This article offers an interpretation of the short story “Order of Insects” by the American writer William H. Gass. The interpretation is intended as a methodological demonstration of short story analysis, as it shows a way to develop a close textual analysis from a few guiding questions. The opening question is simultaneously generic and thematic, as readers are encouraged to trace the mental transformation of the narrator-protagonist throughout the text. The central ontological theme of the story is identified in the contrast between a mechanical, insect-like existence and an artistic, intellectually inclined mentality. Images and motifs deepening and complicating this dichotomy are explicated. These include the significance of different sensual impressions (hearing/noises vs. sight/vision) and various implications of the term order. In the conclusion, possible critical-theoretical contexts for interpretation are outlined: a potential feminist and a potential posthumanist reading are contrasted to an interpretation grounded in the author’s own view of literature as “ontologically transformed” language.

This article offers an interpretation of the short story “Order of Insects” by the American writer William H. Gass. The interpretation is intended as a methodological demonstration of short story analysis, as it shows a way to develop a close textual analysis from a few guiding questions. The opening question is simultaneously generic and thematic, as readers are encouraged to trace the mental transformation of the narrator-protagonist throughout the text. The central ontological theme of the story is identified in the contrast between a mechanical, insect-like existence and an artistic, intellectually inclined mentality. Images and motifs deepening and complicating this dichotomy are explicated. These include the significance of different sensual impressions (hearing/noises vs. sight/vision) and various implications of the term order. In the conclusion, possible critical-theoretical contexts for interpretation are outlined: a potential feminist and a potential posthumanist reading are contrasted to an interpretation grounded in the author’s own view of literature as “ontologically transformed” language.