Eruvadhril

the categories are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean they're synonymous.

a parody that has nothing in it of satire is relatively unlikely to qualify as a deconstruction, due to not containing enough intellectual meat, but exceptions certainly exist. particularly when the thing being parodied is literary in nature.

meanwhile not all satires are deconstructions, because you can satirize things like 'the recent political drama' in ways that don't really involve deconstruction per se. (a lot of the time you will do this via parody.)

the distinctive element of a deconstruction is that it arises within the context of interpreting things structurally. this is a very common intellectual framework nowadays so this distinction can get lost, but the shift away from the platonic view, where any given sort of thing was assumed to have a single true self that you were trying to find or reach or understand, rather than arising through the interaction of contextual forces, was a big deal when it was happening, and opened a lot of new doors in terms of how to conceptualize...everything, but especially everything we now categorize as a 'social construct.'

which is why there's a sort of assumption that to 'deconstruct' something is necessarily to approach it in an intellectually complex or rewarding way.

not true. can have stupid deconstruction that technically qualifies. arguably can even have trite one. (can also just say something is a deconstruction when it isn't but that's another issue lol.)

this is because in the context of literature and related art forms this assumption disappears up its own ass fairly quickly, since writing about writing is one of the oldest tricks in the book. that doesn't mean you can't deconstruct a genre, or convention within a genre, etc, in an interesting and philosophically profitable way. just that being metatextual doesn't actually guarantee you have anything of value to say, either.

which is why saying you're doing a deconstruction while actually just engaging in sophistry and light satire is really easy, and thus attractive to people trying to look and feel intellectual without having to try too hard.

meanwhile literary deconstructions don't have to be remotely like either satire or parody, because the only thing they actually have to be doing is engaging directly with the structural assumptions of a genre in a way that draws out something about their constructed nature and. does something with that. basically.

it's just easiest to make this engaging to an audience (especially one already at least mildly accustomed to thinking in structural terms and thus less impressed by it) in the parody/satire/subversion format, so they tend to occur together and thus get balled up together a lot.

and so people who want to sound intellectual increasingly say 'deconstruction' and 'subversion' where they only very dubiously apply.

so...yeah, none of these are mutually incompatible, and you can stack them all at once but also find them separately, because they're talking about different things.

'Satire' describes the...ideological engagement with the subject, is i think the most accurate generalization i can make. the main thing you say by categorizing something as satire is that it is making an argument about something through the way in which that subject is depicted. a critical argument.

parody is a technique you can use in creating a satire, but is not mandatory, and if it's the only technique you're using your satire is necessarily rather cartoonish.

'Deconstruction,' finally, describes the intellectual engagement with the subject. the main thing this label says is that you are applying certain specific critical lenses to a thing (that doesn't physically exist) which explore how it is made, at least in part by taking it apart to look at the metaphorical gearwork.

Him: it's like they're doing Gay or European

Me: yes. Although in my case it's more often Gay or Middle Eastern

in my case i also had a lot of joint and tendon pain with the sudden pressure drops and it was hard to sort out whether i had brain fog as a symptom of its own or i was just having trouble concentrating because i was in so much pain, like from my perception it was trouble concentrating because of the pain, but it could have been that i had brain fog on top of that and just didn't notice through the pain

at any rate that is one thing worth trying

and yes there is some evidence that creatine has cognitive benefits too, it is not just for muscle/joint/tendon building or repair. some people take a higher dose (20mg/day) for the cognitive benefits but there is less safety information on these doses. the lower 5g dose is established to be safe for most people.

She is the more rational choice for Darcy vs. the Bennets. She has education, manners, a fortune, and clearly, relatives that he likes. So many fan fiction authors make her vulgar and/or unfashionable, but she isn't! That is why Darcy enjoys hanging out with her in the beginning; he would not have her at his house if she was embarrassing. Even when angry with Elizabeth, Caroline does not dare go further in attacking Elizabeth at Pemberley. She has self control. She understands boundaries, which Jane and Elizabeth mostly do, but the rest of the Bennet family struggles with. This is why she's a foil for them.

As for Darcy, at the beginning, Caroline is a nearly perfect mirror of his opinions and snobby attitude. She is doing this on purpose as a way of flirting, but it's probably pretty close to her real personality anyway. She's right that Darcy looks down on Elizabeth's uncle being a lower class lawyer. She's right that he finds the Bennet family intolerable to marry into. However, as Darcy falls in love with Elizabeth and then reforms, Caroline's mirror distorts. That shows his growth in the novel. She, like Elizabeth, fails to update her priors, though to be fair to Caroline, she didn't build her knowledge of Mr. Darcy on first impressions. It's harder to change her mind because she did once know him very well.

Side note: this is also why people woobyfying Darcy hurts Caroline as a rational character. They start in a very similar place and love mean girl gossiping together, then he changes. When Darcy's flaws are erased, it makes Caroline look super irrational and much crueller.

Exactly! (tags from @bemusedlybespectacled)

for example, we have a microscope that is perfectly functional, good microscope, but its software is abandonware because the company refused to maintain it. the company is still in business, still makes essentially the exact same software, but they made all of the old tech incompatible with new software to force people to buy the new microscope tech. it would cost a quarter million dollars to replace this microscope. this perfectly good microscope.

–Darth Vader apparently said, “If I had to have the entire goddamned ocean dropped on me, I’m not fixing that shit, and we’re leaving it exactly the way it is, so the rest of you shitstains can experience the same fucking thing, because if I have to suffer, so do the rest of you.” And that’s exactly what happened five years later.