Brain Pain discussion

Hello, everyone. My name is Kane and I've been asked to facilitate discussion on the text, Writing and Difference by Jacques Derrida. I know we are not due to begin discussing the first chapter ("Force and Signification") until February 20, but I thought I would open discussion up by supplying two questions (mostly out of fear that my heavy teaching load this semester might not permit me the time to meet my obligations!). It might be helpful if we compile a glossary of key terms as we go along (there are specific uses of words such as Being, sign, force, structuralism, etc. that might be of some utility to unpack as we go along). So, just to start off, two questions:

1. Derrida appears to open up on structuralism as a moment of crisis in 20th century thought, and this especially so with respect to that untamable thing known as the “literary.” For him, literary criticism takes place under the assumption that the creative forces have been drained off in the very act of criticism and formalization. Form governs over the now dead content (which still haunts the empty shell of form!). Do you think Derrida is correct in pointing his finger to structuralism for attempting to manufacture a crisis, or is this too polemical?
2. The paradox of experimentation and schematization: have authors (even today) bought into the method of neutralizing meaning in their work by insisting on crafting its form? Here we can consider “form” as lofty as “an attempt to impose conceptual structure upon the work” (like those of the language-poetry school) or more generally as the (perceived) demands of genre (must all zombie stories follow a particular set of narrative rules which are effectively a rehash of the triumphant survivalist in a staged war of all against all?).

Ok, silly question, I know, but are we supposed to discuss the above here or in the Force and Signification thread?

(Interestingly, we have to some extent started touching on these issues in one of The Waste Land threads, so these will be interesting to discuss right now. )

Traveller wrote: "Ok, silly question, I know, but are we supposed to discuss the above here or in the Force and Signification thread?

(Interestingly, we have to some extent started touching on these issues in one o..."

Hi T,

I opened the F&S thread early. Can you wait until Kane posts his first message tomorrow? Then have at it...

In the meantime, if you'd like to address the two questions above, then go for it!

Jim

Sorry for jumping the gun. Maybe it's just that I'm a bit nervous about falling behind again... I didn't actually mean right away, though, I just wasn't sure.. Nevermind, waiting for tomorrow. :)


(And for other people to go first! ;) )

In response to Kane's questions, I have some of my own.

"what is "the literary" and how is it "untamable"? What would "taming" it mean? Does it mean depriving it of the power to affect the reader or to limit the range of aesthetic/emotional response? Is that true? And how does he know that it does that? He's only one reader. Has he done a survey?

Whose creative forces and how may they be drained off? The structuralist critics? Surely criticism is incapable of draining the created force from a literary artifact?

What does it mean to kill content? To deprive the reader of his ability to have an aesthetic/emotional/intellectual response? Really, what is "dead" content precisely? And if it is in the mind of the reader, how could Derrida know that?

And what is that "untamable thing" called the literary? What would it mean to "tame" it? To understand it? To define it? To draw a circle around it so it can't step outside the borders?

And what does it mean to "kill" content? To trivialize it? To make it no longer surprising?

And how do we "neutralize (?) meaning?" To make it meaningless? How does that work, exactly? To reduce the power of an argument, the suggestive power of an image?

I realize I haven't addressed the two questions. I want to know what they mean. :-)

I do understand the questions (I think), especially in the context of post-structuralism , but it would take a while to formulate answers to them, and I need to hurry off.

In the meantime, I want to quickly say something else.
I think that people like Derrida, Foucalt, and de Saussure become pretty much... abstract in their discussion of semiotics, and a lot of what they have to say, to me, doesn't really have direct bearing on the structure of texts, as much as the structure of meaning inside texts as an abstract.

In other words, how meaning works in language and in these symbols (or signs) that we call letters and words and sentences and so on. And the relation between sign (word) and signified (object), etcetera.

So what I'm trying to say, is that it seems to be that the ideas they discuss have more to do with language and text and signs itself, and how these convey or "carry" meaning than with specific groups of writers or styles of writing; but perhaps I just haven't delved into it deeply enough yet.

Traveller,

You may understand what the above questions mean -- and congrats -- but I do not understand what they mean.

In general I'm deeply suspicious of the retreat into abstraction without constant references to cases, examples of how that abstraction is played out in the concrete.

I am sympathetic to shining light on fundamental limitations of language and problematic quality of words (at times) of expressing more connotations than one wants them to. Words are bad children whom it is quite difficult to discipline no matter how artful we are.

But I am a greater fan of lucidity. And I am not aware of critics being offered poetic license. That particular license -- and I am afraid I must be severe -- is reserved for poets.

Bill wrote: "Traveller,

You may understand what the above questions mean -- and congrats -- but I do not understand what they mean.

In general I'm deeply suspicious of the retreat into .."

Yes, well, if I hadn't been in a hurry, I would have said I think I get the gist of what he might be saying, though I might be wrong in that.

Here's my take on "expected" or "traditional" form and structure and how I think they might limit meaning in a text:

Firstly, I think restrictive form may especially apply to poetry, where pre-1900 poets obviously felt that they had to adhere to certain conventions in rhyme, meter and the structure of the poem itself.

I can see how that would restrict their options regarding the expression of meaning. They'd have to be quite disciplined and couldn't just write spontaneously.

Also, even when we start looking at forms of literature other than poetry, the problems in poetry regarding traditional conventions are a good condensation of the same problems applying to other forms of literature but to a lesser extent than with poetry.

But, when poets started experimenting with letting go of traditional forms and started using free verse, that didn't seem entirely satisfactory either, because then you start losing what makes poetry poetry, you might lose some of the lyricism and the very patterns (the rythmicality that is so pleasing to the part of the human psyche that enjoys music) that distinguish poetry and lyrics from other forms of literature.

Robert Frost said of free verse: " Writing free verse is like "playing tennis without a net."

So dispensing with traditional form and structure won't make your problems dissolve entirely, yet to me, I see breaking with the old form as a widening of the window of opportunity.

I feel one shouldn't throw the traditional out completely, but experimentation is a good thing, because then we get to see what "happens" when we do dispense with the old forms and structures. ..and the result can often be confusing, but it's always a good thing to explore new territory, because then at least you get to map it out.

More later. I might be on completely the wrong track anyway. Especially since, as I said, I see Derrida more talking about semiotics and language than literary form, bit I haven't even finished reading the first essay yet. So I'm off to go and do that!

Traveller,

I am really not interested in "gists" -- and this not directed to you but Derrida.

However, the questions from Kane made me angry enough to buy the book. It will take a while for it to arrive.

But I'd like to know what Kane's questions mean -- ideally from Kane because he posed them. :-)

Bill wrote: "However, the questions from Kane made me angry enough to buy the book. It will take a while for it to arrive...."

While I don't know that these pages necessarily elucidate Kane's questions, you might find them of interest in the interim until Writing and Difference arrives (I wonder if we should have started with Of Grammatology):

http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida/

Since I am a "fan" of Derrida's On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, which I repeatedly struggle to understand, I not infrequently refer others to the latter part of this article. I am not as familiar with the other sections and am attempting to burrow through them myself. If brought to Word and 10pt type to print out or read, the article runs about 16 pages.

Bill wrote: "Traveller,

I am really not interested in "gists" -- and this not directed to you but Derrida.

However, the questions from Kane made me angry enough to buy the book. It will take a while for it t..."

Kane's questions presume you've read the first essay in Writing and Difference - 'Force and Signification'. They are broad warm-up questions to prime the pump, so to speak...

You'll find many references to cases, as well as notes for the source materials in the book.

Lily wrote: "I wonder if we should have started with Of Grammatology..."

The translator's introduction does mention that "Derrida first says that Of Grammatology can be considered a bipartite work in the middle of which one could insert Writing and Difference. By implication, this would make the first half of Of Grammatology ... the introduction to Writing and Difference. It would be useful to keep this in mind while reading Writing and Difference..."

Something to consider as we move forward. I'm thinking about ordering Of Grammatology myself...

Lily wrote: "Bill wrote: "However, the questions from Kane made me angry enough to buy the book. It will take a while for it to arrive...."

While I don't know that these pages necessarily elucidate Kane's ques..."

Yes, I've been assuming that Kane asked his questions with relation to Derrida; that is after all what this discussion is about. I only know Derrida broadly, and it seems to me that he addresses two kinds of structuralism: 1) The linguistic theory of structuralism, and 2) the literary criticism aspect of structuralism.

Regarding the linguistic aspect, when we are going to look at "meaning" in this context, Derrida waxes on about the sign (components of language) and the signified (the objects described by those components of language). This would be, I assume, the "signification aspect of Force and Signification.

He also waxes forth on the "force" of language and how we cannot contain or tame language, which I take to be the "force" aspect of Force and Signification.

I know that at some point Derrida also looks at the "Literary criticism" aspect of structuralism, the latter which looks at the structure of a narrative, and which tends to analyse the structure of a narrative as far as "the course of events" are concerned.

For instance the structure of romance novels tends to run along the following lines: The most common popular type has a happy ending, and usually it goes like this: boy meets girl and they fall instantly in love, but there is some obstacle in the way of them consummating their love for each other, usually via marriage. This/these obstacle/(s) can take any form. It can be their own refusal to acknowledge or recognize that they love one another, or it can be some external force that comes between them.
The development of the novel is spent on overcoming these obstacles, and in the denouement they fall into each other's arms, thereafter to live happily ever after.

However, I have not come across Derrida dealing with the above in this specific essay yet. IRRC I think that Derrida coined 'deconstruction' in this regard though.

EDIT: >> No, wouldn't it rather be Foucault who would rather do it in a cultural sense like this? Derrida focused more on grammar, language and philosophy of writing ? Help, anyone? <<

A way to deconstruct the popular "happy ending" romance novel, would be to make use of inversion. You would have to people happily in love, either married, or engaged or just happily together, and then they would drift apart and they'd end up split up, either tragically or just in some mundane way.

To me, the film "The Sheltering Sky" by Bernardo Bertolucci, is an example of a deconstruction of the typical romantic novel.

..but I'm still reading, and hopefully it will soon become clear in exactly which context Kane asked his questions.

Jim writs: Kane's questions presume you've read the first essay in Writing and Difference - 'Force and Signification'. They are broad warm-up questions to prime the pump, so to speak...

You'll find many references to cases, as well as notes for the source materials in the book.

Jim, I realize one is on questionable ground without having read the book under discussion -- and I'm waiting for a copy to arrive. But this is not my first encounter with post-structuralist ideas. I'm suspicious that the ideas are wonderfully clear and specific in the book. That's all. :-)

Bill wrote: "I'm suspicious that the ideas are wonderfully clear and specific in the book. That's all. :-) ..."

clair comme de la boue...LOL!

BTW, I recently finished Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction to refresh my fading memory. He goes through each of the various theories and politely skewers them in that delightfully British manner, complete with constant sprinklings of Marxist jargon. A fun read...

Jim wrote: "Bill wrote: "I'm suspicious that the ideas are wonderfully clear and specific in the book. That's all. :-) ..."

clair comme de la boue...LOL!"

I'm sitting here laughing. I can't translate the French, but I can only assume about "wonderfully clear and specific" from any of these guys! It's worse than Hawking et al, or at least as bad!

Lily wrote: "clair comme de la boue...

clear as mud!

Still laughing, or at least again!

Incidentally, Travis did post a PDF source on the Resources thread. But I'm still going to wait for my hard copy -- got lots of other things to read and attempt catch-up in the meantime. But I'll watch the fun on this one!

Jim wrote: "Lily wrote: "clair comme de la boue...

clear as mud!"

Heh, yeah.

To give you an idea of how clear it is to me:

"Criticism imagination, affectivity, or fashion, in the popular sense of these words, henceforth knows itself separated from force, occasionally avenging this aspect will never be the essential one. The structuralist itself on force by gravely and profoundly proving that separation is the stance, as well as our own attitudes assumed before or within language, condition of the work, and not only of the discourse on the work.' Thus are not only moments of history. They are an astonishment rather, by is explained the low note, the melancholy pathos that can be perceived language as the origin of history. By historicity itself. And also, when behind the triumphant cries of technical ingenuity or mathematical confronted by the possibility of speech and always already within it, subtlety that sometimes accompany certain so-called "structural" analyses."

I am astonished, certainly. I think I prefer Kane's questions. They astonish me less. :P

The subtlety of the language used in this translated work trips me up. Maybe it's to do with the translation, or maybe I'm just too astonished by it. I'm not uttering enough cries of triumphant ingenuity.

Too much melancholy pathos in my heart.

Is it just me, or is the language he uses disturbingly emotive?

(..and the sentences sometimes don't always seem very, erm.. coherent?)

Traveller wrote: "The subtlety of the language used in this translated work trips me up. Maybe it's to do with the translation, or maybe I'm just too astonished by it. I'm not uttering enough cries of triumphant ingenuity.

Too much melancholy pathos in my heart. .."

Our work is cut out for us.

I downloaded Of Grammatology and will peruse it later this week to see how it might contribute to our understanding of W&D.

Wait a minute. I think I've been quoting from a corrupted digital copy of the text. No wonder hardly any of it was making sense to me! LOL, sorry, it's not as bad, maybe I should just delete my post above. Or shall I leave it up just a bit so you can have a laugh.

It's likely to scare the wits out of Bill.. XD

Just to be fair, I think this is a more correct transcription of the weird paragraph I quoted above:

". Therefore, it will never be possible, through some second- or third-hand reflection, to make the structuralism of the twentieth century (and particularly the structuralism of literary criticism, which has eagerly joined the trend) undertake the mission that a structuralist critic has assigned to
himself for the nineteenth century: to contribute to a "future history of imagination and affectivity."
Nor will it be possible to reduce the fascination inherent in the notion of structure to a phenomenon of fashion,' except by reconsidering and taking seriously the meanings of
imagination, affectivity, and fashion-doubtless the more urgent task.
In any event, if some aspect of structuralism belongs to the domains of
imagination, affectivity, or fashion, in the popular sense of these words,
this aspect will never be the essential one.
The structuralist stance, as well as our own attitudes assumed before or within language,
are not only moments of history. They are an astonishment rather, by
language as the origin of history. By historicity itself. And also, when
confronted by the possibility of speech and always already within it,
the finally acknowledged repetition of a surprise finally extended to the
dimensions of world culture-a surprise incomparable to any other, a
surprise responsible for the activation of what is called Western
thought, the thought whose destiny is to extend its domains while the
boundaries of the West are drawn back. By virtue of its innermost
intention, and like all questions about language, structuralism escapes
the classical history of ideas which already supposes structuralism's
possibility, for the latter naively belongs to the province of language
and propounds itself within it.
"

The spacing is terrible if quoted from the PDF version, but at least it makes more sense.

..or on second thought, it's still not... the Sunday Times or Harry Potter. But I do understand the grammar, at least. :P

Traveller wrote: "But I do understand the grammar, at least...."

Thx for the revised quotation, Traveller. Am rflol! I just spent too much of my evening trying to read the translator's preface to Of Grammatology! About p 55 starts the his discussion relative to structuralism. (The operative word in the previous is "trying.")

Lily wrote: "Traveller wrote: "But I do understand the grammar, at least...."

Thx for the revised quotation, Traveller. Am rflol! I just spent too much of my evening trying to read the translator's preface to..."

Next time you want to convince somebody that you're reading really, really mindboggling stuff, just use the first quote I posted, that had been garbled in trying to convert it to another e-reader format. I'm sure their eyes will pop out. (This site needs emiticons so I can use the "evil" smiley)

Hello all!

There are certainly going to be moments when we read Derrida that he will either perplex us or cause us to grit our teeth, depending on how we approach what he says. Perhaps one of the ways of making his work a bit more navigable is to consider that he will routinely be trying to smudge all binaries; in this case, between the literary object and the "objective" reading of the literary. One way of thinking about the (mis)treatment of the literary text is sort of akin to how philology or even hermeneutics treat it, which assumes that we can "stand apart" and interpret the text (and its meaning) in an objective way. Let's move this over to the official thread!