Editor`s Preface: Legible/Visible

Editor's Preface: Legible/Visible
Author(s): Martine Reid and Nigel P. Turner
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Yale French Studies, No. 84, Boundaries: Writing & Drawing (1994), pp. 1-12
Published by: Yale University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930175 .
Accessed: 19/07/2012 21:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
MARTINE REID
Editor'sPreface:Legible/Visible
has come thequestionoftherelationship
Fromthefieldofliterature
problematicalopbetweenthewrittentextand its timidcounterpart,
twin:drawing.
posite,and unacknowledged
Wedo notwishtorenewyetagainthedebateon textandimage,but
hereon a pointwhichis bothobvious
ratherto concentrate
reflection
and yetis a sorepointfor
and obscure,whichleaves some indifferent
others:a sortofblindspotwhichliterary
discoursehas longneglected
unquestioneddesireto ensurethatits own
because ofits apparently
specificidentityremainintact.Butthatdesirehas,perhaps,prevented
it frominquiring,as it should,intothenatureoftheboundariesthat
such an identitynecessarilyimplies,the reasonsfortheirexistence,
and to whatextenttheycan be crossed.
An answerto thisquestion,whichotherstoohaveraised,has gradit is a many-faceted,
replythe
polymorphous
ually been formulated:
sole aim ofwhichis to openup theparadoxicallimbothatis thetheme
ofthiscollectionto theinnumerablequestionsposed.
will be
Thus it is that,aftervariousopeningremarks,reference
andto theabsence
madeto thegestureofwritingitself,to typography
ofcolorwhichis a featurecommonto boththeprintedwordandto the
that accompaniesit. More specificanalyses
graphicrepresentation
will followwhichdiscuss the pointof convergence
betweenwriting
and representation
in Stendhal,Verlaine,and a fewothers,Proust,
and Artaud.Finally,a fewsolutionsdevisedbycontemporary
Valery,
artiststo reconcilewritingand drawingwill be mentioned.
In the sixties,literarycriticismtradedin the termliteraturefor
those of textand poetics. The author,as Barthesstatedand many
& Drawing,ed.M. Reid,C 1994byYaleUniversity.
YFS 84,Boundaries:Writing
1
2
Yale FrenchStudies
othersrepeatedafterhim,was dead.1Foritspart,literature
too,andthe
in
in
the
same
Nouveau Roman particular,was moving
direction,
refusing
commonlyacceptedauthority,
character
and
(auto)biography,
alike.(Theearlywritings
ofRobbe-Grillet
decor,realismandreference
and Ricardouare excellentexamplesofthis.)The resultwas a certain
terrorism
whichboldlyrejectedSainte-Beuve
and,in his wake,a host
ofpersnickety
successors,while castingaside any notionofhistory
(whetherit be thatof the textor thatof the author)and resolutely
decidingto pay attentiononlyto the textitself.It seemedthatfrom
thenon the textwas doomedto speak onlyofitself,an independent
materialservingas an intermediary
betweenthe author-now to be
to attract
completelyignored-andthereader,whowas justbeginning
attention:"thebirthofthereadermustbe paidforbythedeathofthe
author,"wroteBarthes(Barthes,67).
Withthereevaluationofthecontribution
madebythestructuralofa preciseevoluists,theend oftheseventiessaw theconfirmation
tionin at least twoseparatedirections.First,thenotionofthe"text"
Genettesummedup theresultofseveral
was broadenedconsiderably.
withregardtolexicalconsideryearsofhesitantfumbling,
particularly
shouldbe
ations,withthesuggestionthatto theconceptoftextuality
added those of transtextuality
metatex(to includeintertextuality),
In otherwords,"everyand architextuality.
tuality,paratextuality,
thingwhich establishesan obviousor discreetrelation[ofthe text]
inparticular
withothertexts."2He thusreestablished,
wheretranstexareconcerned,
tualityandarchitextuality
therelevanceofraisingquestionsconcerning
andfinallyputan endto the
historyand chronology,
notionoftheTextin proudisolation.
It was thenthattextualgeneticscameintobeing.LouisHaystated
in a recapitulativearticlethat"[t]hemethodoftextualgeneticshas
emergedfroma mass ofempiricalstudiesdevotedto authors'manuscripts.This researchhas graduallymade it clearthat,undercertain
conditions,such documentsare apt to reestablishthe genesisofthe
writtenworks."3As the termitselfsuggests,textualgeneticsis the
1. RolandBarthes,"La Mortde l'auteur"[1968],reproduced
in Le Bruissement
de
la langue(Paris:Seuil, 1984),61-67.
2. GerardGenette,Introduction
a 1'architexte
(Paris:Seuil, 1979),87-88. These
reflections
arefurther
developedandillustrated
in Palimpsestes(Paris:Seuil,1982),and
in Seuils (Paris:Seuil, 1986).
3. LouisHay,"'Le texten'existepas,'R6flexions
surla critiquegenetique,"in Poetique62(1985): 150.See also theremarks
in defenseoftextualgeneticsmadebyGerard
GenetteandMichelContatin Le Monde,17 November1989.
MARTINE
REID
3
studyof beginnings,of that which is the prelude,the germof the
writtenwork,ofroughdrafts,
ofwhatJeanBellemin-Noelhas termed
thepre-text.4
It consistsofthedynamicreconstitution
oftheprocess
oftextualproduction,
on theoriginofthis.Thus it
and ofa reflection
is necessarilyas heterogenous
as thematerialthatit is dealingwith:
"at timesthetraceofinitialimpulses,and themarksofdistantmemoriesin the formofjottings,notebooks,and diaries;at others,composedofpreliminary
documentssuchas projects,plansandscripts;or
ofthe workofcompositionitselfsuch
yetagain,as the instruments
as sketches,earlydraftsand, in more generalterms,roughcopies
[manuscripts],
put one in touch with the polymorphoussince the
writingprocessgoes beyondthe linearityofthe code and spills over
into a varietyofotherspaces" (Louis Hay,171).
Textualgeneticsreassertsthevalueoftheactive,fluidprocessthat
is thetextualproductionofthewriter"at work,"theevolutionofthe
writingtowardsits finalform.5It does indeed take into accounta
historyofthetext,butit is thetext'sown specifichistory,
thatis, the
chronology
ofitsappearancein textform(anditmayalso seektoreveal
the tracesoftheunconsciousin thisraw material).6
And it goes still
further:
it watchesout forsignsofan energeticpen,or ofa lazy one
whichhesitates,deletes,jots,scribbles,or draws.On thispoint,textual geneticsis close to preoccupationsofan aesthetickind.It takes
intoaccountthefigurative
qualitiesofthewriting,and thelayoutof
lettersandwordson thepage.It findsits complementingrammatextuality.7
Thatis nottheonlyinteresttobe foundinworkwhichnowcallsfor
the use ofthe expression"thepoeticsofwriting,"as opposedto the
"poetics of the text."8When facedwith the manuscriptitself,the
critic,whateverhis personalconvictionsconcerningbiography
may
be, can no longerignorethe questionofthe role ofthe author.Any
involvestakingthewriter
attentiongrantedto thepre-text
"inevitably
4. Cf.JeanBellemin-Noel,
Le Texteet1'avant-texte
(Paris:Larousse,1972)(onthe
editingoftextsbyMilosz).
collectiondirectedbyR. Debray-Genette
5. Cf.,forreference,
Flauberta 1'oeuvre,
selec1980),andEcritureetgenetique textuelle,Valerya 1'oeuvre,
(Paris:Flammarion,
de Lille,1982).
tionoftextschosenbyJeanLevaillant(Lille:PressesUniversitaires
53 (1983),on theunconsciousin thepre-text.
6. Cf.Litt6rature
in Poetique 59 (1984),
Lapacherie,"De la grammatextualit6,"
7. Cf. Jean-G6rard
Poetique 73 (1988),51-70.
and also JanBaetens,"Le Transcriptuaire,"
8. RaymondDebray-Genette,
"Genetiqueet poetique:esquissed'unemethode,"
Litterature28 (1977):20. (The wholeissue is devotedto thegenesisofthetext.)
4
Yale FrenchStudies
refersbackto theperson
intoaccount."9The manuscriptspecifically
existence.It bearsthe mark,the
who wroteit, and to his day-to-day
imprint,the signatureofhis work.The authoris there,in themanuhis presence:he cannotbe ignored
script,keepingwatchandaffirming
anylonger.
That is, in a fewlines,all thatneedbe said hereon thetheoretical
statusofthetext:thedebateis now openbothto questionsofa more
generalnature(via the categorieslisted by Genette),and of a more
and
specifickind (textualgenetics),as well as frombothsynchronic
Afterlongbeingeclipsed,theauthoris making
diachronic
standpoints.
ofauthorsaremoreand
a comebacksandso is hishistory-biographies
has evenreached
morenumerous,and the interestin autobiography
thatthis
authorsoftheNouveau Roman.Weshouldnote,incidentally,
is indeeda strangesituation:it seemsto be thecombinedresultofthe
toa transfer
ofinterincreasedprestigeofHistory(leadinginparticular
ofanincreasingly
assertednarcistohistorians),
estfromliterary
figures
tastefor"reallife"promoted
bythe
sismcoupledwiththeimmoderate
whichtheresearchin
stagnation
media,andalso ofa certaintheoretical
textualgeneticshas arrivedat just therighttimeto conceal.
Weare all awareofthenarrativehistoryofthedisjunctionwhich,
fromthe verybeginning,heraldsthe relationbetweenwritingand
drawing.Some distantsourceof"goodsense" (withtheGreeksdoing
theirbest,in particularbytheinventionofthephoneticalphabet,not
to getthingsmixedup) decidedon the divisionofsciencesand techniques, a vast operationof schize (sharing,division),which should
make it possibleto settleanykindofdisputebyfirstclearlydefining
differences.
ofthemanuscript
DuringtheRenaissance,all the"extravagances"
11
oftypography.
arebroughttogether
underthecommondenominator
strivesto assign
perspective
Parallelto thisforcedsoberingofwriting,
bygeoma structure
to thevisualspace-a veritablecorsetdetermined
Thismomentofclarificaetryandthepreciselimitsofrepresentation.
tionofidentities,whichis also themomentinwhichwritingseemsto
9. JeanBellemin-Noel,"En guise de post-face:l'essayageinfini,"Litterature52
(1983): 123.
10. See Michel Contat'sremarkson thispointin "La Questionde l'auteur,"in
L'Auteuret son manuscrit,ed. MichelContat(Paris:P.U.F.,1991),7-34.
11. This is whatAntoineCompagnonhas so aptlynamed"theimmobilization
of
thetext."Cf. La Secondemain ou le travailde la citation(Paris:Seuil, 1979),233 ff.
MARTINE
REID
5
divergedefinitively
fromdrawing,is paradoxicallythe one in which
these two modes of representation
are used togetherto "conceal,"
show,and confuse-since it is also duringthe Renaissancethatthe
cancellaresca,those astoundingpen games [jeux de plume],are invented.These too insiston givinglettersa size whichis derivedfrom
theanthropomorphic
ideal canonused in painting.
Lateron,thereis no lack ofresponsesto thisarbitrary
partitionof
practices.We are awareofthewayin whichSterneand Mallarme(to
cite two of the best-knownenterprises)
playwith [jouent]and challenge[se jouentde] literaryspace.The end ofthenineteenthcentury
sees the inventionof the comic stripin whichtextand imagework
togetheron thesemanticfield.Buttheverystatusofthis"ninthart,"
in principlereservedforchildren,bespeaksthe conditionof a poor
relativeofdrawingwithrespectto writing.
The twentieth
conflacentury,
thankstothisthundering,
blistering
grationofrepresentation,
whichpave
produces,aftera fewmovements
thewayforits diffusion,12
surrealism,
whichupsetsin themostspectacularwaythe old imperativesof differentiation.
Writersgivetheir
readerssomethingto look at; theybeginwithillustrations
forreading
matterand end up makingoftheirtextsbooks ofimages.'3Painters
providereadingmatter(orpretendto do so),takesignifying
writingas
materialforrepresentation,
and illustratepoemsand tales.
Some amongthem-Michaux fromhis positionas writeror Dubuffet
fromhis positionas painter-workwiththe entirespectrum,
fromvisibleto legible.The paintersgroupedunderthelabel "artbrut"
fortheirpartdefythedualinstitutionalization
ofwritingandpainting,
refusing,
throughtheobliquenessofadmirablediscoveries,
theschize
ofwritingand picture.
Wordswereto appearin pictures,not to provideexplanations,to
adddetails,ortoreinforce
theirrealismas hadbeenthecase before(the
letterin thehandsofDavid's Marat),butratherto disturbitbyforcibly
introducingthe signified(Miro's "Une etoile caresse le sein d'une
12. I am thinking
oftheworkdoneundertheauspicesofArtNouveau-noteworthy
forits ingenioustypographical
innovations,
butunfortunately
endless.
13. It is important
to remember
heretowhatextentthemarriage
oftextandimage
provokedthemistrustofcertainwriters,
Flaubert,forinstance,who consistently
opposedtheillustration
ofhisnovels:"A drawnwoman,"he writes,"lookslikea woman,
enoughsaid. The idea ofa womanis thereafter
shutdown,complete,and all thesentencesin theworldareuseless;a written
woman,on theotherhand,makesonedreamof
a thousandotherwomen,"Correspondance,
III, ed. JeanBruneau(Paris:Gallimard,
Pliade, 1991),222, 12 June1862,to ErnestDuplan.
6
Yale FrenchStudies
negresse").Farfrommakingthingsclearerbynamingthem,thepresence ofthelegiblewas to be a sourceofconfusion,decidedlycomplicatingthevisionofthingsbya mixingofcategories.
But all this(in the end just a fewthings,and recentones at that)
cannotmask the weightof diverseculturalimperativeswhich are
clearlyunderstood,and this is the case with the assertionthatone
mustnot mix up thepaintbrushes[s'emmeler les pinceaux].Ifthere
are a fewexceptions,dulycatalogued,theyare preciselythat,excepan unchangingdivision.
tions,and thusserveonlyto reinforce
has appearedas thesurestmeansofpreserving
Sincethen,tautology
thatorderofthings.Whatshouldone expect?That thewritershould
write,thepainterpaint,thereaderread,thatthespectator(now,thereis
ortheconnoisa moreambiguousterm-shouldonesaytheenthusiast,
seur?)shouldlook on.'4 As faras writingand readingare concerned,
wherethe"literate"eyeis calledupontodeciphera messagein a given
Wherepaintingandperceiving
are
time,thequestionis oneoflegibility.
concerned,and themovementoftheeyeovera paintedsurface(what
kindof"literacy"is requiredforthatoperation?),
visibilityis thequestion.In all events,thebasis ofthesepracticesis mimesis.
ofan establishedset ofsigns.That is
Writingis the reproduction
how it remainsin the domainofthe legible.Illegiblewritingshows
thingsto be what theyare not. That is why it is "sanctioned"by
fromschoolon).It is
whatevermeanspossible(byvariousauthorities,
accusedoftrying
to hidesomething,
ofbeinga disguise.It is "read"(by
graphologists
and others)as a gestureofrefusal,as antisocial.It is at
leastan indicationofthetenuous,fragile
natureofthislegibility
ofthe
most basic kind.It showsthe legibleto be a categorythatis forever
underthreat,forever
in dangerofdisappearing,
ofbecominglost,despiteappearances,in a paradoxicalobscurity
wherewritingcanbe seen
andrecognized,
butcan no longerbe read.Illegiblewritingindicatesin
factthatthesignhas beenremorsefully
eatenawaybyits ownfigurativenature,and thatit does indeedtakealmostnothingat all forthe
figureto resortbackto its statusas a meredrawing.
14. Not tomentionthefactthatthewriter
maydraw- thisis trueofa greatnumber
ofRomanticwriters-orthefactthatthepaintermaywrite.Butone has to keepbusy.
Thereis nevertheless
onevaluejudgment
whichimmediately
putsthingsinperspective
a widelyacceptedidea: one cannotpossiblydrawas wellas one writes,
byperpetuating
andvice versa.(The embarrassment
causedbyFromentin
orbyRedon,whobothhesitatedbetweenbrushandpen,is an excellentexampleofthis.)
MARTINE
REID
7
As it followsthetrainofthoughtto whichit givesbodyandmovement,thewritingprocesscomesacrossas a work-form
thatis forever
on the pointof drifting
offcourse.And it is therein the hazardous
limbobetweenthelegibleand thevisiblethattheillusorybarrierbetweenone domainand anotheris erased.And graphicrepresentation
appears:it appearsduringthe pauses and hesitationsofthe thought
process,when the pen can be caughtaccomplishingothergestures:
additions,scribbles,and the excessiveembellishment
of letters,the
transformation
ofwords,lines,andinkblotsintoheads,animals(reviving some "mimological"effect),'5
or other,less creditablethings"thehandtalks"saysDubuffet.'6
The visiblereturnsandjostleswith
the legible:it is unpretentious,
playful,useless,and it drawswriting
towardsmocking,childishcounterwriting.17"WhenI was young,says
Colette,"I playedwithmywritingand used myignoranceofart,as I
didmylack ofliterary
to drawas I wrote.Forexample,ifI
experience,
stumbledon theword'murmur'andhesitatedabouthowto continue
my sentence,I would add the tinyfootofa caterpillarto each ofthe
even downstrokes of the letters....
I added the somewhat horselike
head of the caterpillarto one end of the wordand turnedthe final
flourishinto its tail.... Then, as well as the word 'murmur'I had the
much prettiersign of the caterpillar.... Decorated as theywere with
insectsand butterflies,
I feltthatmy manuscriptswerenot 'serious
enough.""18
That is not the onlywayin whichthefigurative
mayreappearin
writingto the extentof maskingit completelyfora moment.All
manneroffigurative
practicesemergeand tirelesslystruggleagainst
revealtheparamillenarydivisions;andin theprocess,theyinevitably
doxicalframework
ofan exerciseinlegibility.
Thuswriting
mayexplicitlygiveway to drawing,eitheraccidentally(Valery's"absences" in
The "objects" represented
his notebooks)'9 or voluntarily.
then are
15. Cf.GerardGenette,Mimologiques(Paris:Seuil,1976),andinparticular,
"L'Ecritureen jeu," 329-49.
16. JeanDubuffet,L'Homme du communa 1'ouvrage(Paris: GallimardFolio,
1973),34.
17. Cf.theremarks
madebySergeTisseronin thisissue.On the"childish"characterofHugo's drawings(specifically
linkedto drawingsbyhis own children),
see also
PierreGeorgel'sremarksin "Portrait
de l'artisteen griffonneur,"
in VictorHugo etles
Images,ed. MadeleineBlondeland PierreGeorgel(Dijon: Aux Amateursde Livres,
1984),74-138.
18. Colette,L'EtoileVesper(Paris:Editiondu milieudu monde,1946),180.
19. Cf. SergeBourjea'sremarksin this issue and "'Je viens absentde dessiner
ceci ... ,"' Poetique 73 (1988): 71-82.
8
Yale FrenchStudies
numerous-theyareoftenenigmaticinsofaras theyarenotthoseusually consideredsuitablefortherepresentation
ofknowledgeormemoryin thetruesense.JacquesLeenhardtpointsout,withreference
to
to
into
Stendhal,thatthewriteris thusable reintroduce
sensation
the
heartofthecognitiveprocessbytheinclusionin his textofa conceptimage.20
Fromtheseobjectswhichtheminduses to conveyperceptionby
moretangiblemeansandtofixitintheevolutionofmemoryorreasoning,to theself-portraits,
illustrations,
andimageswhichreinforce
the
thesubjectgraphically
as iftoreaffirm
writingandchoosetorepresent
the dominanceof the visibleoverthe legible(thatis the case ofthe
ofMusset,and Proust,or
drawingsto be foundin thecorrespondence
in Maupassant'slittle"comic strips"),the roadis longand thepracticesextremely
diverse-it wouldindeedbe a goodidea forthemto be
listedin detail-and thisjustup to thepointofthepureand simple
autonomyoftheformer
andlattergestures.Thus theshadowofdifferoreventhevery
enttypesofvisibilityis projected,
fromtheproximity
interiorofthewritingitself(theword"murmur"turnedintoa caterpillar)to moredistantareas.Andthatshadowis also,in graphicterms,
a movementfromdarknessto light(fromwhatis scarcelyrepresented
towhatis perfectly
Itwouldseemthattheforcedgesture
recognizable).
of writing,and the obligationthatit representscontain,in spite of
thistinyexplosiveforcewhichmaycometo thesurfaceat
everything,
any time,whetheror not it takes the troubleto justifyits doingso:
"drawingkeepscomingback."'2'
In thedaysoftechnicalreproducibility,
thebook(andbehindit the
editorand commercialimperatives)no longershowsanyinterestin
thegestureswhichbroughtit intobeing.To beginwith,thereis (until
the copyist.His roleis to
the typewriter
becomescommonproperty)
make a faircopy.This expressionimplies a dual task: on the one
hand,he is to ensurethatthewritingis as perfectly
legibleas possible, or has regainedits initial legibility(what criteriawill he use?
what calligraphicnormswill he adopt?);on the otherhand,he is to
removeall traceof the writingprocess(the copyist,naturally,
does
or the inkblots,scribbles,drawings,
not reproducethe crossings-out,
20. Cf.JacquesLeenhardt,
"See andDescribe:On a FewDrawingsbyStendhal,"in
thisissue.
21. "Drawingkeepscomingback,"notesDerrida."Does one everstopdrawing?
Can one evergiveit up?" MWmoires
d'aveugle(Paris:Reuniondes Musees nationaux,
1990),44.
MARTINE
REID
9
and mistakesin themanuscripthe is copying:a copyis not a photocopy).Forcedlegibilitywhichmay,at times,confusesignifier
and signifiedand harmsemanticlegibility:"My copyist,"wroteFlaubertto
Bonnenfant,"makes some superbmistakes,he writes 'garqonde
glace' insteadof "garqonde classe' and Adriatic'legumes'insteadof
'lagunes'; in otherwords,I'm going quite mad....." (Correspondance,611, 9 April1856).22
Then thereis theprinting
process,whichensuresa maximumdegreeoflegibility.23
Curiously,whenfacedwiththebookas an object,
theauthorno longerrecognizeshis ownwork."The sightofmywork
[Madame Bovary]in printdeadenedmy mind completely,"noted
Flaubert."It seemed so flat.Everything
looks so black.I mean that
Thatwas a greatdisappointment-Anditwouldtakea quite
textually.
dazzlingsuccessto drownthevoiceofmyconsciencecrying
outtome:
'It's a failure!"'(Flaubert,Letterto Louis Bouillet,5 October1856).
And thus,once printed,Flaubertis no longerFlaubertin the eyesof
Flauberthimself.And,worsestill,its legibilityhas been lost. Everythingis black,an ambiguousstatement
whichevokesboththesingular
"color"oftheprintedcharacter,
andblindness.Flaubertnowsees only
blackness,just the blacknessof the text,thatis to say its total,and
irreversible
It is a strangemetamorphosis
illegibility.
of the printed
wordthatapparently
condemnsthewriterto blindness(he no longer
sees orrecognizeshis work)at thesame timeas it revealshis workto
thepublic-and thatcertainly
suggeststoFlaubertsomekindofphantasmaticreversal(thestrangely
"Oedipal" gestureofa fatherrefusing
to see theson he has engendered
in his works).24
Valerywas todescribea verysimilarversionofthesameexperience:
"The writer'smind,"he says,"gazes at itselfin the mirrorthatthe
22. Flaubertwritesto EdmaRogerdes Genettes:"Madam,thecopyistI engagedis
to fixthepricebeforeMme Dubois of30, rueSaintMarc.I wouldadviseyourbrother
hand,and to choose the type.The best typeis thatused fortextsforthe theater"
(Correspondance,
II, 626,Summer1856[?]).
23. "The printedtext,"remarksMichelTh6voz,whichis a paradigmoftheideologyofrepresentation,
shouldideallycombinethemetaphysical
oppositionthatexists
betweenthe diaphanoussignifier
and the moreconsistentsignified,"
Detournement
oftypography
d'kcriture(Paris:Minuit,1989),16.The paradoxicalsignificance
should,
however,
be recalled:thehistory
ofprinter's
typeis proofofthedesiretoremainas close
ofitalicsis in itselfsufficient
as possibletothestyleofhandwriting
(theinvention
proof
ofthis)whileattempting
a la
toachievemaximumlegibility.
Cf.J.Peignot,
De L'6criture
(Paris:Gallimard,1967).
typographic
of writing(the blind
24. Is blindnessthe ultimateanchorageof the enterprise
Homer)?
10
Yale FrenchStudies
printing-press
providesforit. Then, if the paper and ink are well
thetype-setting
matched,ifthefaceoftheletteris attractive,
meticulous, the justificationexquisitelyproportioned,
and the page well
printed,the authoris bothembarrassedand proud.He sees himself
coveredwithhonorsthathe does not,perhaps,deserve.He thinkshe
can heara voicethatis clearerand louderthanhis own,an inexorably
his wordsand pronouncing
themdangerously
purevoice articulating
thatis weak, or bad, or arbitrary,
clearly,one by one. Everything
or
inelegantinwhichhe has writtenspeaksouttooloudlyandtooclearly.
Appearingin magnificent
printis themarkofa judgmentthatis both
preciousand formidable
88).The metaphoris
(Peignot,De L'Ecriture,
mirror.The printedwordheregoes too far.The
thatof a distorting
authorcan no longerrecognizehimself,or ratherhe can no longer
recognizehis own voice. Confusingthe spokenwiththewritten,
Vatext
leryaffirms
thattheprinted giveswordsexcessiveclarityandforce.
The legible("a farclearer,moreprecisevoice")is nowtoolegible.Such
excessis perceivedas a danger,andthatdangeris thedangerofdetachment. What the penstrokelinked together,the printingpress sets
ofink,an objectbothpersonaland
was a mirror
apart.The manuscript
intoprint,thatintimacyis
personalized,but when it is transformed
thatthe"real" (thisis me) is to be foundonly
shattered.
Bysuggesting
in themanuscript,
Valeryin his turnacknowledgestheaffective
relaand thusthe
tionshipwhichunitesthe authorwithhis manuscript,
curiousthreatrepresented
by editorand publishing.That is how he
refersto theessentialambivalencewhichlies behindthewritingprocess: theproper(mywriting)and property
are sen(mymanuscripts)
at
tenced,in ordertojustifytheirexistence,to becomepublicproperty
the cost of a mutilationwhichis feltto be not onlydangerous,but
painful.
The transformation
fromwrittento printedwordis notmerelyto
ensurethelegibility-thedazzlinglegibility-ofthetext.This "forgingprocess"(Peignot,33) renewstheage-olddivisionand repeatsthe
Unlessithas a preciseandsignificant
tautology.
pictorialdimension,a
textis a text,thatis to saythatit existsto be read.
Take theexampleofStendhal'sLa Vie de HenryBrulard.Fromthe
theauthoradmitsthathis enterprise
is scarcelylegible;he
beginning,
playsalongwiththatand evenseems to make it the sine qua non of
his writing-his writingis not legible,he sees it less and less distinctly(the lack of lightin Rome in the middleof winterand his
recentneed to wearglasses).He does not see whathe oughtto write
MARTINE
REID
11
any more clearly(as he remembershis childhoodand recallsa few
memories,all sortsof problemsarise; no solutionis possible,but
are mingled).Stenwritingand identity,images and autobiography
dhalconstructs
theonlyobjectwhichcould "correspond"
to thisnear
illegibility
in factand essence:a barelyintelligiblemanuscript,
decorated with "drawings"(fromthe simple line to the self-portrait),
plans, topographicalreadings,and engravings.A curious mirror
andvisibilityin a masterly
whichintermingles
questionsoflegibility
manner,and,in its way,also provesthattheultimateconsequenceof
anyattemptat self-representation
is disfigurement.
Take the case of VictorHugo. His writingis constantlyaccompaniedbygraphics.These varyfromthenegationofthewriting,
quite
simplyits elimination(onewholepageis entirelycoveredwithblack
ink),to illustrationsand theatersketches,notto mentiontheendless
and remarkably
variedscribblings(eachinkblotappearsas an invitation to pictorialrepresentation),
caricatures,
playlets,etc. Here,it is
the workin its entiretywhichacquiresan incrediblegraphicdimension,withopenwork"
thattheauthorhimselfshowedgreatinterestin,
as can be seen fromthecarehe tookwithhis notebooksand albums.
Take the case of AntoninArtaud.He drawswell and a lot and
and self-portraits.
produced,amongotherthings,admirableportraits
He neverceases to commenton his figurative
practice.Actuallyhe
insistson it: "aftera certaindayin October1939,I neverwroteagain
withoutdrawingat thesame time."25The exchangemixtureimposed
ofa certain
betweenwritinganddrawingis notwithouttheexpression
violence-as exemplifiedby "sorts": pieces of paper coveredwith
writing,thenviolated,aggressedby diversegraphicprocesses(superimposeddrawings,scribbles,and erasuresexecutedin veryvividcolors),and finallyperforated,
torn,and partlyburned.
These examples(I have chosenthreeat random)have caused considerabletroubleforeditors-publicationsprovethatwe do notknow
what to do with this visible in the text(at best the divisionis confirmed:texton one side, drawingsas "album leaves" on the other).
Troublealso forthe critic,who oftenhesitatesbetweentwo standpoints:the one beinga rejection(drawingas anecdote),the otheras
"oversemantisation"
(at all costsmakingsense ofthemostinsignifi25. AntoninArtaud,Luna-Park5 (October1979),citedbyPauleTheveninin Paule
TheveninandJacquesDerrida,AntoninArtaud,Dessins etportraits
(Paris:Gallimard,
in thisalbum(135-41).
1986),45. Several"sorts"arereproduced
12
Yale FrenchStudies
cantfigurative
deviation).Defiance,error,
anomaly-all drawingsby
writersare decidedlytroublesome.
Everyscience,accordingtoMichelFoucault,has itsmargins,
andin
is concealed.26
thosemarginsan immenseandunavowableteratology
ofliteratureand of the sciis the teratology
Graphicrepresentation
created.Thus,because
encesofmanuscript
studywhichithasrecently
of(orthanksto)theobstinateandobtusepresenceofdrawingin literaa multitudeofmonsters
offormsandfigures,
ture,thereis a profusion
presentin theliterary
field."Defendingtheeye,"27theyarejustwaitingforattentionto be turnedtowardthem.
-Translated byNigel P. Turner
26. MichelFoucault,L'Ordredu discours(Paris:Gallimard,1971),35.
27. Jean-Franrois
Lyotard,
Discours,figure(Paris:Klincksieck,1985),11.