Deleuze: Literature,
This text, whose length may be excessive for brevity it is supposed ought to characterize blog entries, does not, in any way, be preceded by introductory remarks, but not others express a plea not to be discouraged by the style "rhizomatic" of the author and persist in reading, bent on discovering the keys that led Deleuze to say that "to write, you may need to which the language is odious, but so that a syntactic trace creating it as a kind of foreign language and that language in its entirety reveals his appearance, beyond de la sintaxis”.
La literatura y la vida
Gilles Deleuze
Los libros hermosos están escritos en una especie de lengua extranjera.
—PROUST, Contre Sainte–Beuve
Escribir indudablemente no es imponer una forma (de expresión) a una materia vivida. La literatura se decanta más bien hacia lo informe, o lo inacabado, como dijo e hizo Gombrowicz. Escribir es un asunto de devenir, siempre inacabado, siempre en curso, y que desborda cualquier materia vivible o vivida. Es un proceso, es decir un paso de Vida que atraviesa lo vivible y lo vivido. La escritura es inseparable of becoming; writing, it becomes-woman, becomes-animal or vegetable, becomes-molecule to becoming-imperceptible. These becomings link together with each other according to a particular sequence, as in a novel by Le Clezio, or coexist at all levels, under doors, thresholds and areas comprising the entire universe, as in the work Lovecraft magna. The evolution does not work the other way, and no man becomes, while the man is presented as a dominant form of expression intended to be imposed on any matter, while women, animal or molecule always contain a component of leakage that subtracted from its own conclusion. Shame be a man, is there any better reason to write? Even when a woman who becomes, it has a becoming-woman, and this evolution has nothing to do with a state she could claim. Becoming is not to achieve a form (identification, imitation, Mimesis), but to find the neighborhood of indiscernibility or differentiation that no longer fit a woman distinguished from an animal or a molecule, not vague or general, but contingencies, not preexisting, the less certain in a way as to single out in a population. It should establish a neighborhood with anything provided to create the literary for that, as with ester according to André forDhôtel. Gender, gender or kingdoms, something happens. The future is always "between": a woman among the women, or animal among other animals. But the indefinite article arises only if the term that is becoming itself deprived of formal characters do say it, the (the animal here this »...). When Le Clézio becomes-Indian, an Indian is always unfinished, you do not know "to grow corn or carve a canoe": rather than acquire a formal character, entering a neighborhood. [1] Similarly, according to Kafka, swimming champion who could not swim. All writing involves an athlete. But instead of reconciling the literature to sports, or converting the literature in an Olympic Games, the athletics is exerted on the flight and defection organic: an athlete in bed, said Michaux. It becomes all the more animal as the animal dies, and, contrary to prejudice spiritualist, the animal known to die and has the appropriate feeling or a hunch. The literature begins with the death of the porcupine, according to Lawrence, or death of the mole, according to Kafka, "our poor red legs outstretched in a gesture of tender compassion." It is written for the calves that die, said Moritz. The language must strive for female indirect ways, animals, molecular, and all indirect route is a becoming mortal. There are no straight lines or in things or in the language. The syntax is the set of indirect paths created each time to reveal things in life. Write
not have memories, travel, loves and sorrows, dreams and fantasies of their own. Same thing happens when we sin by excess of reality, or imagination: in both cases, the eternal father and mother, oedipal structure is projected in real or introjected in the imaginary. He is the father what is going to look at journey's end, as in the dream, in a child's conception of literature. It is written for the father-mother. Marthe Robert has taken to its logical conclusion this childishness, this psicoanalización of literature, not letting the novelist alternative than Bastard Creature or abandoned. Not even becoming-animal is safe from a reduction oedipal type "my cat, my dog." As Lawrence says, "if I am a giraffe, and the current British writing about me are loving and well trained dogs, all comes down to it, animals are different ... animal instinctively hate you I am. " Generally, the fantasies of the imagination often treated only as indefiniteness the guise of a personal pronoun or a possessive, "are hitting a child "becomes at once in" my father beat me. " But the literature goes the other way, and only arises in people discovering the power apparently in an impersonal way is a generality but a singularity in its highest expression: a man, a woman, an animal, a belly , a child ... The first two people are of no condition for the enunciation literary literature begins only when it is born within us a third party to dispossess us of the power to say I (the 'neutral' of Blanchot). [2] Certainly, the literary characters are well individualized, and are not vague or general, but all their individual traits elevate them to a view that a permanent drag while becoming too powerful for them: Ahab and Moby Dick's vision. The Miser is in no way a guy, but, conversely, their individual traits (love a girl, etc..) Make it accessible to a vision is gold, so that begins to flee by a line where you will gain magic power of indefinite: a miser ..., some gold, more gold ... There is no literature without tab, but, as happened to discover Bergson, tabulation, the storyteller role, not to imagine or project an myself. Rather reaches those visions, rises to these becomings or powers.
not written with their own neurosis. Neurosis, psychosis are not fragments of life, but states in which it falls when the process is interrupted, stopped, closed. The disease is not the process, but stop the process, as in 'the case of Nietzsche. " Similarly, the writer as such is not sick, but rather is medical doctor himself and the world. The world is a set of symptoms with which the disease is confused with the man. The literature is then presented as a health initiative, not necessarily the writer has an iron (in this case there would be the same ambiguity as to athletics), but has a tiny health irresistible product of what he has seen and heard of things too big for him, too strong for him, unbreathable, whose estate is running out, and yet give a becomings an iron and dominant would be impossible. [3] what he has seen and heard, the writer returns with watery eyes and perforated eardrums. What health sufficient to liberate life wherever it is imprisoned by and in man, and bodies and genders? For Spinoza's tiny health, so far, bearing witness to the end of a new vision that is making the move.
Health as literature, as writing, is to invent a people missing. Is itself fabulous inventions function a people. We do not write with the memories of their own, except that seeks to become the source or target groups of people still buried under future betrayals and sacrifices. American literature has this power to produce exceptional writers who can tell their own memories, but as a universal town composed of immigrants from all countries. Thomas Wolfe "written across America plasma as long as it can fit into the experience of a single man." Indeed, it is a people called to rule the world, but a smaller town, ever lower, caught in a becoming-revolutionary. Perhaps it only exists in atoms writer, bastard people, inferior, dominated, in perpetual becoming, always incomplete. A town where no means a bastard and family status, but the process or drift races. I'm an animal, a black inferior race forever. It is the fate of the writer. Central Kafka, Melville presents North American literature as a collective enunciation of a village child, or all the smaller towns, which only find expression in and through the writer. [4] Although it always refers to individual agents The available literature is collective enunciation. The literature is delirium, but delirium is not a matter of father-mother: no delirium that does not pass through the villages, races and tribes, and that besiege the world history. All delirium is world-historical "races and moving continents." The literature is delirium, and in this sense living your destination between two poles of delirium. Delirium is a disease, illness par excellence, every time he stands a supposedly pure and dominant race. But health is the model when you invoke the oppressed bastard race stirred constantly under the domination, which resists all that crushes or imprisons, and is outlined in the literature as a process. Again, well, a sickly state is in danger of interrupting the process or becoming, and we find the same ambiguity as in the case of health and athletics, the danger constant delusions of domination that is mixed with delirium bastard, and stop dragging the literature to a latent fascism, the disease against which it is struggling, even at the cost of diagnosing within itself and to fight against itself. Ultimate purpose of literature: to show in the delirium is creating a health or this invention of a people, that is a possibility of life. Write for the people that need ("for" mean less "instead of" who "with intent").
What the literature in the language is clear: as Proust says, draw it precisely a kind of foreign language, which is no language or speech regional retrieved, but a becoming-other of language, a greater decrease in that language, a delirium that is imposed, a magic line that escapes the dominant system. Kafka put into the mouth of the champion swimmer: I speak the same language as you, and yet not understand a word of what you are saying. Creating syntactic style, so that evolution of language: there is no creation of words, neologisms no worth outside of the effects of syntax within which it occurs. Thus, the literature presents two aspects and, in so far carried out by decomposition or destruction of the mother tongue, but also the invention of a new language within the language by creating syntax. "The only way to defend is to attack the language ... Every writer is obliged to take their own language ... "10 It would seem that language is prey to a delusion that specifically requires them out of their own furrows. As regards the third aspect, derived from a foreign language can not carve in the same language without all the language tilt turn, is pushed to the limit, to an outside or underside consisting of visions and auditions that no longer belong any language. These visions are not fantasies, but real ideas that the writer sees and hears in the interstices of language, language deviations. There are interruptions of the process but its outer side. The writer as seer and hearer, the goal of literature: the passage from life to language is what constitutes the ideas.
There are three aspects that are perpetually in motion Artaud: the omission of letters in the decomposition of native language (R, T. ..), their recovery on a new syntax or new names with a syntactic projection, creators of a language ("eTReTé"), the words finally blows, asintáctico limit towards which the whole language. And Céline, we can not help saying, however summary may seem to us: the Journey or the breakdown of the mother tongue, Death to credit and the new syntax and language within of language; Guignol's Bandy suspended exclamations as the limit of language, vision and explosive sounds. To write, you may need to the language is odious, but in a way that a syntactic trace creating it as a kind of foreign language and that language in its entirety reveals his appearance, beyond syntax. It sometimes happens that a writer is pleased, but he knows that going very far from having reached the limit was proposed, which constantly pulls off, still far from over his future. Writing is also becoming anything but a writer. To those who ask him what the writing, Virginia Woolf replied: "Who speech writing? The writer does not, what worries him is something else.
Considering these criteria, we see that among those who make books with literary pretensions, even among the insane, very few can be called writers.
NOTES [1] Le Clezio, Hai, Flammarion, p.. 5. In his first novel, Le proces-verbal, Ed Folio, Gallimard, Le Clezio had an almost copy a character in a becoming-woman, then becoming-rat, and then becoming-imperceptible in just fading .
[2] Blanchot, La Part du feu, Gallimard, pp. 29-30, and L'entretien infini, pp. 563-564: "Something happens (the characters) that can not recover more than depriving of his power to say I do." Literature, in this case, seems to belie the linguistic conception, which rests on connective particles, and particularly in the first two people the very condition of enunciation.
[3] On the literature as a health problem, but for those who have none or only have a very fragile health, vid. Michaux, postscript to "My Properties" in The remuneration nuit, Gallimard. And Le Clezio, Hai, pg. 7: "Someday, maybe they know that there was no art, only medicine."
[4] Vid. reflections Kafka on the so-called minor literatures, Journal, Livre de poche, pp. 179-182 (Diarios. Lumen, 1991) and Melville on American literature, D'oü viens-tu, Hawthorne?, Gallimard, pp. 237-240.
