Deconstruction and Derrida

Here I interpret my understanding about Deconstruction.

The term Deconstruction is not easy to define because Derrida himself doesn’t define what the actual meaning of deconstruction. But  as I understand this term is locket a author within a text ,itself is it looking in order where the place might be locket . Deconstruction idea is meaning break support if you look to closely any text it no longer holds meaning it kind of support Deconstruction interesting in process.

Text goes dies .but why? Language is unscented no long meaning statures hold up. Deconstruction is method of inquire which asserts that all writers are full of confusion and contradiction and even writer cannot overcome deli brought effort to convey meaning.

He believes that the language we keep moving from one signifier to another and the ultimate meaning or suppose signifier. For e.g. we can take one word “mean”

“Mean”

Intend to convey or refer to (a particular thing); signify.

"I don't know what you mean"

synonyms:

signify, convey, denote, designate, indicate, connote, show, express, spell out, stand for, represent, symbolize, imply, purport, suggest, allude to, intimate, hint at, insinuate, drive at, refer to

So when we searching out the word meaning so answers are so much .in this way we keep moving from signifier to another without any definite meaning. In this way language is constantly in state of dissemination.

Derrida says that there is nothing outside the text .no absolute meaning .there is always some possibilities of some new interpretation .language is internally metaphorical.

Here I would like gave example writers like Amish Tripathi’s book an attempt to retell Hindu mythology The Immortals of Meluha, The Secret of the Nagas & The Oath of the Vayuputras. So this is his Deconstruction upon Hindu mythical story .