Garin Dowd

Guardian of Dialogue. Max Scheler's Phenomenology, Sociology of Knowledge and Philosophy of Love By Michael D. Barber, Bucknell University Press 1993. Pp. 205. ISBN 0–8387–5228. n.p. The Bodies of Women: Ethics, Embodiment and Sexual Difference By Rosalyn Diprose, Routledge, 1994. Pp. xi + 148. ISBN 0–415–09783–5. £35.00. Gottlob Freges Politisches Tagebuch Edited by Gottfried Gabriel and Wolfgang Kienzler, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie Vol. 42, No. 6 (1994), pp. 1057–98. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding By Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. x + 527. ISBN 0–521–41965–4. £59.95. Woman of Reason: Feminism, Humanism and Political Thought By Karen Green, Polity Press, 1995. Pp. 220. ISBN 0–7456–1448–5. £39.50. The Nature of True Minds By John Heil, Cambridge University Press, 1992. Pp. xi + 248. ISBN 0–521–41337–0. £35. Gilles Deleuze ou le système du multiple By Philippe Mengue, Editions Kimé, Collection ‘Philosophie‐épistémologie’, 1995. Pp. 311. ISBN 2–841740–00–5. 180FF. Science as Salvation By Mary Midgley, Routledge, 1992. Pp. 239. ISBN 0–415–06271–3. £30.00. Hegel's Phenomenology: The Sociality of Reason By Terry Pinkard, Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. vii + 451. ISBN 0–521–45300–3. £40.00.

Following the lead of Michèle Le Doeuff in generalising the figure of the amphiboly in her reading of Kant’s maritime digressions in the course of his Critical opus, my essay departs from this basis to look both to philosophy and literature (with minor digressions into photography and cinema) in order to examine images of the human species in acts of immersion, traversal and exit from the sea, as well as installation on land (and on the island in particular) in a range of texts. My own oscillation (largely albeit not exclusively) between literature and philosophy may be summarised in the term amphibiologies, within which lexical unit itself lie latent amphibolies of both philosophical and grammatical significance.

Serge Daney is widely recognised in his homeland as the most important French film critic after André Bazin. In a career devoted to criticism for Cahiers du cinéma and later Libération (where his remit widened to include other forms of journalism), including a key period as editor during the transition from the journal’s PCF and then Maoist phase beginning in 1973, Daney also held a lecturing position for a spell at the University of Paris, Paris III, La Censure. He was a significant public intellectual and featured in several documentaries, including Claire Denis’ film Jacques Rivette – Le veilleur ([Jacques Rivette – The Night Watchman] 1990). From 1985 to 1990 Daney presented a programme on cinema on the radio station France Culture. Following the publication of a book on Haitian politics in 1973 under the assumed name Raymond Sapène, Daney’s journalism was collected in several volumes. He left Libération in 1981 to establish Trafic, a journal which, since his death from Aids in 1992, has continued his legacy. The only book-length English translation of Daney’s writings to date – Postcards from the Cinema (2007) – is of the posthumously published Persévérances.

This is a version of a paper delivered at the Beckett centenary conference held at University College Cork, May 26-27, 2006. It was subsequently published under the title ‘Stellar Separation or Abstract Machine? Badiou and Deleuze and Guattari on Beckett’ in Beckett Re-Membered: After the Centenary, edited by James Carney,Mi chael O’Sullivan, Leonard Madden and Karl White (Cambridge Scholars Press), pp. 92-107, ISBN 1443835005. This is a pre-publication version of the paper as it appeared in the latter publication. OPENING PARAGRAPH: In the most important study to date of the respective use of Beckett’s writings in the work of Deleuze and Badiou, Jean-Jacques Lecercle concludes by surmising that “Perhaps the close proximity, in the French edition, of Deleuze’s essay, ‘The Exhausted’, to Beckett’s own text, is indeed more than a fortunate coincidence: perhaps it is a symptom”.1 For, Lecercle, despite his long-term support for Deleuze and indeed despite his misgivings concerning Badiou’s characteristically strong reading of Beckett, decides that there may be, after all, something more compelling in the Badiou than in the less consistent Deleuze. This may also be, he suggests, attributable to Deleuze’s own modernism as a writer, which, though it gives him greater access to, and understanding of, the materiality of Beckett’s writing (Deleuze has, after all, his own écriture, not least in Anti-Oedipus), also in the final analysis, renders his reading of Beckett somewhat orthodox. By contrast, the defiantly declarative and unhesitatingly dogmatic reading advanced by Badiou, is able to disclose strikingly original insights, not least because of the co-implication and reversibility of the readings of Badiou-Beckett and Beckett-Badiou. This essay seeks to examine the symptomatology of one text in particular as it operates and produces or is indicative of symptoms in the work of Badiou and Deleuze respectively.

Deleuze never wrote the book on literature he claimed, in the filmed interviews _L’abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze_, he wanted to write. The closest he came was the volume of essays _Critique et clinique_. This chapter sets out to consider the volume in the light of schizoanalysis. The final solo-authored volume addresses the domain professionally inhabited by Guattari – the clinic. If schizoanalysis as a concept can be traced primarily to Guattari’s influence, is _Critique et clinique_ compatible with the earlier outlines of a potential schizoanalysis in _Anti-Oedipus_? What of the relationship between the pre-Guattari _Logic of Sense_ (and in particular its appendices on literary authors) and the post-Guattari _Critique et clinique_? Are either or both of them schizoanalytic? In its investigation of complex series of articulations of the relationship between the schizoanalytical and the critical and clinical project the chapter seeks to explore possible answers to the question: ‘is _Critique et clinique_ schizoanalytic?’

Paper presented at Philippe Garrel, le temps incorporé/Embodied Time Université Paris 8 Nanterre 29 & 30 novembre 2018 This paper proposes a loose typology of space and place in Garrel’s cinema. Its point of departure is the 1969 round table organised by Jacques Rivette which was a supplement to a series of film screenings chosen to illustrate the theme of space in cinema. Among the films chosen was Garrel’s Le lit de la vierge, which, for Rivette, is of interest in the way it exemplifies the cinema of an ‘adventure of place’ rather than an ‘adventure occurring in a place’. The film for Rivette escapes from the “dénoté géographique, topographique”. Although the round table represents a particular juncture it offers a potential line of enquiry regarding the spatialities of Garrel’s subsequent work. Given the crucial role played by memory linked to place, temporality must also be considered. I propose to explore certain examples from Garrel’s body of work through the idea, borrowed from Michael Tawa in his book of this title, of agencies of the frame. Through the possibilities in this conception, a rethinking of the link between character and place/space emerges. Linking the idea of agencies of the frame – which Tawa himself adapts from Simondon – back to Rivette’s early insights, I propose a survey and typology featuring, inter alia, the generic spaces of urban encounter and circulation, specific places of significance to Garrel, types of urban space, screen spaces, abstraction and spatiality and Parisian topographies.

If Beckett’s study of Proust has belatedly received the criticisms its author no doubt anticipated, another influential study published a little over thirty years later has, like its predecessor, elicited, among others, the critical response that the author of the Recherche finds himself recruited to the self-serving project of the critic. Gilles Deleuze’s Proust is cast not as the pessimistic Schopenhauerian which Beckett makes of him, but rather, as a force of affirmation in the quasi-Nietzschean register of the ‘powers of the false’. Deleuze would studiously augment his 1964 study with two additions in an effort to improve it. The consequence of this is to render its textual genesis a testament to one of the themes, and for Deleuze the theme of the Recherche, namely, apprenticeship. Moreover, the ‘pedagogy’ to which Proust’s novel subjects the philosopher becomes itself an example of the ‘untimely’ operations of art upon what Deleuze calls the upright or dogmatic image of thought.

This chapter explores the rather striking manner in which at key moments in the history of philosophy, in the discipline’s attempts at self-definition, the genre or literary form of poetry plays a key role. Philosophy, at these moments, has been defined, inter alia, as the enemy of poetry, the guiding light for the philosopher who can only try and inevitably fail to emulate its brilliance, or as the anomalous guest at the philosophical table with whom the host discipline has relations which result in either generative or degenerative effects. Insofar as it lays claim to or liaises with philosophy – as we have come to know it today – poetry has thus played a part in the self-definition of genre theory. The aim of this chapter is to capture a very specific set of transfers, transpositions, metonymies and other modes of reversible relations of substitution and surrogacy between philosophy and poetry, and along the way between genre-theory-as-philosophy and poetry.

Which modernism or modernisms circulate in Deleuze’s two-volume work on cinema? Can one meaningfully claim that both or either The Movement-Image (Cinema I) and The Time-Image (Cinema II) maintain connections with literary modernism? What relationship if any may be forged between theoretical debates in the areas of literary and film studies as these have been influenced by engagement with Deleuze’s work on cinema? The first obstacle to any successful negotiation of these questions lies in the absence in the books of any reference to the category of modernism – a fact which is after all hardly surprising in a French author of Deleuze’s generation. A second consideration is summed up well by Joost Raessens when he argues that “For Deleuze the term ‘modernity’ is not a neutral category. In effect modern cinema is a representation of differential thought which is determined [...] as a fundamental critique of the classic thought of Plato and Hegel.” Scholars often assert that Deleuze’s modernity owes much to Nietzsche, in the shape of the latter’s demand for a new approach to questions of truth and knowledge. Once life is no longer judged in the name of a higher authority such as the good or the true, the stage is set for Nietzschean transvaluation. This is a process which subjects “every being, every action and passion, even every value, in relation to the life which they involve” (TI 141) to evaluation. This normative model of a cinema which has the capacity to carry out a Nietzschean total critique by means other than philosophy presides over The Time-Image in particular. In terms of the trajectory of Deleuze’s thought, total critique is opposed, in Nietzsche and Philosophy and Difference and Repetition, to Kantian critique as well as to Hegelian sublation. The thinking images of modern cinema, more specifically of its preeminent auteurs in Deleuze’s pantheon such as Welles, Resnais, Godard, and others, can effectuate this new image of thought. Thus is rendered tangible Deleuze’s claim that films think, that cinema thinks. Thus are linked a modernism of cinema and a project which dates back to Difference and Repetition, namely the challenge to a certain image of thought. In this challenge the allies include the two philosophers who dominate the film books – Bergson and Nietzsche. This chapter assumes the position that it is impossible to consider Deleuze’s modernism as being in any way other than intrinsically linked to his overall philosophical system and therefore that it is only in this context that connections with literary modernism can be explored.

This essay argues that the representation of pain in Beckett’s writing exposes the paradox in his work concerning the relationship of the individual suffering subject and the community. Making reference to studies of pain and literature generally and to salient studies of Beckett, the essay shows how the narration of pain in Beckett’s prose works in particular is closely linked to its more general interrogation of subject-object relations. As the preeminent agent, source as well as repository of pain, writing in Beckett itself comes to occupy, in a transpositional manner, the poles of subject, object and work. If ‘pain’ names the subject-object continuum (and thus a community of subject and object), that very conjunction exposes the co-habitants to their own mutual espacement – qua subject and object. The common feeling (of pain, of pains at each of the poles) is countermanded in advance by separation. The conjunction gives rise to a sapping, devastating and agonising attempt to conjure an image (of and as the object), an image which holds out the possibility of the felicity, or at least palliation, offered by community (and the work). The image is, however, both a wounding regime (which impedes utterance) and a generative regime (in that the thwarting of utterance restores the compulsion to continue to attempt to conjure the image through writing). The two components, pain and community, are illustrated with specific reference to Texts for Nothing, through an analysis of which a new conjuncture of the themes of pain, community and the role of the work of art is proposed.

While positioning and contextualising the short story 'Green Tea' by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu (1814-73) in relation to existing Le Fanu scholarship, this article seeks to explore further the textual reflexivity for which it is renowned. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of regimes in the audio and the visual, in particular, through an attention to the interrelationship of the scopic, auditory and textual regimes of ‘Green Tea’, and to the manner in which writing is explicitly figured as both the source of disjunction and the site of interpenetration of the regimes, it is suggested, in conclusion, that a specific understanding of allegory (in a semantic register drawing on work by Walter Benjamin and Paul de Man) can provide a fresh perspective on ‘Green Tea’ as an archive of the regimes of language and light of its time.

This essay argues that the representation of pain in Beckett’s writing exposes the paradox in his work concerning the relationship of the individual suffering subject and the community. Making reference to studies of pain and literature generally and to salient studies of Beckett, the essay shows how the narration of pain in Beckett’s prose works in particular is closely linked to its more general interrogation of subject-object relations. As the preeminent agent, source as well as repository of pain, writing in Beckett itself comes to occupy, in a transpositional manner, the poles of subject, object and work. If ‘pain’ names the subject-object continuum, that very conjunction exposes the co-habitants to their own mutual espacement – qua subject and object. The common feeling is countermanded in advance by separation. The conjunction gives rise to a sapping, devastating and agonising attempt to conjure an image, an image which holds out the possibility of the felicity, or at least palliation, offered by community. The image is, however, both a wounding regime and a generative regime. The two components, pain and community, are illustrated with specific reference to Texts for Nothing, through an analysis of which a new conjuncture of the themes of pain, community and the role of the work of art is proposed.

Deleuze never wrote the book on literature he claimed, in the filmed interviews _L’abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze_, he wanted to write. The closest he came was the volume of essays _Critique et clinique_. This chapter sets out to consider the volume in the light of schizoanalysis. The final solo-authored volume addresses the domain professionally inhabited by Guattari – the clinic. If schizoanalysis as a concept can be traced primarily to Guattari’s influence, is _Critique et clinique_ compatible with the earlier outlines of a potential schizoanalysis in _Anti-Oedipus_? What of the relationship between the pre-Guattari _Logic of Sense_ and the post-Guattari _Critique et clinique_? Are either or both of them schizoanalytic? In its investigation of complex series of articulations of the relationship between the schizoanalytical and the critical and clinical project the chapter seeks to explore possible answers to the question: ‘is _Critique et clinique_ schizoanalytic?’