Kaylin Fussell

ENG200
Deconstructive Criticism

Deconstruction, a method of reading first introduced by French philosopher Jaques

Derrida, focuses mainly on language and its ultimate unreliability. Through the eyes of

deconstruction, a sentence may be able to bend and twist its meaning according to how the

reader reads it, which words they emphasize, how the sentence would read if an imaginary

comma was placed in a certain spot, etc. Consequently, language produces a certain reality, and

because language is unreliable and flexible, reality may be as well. Binary oppositions, like good

and evil, light and dark, do not work against each other in deconstruction. Rather, they work

together. Unlike structuralism, deconstruction does not show a signifier which leads to a certain

signified. In structuralist theory, if we were to see the word rose, we would automatically

picture a rose because of our predisposition to know what a rose is and what a rose looks like.

Deconstruction counters this by stating there is no signified to a specific signifier, but rather a

chain of signifiers. In deconstruction, the image of a rose does not necessarily equate to that

specific word rose. Rose can connect to many things such as: flower, nature, Earth, pollution,

destruction, humans, living, entity, spirit, non-human, leading back to something that is not a

rose. Rose, in this way, has many different meanings outside of the one we are predisposed to.

Deconstruction focuses on understanding what something is by what it is not, often referred to as

diffrance" by Derrida. In addition, if I say the word rose out of context, but pronounced the

same way, I could be meaning many different things, though many would assume I am referring

to the flower. I could be meaning rose as in: He rose from the couch. or rows as in There are

rows of chairs. or rows as in He rows down the river. Words and slippery and thus, have many
Kaylin Fussell
ENG200
alternative meanings, indicating they have no one concrete end. In text, this points to the fact that

there is no one single interpretation of a text, nor is there one set meaning to a literary text.

In my literary interpretation of deconstruction, I will attempt to expose how The Secret

History it is undecidable in the way Tartt exposes the concept of a fatal flaw in literature versus

the fatal flaw outside of literature. I decided to analyze the first line of The Secret History which

goes as follows: Does such a thing as the fatal flaw, that showy dark crack running down the

middle of life, exist outside literature? I used to think it didnt. Now I think it does. And I think

that mine is this: a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs. (Tartt, p.7). The fatal flaw is a

Greek philosophy that refers to the protagonists notable error in a story which turns their good

fortune to bad following a sequence of events. By putting the fatal flaw in quotes, Tartt

reinforces the idea that the fatal flaw is a concept and not something that is concrete, though it

is concrete within the story. It also implies that is it supposed to be read as abstract and

consequently, will expand outside of the text to many different interpretations. This produces an

opposition of binaries. Tartt initially proposes a binary opposition by mentioning a fatal flaw

and comparing it to existing outside of literature. It is a fact that a fatal flaw must live inside

literature, and inside of the protagonist, a question Richard himself challenges by asking if the

fatal flaw can live outside of literature. Tartt also introduces another binary opposition,

describing the shadowy dark crack running down the middle of a life, (Tartt, p. 7). Here, she is

opposing darkness versus life or light, synonymous to the fatal flaw and life outside of literature.

However, it is clear that both of these things cannot exist without the other. In fact, it is clear

later throughout the book that Richards fatal flaw does indeed live outside of literature through
Kaylin Fussell
ENG200
the actions that follow after he murders Bunny. His life slowly deteriorates and even after

college, Richard seems emotionally and mentally repressed. In opposition, however, Tartt writes

the fatal flaw of a literary character. Richard believes that the fatal flaw can live outside of

literature, which we clearly see throughout the rest of the book, though Richard himself is a

literary character. In fact, it seems that at times, Richard understands that he is part of a story and

plays a certain role within it. He once points out that he [supposed] there is a crucial interval in

everyones life when character is fixed forever; for [him], it was that first fall term [he] spent at

Hampden college. (Tartt, p. 84). Despite this recollection, we understand that his life and his

character were not fixed forever, and instead suffered the fatal flaw. Its also interesting to note

Tartts use of the word character here. Character can have two different meanings: character

referring to a character in a story, or ones moral character or their personality. If we were to

interpret this as Richard referring to himself as a character, we would then understand that he is

saying he is fixed as a character, with no fatal flaw to endure. However, he does endure a fatal

flaw later on. This is the texts undecidability. What can live outside of a text, outside of

language? What does it mean to exist outside of literature? If something lives outside of a text,

is it part of an overarching fatal flaw? The answers to these questions lie in the fact that fatal flaw

must live off of the act of existing outside of literature. The fatal flaw and existing outside of

literature are not two separate ideas. Though Tartt sets up these binaries as if they should be

opposing one another, a fatal flaw cannot exist without literature, and literature cannot exist

without a life outside of it.

Kaylin Fussell
ENG200
In another example of binaries and the texts undecidability takes place towards the

beginning of the book, when Richard is discussing the Friday night dinner parties which take

place at Franciss house. Richard explains that at times when Julian would join, he would rise to

his feet and lift his wineglass. Live forever, he said. And the rest of [them would] rise too, and

clink [their] glasses across the table, like an army of regiment crossing sabres: Henry and Bunny,

Charles and Francis, Camilla and [Richard]. Live forever, [they] chorus, throwing [their]

glasses back in unison. And always, always, that same toast. Live forever. (Tartt, p. 91). To first

deconstruct this, it is easiest to focus on the slippery, undecidability of the sentence: Live

forever. Focusing on the word live, it is universally understood what it means to live and how

to define oneself as living. We define ourselves as living by being aware of our biology, our

ability to breathe and to grow, and to be conscious. But how true is this really? From a larger

perspective, to live is the opposite of being dead. In the same way, a universal view of being

dead is to not be living. Normally these would be seen a oppositions, but in fact, one cannot be

dead without living, similar to the way that one cannot be living without eventually dying. This

brings up the forever in the live forever. Forever means that something would be never-

ending, and would last beyond any sort of existence. In addition, on the surface, forever does not

have a binary. The opposite of forever would be to not exist at all, which would ultimately be

nothing. But perhaps the binary of forever is living itself. Especially used in this context, to live

forever cannot be possible as we see later on with Bunnys and Henrys death. It is a universal

truth that we all live and we all eventually die, so live forever is itself a binary of oppositions.

Anything that can live forever is often called immortal, such as gods or deities, and are things
Kaylin Fussell
ENG200
which are almost always strictly mythological. Often these things are called inhuman or

unnatural. However, just like living and dying cannot exist without each other, living and living

forever cannot exist without each other. We see this clearly throughout the rest of the novel, as

the story is centered around the death of a young college student, someone who embodies the

rejection of the phrase to live forever. Though we never experience the death of any other

characters besides Bunny and Henry, it is understood that they will someday die. We define

ourselves as living through our ability to one day die. We define ourselves as living through our

ability to not live forever.

Tartt, Donna. The Secret History. London: Penguin , 2015. Print.