On Deconstruction

His writing is clear and contagious. I've never encountered a more entertaining author speaking about these obscure, intensely academic, and incontrovertibly esoteric theories for the close reading of literature.

Responding to an earlier review: "Has anyone else noticed that Culler's recent book (2003) on deconstruction simply recycles what he says in this book from 1983? Culler hasn't learned a whit more about deconstruction in the past 20 years. Yes, he's better than Christopher Norris on deconstruction, but then again so is my auto mechanic (I'm not kidding). Read Culler if you want to know what Culler thought deconstruction was 20 years ago." People have already responded to this but it bears repeating. The book you're discussing was written in 1983. Hence, it seems (eerily) similar to Culler's work from 1983. "As for reading Heidegger for ten years constituting a perfect world, as another reviewer suggests, I think we can all agree that that really wouldn't be a perfect world at all. What's more, this argument seems to say that it's fine - really, it's OK - not to read philosophy because Heidegger (and Derrida) are really too complex to get anyway." This isn't what the previous reviewer was suggesting. The point was that if you want the best possible understanding of Derrida, you're going to need to read extensively within the philosophical tradition. No secondary text on Derrida--not Gasche's, Culler's, Bennington's, Norris', Harvey's, Beardsworth's, etc.--will change that. Nonetheless, people have limited amounts of time--they can't read everything (though they can certainly try). If you want to read something on Derrida that doesn't assume a vast knowledge of the tradition, Culler's book is an excellent choice. "If you really think ten years of Heidegger is necessary to understand Derrida, then the situation really is futile and impossible (and you've probably misunderstood something about Derrida's work)." First, it's not an all or nothing proposition. If you know Heidegger (and Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Nietzsche, etc.) well, you'll be better able to grasp Derrida. Second, why does the idea that you might have to study something for ten years make it "futile and impossible?" For someone who's clearly spent so much time reading Derrida, you seem to be a terrible reader. The bottom line is that Culler's book has remained for twenty years one of the clearest and most intelligent guides to Derrida available.

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.

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.

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.