Blood Meridian is possibly my favorite 20th-century American novel.
When I say that postmodernism isn't really a "period," all I mean is that it was basically created out of necessity. The history of literary analysis caught up with itself, and we called the early twentieth century "modernism"; then, when critics realized that authors of the 1970s and '80s were doing something different, we needed something else to call it; since it was so close to us, all we could really think of was to say: "Well, it's not modernism; it must be postmodernism."
In my opinion, I don't think postmodernism describes a period but rather a specific shift in aesthetic principles and in values with which we approach literature. We can find moments of this aesthetic shift as early as the eighteenth century in Lawrence Sterne's Tristram Shandy. Since the '80s, we've seen the emergence of writers that seem to revert back to the original modernist principles, albeit with new subtle differences; and we have no good label for these writers.
So, long story short, postmodernism has always seemed (to me) more like a quick fix to a conceptual problem than a legitimate historical development.
EDIT: just saw the question on Pynchon. The only thing I've read is Mason & Dixon, and it was incredibly difficult (the style and language of the novel are very particular and dense). The Crying of Lot 49 is known to be an easier work by Pynchon, far more accessible, and yet considered to be an important literary milestone. So that might be a good place to start. I still haven't read it, but it's on my shortlist.
Ahhh, so you're saying postmodernism is not limited to a specific time and people have done it before. I agree with that, actually, I mean by definition "postmodernism" is kind of confusing. Just by its definition it would seem that many movements can arguably be considered "postmodernism" as they reinvent the standards and critique the old traditions.
Noted on Pynchon. The Crying of Lot 49 will go on my wanted list on amazon for sure.
Mother Eel: Thanks! Narcissus and Goldmund seems like something I'd be interested in as it sounds like a really cool concept.
Yoda: I normally can't get through a lot of Renaissance writings, unless it's a play. I loved Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, for example. However, haven't read As I Lay Dying but been meaning to.
It's one of his best. I actually think that Iron Council, which is the third book in the Bas-Lag trilogy (Perdido Street Station is the first), is better than Perdido Street Station. But they're both fantastic.
But what is this "you"? As I claimed at the outset, we will never have a truly satisfying comprehensive theory of the human mind if we don't dissolve the core of the problem. If we want everything to fall into place - if we want to understand the big picture - then this is the challenge. Why is consciousness subjective? The most important question I seek to answer is why a conscious world-model almost invariably has a center: a me, an Ego, an experiencing self. What exactly is the self that has the rubber-hand illusion? What exactly is it that apparently leaves the physical body in an out-of-body experience? What exactly is it that is reading these lines right now?