What is the point of deconstruction in fiction?

The author is trying to rain on the parade of people enjoying the parameters as set by the author? Wait, what?

Sorry, I think that I let my hands do too much of the talking. Welcome to my brain. That line makes perfect sense to me, but since you don’t get it, I think that I may have left something out. Let’s try this again.
IIRC, a deconstructionist author uses his work to try to show the supposed ramifications of a fictional concept in the real world. They are the sort of people who’ll tell you that, by rights, Lois Lane ought to be in pieces after Superman goes to catch her. I don’t really see why they bother, except to be cynical, since the setting, the rules that govern it, and their ramifications are fictional; they can be whatever Random J. Author wants them to be.

There. How’s that?

Ah, there’s an author A and an author B. Ok, I was reading that as just an author A.

@Nullo Well, for starters it’s not like deconstructionist fiction can’t be entertaining in its own right. Take Watchmen, for instance. It deconstructs the typical superhero story by, basically, writing realistic characters, with the kind of flaws that would push them to wear a mask and fight crime in real life as well, setting them up as “superheroes” and running with it.

It is considered the best comicbook-novel of all times, whether it rains on the parade of superheroes in general or not, and it does, since the premise is to highlight how no character is a “superhero” but rather a “superhuman” if the characters are realistic.

As for why would they do it, i can think of several reasons why: To point out how an idea works well only whithin the boundaries of fiction, to give a fresh point of view on the archetype that is being deconstructed, to submit a personal interpretation of the works that submit to that archetype in general (as is the case with Watchmen) and to be cynical, why not.

@Nullo Did you see Kick Ass ? A very funny uncynical deconstructionist movie.

@Nullo Read the Kick-ass comic first. Because the movie gives away one of the most crucial twists of the story way before it’s due and does away with the other great one.

Seriously. The comic is gold, but the movie loses most of the message.

@flutherother Have you read the comic?

@Thammuz No, but I’ll maybe give it a try. Loved the movie.

@flutherother The comic’s much better, but way darker. And there’s no minigun jetpack.

@Nullo Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex. Loved that. I don’t usually think of Larry Niven as deconstructionist, though.

@flutherother I liked and respected Watchmen but I loved and enjoyed Kick-ass. Stand still baby girl, this will hurt! ( that’s not the line exactly but you get the point )

I think the point of deconstruction can be found in the word itself: to take something apart in order to understand it. By looking at each part of the mechanism, one can gain an understanding of how the whole works. It also allows you to think about a particular work in a different light, which is sometimes difficult to do without considering the smaller parts.

In some cases, deconstruction is used to show flaws in the original conception of an idea, and sometimes it is used to show a superior method of using an existing framework.

In the end, it is another method of analysis, and reading literature is all about analysis and understanding.