Jacques Derrida wrote structuralism and deconstruction with great intelligence, which makes me question my own.  I thought for the most part, this was a difficult read to follow.  The first couple of pages I understood fairly well, but it did not seem to hold my attention long so I had a hard time following the idea of the paper.

     I find that when the author talks “below there level” it is easy for people to understand them.  I think that Derrida started to talk on a lower level, but than it soon shot up to a more sophisticated sense, thus loosing my interest.  I think the first few pages, revolving around the center, did not make that much sense.  I loved on page 915 when he said “the center is not the center.”  I had started to semi-understand what the center stood for, but than when he said “the center is not the center” it pretty much threw me off.  I think once we go over this in class, it will get much easier to understand; right now I am on a level 5 of understanding out of a scale of 10.

     When he started to speak of structure, I followed him.  I guess that a lot of times I view Literature as having a certain kind of structure and concepts, so when these things are mentioned I tune in and pay extra attention.  When he tied in the “series of substitutions of the center for the center” I understood that all of these series and components of a work bundle into a series and all of these ideas have a center.  I also understood on page 916 that when he speaks of “in the absence of a center or origin, everything becomes discore.”  That makes complete sense.  If we think of our own bodies, many people feel our “center” or “core” is our heart, and lets all agree that we are pretty useless with out our heart.

     Before taking theory, I never though of relating Science and Literature.  Obviously, its the thing to do.  Theorists that we have studyed thus far bring in many forms of science to relate to what they are saying; so it must be a good thing.

     Skipping to end more, when he refers to “The Savage Mind” speaking of “The opposition between nature and culture which I have previously insisted on seems today to offer a value which is above all methodoliogical” (920).  Nature and culture both influence Literature and writing in different ways.  Relating to today, we all know people (or have heard of people) being “earthy people.”  Their writing and critiquing style will be much different than that of the culture styles.  That’s the beauty of literature, everything can change it so quickly.