Your often see people writing a story about a fictional character that isn't thier own that seems to "deconstruct" that character. To take apart the character to understand what makes them tick. This can be quite a fascinating story telling path to let you better understand the character weather your writing the story or reading it.
But a lot of stories like this are infact terrible mistakes. "Why do you say that?" You might ask me. Well two reasons come up.

One is when the goal is falsely called deconstruction when it is in fact destruction. Where the writer points out all the flaws a character has then concludes the existence of said flaws proves they are bad characters. The issue here is not the act itself but the dishonestly in not calling criticism what it is. If your goal is to point out why a character is bad call it what it is, criticism. Hiding your intent behind terminology is cowardice, and if your afraid to admit what your doing why should readers/listeners put any stock in what you say?

Another is of course people who don't do the hard part of deconstruction, the part where you come to conclusions about how all the parts work together the way they do. It's like a mechanic try to fix an car by taking it apart to see what's wrong then never putting it back together. Just identifying the parts of a character is meaningless if you don't have something to say about how that makes them who they are. Deconstruction is worthless if you don't put them back together.