Genre Doesn't Actually Matter

"Deconstruction insists not that truth is illusory but that it is institutional." - Terry Eagleton

I am a liar. I am a lying liar who lies, and I lied to you in my previous article. I lied to you because I had to not because I wanted to. Genre was standing right there, man, right there. I couldn't just start trash talking it, y'know? Genre's been having a hard enough time as is, what with the divorce and the economy and you know.

Last week's article focused on why genre represents such a useful tool for a GM, and how its deployment can set a stable platform on which a campaign will run. I think I used the word "fundamental" but I'm not going to check because I'm not a peasant-- anyway I'll use it again. Genre is a fundamental tool. It is a tool you can rely on, fall back on, lean on when you're not strong, and it'll be your friend, it'll help you carry on.

But there is an unsauced side to every buffalo chicken tender, and this one is called deconstruction. You want some deconstruction, kid? First one is free. First one gets you hooked. First one makes sure you come back for more.

Who is Jacques Derrida?

I didn't mention him, but now that you have he is pretty important to my (eventual) point.

We've established that there was a Swiss dude whose work was important to the study of linguistics, who more or less invented semiotics, and who provided a base from which the literary Structuralists developed their critical theory.

Jacques Derrida is the guy who came afterwards and wrecked up the place because he was skeptical of Structuralism's basic premise.

Derrida's skepticism relied on two basic facets of language; first that language is arbitrary, second that language is social. There is no inherent reason why a word sounds the way it does-- there is no connection between the symbols which make up a word and the thing the word purports to describe. Moreover, de Saussure himself had pointed out that the social communal understanding of a word is as important (if not more) than the formal dictionary definition of it.

If that were the case, offered Derrida, how could language be relied on as the Structuralists had relied on it? If linguistic meaning were social, how could linguistic meaning also be stable? Wouldn't that meaning be at the whim of the body of people uttering it? Wouldn't attempting to find static meaning in language and structure be like trying to drive nails into the tide in the hopes that it wouldn't recede?

Structure--especially that based in language--was at its core an uncertainty. The Deconstructionists had arrived.

What's This Got To Do With Games, Colin?

I'll get there, I promise.

Deconstruction is often perceived as just a kind of reversal, or flip. "But what if Elves lived short lives instead of long ones! What a deconstruction!" some hapless would-be fantasy author exclaims. Slap them. Slap them hard right in the mouth.

There are two common misconceptions with deconstruction; first that it constitutes something like a genre of its own, and second that it is about blowing up the establishment in a nihilistic fervor.

Deconstruction, first and foremost, is an activity. It is something you do to an established work of art, genre, convention, technique, or characterization. It is a lamprey cleaning the teeth of some larger animal. If a GM comes to you and says "This campaign will be a deconstruction" slap them. Slap them hard right in the mouth. A deconstruction, you retort, of what.

And, it should be noted, a deconstruction need not be complete. One of my favorite movies is Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and for all the parody, satire, and deconstruction that movie throws towards the noir-mystery genre it plays just as much of it straight. Deconstruction and structure are not, as you might've imagined, mortal enemies. Not entirely. They're competitors, maybe. A pair of quarreling lovers, even. But mutually exclusive they are not.

As to the second misconception, it is easy to miss the Deconstructionist's point when they cast doubt on the edifice of 'structure-as-meaning'. They do not suggest that there are no ways to find meaning just that the conventional structures do not inherently offer meaning. Deconstruction wants meaning just as much as structure does-- it just goes about it by excavation rather than constructing.

That Still Doesn't Directly Address Games, Colin

If the genre is a set of conventions and narrative beats meant to indicate or support a theme or tone, then subverting those conventions and narrative beats should also support a theme or tone. When you set out to deconstruct or subvert a genre convention in a campaign, ask yourself two things. What elements of convention are you bringing to task and what is left over after you have performed the deconstruction?

GM Serena Williams wants to run a noir mystery campaign, but also wants to include elements which deconstruct the genre. She decides that the physical trappings of the usual noir setting are somewhat stale and often get conflated for the thematic content of the noir genre-- that people think of fedoras and trenchcoats as the genre itself rather than window dressing to it. And so, GM Serena Williams decides to set her noir campaign in a Saturday Morning Cartoon rather than 1920's America or the like. Her campaign will still feature noir's usual elements of crime-and-punishmen, a cynical view of human nature and its institutions, and the dredging up of hidden vice. Except with fluffy cartoon animals instead of hardboiled private detectives, GM Serena Williams' campaign "The Gumdrop Valley Casefiles" is looking good.

Here it is, the crux of the article. This is the thing I'm hoping you take with you to your game. I'm going to give this a paragraph break and italics because I think it is so important.

Deconstruction is a scalpel with which to perform surgery on a genre or convention, not a shotgun to obliterate all trace of recognizable element.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to genre conventions-- it is inevitable. But the important thing which some GMs forget is that you'll always want (and probably need) a platform on which to work. Deconstruction is about scrutiny, intense and thorough, of a genre, convention or trope.

Here's a practical example: the Swedish RPG Symbaroum by Jarnringen, There are two deconstructive elements of the campaign setting which I personally enjoy. The first is its deconstruction of D&D's presumption of an active, universal pagan religion. Clerics in D&D serve--and are empowered--by a variety of gods who compete with one another but are almost universally culturally acknowledged. In Symbaroum, however, deities are culturally locked-- the barbarians of Davokar worship a pantheonic host of spiritual figures while the Ambrians are monotheistic. The second element is the presumption that divinity is real and actual and active. Clerics in D&D know their patron god exists because they are vested with powers to contact them directly, and more or less receive their mandate from said patron god. In Symbaroum those in service to the god(s) have no certainty; faith is not a prerequisite to wield theurgic power, and those powers are not indicative of the god(s) existence.

In both cases, the elements being deconstructed are purposeful and pointed. They reinforce, for example, the stark contrast between Ambrian and Davokaran cultural values. They also reinforce the grim, perilous, and almost hopeless world of Symbaroum; nothing is certain, not even the existence of the god whose power you nominally wield.

This Also Isn't As Revolutionary As You Probably Thought, Colin

Shut up. Not everything has to be revolutionary. And recognizing some nuance to the act of deconstruction is a nice tool for a GM's toolbox.

In summation;

• Deconstruction begins with the conventional and goes from there; it cannot exist in a vacuum.
• Deconstruction seeks to find alternate, hidden, or deeper meaning rather than obliterate meaning altogether.

So there you go. Take a look at your campaign, your game, and think about what kind of genre expectations you'd like to scrutinize. Does the genre presume something which you think is untrue? Does modifying an element of the genre perhaps paradoxically enhance its core them? Is there some fun to be had in questioning an unscrutinized assertion the genre usually makes?

Above all, the act of deconstruction is a personal touch-- it is how you as a GM can customize your campaign and make it stand out from all others in the same setting or genre. It is how you as a GM can make a campaign yours.

I'm out.