My mother, whom I love dearly, has continually revised my life story within the context of a complicated family history that includes more than the usual share of divorce, step-children, dysfunction, and obfuscation. I've spent most of my adult life attempting to deconstruct that history and separate fact from fiction.

I think 'Pose' is unique in that it's not just a trans story - it's about family. It's about love. It's about friendship and acceptance and really deconstructing humanity, and the ethical side of that, with how we treat people who are different than us.

Murakami's ability to deconstruct and his aesthetic and conceptual freedom have been totally inspiring for me.

I'm talking to you and it's basically a direct communication, whereas if I'm writing a letter to you and you read the letter, there are like 12 extra deconstruction and reconstruction steps in the communication.

I tend to like to make my statements more in fashion than in beauty, because what I normally respond to is when someone looks really effortless and deconstructed, beauty-wise, and they're fashion is really grand. Someone like Kate Moss is a great example.

When deconstructing life into its finest components, there is very little that we require to live and thrive.

It goes without saying that these effects do not suffice to annul the necessity for a "change of terrain." It also goes without saying that the choice between these two forms of deconstruction cannot be simple and unique. A new writing must weave and interlace these two motifs of deconstruction. Which amounts to saying that one must speak several languages and produce several texts at once. I would like to point out especially that the style of the first deconstruction is mostly that of the Heideggerian questions, and the other is mostly the one which dominates France today. I am purposely speaking in terms of a dominant style: because there are also breaks and changes of terrain in texts of the Heideggerian type; because the "change of terrain" is far from upsetting the entire French landscape to which I am referring; because what we need, perhaps, as Nietzsche said, is a change of "style"; and if there is style, Nietzsche reminded us, it must be plural.

Let us being again. To take some examples: why should "literature" still designate that which already breaks away from literature-away from what has always been conceived and signified under that name-or that which, not merely escaping literature, implacably destroys it? (Posed in these terms, the question would already be caught in the assurance of a certain fore-knowledge: can "what has always been conceived and signified under that name" be considered fundamentally homogeneous, univocal, or nonconflictual?) To take other examples: what historical and strategic function should henceforth be assigned to the quotation marks, whether visible or invisible, which transform this into a "book," or which still make the deconstruction of philosophy into a "philosophical discourse"?

My mother whom I love dearly has continually revised my life story within the context of a complicated family history that includes more than the usual share of divorce step-children dysfunction and obfuscation. I've spent most of my adult life attempting to deconstruct that history and separate fact from fiction.

I'm talking to you and it's basically a direct communication whereas if I'm writing a letter to you and you read the letter there are like 12 extra deconstruction and reconstruction steps in the communication.