Well, I know one thing for sure:  it's not the post-Civil War era of the South.

With "Sin City" making the news, a lot of movie reviewers discuss Frank Miller and credit him with "deconstructing" Batman;  I often get the feeling that they've seen that line somewhere else and just use it casually without ever really delving into what it means. 

I went to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, and that didn't help:

"a method of literary criticism that assumes language refers only to itself rather than to an extratextual reality, that asserts multiple conflicting interpretations of a text, and that bases such interpretations on the philosophical, political, or social implications of the use of language in the text rather than on the author's intention"

This doesn't seem (to me) to line up with what people mean when they say Miller "deconstructed" Batman.  I've been of the impression that people mean he took apart the legend bit by bit.  That almost sounds like he "rebuilt" Batman rather than deconstructing him. 

But if we do say that Miller deconstructed Batman, based upon the definition people use (which may not be a definition at all), how did he do so?  People say that "The Dark Knight Returns" portrayed Batman as more of a fascist, and stripped the barnacles of campiness off the character that had obscured the true heart of the Batman.  But why is this deconstruction rather than a reboot or a reimagining?  Where was the examination of the facets that made Batman Batman?

If I were to choose a deconstruction (using the "to take apart") meaning, I would say that Next Men is as good a deocnsturction as any as we are taken step-by-step not only through the superhero mythos (and in Next Men, it proves to all be just a myth) but the fictional society Next Men is set in.  Next Men also seems to lie close to JB's Superman in that the heroes were intended not for heroics, but to assert their might and consider themselves above others.  I don't think any group before or since Next Men has gone through such basic building blocks as the heroes go on their journey and reinvent the superhero genre (from their Cold War origins to the rejection of superhero outfits and onward.)  So why isn't Next Men called deconstruction?

(If anything, Next Men is still goddamn good.)

Ed Aycock wrote: This doesn't seem (to me) to line up with what people mean when they say Miller "deconstructed" Batman.  I've been of the impression that people mean he took apart the legend bit by bit.  That almost sounds like he "rebuilt" Batman rather than deconstructing him.

He surely rebuild the legend in the time of DK publishing.

Ed Aycock wrote: But if we do say that Miller deconstructed Batman, based upon the definition people use (which may not be a definition at all), how did he do so?  People say that "The Dark Knight Returns" portrayed Batman as more of a fascist, and stripped the barnacles of campiness off the character that had obscured the true heart of the Batman.  But why is this deconstruction rather than a reboot or a reimagining?  Where was the examination of the facets that made Batman Batman?

I think Miller was running from the tv series´s example and rebuilding the legend to "back to basics" runs like Adams has done in the past.

Ed Aycock wrote: If I were to choose a deconstruction (using the "to take apart") meaning, I would say that Next Men is as good a deocnsturction as any as we are taken step-by-step not only through the superhero mythos (and in Next Men, it proves to all be just a myth) but the fictional society Next Men is set in.  Next Men also seems to lie close to JB's Superman in that the heroes were intended not for heroics, but to assert their might and consider themselves above others.  I don't think any group before or since Next Men has gone through such basic building blocks as the heroes go on their journey and reinvent the superhero genre (from their Cold War origins to the rejection of superhero outfits and onward.)  So why isn't Next Men called deconstruction? (If anything, Next Men is still goddamn good.)

If i recall correctly NEXT MEN was build in the idea that LEE created FF (with Kirby) in his 41 birthday and Jonh decided to do his FF when he completed 41 years...a sort of desconstrution of FF creation for sure.  The píty is that the series could have 521 numbers too...i saying NEXT MEN.

Miller says that he buried comics in DK and that Alan Moore did the autopsy in Watchmen.  Moore strong point was his descontruction of superheroes and his SWAMP THING 21 is the best example of descontrution that i ever seen (i still prefer Wrighston´s 1-10 issues besides).

"Deconstructionism" when used in a comic book sense means to return a character to its original or most primal elements.  It usually means stripping those elements away from a character that has built up over the years due to continuity, but which may have nothing to do with the original sense of the character.  Stripped to the character's basic core, the writer than reimagines those basic elements free of the others.  It does not necessarily mean a reboot.

Raymond Chandler (of Philip Marlow fame) once said of Dashiell Hammet (of Maltese Falcon fame) that he took murder out of the drawing room and put it back in the streets where it belonged, through The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One, Frank Miller obsetnsibly did that by placing Batman in more of an outlaw mode where he fights a corrupt establishment that nurtures crime.

Comics needs a much more accurate term than "deconstructing" because it has nothing to do with the way literary critics use it.  Also, in my opinion deconstructionism is a useless theory.  It was frequently used by Marxists in an attempt to destroy the reputation of the great classics so they could replace them with their own political tracts (usually awful, unreadable tripe, but which promoted all the "best" thought, ie Marxism.)  It did so by accussing all texts to be racist, facist, or other form of oppression.  Deconstructionism as a literary theory was written by a former Nazi (Jacque Derrida) turned Marxist in an attempt to distance himself from his own pro-Fascist writings during World War II (because works don't reflect what the author thinks!.)

It is also code for "I am too lazy to research this character's background so I will make up new stuff."

Ed:  Yeah, the philosophical/critical definition isn't much help in this case.  A real deconstructionist comic work might be something like Art Spiegelman's Ace Hole - Midget Detective or some of Gary Panter's work. Given that 'revisionist' connotates pretty much the same thing, I'm not sure how 'deconstruction' gained the meaning of 'grim and gritty.'

This is fun, anyway:

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Deconstruction

Cheers, Jon

I'm not sure that I understand deconstructivism very well but I do know what I think of when I hear the word.

Basically you assume that comic you are reading is a lie and a form of propaganda to disguise some sort of injustice that clings to or surrounds the hero's nature and activities. You assume that all of the book exists to conform to the readers expectations which are by definition simplistic shallow and in need of refinement. You assume that the comic is a sort of opiate designed to keep the reader in a state of torpidity that prevents any sign of free and independent thought.

In the course of his work the deconstructivist "uncovers" (read...totally makes up) the flaws that existed between the lines and shows them to the reader and insists that the reader is now smarter and more informed for having seen the said flaws because for once writers have come along to show the reader "how it really hangs".

If you happen to be a reader who doesn't like it   then you are dumb and obsessed with childish power fantasies such as lead to the rise of fascism and corporatism. You are a tool of the man, a cog in the machine, and a drooling fanboy who masturbates in his Mom's basement with no hope of ever getting laid or even liked by a decent person ever. EVER.

Thus you are encouraged to open your mind and let the brave new writer show you a darker world that more accurately reflects on the human condition. Often this brave new paradigm involves the reader observing Jesus snorting coke off of one of the disciples buttocks at a party or Superman vaporizing a basket of kittens with his heat vision because Batman bet him that he wouldn't.

I believe that it's secretly hoped that this deconstructivist approach will ween stupid Merkin kids off of super hero comics and lead them into the world of pop counter culture literature and "scary: avante garde  British comics which of course are without a doubt the surest hope of enligtenment you can get for $3 a pop. So it's like a virus. Get in and make more virus until it's all deconstructivist and then noone will read super hero comics and we can discover whatever kind of comics the deconstructivist writer thinks are tops but can't sell in a super hero dominated market.

You could make a deconstructivist commentary on a girm and gritty character just as easily as you do a heroic one. Typically in the usage of deconstruction pertaining to heroes you try to find who the hero really is under the positive legendary attributes. Remember that they can be safely discarded since they are so much flimsy PR from an untrustworthy source. Since we all know that everyone is really a priveledged bigoted bastard under all those nice manners and such you typically portray the hero as being a flawed, base, and often frankly unheroic being.

So you have Superman cheat on Lois for instance.

You portray Captain America as a pro government myrmidon who is just now starting to see how terrible his government is but he still won't do anything about it...Bucky!

Reed has had a cure for Ben's rocky condition for ten years but if he gave it to him he'd leave the FF and besides that they need a strong guy to get them out of scrapes. Ben needs to stay the Thing for the sake of the world. Oh yeah...Reed may have used some kind of subtle mind control to get Sue to marry him. It's a rumor.

You portray Batman as a neurotic brutal nutjob so traumatized by his parents death that he dresses up and attacks those he holds responisble for crime just in order to escape the trauma. Justice? Nah. Batman does all that to keep the panic attacks down...Heck let's show Batman beat up someone who obviously isn't a criminal and plant a gun on them for the police to find. He knows man. He knows who needs a beating. He can smell it!

You choose to disbelieve the bits that strike you as unlikely or boring or "white bread care bear happy rainbow pukey" and replace them with bits that you find familar and more comfortable. Venereal diseases are often a good start.

If a character is too noble to drag through the gutter then you make them misguided and or totally crazy and make THAT the explanation for their goodness. Nobody is THAT good unless their's a screw loose up there! Or you portray them as clueless towards certain evils such that they ignore it when a team member is persecuted because where there is smoke there is usually fire. Or they are just really great liars.

You deconstruct the shiny legend to show the typical boring ass and disappointing "truth" beneath it. Captain Marvel is a kid who says a magic word given to him by an amoral old wizard who wants someone to fight Black Adam for him and he routinely oppresses people who would intimidate him as a kid. Professor X is really the center of  a cult. Spider-man let's Venom go because he's sick of fighting him. Yeah it's just like letting the birglar go that killed his Uncle Ben. Big deal. He's like married now. He's a realist.

If you wanted to deconstruct the Punisher then you'd show him acting cowardly when things go bad and leave someone behind to die. Then he'd go back regroup and kill his targets via some non glorious means and then you see the "REAL" punisher behind the made for fanboy product.

So to me it's another word for mud slinging and wallowing in dirt.

What has crept into comics in recent years -- is it decades, even? -- is an increased demand for "why", and lately that "why" has had to have negative content. It is no longer sufficient that Our Hero don his colorful garb and fight evil simply because it is the right thing to do -- now we must learn that he is impotent without the suit, or he wets the bed, or he is really a serial rapist who is trying to "atone" for his sins. This is what is usually meant when people who don't know any better invoke "deconstructionism". Along with "deconstruction" these are the favorite tools of the prima donna crybabies.

The negative definition offered by Mr Byrne and others might be fine for some examples, but I don't think it aligns with how it was used in the original post to refer to Frank Miller's work with Batman.  Unless Mr Byrne feels that way  (either Miller's Batman has no heroism or is too lazy) towards the Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One, which I do not think is the case however.

"Deconstruction" in a comics sense can be done well or badly.  I do not believe it is solely a pejorative.  It's how artists "reimagine" that counts.  Having said that, I do agree with the net effect that most "deconstruction" attempts has done.  Deconstruction to me, is more than going "back to the basics," because it's done rather more radically.  The best deconstruction done recently, in my opinion, was Geoff John's rehabilitation of Hawkman.

However, maybe in pro circles, deconstruction is already solely defined pejoratively.  Words mean what people actually use them to me instead of a textbook definition.

Emery Calame gives a rather good introduction to deconstruction as done by literary critics, but I don't think that definition is how people use it in a comics' context.

I think the post could be improved if people post what character they think have been deconstructed, and by whom.  I think the areas where we've disagreed would be enlightening.