Views: 19356
Submissions: 139
Favs: 3070
~xanderfox
When I am feeling particularly foxy I go *marf* it's a foxish sound my furry friends and I came up with and make at each other. We're hoping to popularize it as a vulpine equivalent to smurf.
Stats
Comments Earned: 997
Comments Made: 2015
Journals: 108
Comments Made: 2015
Journals: 108
Recent Journal
My problem with most "deconstructions" of Fictional Chara...
16 days ago
Your often see people writing a story about a fictional character that isn't thier own that seems to "deconstruct" that character. To take apart the character to understand what makes them tick. This can be quite a fascinating story telling path to let you better understand the character weather your writing the story or reading it.
But a lot of stories like this are infact terrible mistakes. "Why do you say that?" You might ask me. Well two reasons come up.
One is when the goal is falsely called deconstruction when it is in fact destruction. Where the writer points out all the flaws a character has then concludes the existence of said flaws proves they are bad characters. The issue here is not the act itself but the dishonestly in not calling criticism what it is. If your goal is to point out why a character is bad call it what it is, criticism. Hiding your intent behind terminology is cowardice, and if your afraid to admit what your doing why should readers/listeners put any stock in what you say?
Another is of course people who don't do the hard part of deconstruction, the part where you come to conclusions about how all the parts work together the way they do. It's like a mechanic try to fix an car by taking it apart to see what's wrong then never putting it back together. Just identifying the parts of a character is meaningless if you don't have something to say about how that makes them who they are. Deconstruction is worthless if you don't put them back together.
But a lot of stories like this are infact terrible mistakes. "Why do you say that?" You might ask me. Well two reasons come up.
One is when the goal is falsely called deconstruction when it is in fact destruction. Where the writer points out all the flaws a character has then concludes the existence of said flaws proves they are bad characters. The issue here is not the act itself but the dishonestly in not calling criticism what it is. If your goal is to point out why a character is bad call it what it is, criticism. Hiding your intent behind terminology is cowardice, and if your afraid to admit what your doing why should readers/listeners put any stock in what you say?
Another is of course people who don't do the hard part of deconstruction, the part where you come to conclusions about how all the parts work together the way they do. It's like a mechanic try to fix an car by taking it apart to see what's wrong then never putting it back together. Just identifying the parts of a character is meaningless if you don't have something to say about how that makes them who they are. Deconstruction is worthless if you don't put them back together.
User Profile
Accepting Trades
No Accepting Commissions
No Character Species
fox / gargoyle
Favorite Music
Classic Rock
Favorite TV Shows & Movies
80s Essential Sci-Fi Movies
Favorite Games
Tactics Ogre, Fortnight, Pokemon
Favorite Gaming Platforms
Switch, Android
Favorite Animals
Equestrian Ponies, Foxes, Fluffy Things
Favorite Foods & Drinks
Delicious!
Favorite Quote
"Never Attribute to malice what can adequately be explain by stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor
foxpawmcfly