Acts of Literature Book

Favorite Chapters:
- "Ulysses Gramophone" (the affirmation as a meaningless gesture without discourse/exchange)
- "From Psyche" (what it means to "invent")

Two points of main significance to this collection:
1) Most of these were talks that were turned into essays or just transcribed and, as such, I think it's probably important to take the title to heart--they are indeed a type of performance inspired by literature and about literature; and,
2) Much of what Derrida explores seems to deal with the limits and/or grey areas of language--that which falls in-between the binary thought process... maybe the under-heralded big screen philosopher Admiral Ackbar summed it up best when he said, "It's a trap!"

I've owned this book for close to 20 years without having read it. I was holding off until I had read all or most of the literature/writers it covers (Rousseau, Mallarmé, Blanchot, Joyce, Kafka, Ponge, Celan, Shakespeare). I had read Joyce, Kafka, and Shakespeare prior to owning this book. Two decades later, I haven't read any of those other authors. Turns out, didn't really seem to add or detract from my experience of this book. So, back to the first two points--I can't for the life of me imagine sitting through these talks as I could barely stand reading all the way through some of them. I like how much enjoyment and spontaneity Derrida seems to derive from his readings and talks, but they are hard as hell to decipher when rereading passages multiple times, never mind trying to take this in as a passive listener with only one option at a pass. Case in point, parse this:I wished to reach the point of a certain exteriority in relations to the totality of the age of logocentrism. Starting from this point of exteriority, a certain deconstruction of that totality which is also a traced path, of that orb (orbit) which is also orbitary (orbita), might be broached. Which basically brings us to point number 2, where we see in this example of how Derrida enjoys how much language opens up, sort of continually unfolding into meaning, allusions, references... all of which require a kind of performance between text and reader. Counter-signings, de- and re-marcations. Erasures... He lost with me with the hymen references, but then my reading/understanding of Freud is cursory at best. I do however understand the concept of spicing up academia with some female genitalia references to stand in for the notion of a barrier and something to be breached but once... I mean, really, if we can't borrow women's body parts to hyper-analyze literature, what can we do with them?!! To be fair, he throws in a few narrative circumscisions, as well.

Most of these start out strong and carry interesting ramifications, but for me personally, they stretched on too long and too far, to the point where I was completely lost or just no longer cared. Which is a little odd because I can be inordinately delighted by overly analytical discussions, long-winded thought experiments, etc. It probably comes down to Derrida's writing style, which seems oblique, at best, as if his genius consisted entirely of finding the most indirect and complicated way of saying the simplest things. Maybe this has to do with the French language itself--I can't say (my 3 years of high school French in public American high school netted me little more than numbers, rudimentary pronunciation, and a few basic questions).

I got so frustrated with the end of "Before the Law", I immediately "penned" a snide snippet in semi-Derridean style (see below). I am either a glutton for punishment in returning to Derrida or he inspires enough thoughts of my own that I'm willing to suffer greatly for it. Honestly, what I think it boils down to is that the fracturing of language and its functioning fascinates me. But what I should really read, is probably more texts on structuralism and or explorations of non-duality. In my opinion, his general discussions of language and literature vastly outstrip his deeper, performative explorations of specific texts of passages both in terms of value and sheer entertainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFNOTES VERSION OF THIS TEXT
"No internal criterion can guarantee the essential "literariness" of a text. There is no assured essence or existence of literature. If you proceed to analyze all the elements of a literary work, you will never come across literature itself, only some traits which it shares or borrows, which you can find elsewhere too, in other texts, be it a matter of the language, the meanings or the referents ("subjective" or "objective").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Snide snippet written immediately after being annoyed with the "Before the Law" chapter)
Although a little less than 200 pages remain to be read in this volume, it would seem almost negligent of me were I not to pause and share with you a supposition of sorts. While reading the "Law of Genre" chapter, I had a vision the likes of which only a Derrida could inspire. Picture an upright Derrida. Allow the previous sentence to inscribe his outline, but not of the specific he so much as the notion of this great figure. Got it? And at the top of this form which our words together have now drawn boundaries around there is an orifice larger than the others, similar to what one might find on most hominids. Might we agree that out of this orifice emanates both air and sound? Now keep this vision in mind, turn yourself around 180 degrees, grab your ankles as your legs are slightly apart so that your head can look back upon this vision. A simple inversion has taken place. Same figure, different perspective, no? Now, at the top of this re-envisioned Derridean figure there should also be one orifice larger than the other. And what doth emanate from this? Exactly, also, air and sound (among other more tangible and pungent throwaways).
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Thought also inspired by the "Above the Law" section)
Does it seem weird to anyone else that we largely live in societies governed by the rule of law and yet we are never really taught the law? Maybe you learn some driving laws if you get a license or you learn minor laws as you break them, or your parents tell you it's against the law to do x or y, but it's a piecemeal process. Sure, you understand the larger no-no's like no killing, no stealing, etc. But do you know the age of consent in your state? And if you didn't, where would you go to find it out. Where does this law reside? Sure, you can look it up online, but where is the official record? A nearly invisible text provides a structure to all that is socially allowed (or prohibited)...

I'd apologize for this digression, but I'm not sure anyone will make it this far.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zen Kōan by Jacques Derrida:
"What must be translated of that which is translatable can only be the untranslatable."
--------------------------------------------------------------
When text leads to a visual:
"If all language is about language, then the paradigmatic linguistic model is that of an entity that confronts itself."
=
OUROBOROS

--------------------------------------------------------------
WORDS I FEEL I SHOULD ONE DAY LOOK UP
anamnesis | zōgraphia | syllepsis | anoretic | dehiscent