic relationships perpetrating the destruction of Plato's ideals by their horrible misuse of the word, "platonic". Oh wait Plato is one of the most famous philosophers of all time and everybody knows of him.


Lead- a chemical element or meaning to be in charge.

fair-to be even handed, or beautiful/handsome.


Look at that some words that are spelled and pronounced the exact same way, but have very different meanings. I know you're not going to agree nor like my point but please understand where I'm coming from. I understand what you are trying to do, you think a bunch of goofballs have hijacked a word and are destroying the original intent behind. I'm telling you that it is okay that the term "deconstruction" has grown to mean more, that is a perfectly natural thing to happen to a word during its life cycle in a language.

I am well aware of the use of "Deconstruction" in the wide variety areas of study and its exploration of differences between exclusive terms and their polar opposites, its use in structuralism...etc and you need to be aware that the term can be used for literary analysis outside of that. "Deconstruct" as in to take apart a story or genre and analyze each individual theme and the expectations of a genre and turn it on its head, to write an engaging and entertaining work by subverting classical cliches. Understand that I'm using the term for that purpose. Until somebody gets a copyright on the word, I will continue using it with that intent; in regards to a literary critique. Jacques Derrida, Ferdinand de Saussure, linguistics...etc do not own the word, nor have the right to enforce such a linear, dogmatic definition of it.



Also I just google "Blood Meridian Deconstruction" and the first page alone has half a dozen academic papers, college essays, doing what I did: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=blood+meridian+deconstructs
I also showed you a podcast that includes episodes where HUGO winning authors talk about deconstruction, in the literary sense that I'm doing.



"Deconstruction" has grown to mean many things to many people. For genre deconstruction, which is what I'm doing, the word is an easy way for me, to convey to my audience in one word this: "To take apart, (deconstruct) and to analyze traditional genre expectations and subvert them by exploring them to their logical conclusion." Its a wonderful an economical word that saves a lot of ink and time. Would you have preferred I titled the article: "Urasawa takes apart, and analyzes the traditional monster genre expectations and subverts them by exploring them to their logical conclusion: What is True Evil?". Try getting that titled published on any website. When theirs a copyright on the word then I'll stop using, heck even then I'll still probably use it claiming Fair Use, since I am reviewing something.

If you still haven't changed your mind then were going to have to agree to disagree.

Your making the assumption the term "deconstruction" only has one meaning, and thus can only be used in that way. I assume you're referring to its use in the philosophical sense by a Jacques Derrida. "Deconstruction" as a term has for decades been used by writers and critics as a means of literary analysis. Authors have used this idea to take apart and analyze the themes of classical stories and narratives, and thus explore them in new and interesting ways.



Alan Moore did this with the comics Watchmen and Miracleman.
Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns
George RR. Martin does this with the A Song of Ice and Fire series for the fantasy genre.
Cormac McCarthy uses this technique all the time, my personal favorite is the brutal book Blood Meridian,(which many critics would argue is a deconstruction of the Western genre).
Of course Naoki Urasawa does this with "Monster" to take apart and reanalyze the monster genre that you see in many entertainment mediums.
Brandon Sanderson a Hugo winning author frequently discusses the use of deconstruction with other writers on his podcast, "Writing Excuses": http://www.writingexcuses.com/.
Numerous filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Darren Aronofsky, David Fincher...etc invoke the, "Tropey abomination" too.



My point being that Jacques Derrida, nor does any single area of study: philosophy, sociology, law, gender studies, writing...etc have the exclusive privilege of using the word, "Deconstruction" for one single definition. If you're going to tell me to not to perpetrate the use the word "deconstruction" when critically analyzing works of fiction, then you need to do the same for numerous best-selling authors, filmmakers, artist, and critics who are perpetrating the exact use of the phrase as I did with my article. Point being that words and ideas can mean different things to different people, and I don't see any great crime or flaw in using the term, "Deconstruction" when critically assessing a work of fiction.

Wow, I wish I had a friend like that. Who finds cute images for me. It's hard work! What have you been reading lately? Any good literature you recommend? I'm sure a classy lady such as yourself reads some avant garde books. Share your knowledge with me, onegai. Also, is there such thing as high brow chick lit? Because I'm only finding REALLY BAD chick lit and it makes me sad :c

Wish we could share a cup of tea, just us girls.

I love your display picture. Where did you get it? Happy New Year!

http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1458690&show=9150#msg43849775

have fun

Working on the damned response.

pls have mercy

Oh, Moneta, Znf is out for vacation, so don't expect an early response.

Oh, I see. In Polish it means 'a coin'.