Before we get started, take a few minutes to listen to this catchy song. (It won't hurt, I promise.) I'll wait.

Back? Okay. Now, the song probably made you laugh. It made Galaxy Babe laugh when I shared it with her. We were talking about Barry Manilow, who in both our opinions is a very talented composer. But it is true that Manilow's songs have a strong emotional appeal. They help you when you're down, when, as Stevens says, 'I feel like feeling sorry for myself.' Which is probably why Joss Whedon had his self-pitying Irish American vampire, Angel, be so fond of Mandy.

But what I want you to notice is this: Stevens' song is a parody, sure. But it is based on deconstruction. What is deconstruction when it's at home? You may well ask, unless you're a devotee of postmodern or poststructuralist criticism – or unless you've been subjected to a course in multicultural studies lately. Deconstruction is 'a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasises the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.' (I stole that off Google.) In other words, it's a handy-dandy mental trick for taking apart the message to see what's behind it. And in spite of the name, it's a very constructive exercise.

Deconstruction allows you to take a step back and tell when you're being manipulated. Sometimes, as with Barry Manilow, you want to be manipulated. Nothing wrong with a little soothing, romantic self-pity, as Angel might tell you, just before he bites you on the neck. Other times, though, well…not so much. Do you want to be lied to by politicians, car salesmen, and army recruiters? I thought not. So let's practise some deconstruction. And, by the time we're done, I'm going to show you how to deconstruct your own writing. It might be a useful tool for you.

As Worf Might Say, 'Deconstruct THIS!'

Last night, for reasons best known to the god of boredom, I subjected Elektra to an episode of a very bad 1961 television show called Bachelor Father. The premise: cool bachelor Bentley Gregg (what a moniker) and his man-of-all-work, Peter (who is Chinese and speaks 'funny' English) receive letters from Bentley's 19-year-old niece, Kelly, who is spending the summer working at Yellowstone National Park. It seems Kelly's met a very handsome young park ranger, and is considering marriage after a two-week courtship. Bentley and Peter – who are both anxious mother hens of guardians – jump in the car and drive to the rescue.

What follows is supposed to be amusing, but as Elektra said, 'This is disturbing on so many levels I've lost count.' Indeed. How is this offensive? Let me list the ways in which this 25 minute episode manages to insult practically everybody, including America's bear population:

• When the two arrive at Yellowstone, Bentley introduces Peter as his 'houseboy'.
• Kelly and the other 'girls' are wearing 'Red Indian' costumes to wait tables. With feathers.
• Because Bentley immediately hooks up with a 30-something babe, Peter must have a gf, too. A Chinese woman in a cheongsam obliging appears. (It's the early 60s, folks. Can't mix the 'races' on tv.)
• Bentley and Peter are mainly concerned that Kelly might not enjoy sharing the life of a park ranger, as she is a city girl. They are not concerned with the fact that by marrying, she will end her university studies. (Thank you, Betty Friedan, for coming along..)
• All the players get stuck in a 'primitive' cabin (looks pre-fab to me) during a rainstorm. This is the hilarious part. Of course, their sandwiches are stolen by a bear. The bear is played, badly, by an actor in a furry suit. Very tidy bear, actually, knows how to hold a sandwich.

In addition to insulting women, minorities, and the wildlife, the show managed to insult my intelligence. You still want to see this thing? Oh, all right. Be my guest. But don't blame me if it puts you off visiting Yellowstone. And yes, that's John Forsythe embarrassing himself.

So what have you learned? That listing the ways in which a piece of fiction doesn't work can be very enlightening. You notice all the silly mistakes they've made, the false assumptions, the arrogant clichés, etc. How can you use this? Well, besides livening up a dull evening, it can help you tidy up your own prose.

Personal Deconstruction Checklist

Go back and read something you've written. Pretend you don't know you. Deconstruct it. Ask yourself:

• What kind of person wrote this?
• Who did they write it for?
• Is this piece of writing trying to persuade the reader? What about? How can I tell?
• Are examples of sneaky rhetoric, faulty logic, or 'weasel words' in this writing? Do I think the writer is doing it on purpose?
• What stereotypes, clichés, or otherwise offensive writing shortcuts do I notice?

Now, remember that you wrote this. Go to work and edit.

The Cure for Excuses

Deconstruction is medicinal. It offers the cure for lame excuses for sloppy writing and offensive stereotypes. It sharpens your perception.

Ladies, do you hate it when male writers make the men 'manly' and the women weak? Of course you do. Now, ask yourselves: what are you doing wrong in your portrayal of gender issues?

White writers: what ethnic groups have you offended lately? Do you know how to stop doing this? Have you read any non-white or foreign writers lately? Hmm, maybe that would be a good start. I recommend the writings of V.S. Naipaul. He's a splendid writer, and his insights into ethnicity can't be beat. After all, he's an 'East Indian West Indian', or some such. He's from Trinidad. When he visited his grandfather's birthplace of Goa, he got tired of explaining, and told them he was Mexican. That shut them up.

People without any handicaps: do you exist? How do you write about people with handicaps? Do you know anything about mobility for the blind, adjustments for the deaf or hearing impaired? Of course you don't, unless you've worked with them. Go and learn.

You can do this. You can make your writing fuller and richer – and, above all, less offensive. Offensive is boring, insightful is exciting.

Go out and deconstruct, darn it.

Deconstruction Challenge

Your assignment: study the picture below. It's from 1918. Deconstruct it. Who's telling whom what, and what is their agenda?

More interestingly, how insulting is this to:

1. Canadians?
2. Beavers?

Now, write a little story about this poster. Maybe just an extended caption, or a joke, or a vignette of some sort. Append it to this otherwise dull article. Let us share in the fun.

Writing Right with Dmitri Archive

Dmitri Gheorgheni

07.07.14 Front Page

Back Issue Page