The Dregs of Deconstruction

So, conceptually, Derridean deconstruction has been useful for quite a few different scholars using quite a few different theoretical methodologies. In terms of producing actual literary criticism, though, deconstruction is a train wreck . . . as I've recently (re-)discovered when browsing through Donald Burleson's Lovecraft: Disturbing the Universe (1991).

Didn't take me long to see how completely useless the book was. No argumentative thesis, nothing but academic stream-of-consciousness and erudition. And so, blah.

But!!

Having merely written a bad book isn't enough to merit attention on this blog, however. Out of curiosity, I looked up a review of the volume. Well, turns out that none other than my old undergraduate thesis director, Donald M. Hassler, had produced just such a review, and he considered the Burleson book "such a travesty of criticism that I find it useless—except for fun" (339). Which I guess means that I picked the right thesis director.

EDIT (3-29-2019): I should add that if I had been writing the review, though, I would have been kinder -- although I can't see the point of a deconstructive, Burleson does do it well enough, I suppose. Also, I would have mentioned that his other essays on Lovecraft do demonstrate useful scholarship.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Genre Fantasy Bestsellers through 1990

A Look at Charles R. Saunders and "Sword & Soul"

NEW POETS OF RUM-RAM-RUF: Zach Weinersmith & Boulet