Even after a deeper analysis and a discussion, the works from this unit still amaze me. Something about them is so interesting to me, somehow even after a discussion and grasping a deeper understanding of the work it has grown to be more interesting. Before our discussion and a deeper analyzation, I was wondering to myself “what could these works possibly mean on a deeper level?” Yet now I understand, and as a result I am amazed by these works.
In particular, I think the discussion about “Entropy” by Thomas Pynchon both interested and taught me the most. That story was very chaotic, so much so that on the first read I couldn’t even fathom analyzing it and understanding it on a deeper level, but as you know from the discussion, the chaos is critical to the story and the deeper meaning. From this, I learned that in certain stories and pieces, the chaos and the madness may serve an important purpose when it comes to the deeper meaning.
From this discussion I learned just like the last unit, that each story is important on its own and not every piece in a unit has to connect. I learned to look for different aspects of every single piece, because throughout this unit there were very different levels of understanding between the various works: in Highsmith’s work it was the purpose of a character, and in Pynchon’s work it was the theme of chaos and “entropy”, and for Delillio’s work, we analyzed and understood the impact that he had on Postmodern Fiction, and his clever use of something new and foreign to the world (technology) in a fictional setting as a warning of the unknown.
Overall, I think that this unit was very enriching when it comes to understanding and analyzing literature, especially such odd and chaotic literature, pieces that I would not think on my own to analyze for a deeper understanding. I will continue to look at each piece on its own, and to not compare it too much to other works when it comes to analyzing and trying to understand the work deeper.
sydney poynter 