Does the deconstruction phase of a genre(any genre) ultimately kill the genre?

[Conch22]

I really wouldn't consider the mid 80s darkness and 90s mainstreaming of it as the first deconstruction.
Stan Lee's whole deal when creating the Marvel universe stemmed from a disenfranchisement from the distinguished competitions formula and wanting to really have heroes with feat of clay, relatable problems and to have the monster be the hero (the Hulk, the Thing). It was really about flipping the established conventions of the genre. It seems like some people who get fatigue from Grimdark books forget there's a balance to these things and a series with no stakes can be just as tiresome as a series with a never ending abundance.

There's varied deconstruction points. DC reinventing their universe in a similar vein to marvels initial 60s success, everymaning GL as Kyle Rayner, then giving him his uncle Ben moment (with the assistance of a refrigerator), Aquaman suffering great tragedy and becoming a more world weary hero, Batman suffering a great defeat and rising above it, Superman getting a glimpse of a world thats moved on despite him, these are all things that added an extra layer/ color/ dimension/ with these series. The deconstruction became the norm.

Another thing to consider is that comics draw from varied archetypes, genres and mythologies. Its become a rather homogenized hybrid over the years, but encompasses the best & worst of many genres.

My feelings on the deconstruction question is that an aversion to meaningful deconstruction in the mainstream is harmful to these stories longevity. DCs reviving of known quantities like Hal Jordan over lesser knowns like Kyle or retrofitting Barbara Gordon into her more widely known role speak to this for me. Deconstruction adds another set of tropes to already rich fictional universes. Fear of growing of changing is counterproductive to cohesive and strengthened storytelling by my estimation. I would love to see a solid decade minimum without retcons.
Do meaningful things and move the story forward without looking back.
The Grimdarkness is in many current instances a halfhearted novelty, a storytelling shortcut, which sadly has stigmatized other series with more mature themes that happen to have a dark tone.

Financially, nostalgia sells, which undercuts progress in many ways, there's a reset period on the horizon for a majority of primary storylines.
Deconstruction is merely another flavor of storytelling, being overly afraid of the stories evolving could be the true death knell.

[t hedge coke]

The thing, too, is that Westerns weren't codified as a genre, to begin with. They were, essentially, a pop brand of "contemporary fiction." Even during early cowboy explosion in film, you're dealing with some actors who were cowboys, or with living legends being simply portrayed "in their youth."

The Wayne era really comes up at a time when things like noir heroes or weasely paranoia movie heroes were being actively tamped down by studios and the regulatory boards. It wasn't entirely about audience demand, but largely about what studios were being made to promote, and even Wayne stretches out of it to play the sadsack or the monster pretty much as soon as he could, or Genghis Khan, etc. Those, too, at a time when people were declaring the Western dead.

Every decade, it seems, there are people declaring it a dead genre. You can find major critics in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and recently, declaring the genre dead and done for.

Rio Bravo killed the Western, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, then Unforgiven, or Dead Man, or the Outlaw Josey Wales, etc. Django was supposed to have killed the Western, according to some critics. Pale Rider. Dances With Wolves. I even saw a critic say that Sam Houston miniseries starring Sam Elliot was the deathknell of the genre, because apparently Sam Elliot sucks in Westerns or some such nonsense.

[Kees_L]

I don't think it's about genre or deconstruction, but about how "superheroes" for people seem to mean anything Big Two owned hegemonious Universe-based material and to me personally any such seems pretty much over and done with. Both the material as well as the "for-hire" corporately owned content modus operandum. Still great stuff to reread or reprint, but nothing to merely echo or milk to the bone.

I don't see how genuine Batman or Avengers or Spider-Man wouldn't be pretty much fully realized or milked dry, or at least I myself feel I had better focus on what's already made for enjoying or appreciating any such material.

Whereas for newly created material - superheroic or otherwise - I'd much rather look for such only as creator-owned or creator-driven stuff. I would rather get to know Marvel or DC as stuff from the past or in any of its glory days, much more rather than whatever other days.

I feel much interest and nostalgia and even loyalty to certain creatives, both as yearning for newness, innovation and imaginativeness but for just brands or corporations I feel nothing. I don't care for merchandizable universes but only for imaginative and creative content.
And it certainly seems to me that any of Marvel's or DC's iconicness or any of its long-running classicalness would fully be lying in the past. Whereas new or reinvented incarnations of those same properties seem not of interest to me, for me at least since about 15 years.
Beyond the early nineties I've chose to follow only non-Big Two and but creator-owned material - not on principal but out of (dis)interest, even for getting whatever superheroic or nostalgic fix. And comics are still great I find.

[Mikekerr3]

The thing, too, is that Westerns weren't codified as a genre, to begin with. They were, essentially, a pop brand of "contemporary fiction." Even during early cowboy explosion in film, you're dealing with some actors who were cowboys, or with living legends being simply portrayed "in their youth."

The Wayne era really comes up at a time when things like noir heroes or weasely paranoia movie heroes were being actively tamped down by studios and the regulatory boards. It wasn't entirely about audience demand, but largely about what studios were being made to promote, and even Wayne stretches out of it to play the sadsack or the monster pretty much as soon as he could, or Genghis Khan, etc. Those, too, at a time when people were declaring the Western dead.

Every decade, it seems, there are people declaring it a dead genre. You can find major critics in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and recently, declaring the genre dead and done for.

Rio Bravo killed the Western, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, then Unforgiven, or Dead Man, or the Outlaw Josey Wales, etc. Django was supposed to have killed the Western, according to some critics. Pale Rider. Dances With Wolves. I even saw a critic say that Sam Houston miniseries starring Sam Elliot was the deathknell of the genre, because apparently Sam Elliot sucks in Westerns or some such nonsense.

Maybe it was Firefly that killed the Western?

[ed2962]

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I think Little Big Man was an interesting deconstruction of the Western genre.