This assumes that deconstruction could reveal intention if done honestly by the author, which I, for one, don’t buy, and I don’t think you do, either, Dangerosa.
Fitzgerald intended to write a novel, which he did. He commented on it fairly extensively. It is clearly a critique of certain human weaknesses and cultural excesses (and deficiencies). It is clearly not as reliant on Biblical iconography as is Faulkner’s work. Etc etc.
Intentions are knowable, to a certain extent. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or deluded. (Not implying that you said intentions are a black box, Dangerosa – I know that you did not.)
I would agree that “deconstruction is about what you can see, not about what was intended”, which means it’s snake oil, Mary in the clouds, anything goes – essentially a waste of time.
Language is unavoidably ambiguous. Novels even moreso. That’s part of their attraction. But some interpretations are clearly spurious.
I hope to get back around to the OP’s last post soon. Right now it’s to bed.
You are right, I don’t buy it either. Some authors have left us with more comments on their own work, others have left it stand alone. Its easier to see what Tolkien was getting at - having written a lot about it - than Austen, where we have some letters, time shifted through our own cultural bias. (Personally, I’d like to see what Harper Lee has been doing for the past fifty years)…But in the end, they all see their own work reflected back - writing is a process and most people don’t start a novel by saying “And I’ll make Jay Gatsby a standin for Christ.” And writers aren’t anything if they don’t start out as good bullshitters. Certainly Fitzgerald was a good bullshitter.
But you need to seperate intent from deconstruction. Deconstruction isn’t about looking for intent, its about looking for what can be seen, whether it was intended or not. And I’m not sure that its a waste of time. Although no one is going to cure cancer deconstructing 20th Century American Literature, the skills developed doing deconstruction have allowed me to see patterns in completely unrelated fields. Deconstruction teaches you to think outside the box (sometimes so far outside the box you are in a different room) and make an arguement to support your thoughts. If everyone learned to do those two things in life (whether through learning deconstruction or some other critical thinking skill) I think we’d be better off.
All of this is off topic, though because obviously the professor should be explaining WHY it doesn’t make any difference if Fitzgerald himself did or didn’t believe James was the brother of Jesus for the purposes of deconstruction, rather than trying to justify her interpretation by claiming Catholics don’t read the Bible or that there aren’t Bibles in Catholic churches - both of which I know to be false from having been raised Catholic myself. (My church didn’t “stock” them in the pews with the hymnals or missals, but we did have them available in the back of the church).
I can go with you on most of that, Dangerosa. But I’m a stick-in-the-mud historicist… not even a neo-historicist. 
I saw so much BS and fluff churned out by self-proclaimed deconstructionists and “reader response” theorists that I’m just totally turned off by it all.
I think all those good ends you mentioned can be accomplished by plain ole vanilla historical and intertextual analysis.
We’re really not that far apart on this, I imagine. I’m just a relic. ;j
I definitely don’t think that I should swallow every professor’s interpretation hook, line and sinker; I’m being graduated in a month, so I would hope I’d’ve learned that already. But there is a sort of pressure to do so, since (especially with this prof!) there is this air of complete competence and assurance when they spout these interpretations.
I’m finding this discussion about deconstructionism fascinating but also look forward to Sample_the_Dog’s reply to my post.
It’s on the way. But I have to fulfill my obligation to The Man (and She Who Must Be Obeyed) first. Look for something this weekend.
Maybe, but it goes against the grain. :smack:
Sorry I didn’t follow up, zwei. The weekend turned out much busier than expected, no time to delve into the books.
And since my time here at SDMB is drawing to a close, I might not make it. Keep listening, though. Maybe I’ll come through.