Literary Analysis of a Modern Version of “The Three Little Pigs,” and Deconstructionism-by Devi Nina Bingham

 

In contrast to structuralist theory, which examined the literature for its symbols and meaning, deconstructionists like R. Barthes (1915–1980) ripped literature apart, or "deconstructed," it to investigate its creation, trying to ferret out the underlying bias, errors, and contradictions. The 1960s saw the development of the deconstruction philosophy by French literary critic J. Derrida. According to the theory put out by Brizee and Tompkins (2014), "...there is no meaning outside the text of a philosopher's written work—no absolute truth or significance that the artist brings to bear." In this essay, I will examine a contemporary retelling of "The Three Little Pigs" (first published in 1886 by J. Halliwell-Phillips) to demonstrate that it is a tongue-in-cheek deconstruction.

By examining "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs" by Sciesza (1989), I don't want to be critical of it because it made me chuckle. I doubt that professional literary theorists would view it as a deconstruction in the sense of the standard definition, but it is a creative twist that brings a tired narrative to life. The storyline is straightforward: the big, terrible wolf explains "his" side of the tale after receiving a bad rap. His first line, "I don't know how this whole big, bad wolf thing got started, but it's all wrong," establishes the tone for the remainder of this satirical tale. The assertion that our good wolf is bad is, in his opinion, just a huge misinterpretation, he says. The straw and stick houses that collapsed were in fact, an unfortunate accident. The collapse of the stick-and-straw homes was an unfortunate event. You see, he had a bad cold, and when he sneezed, the pigs were killed by the homes' shoddy construction and not by him. He only saved a fine dinner from being wasted, just as you would eat an unidentified but perfectly excellent hamburger if you were starving. He didn't, but he may have continued by saying that by removing the pig corpses, he was doing a service to the community. His justification made me think of the polished yet successful murder cases I'd seen on CourtTV. The wolf was discrediting the assertions that he "huffed, puffed, and blew their houses down." In psychoanalytic terminology, he was "reframing" their stories. But can presenting a defense, or offering a different view, constitute literary deconstruction?

“Post-structuralism holds that there are many truths” and “…post-structuralism is also concerned with the power structures or hegemonies and power and how these elements contribute to and/or maintain structures to enforce hierarchy” (Brizee, Tompkins, 2014). What does this mean? It is saying that the deconstructionist believes there are many ways of interpreting literature. They are also saying that there is a power imbalance between the author and the reader-the power of interpretation gives the author an advantage. Similarly, the wolf, a predator, has an advantage over the pig, who is prey.

The deconstructionists contend that the reader, not the author, should interpret the intrinsic truth and meaning of an author's work, much as it is the role of an attorney to interpret a crime. I believe that here is where Deconstructionism has a problem: if the author breathed life into the work, why should the audience be permitted to interpret it but the author not? What about the artist's rights to provide a title to their work or a book? They created what they are interpreting for the audience, shouldn't they? Will a critic's interpretation of an artist's work always be unbiased and truthful, or prejudiced and opinionated? Everyone has an opinion, and that is the trouble with viewpoints. Who says that someone who appreciates art is more knowledgeable about it than the artists themselves? The reader will always have an opinion, as will the art collector. Who, in my opinion, understands a newborn more intimately than its mother? Who better than the artist himself understands the meaning of their art?

The wolf is interpreting and criticizing the tale that the piglets initially authored in "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs" (Scieszka, 2016), which is a literary deconstruction of the original book. This little, eccentric children's book demonstrates how mistreatment may occur when individuals "reframe" or interpret stories, both in literature and the law. What is worse, when artists abuse their authority or when critics do so, in the eyes of literary deconstructionists?

                                      Works Cited

 

Brizee, A., Case Tompkins, J. Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism. Purdue OWL. 2014.   

      Purdue OWL (mseffie.com)

 

Steel F.A. The Three Little Pigs.1922. The Three Little Pigs (americanliterature.com)

 

Scieszka, J. THE TRUE STORY OF THE THREE LITTLE PIGS. Youtube: KidLitTV. 2016.

Read Out Loud | THE TRUE STORY OF THE THREE LITTLE PIGS - YouTube