What exactly is the text? What is being repeated in this passage? This section is easily one of the best in the book. Writing and Madness was a book that I wanted to like as a whole - its topic is certainly an interesting and timely one - but I found that I could only relate to it in bits and pieces.
In terms of oscillation, the scene of the text bounces off the other of the text, the critical debate, and then returns to the text in such a way that it performs the text.
What matters is the process of oscillation the process that Brooks says supports ambiguity. Repetition through this ambiguity appears to suspend temporal process, or rather, to subject it to an indeterminate shuttling or oscillation which binds different moments together as a middle which might turn forward or back.
When she hits on a good idea her prose really soars, but too much of her writing I found to be technical and clever rather than genuinely insightful.
She makes it clear that the scene of both the reader and text is built upon repetition.
Additionally, the reader appears toward the end of the passage as he who is turned by the text and he who performs the text by repeating it. We cannot say whether this return is a return to or a return of: The English translation leaves out some of the literary analyses of Nerval and Balzac that were in the original book, no doubt because they are too technical for English readers, but that is made up for by two additional interviews with Jacques-Alain Miller and Philippe Sollers and a new preface by the author.
Does Felman say that the text works in parallel ways to the unconscious? Maybe others would find them more interesting. She prioritizes the performance, and as my sort of circular and looping and questioning post has demonstrated, this ambiguity is what is being performed.
Through its very reading, the text so to speak, acts itself out. In the next part of the sentence, the reader is the subject of an active structure, but the reader has no choice but to perform the text. Felman starts out by articulating the difficulties of speaking madness, as outlined by Michel Foucault in History of Madness.
There are two subjects in this passage: On the whole I felt as though Writing and Madness was a major letdown. Yet, the structure of that sentence belies the reader taking prominence as a subject in this passage.
Brooks gets at this when he says particularly highlighting oscillation: The first sentence says that the scene of the text is repeated through the critical debate.
In my close reading this week, I want to plot the ways that she does this in the above passage.
Some of them are: To start working through this question, I think we need to discuss how Felman is using repetition here. As I suggested last week, the relationship between the subject and the other is one of oscillation or repetition, and the thing that is being repeated is speech, not the unconscious.
Unfortunately, Felman rather loses her way after this point. The critical interpretation, in other words, not only elucidates the text but also reproduces it dramatically, unwittingly participates in it. She then plunges into the intricacies of the debate between Foucault and Derrida Ch.
Here, I want to foreground the idea that ambiguity in this matter might be more beneficial to my reading than trying to figure out what each of these elements are in the text. Felman is performing the scene of the text here by tolerating ambiguity in this passage.Created Date: 8/29/ PM.
Shoshana Felman is an American literary critic and current Woodruff Professor of Comparative Literature and French at Emory killarney10mile.com was on the faculty of Yale University from towhere in she was awarded the Thomas E.
Donnelly Professorship of French and Comparative Literature. She specializes in 19th and 20th. Writing and Madness is Shoshana Felman's most influential work of literary theory and criticism. Exploring the relations between literature, philosophy, and psychoanalysis through brilliant studies of Balzac, Nerval, Flaubert, and James, as well as Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida, this book seeks the.
Literature and Psychoanalysis: The Question of Reading: Otherwise [Shoshana Felman] on killarney10mile.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The relationship between literature and psychoanalysis has never been one of equals.5/5(1).
By Shoshana Felman. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press,viii + pp., $ hardcover, $ paperback. how to distinguish between writing madness and writing about it.
In other words, “while it was through literature that madness became the reader, they illustrate the thesis at hand. Her discussion of “the move. Writing and Madnessis Shoshana Felman s most influential work of literary theory and killarney10mile.coming the relations between literature, philosophy, and psychoanalysis through brilliant studies of Balzac, Nerval, Flaubert, and James, as well as Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida, this book seeks the specificity of literature in its relation to what .Download