Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Constructive dedeconstructivism in the works of Tarantino

1. Narratives of meaninglessness

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the concept of postcapitalist consciousness. Several narratives concerning a mythopoetical whole may be found.

If one examines Marxist socialism, one is faced with a choice: either reject structuralist subdialectic theory or conclude that reality is fundamentally elitist, given that Sontag’s model of submodernist feminism is invalid. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a that includes narrativity as a paradox. Lyotard uses the term ‘Marxist socialism’ to denote the common ground between class and sexual identity.

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the distinction between feminine and masculine. Thus, the closing/opening distinction prevalent in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction is also evident in Reservoir Dogs. Any number of discourses concerning constructive dedeconstructivism exist.

However, the premise of predeconstructivist nationalism implies that the establishment is capable of truth. The subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a reality.

In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘constructive dedeconstructivism’ to denote the fatal flaw of capitalist class. Debord promotes the use of the posttextual paradigm of context to read and modify society.

However, Foucault uses the term ‘Marxist socialism’ to denote not narrative per se, but prenarrative. The subject is contextualised into a that includes reality as a paradox.

Therefore, a number of theories concerning the stasis, and thus the failure, of postcultural class may be discovered. Brophy[1] suggests that we have to choose between submodernist feminism and subtextual structuralist theory.

2. Tarantino and Sartreist absurdity

If one examines submodernist feminism, one is faced with a choice: either accept constructive dedeconstructivism or conclude that culture is used in the service of sexism. But the subject is interpolated into a that includes reality as a whole. In Jackie Brown, Tarantino affirms Marxist socialism; in Four Rooms, although, he reiterates submodernist feminism.

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the concept of postpatriarchialist sexuality. It could be said that if constructive dedeconstructivism holds, we have to choose between submodernist feminism and dialectic capitalism. The example of neocultural capitalist theory intrinsic to Tarantino’s Jackie Brown emerges again in Reservoir Dogs, although in a more postsemantic sense.

If one examines constructive dedeconstructivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Batailleist `powerful communication’ or conclude that the task of the poet is social comment. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a that includes culture as a reality. Wilson[2] implies that we have to choose between Marxist socialism and the precultural paradigm of consensus.

The main theme of the works of Tarantino is a mythopoetical totality. In a sense, many narratives concerning constructive dedeconstructivism exist. Sontag’s critique of dialectic theory suggests that the Constitution is intrinsically unattainable, given that reality is interchangeable with culture.

Therefore, if Marxist socialism holds, we have to choose between constructive dedeconstructivism and subconceptual objectivism. Foucault uses the term ‘Marxist socialism’ to denote the role of the participant as reader.

However, la Tournier[3] states that we have to choose between cultural presemantic theory and Lacanist obscurity. In Four Rooms, Tarantino affirms submodernist feminism; in Jackie Brown he deconstructs Marxist socialism.

It could be said that the primary theme of Dietrich’s[4] model of constructive dedeconstructivism is a neopatriarchial paradox. Submodernist feminism suggests that narrativity is capable of significant form.

Thus, the subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a reality. The collapse, and eventually the absurdity, of materialist postcultural theory which is a central theme of Tarantino’s Four Rooms is also evident in Reservoir Dogs.

Therefore, several deconstructions concerning the role of the artist as writer may be found. If constructive dedeconstructivism holds, we have to choose between submodernist feminism and Foucaultist power relations.

--------------
Biblio.

1. Brophy, Z. V. ed. (1990) The Vermillion Sea: Constructive dedeconstructivism and submodernist feminism. University of Illinois Press

2. Wilson, B. (1971) Capitalism, constructive dedeconstructivism and materialist appropriation. Loompanics

3. la Tournier, T. L. ed. (1993) The Context of Dialectic: Constructive dedeconstructivism in the works of Glass. University of Massachusetts Press

4. Dietrich, I. K. C. (1972) Submodernist feminism and constructive dedeconstructivism. O’Reilly & Associates

--------------

If you read all that and didn't understand a word of it, guess what? It was generated here. That's right; it's pure unadulterated overly academic rubbish. It means nothing.

And that's my question, if you got this far. Is it possible to take the meaning out of language? To become too esoteric? If you use a word too much, such as a swear, does it lose impact after a while? Does FUCK eventually become more like fart on your radar?


PS -
If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.

4 comments:

azteclady said...

Well, I didn't read that. I skipped right to the end.

What can I say? even true academia starts to sound fuzzy to me after a couple of minutes, and I start wishing someone would translate to English for me.

As far as words losing meaning if/when they are used much too much :grin: yeah, I've seen it happen. The problem lies in when people from a group which overuses a word (like "like" for example) interacts with people for a group where the word is only used in the right context and to add meaning.

You can watch the hijinks at the home of any adult with adolescent children :grin:

micheleleesbooklove said...

Yes, yes yes! I HATE feeling like I'm being talked down to or being left behind, rhetorically speaking. Big words are okay, as long as I can still tell what they mean in context. One of my favorite quotes is "Intelligence does not eliminate, it invites." (I don't know by who.) discussion should be about looking at things in a new way, not making people look and feel like idiots.

And yes, sometimes it does seem like words are losing their power. I find that sometimes using a non explicit word can be more effective because people have come to expect that sort of language. Not hearing it can get their attention.

Elisabeth Naughton said...

ROFLMAO, Ann. Love it!

Debra Moore said...

Yeah, like Azteclady, I also skipped right to the end (mostly hoping there'd be a summary paragraph down there telling me what I was supposed to have learned...so I could see if I wanted to go learn it!) LOL