Open(ing) texts: Deconstruction and responding to poetry

about deconstruction. For years, insults have been hurled at scholars who are considered supporters of deconstruction. The insults have been steeped in righteous condemnation and steeled with dismissive swipes. Deconstruction has been denounced as unethical, apolitical, antihumanist, and nihilistic. The death of deconstuction has been proclaimed (Johnson, 1994; Lehman, 1991; Martin, 1995). The whole fuss seems bizarre in light of the actual practice and influence of deconstruction. Perhaps deconstruction has fired fear in people because it is difficult to define, and what cannot be defined, cannot be pinned down and labeled; yet here lies the productive energy of deconstruction. In the very difficulty of naming and defining deconstruction, in the slipperiness of language that refuses to be pinned easily, deconstruction demonstrates and represents an understanding of language as vibrant and creative, opening up possibilities for meaning making. My interest in deconstruction as a way to read poetry is motivated by my experiences as a student and teacher, in both school and university classrooms, as well as by my experiences as a poet. I first heard about deconstruction when I was in