The Character of "Character"

The Character of "Character" Author(s): Hlne Cixous and Keith Cohen Source: New Literary History, Vol. 5, No.
2, Changing Views of Character (Winter, 1974), pp. 383-402 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/468401 . Accessed: 28/02/2014 19:02
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 support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New Literary History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:02:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Characterof "Character" Cixous H6lene I. Introduction

HAT EXACTLY is "character"?How is itpossible at present to thinkof the "concept" of "character"-if it is a conhow far cept? Assumingthat this concept has a history, are we along now in thishistory of this or in the examination history? What does "character" name? These questionsare, on the one hand, involved in a whole systemof critical presuppositions and crop up from traditionaldiscussionsabout literature, within a conceptionof creationthatis today outmoded. But, on the otherhand, these literary same questions, havingcroppedup out of a disintegrating allow, system, through displacement,for the emergenceof new, prying questions opening out onto the unknownof a text ratherthan its recognizable development;ontolife,theincessant agitationofliterary practicerather than its theses and its stability;onto its indescribable,unidentifiable aspects rather than its rules and means of being classified. To be more precise,it is withthe removalof the questionof "character" that the questionof the nature of fiction comes to the fore,' as well as the examinationof subjectivity--through in fiction, and as fiction: fiction, where the term "fiction" should not be taken simply (in the sense of borne in mind) as part of a pair of opposities, which would make it the contrary of "reality." Here, rather,it would appear that subworked over by fiction, because of jectivityas realityis continuously severalfactors: the surplusrealityproduced by the indomitabledesire in the text; that which, beginningwith the subject, tears itselfaway, desire,fromwhat alreadyexists(le de~ij-ld),fromthe donnie, through to project itselfout into what does not yet exist (le non-encore-l&), into the unheard-of;and the imaginary, secretedby a subjectivity that has always been disturbed, changeable,literally populated with a mass of "Egos." I As I began to suggest in my essay on "La Fiction et ses fantbmes" (Poitique, io) and elaborate in Les Prenoms de personne (Seuil, Coll. Poetique, 1974). The present remarksgo along with the basic ideas of the latter work.
384
NEW LITERARY HISTORY
I take the imaginaryhere in the Lacanian sense, coupled with the or the order of symbolic(i.e., with the concatenationof the signifier, discourse). The imaginaryis the material of the symbolic,which it enters into and supports. It is subordinate to the symbolic. The imaginaryis the category of identifications.Any relation between one thing and anotheris part of the imaginary. (In this sense, the notion of "character" necessarily goes back to a theoryof the imaginary.) The "Ego" is the location of the Subject's identifications, primaryand secondary. As an "imaginarynature,"the "Ego" is a function of unawarenessthat makes knowledgeand ideologypossible. It is on the basis of the imaginaryand by means of its restriction that "characterization"is produced; and "characterization"conducts the game ofideology. In fact,the "socialization" of the subject, its insertion in the social can be the promachine, accomplishedonlyat the price of controlling duction of the imaginary,by repressing the production of the unconsciousthatposes a threat to established withthe Ego relegated order, to its "civil" place in the social system. A "character" is always in store for the subject along the chain where everything is coded in advance. "Character" and I.D. card go togetherin this restricting processof which literary interpretation (by means of the encodingthe laying of the wires for a current-that it effects)becomes the reinforcement and reflection.Now, if "I"-true subject, subject of the unconscious-am what I can be, "I" am always on the run. It is precisely this open, unpredictable, piercingpart of the subject, this infinite to that the rise potentionl up, "concept" of "character" excludes in advance. Under the reignof this "concept," the mass of Egos would be reducedto the absolutemonarchthat "character"wants to be . . . that is, if the unconsciouscould be canceled out. Actually, if "character" is the productof a repression of subjectivity, and if the of scenes done under of is the masterdom,of handling literary aegis the conscious,which conventionalizes, evaluates, and codes so as to conformto set types, according to cultural demand, then the imperishabletextcan be recognizedby its abilityto evade the prevailing meaning-and at establishingmastery, attemptsat reappropriating with which the myth (for it is a myth) of "character" collaborates insofaras it is a sign,a cog in the literary machinery. If "character" has a sense, then it is as a Figure that can be used in semiotics: the "personage" functions as a social sign,in relationto other signs, within a text which, if it admits of the existence of Such "character," necessarily goes back to pure representationalism. a textis governedby a codingprocessthat assuresits communicability;
THE CHARACTER OF ccCHARACTER")
385
circuitwith the through"character" is establishedthe identification the norms,the betterthe reader reader: the more "character" fulfills recognizesit and recognizeshimself. The commerce establishedbetween book and reader is thus facilitated. A community consignsits comfortsand its goods to this mirror relation. Literaturethereby formof literature, assumesvalue as a marketable form.The marketable we mightsay, is closelyrelated to that familiar,decipherablehuman sign that "character" claims to be: in the "concept" of "character" the allurements are all asserted,forming mutual leagues and legacies in orderto make up a certainliterary scene: this "concept" organizes to the perceptionof the reader who can "recognition";it is offered take account of it; it is given as explicable; it patronizesmeaning.2 of the author Porte-paroleof sense,it is bound up with the authority and expresses his messages. It leads one, finally, to assume a "depth," a truth thatis hiddenbut discoverable.In fact,"character"is the servant of a certainorderthat parades itselfacrossthe theaterof writing. a "character,"preconceivedor created by an author, By definition, read: he is presented, offered is to be figuredout, understood, up to a seeks the traditional of that with reading prospect interpretation, with such and at the level of a potentialidentification its satisfaction into commercewith the book such a "personage,"the reader entering of on conditionthat he be assured gettingpaid back, that is, recomfromhimsimilarto or different pensedby anotherwho is sufficiently such that the reader is upheld, by comparisonor in combinationwith that he wishes to have of himself. a personage,in the representation a set of externals. He In this system,the "character" represents and exterior to the text: he has referents (real causes that are anterior could be the portraitof a real person) to which he alludes, while he so as to preserve themin the book. He is therefixeshis essentialtraits of sense and of the "true," at fore the guarantorof the transmission once porte-parole,emissary,and idol, indubitablyhuman, at least and homogeneous. partiallyuniversalizable, of "character" is that of this fetishization The ideologyunderlying an "I" who is a whole subject (that of the "character" as well as that "I" expresses of the author), conscious, knowable; and the enunciatory is as the world in the text,just represented himself complementarily as a simuin the textin a formequivalentto pictorialrepresentation, lacrum. This is all accomplished in the name of some reality principle
2 "Vouloir-dire" as a substantivehas attained a pejorative connotation,especially in contemporaryFrench criticism,insofar as it implies a certain logocentrismof the author.
386
("Life," "truth,""biography,""sense") to which the textis subordinated. It is a subjugationenunciatedfromthe outsetby the semantic to of the word character: coming fromthe Greek kharattein, history the mark,the drawn, written, engrave,it is first preservedsign; then the title,natural or legal, which confers a rank,a right.... A mark, then,by which the "character" is assured to be that which has been characterized and refers It includesin its back to thestamp,to theorigin. lexical evolution-that part connectedwith expression("he's a person of 'character'"), with description-the art of the portrait;with the one person mark,it is that which morallydifferentiates distinguishing fromanother. Figuratively, it is designedmore and more to function as an active elementin the process of social coding-to the point of of conformity, the verymark of becoming an "account," a certificate the intervention of the censor ("detailed reportof a person'squality, good repute"). Finally,it goes offto appear on the dramaticstage, which is none other than the representation of a "real" that is itself a stage: the personageis thus,in the final analysis,the role of roles. Punctuation mark, graphic character, print type, the trait that dominates the natureof character thatof beingthe "specific is precisely nature" of a thing; it is the instrument and the essence of what pertains, what belongs. "That's him all right! That's me all right!" a specular operationthat consistsof the people say, as theyperform Ego's (re) appropriationof itself. And what can be said of its Frenchequivalent,"le personnage"? A sketchof its lexical history provesstillmore illuminating: "person" is first a mask used by the Etruscanactor. From here we pass metonymically to the role played-in the theateror in life. The earliestusage adopted by the Frenchlanguage is that of "ecclesiastic person" (cf. the The is not a personnage English parson). simply person: he is a a man or He serves woman, he personifies. notable; fictitious person, the function of ... being. It is thisrepresentational function by which the truesubjectcan be but draggeddown or banned by the civil powers that be. As soon as we say "character,"or personnage, we are in the theater,but a theaterthat offersno exit, that takes in everything, fora nonrepresentational itself thatsubstitutes reality. "Character" occupies a privileged positionin the novel or the play: without"character,"passive or active,no text. He is the major agent of thework,at the centerof a stagethatis commandedby his presence, his story, his interest.Upon his "life" depends the life of the text-so distheysay. This is why he should not be too mortal. It is therefore turbing to many that, at the present time, he has disappeared. Haven't theyannounced once again "the death of the hero" (another
THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER"
387
death of God, in short)--a death generally experiencedby the reader as a murder,a loss, on which followsthe reader'squick withdrawalof since he sees nothingmore to be done with a textthat his investment, has no one in it? No one to talk to, to recognize,to identify with. The reader is loath to ventureinto a place where thereis no mirror, to go forth, so to speak,onto groundthatis stillvirginand perhapseven nonhuman,3even if this ground is in fact the systemof roots that constitutes language ratherthan the visible,delimited,framed,comfortingstage. Is the "hero" or "character," the captor of the dead? No, he is just broughtout of his blindingignorance; imaginary, he is unmasked: which does not mean revealed! But rather denounced, returnedto his realityas simulacrum,broughtback to the of his subjectivity, mask as mask. He is givenup thento the complexity to to his off-center his to his multiplicity, escapade: permanent position, attainsthe selfonly likethe author,he disappearsonlyto be multiplied, into a trans-subjective to be, in the same instant, differentiated effervescence. remainunSo long as the questionsof subject,of its subjectification, asked,we willbe trapped. it implies So long as we do not put aside "character"and everything in termsof illusion and complicitywith classical reasoning and the economythat such reasoningsupports,we will remain appropriating locked up in the treadmillof reproduction. We will find ourselves, in the syndrome of role-playing.So long as we take to automatically, of a true be the representation subject that which is only a mask, so of the unlong as we ignore the fact that the "subject" is an effect is consciousand that it neverstopsproducingthe unconscious--which of will remain the we prisoners unanalyzable, uncharacterizable, monotonousmachinationthat turns every "character" into a marionette. "I" must become a "fabulous opera" and not the arena of the known. Understandit the way it is: always more than one, diverse, capable of being all thoseit will at one timebe, a group actingtogether, a collection of singular beings that produce the enunciation. Being the subject can resist severaland insubordinable, subjugation. In texts
3 Nonhuman: because a non-repressedsubject can produce formsof unexpected, unheard of subjectivity,which then throws off the identificationprocess; what if I were to become an animal (Kafka), several others (Ulysses), a scrap (Beckett), a set of animal, mythic, fantasized productions (Neutre by Hel6ne Cixous) ?
388
that evade the standardcodes, the "personage" is, in fact,Nobody*-he is that which escapes and leads somewhereelse. How could he carryme away otherwise? If he repeated me, how could he surprise me, ravish me? Fortunately,even when Nobody is dubbed with names of "characters,"when Nobody is alive, thereis still a part of that remains unassigned,on which the code has no his subjectivity hold, which disorganizesthe discourse, and which produces itself but inventiveand (it is not produced or reproducedor reproductive, In I am or exclusivity not this, formative). saying referring by priority to any particular modernistliteraturethat has had the benefitof insights. psychoanalytic The problemof the subject and its relationto fiction, and in general of the whole problematic of a text complex subjects ("person," groupwriting),all the instancesof production-all subject,reader,scriptor, and continually thisis new only in its systematic developingformulation since the advent of psychoanalysis a certain by antipsychoanalysis and a certainphilosophy of fiction.4But here the immediatequestion is that of subjectivity insofaras it continually givesriseto modifications of any structure and re-examinations that agitates a certain number of "pre-Freudian" texts,never submittedto traditionalcriticism, uncodifiableby means of "character." These textsbaffle everyattempt at summarizationof meaning and limiting,repressive interpretation. here in the exploded multiplicity The subject flounders of its states, the homogeneity of the ego of unawareness,spreadingout shattering in everypossible direction,into every possible contradiction, transeFrom this eccentric flow all the off-center, goistically. subjectivity questions-beginningwith "What will I have to do withit?" and "Who is us: "Who am I when I am you, you, or speaking?"-that interest far from and also "If I can be all my and him, myself?" pretty away I be?" And couldn't like who if, others, Nietzsche,I can say: "I then how can I not questionthe value am all the names in history," of the proper Name, the value of History,and that of the subject's in its periplumthroughits personalindividualities?By means history of which criticaldiscoursewill I be able to grasp that which "character" can neithercover nor contain nor designate? and yet, who name and who becomes? bears a first How would it be possibleto study"character" in Virginia Woolf's
* I have translated personne throughout as "nobody," though this should be understood in its ambiguityof "a person"/"no person" (translator'snote). 4 I am thinking in particular here of the beautiful "antianalyses" by Gilles Deleuze reading Lewis Carroll, or Klossowski, or Artaud, in termsof the movement of their intensities (see Logique du Sens, and Deleuze and Guattari, L'AntiOedipe).
THE CHARACTER OF ccCHARACTER"
389
The Waves when the vacillationof subjectivity between"nobody" and all the possible individualities the text by provokingit? discomposes What is a "character"in a Joyceantext? Or in a textby HenryJames? or by Shakespeare? How is one to describe,circumscribe thissubjectthat and ruins social and affective econplus-one explodes structures can connectNobody. This subjectis any otheromy? No designation and also all those that precede it and those it anticipates. It is no accident that Nobody was at a crucial momentthe name of Ulysses and that fromUlyssesflowsJoyce'sUlysseswith his thousandsof individualities. And the point here is not to use, by contagion, new criticalconceptsthat happen to be "alamode." Literature has been at work for a long time on this subversion that has now become its pride. In pre-Marxistand pre-Freudiantimes, of psychoanalysis beforethe joint efforts and linguistics, of antiidealism, radicalize the is now to that dismantling began process taking place what was happening in literature?The same activelyand massively, channels: it forms,throughdifferent strugglewent on, in different took place perhaps more violently because it was more hopeless,with and more offensive. textlaid bare, less subversive, forthe German Romantics, There were the same bastionsto destroy for example, as for us: logocentrism, idealism, theologism,all the the of of scaffolding political and subjective economy, props society, the pillarsof property.The machine of repression has always had the same accomplices;homogenizing, reasonhas always reductive, unifying allied itselfto the Master, to the single, stable, socializable subject, by its typesor characters: and it is there,at the base, that represented has already struck-where the thesesand conceptsof Order literature were imposed-by denouncingthem at the level of the signified. Long ago Georges Bataille and James Joyce,Hoffmannand Kleist took to task the idealismof Hegel and the confining "dialecvirulently tic" of Recognition. Poets of Subversion,deposers of conservative of yokesand of shackles, breakers narcissism, theytear away the subject fromsubjugation,rip up personal possession,*dismemberthe marionette, cut the strings,distortthe mirrors. Early on Hoffmann set free the complicated intoxicationof knowingthat "I" is more than of subjectivity, he set out, as I wishto show by way of one. As an artist to the not make subject disappear, but to bring it back to example,
* I translate propre as "personal possession" in this context, though the word has a great many other connotations in French, such as "one's own (self)," "characteristicfeature," and an etymologicaltrajectorythat goes from the "close," or "intimate" to "that which is appropriated, or taken away" by way of the notion of property (propridtd) and family (not given) name (nom propre) (translator'snote).
390
its divisibility. To attackthehome (le chez-soi) and consciousexistence of the centerand the partitions of (le pour-soi), to show the fragility the ego, is to hinder the complicityof the Ego as a masterful and masterable"character"by exercising by reducingthe human authority, and by advocating property in all its forms. being to role-playing, dismantles When Hoffmann the Great Proprietor (le GrandPropre), the one called Someone, he is calling on the infinite Nobody to speak.
oftheArtist II. Portrait as Artists

There existsa seriesof admirabletexts,a sortof fantastical musical notebook,that gatherstogether(under the title here of Kreisleriana, but it mightas well be entitledHoffmannia,or whateveryou wish) diverse thoughts,dispersed portraits,disconnectedpeople, thoughtthat are similarin that theyall proceed froma marvelouslifepersons, source,which is indicated at timesby the name of Kreisler,at times by the name of Hoffmannor of Wallborn-and of many others,and whose infinite variationsare carried along by a flux of reflections on and This life-source itself a source is human) composition. (musical and of musical notation, of writing and the musicalsourceis the source of life. A fabulous continuity enlivensthis opera of fluids,in such a way that space, time,body, relationsamong all thingsand all beings, are reintegrated; substances,individuals,sensations,localizations are in and vast movementof unfettered this centersand periliberated, is there continuous materialization a and dissolution of paspheries sionate encounters,recognitions, of personifications-concerts singularitiesthatgive riseto themodulatedmelodyof a name, of crystallized of events,which concertto make a "story"woven together moments, of snapshots;and thesebottomless, limitless spaces, thesebeginningless theseleaps and bounds,are permeated times, by a fewbeingsof unclear gender, human or musical or amorous, who recognize one another and deliver resounding messages in an ecstatic exchange of corand enchanting othernesses, identities, respondences, supersubjectivities. is ever held back in his precipitation into the otherwho No preperson withthe conspeaks to him in his name or who makeshim reverberate vulsiveairs of his libido. The materialis personal,multiple,exultant, not masculine or feminineor neuter,but amorous,of lively,musical sex, and uncharacterizable. To attribute this material to anyone would be impossible,as it is taken down only when it occurs to one of the loyal friends, who are similaror identicalto one another. Yet it is not absolutely unlimited;
39I
it doesn't get lost for lack of designation. On the contrary, it takes on-so as to be well liked-a few authors' names, a few instantsof and a few restrictions on breakingloose; thus-we are told signature, the role of author-all thatis gathered by one of thesingularities filling in thisnotebookof folliesis some "very disconnected"reflectogether tions. But the editorof the author-persona-who is himselfan invention of the author-has been entreated by various Kreislerpersonaeto the "very verydisconnected"reflections, which he is burn ruthlessly supposed to do out of love for each and everyone of the individual potentialitiesof choirmasterKreisler. The very very disconnected of themaster, or resonance, as to person,writing, have not potentialities without of for us to feel a trace at every leaving enough disappeared moment their possible presence in the text or in some recollection a multivocal memory. emanatingfrom A self-samesensibility, unstandardized,designatesby name these perfectfriends separable by nothingbut chance and distance. But it is the same sensibility that, passing throughthe dear form of Baron across the bizarre littlebody of another Wallborn, cuts like lightning be named Dr. Schulz of Lordshipwho might,on a nightof gluttony, Rathenow, yes, exactly the same, who, reboundingfrom this witty wittyLordship, nourished Lordship,will galvanize anotherfraternal, and capable of divine violins,flutes, just as much on song, harmony, the exaltation,which, in the person of JohannesKreisler,intercepts waves and harmonicsof all these Excellenciesevokedin such a crazily musical way. For JohannesKreisler,who once carriedmusic shut up and now within him, burst open; the music sprang forthviolently, he's the one who's shut up inside music. His Excellencyis the Baron Wallbornwhom Kreislercarriedin his heart,who no doubt sprangout it. This baron, ofit at thesame timeas music,and who now encompasses heart from the and returns issued there,just as Johannes' however, comes back to his ears as chords. breathblown throughan instrument And because he is an excellent musician, Kreisler cannot help but recognizethe key in which his Excellencyis played. The way WallDr. Schulz, the born,by a turnof the trebleclef,became momentarily in in of his madthe Schulz was ecstasy, guise forgiven way Kreisler, then the he could become was so him, ness, and the way Schulz way the that inflames his that innermost racked with pain heavenlyimage is set loose fromhis innermost fibers self,and the way he becomes, as the resultof melodies,the good, the gentle,the amiable Wallborn, in and the such a mannerthat his melodyis the speech of his interlocutor melody flaresup in him the moment that the one he wishes to be of the mad-musicianpar breaks into speech; all thesetransformations
392
excellencemake of the Kreislerianaa tumultuous, nearlyunreadable notebook in several-part harmonywhose author varies according to the keyin whichhe is played. Kreisler,whose keypredominates, himself no more than a melody desirous of dissolvinginto heavenly spaces, has an admirerwho is an excellentbeing in everyway but who is sometimes definedas "the enemyof music"; and actually,were he not, as described,incapable of takingpleasurein the art, he would be from the famous choirmaster. Thus, through a indistinguishable in which he is by himself seriesof encounters his own groupusculeor to club, complementing himself, litsening himself, opening himselfto in a storm of in shaken affects, multiple possibilities, by intensities or hears himself, E-major F-major, Kreisler,disconcerting, depersonin the otherwho singularizes alizes himself him, and precedeshimself to thepointoflosinghishearing. But this dance of singularsby Kreisler and others,these prancing are no insignificant in the guise of caprice-from intensities, flourishes; a disorganized chapter-sequenceand plain pretentiousness to incoherenceor insanity-arduous, painstakingresearchis going on which the stylistic extravagancesat once veil and reflect.The object of this researchis the mystery of musical genius,of the originof music. And thisresearch divides the researcher: he is himself a mysterious violently a a "master" of master what -and source, composer, (but discipline?) also the discipledevouredby curiosity, the studentin search of knowledge. Someone in him "knows" what someone else does not. The written in the name of Kreisleris precisely furious"we" frequently this artistinterrogating his art and taking his soul apart to pluck out the secrets of its creation,as if he were morethan one and as if he weren't the masterof his own mastery.Hence his apostrophic, conversational, passionate, ellipticalstyle: the emitterand receiverof the discourse is he himselfdivided by the pangs of a thoughtprocess that must of logic: consciouslogic, followthe incompatiblerulesof two systems that whichharassesthe livingin orderto subjugateit, and unconscious logic, of which the consciouswould like to be masterand analyst. But in the receiverthereis always a thiefof the message,the knowledge, the object that he is supposed to send back to the sender. And it is hopelessfromthe outsetforthe subject to speak to the Other within him in the hope that,by "knockingat the door of the great smithy," will open up. something The comedy of the notebook-mansimply recordsthe humiliation of the Ego discovering that he is not the masterof his house,but who, at the same time, rushesto meet the guestshe doesn't know and-if possible-in orderto become familiarwith them or to win them over,
393
even speaks their language; then his surpriseto discoverthat many in his house than he can reveal more thingsare happeningcontinually to his conscious. At least the subject doesn't slam the door of his house: he is just at timesrather era, unhappy,for,in thispre-Freudian he cannot give up withoutdifficulty his reign over the circle of loyal friends. In a sense, all these fine mastersand companions,barons, enthusiastic young people, formerapes, are Kreisler at one time or existence. Why should theyhold it against anotherduringhis stormy him if, once in a while, he wants to mix his "scrawl" in with their For he expectshis instruction to come in "clean, clear hieroglyphics"? the formof calligraphy. Indeed, as we shall see, the membersof the "poetico-musicalclub" that meets in Kreisler's"house" have a common project that allows them on occasion to sign for one another. It on musical notation. is a philosophicalreflection not to to a sortof synthetic The point is reduce everything Kreisler, of homogeneousphantoms. Kreisler's "you-as-me"figa melting-pot for one anotheron the basis of difthemselves ures,in fact,substitute ferencesasserted all the more readily as, finally,they ensure the Kreislerianaof its movementand rhythm-thatis, its styleof life,and at the same time a whole series of individual leaks that guarantee this set, so oftenshaken by explosions,against complete annihilation. There always remainssomeoneon the surfacewhen all the othershave to whom the last letteris addressed and vanished, a correspondent who takes charge of forwarding it, a "loyal friend"who takes on the A new editionof disconnected reflections. the ever of so duty editing the collectionis alwaysin progress.For the Kreisler"set" is composed of two simultaneous series,admirablyconceivedso that all the excesses he to be, includingall the others, wants are possiblewithof the person where any identifiout drawingout the workto a point of no return, cation processwould become impossible.The fearof absoluteexternalis the flipside of a reckless narcissism.What ity,of the unrecognizable, are thesetwo seriesand how do theyrelateto each other? The Kreisleriana is from the outset divided into two series. The a sort of ramblingjournal kept by choirmaster first seriesconstitutes Kreislerwhichsetsout in bitsand pieces a long discourseat once critical and theoreticalon music and the followingrelated subjects: that music, which is a divine art, should be reservedfor the initiatedand in society;that the secretof music is beyond manitself not prostitute kind: and yet doesn't music residein the veryheart of man? Doesn't it residein the veryheart of man? doesn'tit fillhis soul with to music,and so that yieldsitself entirely lovelyimages,so thatthe spirit
394
here on earth a new, transfigured life is ready to tear the spiritaway from theconstraint, from theoverpowering torments of earthly existence? a divine force over man with childlike comes Yes, and, giving way piety to thatwhichthespirit arouses he begins to speakthelanguage within him, of thismysterious kingdom.Like the apprentice readingaloud fromhis master'smagic book, he evokes unwittingly, fromhis very depths,a thousandmarvelousapparitionsthat scud across life,flying in radiant and fillwhomever sees themwithinfinite circles, nostalgia; fromthe depthsof a beingmustbe understood thatwhat springs in the of that and with depths being performed supernaturalintuitiveness; that music is a voice of the heightsor of the depths,but neverof the base and vulgar: music is the most romanticof all arts-it is not useits object is the infinite; it is ful,it makes no "sense," it is gratuitous, the mysterious Sanscritof nature,which is expressedthroughsounds, which fillsman's heart with infinite yearning;theyadd that man can understandonly throughmusic the sublime singingof trees,flowers, and streams! The uselesstrifles of counterpoint, which animals,stones, are of no cheerwhatsoever to the listener and, as a result, departfrom the actual aims of music,are called mysterious and disturbing combinabe comparedto mosses, or flowers all marvelously tionsand might grasses, intertwined. The interweavingof musical structuresdoes not stiflethe sound: is interwoven, Everything arrangedamong the parts of various instruand put together with the mostbeautiful senseof unity. Such is ments, its generalstructure; but withinthis artfully constructed edifice,there in constantflight, is a succession, of marvelous images,the appearance and interpenetration of joy and suffering, sadnessand happiness.Strange apparitionstake up a joyous dance, at first blendinginto one spot of intosparks, thenscattering theninto flashes, one another, light, pursuing in groups ofall forms. one another chasing Pure music (that which is purelymusical) cannot be subordinated to a poetic discourseor to dramatic ends. It ravishes. It cannot be repossessed; it belongs to no one, be he artist (performer)or listener. Its mathematicalproportions, the mysterious rulesof counterpoint, are but a grammar of an enchanted language. "The infinite varietyof musical phrases, from the outset, forbids hazarding here any rule whatsoever;by relying, however,on a vivid imaginationcorrectedby can be given,and I would call them,as a some indications experience, whole, a mystiqueof instruments." From one page to anotherthe famous "master" celebratesthis language (spokenby few: he citesMozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach) and
395
its unique power, which is a fire,a source, an energy, the irresistible record of a mysterious libido: the only trulysovereignproduction. And he opposesit, in everypossiblemanner,ironically to yetfervently, subjugated arts,to the veryones that attemptto subordinateit (as in the operatictext) and defendsit against all processof reduction: it is not an entertainment, it is not an amusement, it is not a background, it is neverminor,secondary, familial,or domestic. The first seriesis a musical composition, a sortof hymnby Kreisler, hostile with to the and painful. The pain uninitiated, moving, respect becomes comprehensible end of an entirelydifferent the when, by second series,we have been throughthis heaven turnedupside down, this infernoof delightsthat makes up the Kreislerset-a set that includes-or is included by-Kreisler's editor (whom we could call Hoffmann). The second seriesis this strangeset of I-as-you figures, numberof men definedpositively or composed of a certainnonfinite negativelyby their relationto music, victimsor idolizersof the art, but all of them,in any case, subject to its power. This seriesof Excellenciesis put together as a signifying chain in relationto the seriesof reflections which then takes on the dimensionof the Signified: the same problematicrelation connectsthe two spaces, but if we follow and jumps of the signifying the meanderings series,we find ourselves of buried in repetitions, tormented abysses passion, dissonances,very succeed zones of exaltastriking changes in tone. Zones of depression or on whether one is near far fromthe realm of the tion, depending on whether one at the remains infinite, edge peeringdown at its depths or is overcome with dizziness. It becomes clear that one question hauntsthesetextsthroughout.The first seriesdescribesin general the of music. This effect is undefinable supernatural effect exceptin terms the of of a mystico-pictorial cause this the secretof effect, analogy: is the inaccessible. "True" music its power,thatwhichis the desirable, in perpetual flight, evoked, repreconstantly appears as the signified sented,written down, noted,but no soonernoted than snatchedaway, always some other. (In a certainway, it is the otherarts,particularly constantly pictorial art, that serve the functionof signifiers referring back, constantly deceptive.) In the second series,the problem is attacked head on, in its most dramatic form: music is just as much a to the composeras to thelistener.It is given,but it is a disturbmystery which possesses and draws along, ing gift,which takes everything, beyond everylimit,the subject who has nonetheless produced it. The himself as much as he likesin an attemptto make mastercan multiply offwiththe secret: not onlywill he neverbe able to, but what is more, toward an inconceivabletruth,he actually adds to the in his efforts
396
densityof the mystery: the more he is numerous and the more he spreadsout to encompassthe object of his desire,the more the mystery goes beyondhim and playsat his expense: the Kreislerset is the instrumentof thismusic. Music, like life,ravishes the subject that produces it. While in the first seriesthe choirmaster appears to be the masterto master-fool in the second. What happens, then, sage, he is shifted fromone seriesto the other? In the first the series,Kreislersets forth contemptuousdiscrepanciesthat exist between the dignityof the art and its dishonorableexploitationby commoners. In the other part, therearises anotherdiscrepancy-the "true" one, the one that at first is the one that breaksthe in vain. This truediscrepancy was repressed relation (that makes a broken relation) between music at its source, mental music, the work as it is heard-or even seen-in the soul of and its actualizationin the formof a written the artist, copy,a notation it to repetition: hereis wherethe idea that,by "repeating"it, consigns is confirmed-so cruelly?thatthe scoring(partition) of musicis thereaftera real partition."This music,this air that seems to bring about communication universal among human beings,betweenhuman beings of nature,and among thenaturalrealmsthemselves-this and all forms in reality,communicatesnothingof its mistressof correspondences, most profoundtruth; it is not communicable. What we hear, these audible readings of scored parts, are nothingbut the remains of a divisionthat has cut music into two unequal halves, into two "languages"; the "individualizedlanguage" and the "universallanguage," but that one thataccompaniesand the otherthat accompaniesnothing, the Himself. the unlike "sacred," Supreme Being creates,that is not In a verybeautifulchapteron "Effectin Music," someonewho rises and remainsanonymous, outsidethe you-as-I above Kreisler'ssuffering in practice between the true points out the difference relationship, in music. The one springs effect and and the artificial effect irresistibly the from and of the of the out spirit depths passes genius' spontaneously soul by way of the soul. The otheris "fabricated," soul to the listener's takfromthe outside,out of technicalexercisesand formalimitations, composers: ing its cue fromthe impresariosor fromsimple-minded the soul, and fallsflat. The neverentering remainsexternal, thiseffect imitationof formnevercreatesspirit: "It is spiritalone that,governas absoreignsin thesemasterpieces ing at will the methodsemployed, that blends lute sovereign." But at the same time,it is this necessity which in realityresultsso often (perwith the essence of musicality, in in tearingapart, cleavage, in a sense of loss: forthat haps always)
5 For Lacan, it is fromhis partition that the subject proceeds to his parturition.
THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER "
397
which is at once infiniteand complete,faultless, in the soul of the creator,is thisway onlyinsofaras the marveloussounds of his interior music go on: but this realm cannot be part of this world; it has no directtie with the natural scene, as does painting,for example; musical sound belongs to a "superiorlanguage": it is speech heard only deep inside man. The musician is someone who grasps everything (colors,smells,light) musically. For the musician, thatis, an intimate feeling sightis an internal hearing, formusicwhich,vibrating in unisonwithhis spirit, producessoundsin of the his eyes perceive. Thus, these sudden inspirations everything forthin him of melodies,could be considered musician,the springing the perception-the unconscious,or rather linguistically inexpressible conception-of the secretmusic of nature,taken to be the principleof lifeor ofevery vitalactivity. The musician hears everything; he is all ears. As composer,he will fix and enclose within writtensigns these nameless affects. Having a privilegedrelationto the unconscious,a singingunconscious,he can learnthe art of "representing" emotions by notes. But what a diminishMusical notation is nothingmore than an "ingenious ing enterprise! of the engraving of "characters,"which "prealignment hieroglyphs," servesonlythe indicationof what we have perceived." The divergence is huge and unparalleled. Verbal lanand signified betweensignifier guage, on the otherhand, does not face this fracture: "There exists such a close alliance betweenthe sound and the word that no thought springsup in us withoutits heiroglyphics."Music, however,speaks to enflamesus, envelopsus; we can understand us, it tellsus everything, no notationcan acit, but we cannot speak it: because it is lifeitself, count for it. What is locked up in the score is nothingmore than a of musicintocommonlanguage,the attenuating transformation record, demanded our the human need for "execution," by simply practically to be alone to hear. "And if the what the refusal mastery, spiritof were in the roused chords initiate, music, by mysterious expressed him Kreisler. The to alone?" unbearable inquiresJohannes intelligible into intelligible statements the chords optionis there: eithertranscribe them to interior the and lose ear, give up interpretation, perceivedby what lies beyond: lose life so as to preserveits trace in the formof notes,or of characters;or, in solitude,listento the song of life; but in fromnonexistence.Never a solitudesuch that it is scarcelydifferent but a simulacrum;or to be but a phantom. Johannes to hear anything since he cannot give one answer,nor choose one of the paths, Kreisler, from one side to the other, tryingto fit them moves continuously
398
he identifies withthe geniuses together.On the side of communication, in such a that he removesthe risk Beethoven, (Mozart, Gliick) way of theirsolitude: he is the ideal listener. He goes so far as to encounterthem at the obscuresite of enunciation: it is in thisway that he can tell us about the inceptionof the overture to Don Juan, whose secretis held by him alone-and Mozart, his otherself. On the side of silence, he divides himselfinto several representatives of the Ego, with whom he is in correspondence as the hypnotist with his medium, the musicianwith nature-music, colorswith sounds: he worksin concert with them,"his strongdetermination being the one questionthat nature (or the other) never leaves unanswered." He inventsaccomplices who can understandhim at the very level of enunciation: We are made such that as soon as one of us speaks,the othercannot hold his tongue .... You knowverywell what I mean . .. but look here, mydear student: when I used the word "we" in the preceding phrases, I feltas thoughI was resorting to the plural simply as an elegantform ofmodesty, I was speaking ofmyas though and,whenusingthesingular, selfalone; it seemsto me that,in thelast analysis, you and I are but one. He who is designated as Kreisler, situatedat thispointin thesequence of variationson the Ego, amidst rapid transformations, is so volatile that whereverhe appears he is at once in a second place and in a second state; what is more,his body jumps around and visibly changes more and more inaccessiblehimself-nearlypostshape; he is, finally, his ardor,his suffering, Kreislerian. It is certainly his desirethat make thesepages resonatewhere he moves about-where he has just passed by. Sometimeson the side of the inaudible,othertimeson the side of enunciation,he is comparable to the musical "mirror"; in a certain way,he approachesthe arthe idolizesby fadingaway: his desire-and what he achieves-is to be no longerthe expression of music,but a puff of air: while I-as-you, in the filiationof his signifying confreres, persistsin listeningto, conveying,pursuing,counseling,hiding the absence, I-as-I runs out of breath and vanishesinto unspeakablythin air....
ofRepresentation: III. A Representation

How to Outcharacterize Character There existsa letterto the Stagehandsthat Hoffmannwrote at the time he was JohannesKreislerand directing the orchestra of the . . of the utmostimportance in that it could be comOpera. It is a letter posed only aftera period of intellectualfastingpromptedby a long
THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER"5
399
series of errors. It is our author's The Gay Science, the sign of his recovery. Firstof all, I am indebted to mystayin ... forbeingcuredof the many errors I had fallenpreyto; thereit was, too, thatI dangerous previously admiration of gave up my puerile people I had once regardedas great intellectual men, geniuses. Besidesan imposedyetverysalutary fasting, the cause of my recovery was the regularuse theyrecommended of that clear, extraordinarily pure water,which,in . . ., and especiallyat the and silently from theatre. . . gushes?. . .no! but which flowsgently numerous sources. For example,I can stillremember witha genuinesenseof shame the respect-what am I saying?-the puerileveneration-I used to feel for the stage-designer of X ... and -setter at the theatre One of the symptoms of Kreisler'ssickness for was a puerileveneration the stagehandsof the theaterof X . . . and an absurb adherenceto theirprinciples, were accordingto which the sets and stage machinery to blend into the text: thus,the stagingthat existedthen was in the serviceof "the theatricalsuperstition of the text and the dictatorship of the writer" (Artaud). One should be careful not to materialize or to actualize the theater,thus conferring upon it the value of a the spectator would be transported far away from spectacle; otherwise the theaterand, withoutrealizingit, end up in the imaginaryland of poetry. These are the preceptsof this doctrineof subservience that Kreisler neverstopped attackingfromthen on: -Resort in everycase to sets,machinery, so as stagingto perfection, to ensurethe mostcompleteillusion. -Comply down to the meanest detail with the poet's intention. of unityunder the author'sdirection. -Preserve the effect -Eliminate everydetail that mightsuggesta connection-by comor by reflection-with reality. parison,by directreference, -Get rid of all trace of labor: paints,canvases,planks,etc.; therefore, distrustall slipshod artisanswho, "instead of conceivingtheir work in line with loftypoetry,have dragged the theaterdown to the rank of a wretchedmagic lantern." Of the threedomainscoveredby the stagehand'sjob, the imaginary, the first is out of bounds; the second is so the real, and the theatrical, far subordinatedto him as to be his repressed matter; as for the last, excluded fromit. The motto of the "perfect"stagehand: he is flatly "No theatreat the opera." In his letterto the Stagehands,our friendKreislerexposes the dia-
400
bolical schemeof the poetsforwhom the stagehandsact, unconsciously or not, as accomplices: it is nothing a shortof an abuse of confidence, hypnotizationof the spectator who responds on demand, like an automaton. The poet behaves with regard to his audience like the leader (as describedby Freud) with regard to a primaryhorde: he deprivesit of the real world and plunges it into a place of violence, where he moves it, tortures it, impassionsit-in short,makes it dance to the tune of his pipe. This great paranoid encounters virtuallyno resistancesince he is assisted by the servant-stagehands. No more no more real. left the What is is and its theater, imaginary magical, of the fantastic, insofar wicked,ephemeralaspects,the paltryofferings as it is alienating: forthe "spectacle" doesn't give the poor, swindled spectatorhis own phantasmsto enjoy. They are the phantasmsof the great poet, with whom the clever conspiracyhas forcedthe spectator to identify. Thus exclaimsour furiouschoirmaster, takingapart the machinery, the paradox by which, in the long run, all the pleasures that the theatercould give are confiscated or retrieved beforehand. Let there be two termsof a representation that operatesin such a way that the two termsdissolveforthe benefit of a thirdtermwhich arriveson the scene like a thief: thisis the paradox of representation stretched to the of can the of How art the be so far refined point absurdity. spectacle thatthestage itself vanishes? By usingthe Chinesebox technique. Not but by appropriating insidethe magic lantern, by placingthe spectator his senses,his sensibility, his consciousness, his mental and emotional apparatus,through"lofty poetry," by means of variousmanipulations; the spectator is to be carriedaway, locked up, and placed undersurveillance in the phantasmal box erectedby the text around its captives. What does Kreislerfindso revolting?On the one hand, it is the reduction of the spectators to a role of marionette with the text pulling the strings; and on the other, the generaldeterioration of places of rapture and of life: in the poetic process,the theater,stretched to the limit,teetersand then disappears. It gets lost in its own perfection, in the excessiveness of its decor. And the real? The real, it is agreed, in "theaters," shouldbe leftoutside. Normally, the real is not however, canceled: it is the repudiatedterm in relationto which the theater definesitself. Without the element of the real, no theatricaleffect. of the stagehandand the poet consists The joint effort in pullingdown real that masksthe theater's"truth"-that over the theatera fictitious the stage-and breaks down the relationship into a is, the machinery, commonplace externality.With one stroke,both the real and the theatricalare annulled. The theaterloses its essentialtheatricality and
THE CHARACTER OF
ccCHARACTER"
401
which is itselfthe true fiction-fiction opens up onto a sham exterior, that would insinuateitselfas the true reality. And the spectator,no longer aware of his seat in the theater,is carried away on invisible for the sake of wings to an immaterialland to which he contributes, his true tears,his real blood, his genuinelaughter,and his allreality, too-realfears: he is the real withina fiction which he giveslifeto and which he cannot perceiveto be a mere box of words. So what's the use of the theater? Since it no longerexists. . do we need theater? do-we always need the seat, the screen,the couch, as We certainly means of passage: the theater of demolishservesprecisely the function that other cumbersome that of It's the real. the means of ing stage, reach We the must the imaginarythrough transportation. metaphor's self-destruction. IV. The Theater at the Theater Kreislerthen proclaimsa manifesto-against magic. Unite against the poet and the musician! Thwart their plans! "Insofar as these individualswill resortto anythingto make the spectatorforgethe is at the theater,you should, on the contrary, by cleverlyarrangingsets and machinery, continuallyremindhim of it." The theatermust be the presentedas a spectacle: so it can bringout its truthand destroy of the labor be manibogus truthof the setting. Let the impeccability festedas such. The theatermustbe theatricalized, the phonymystery to an the and to to controlthe stage end, spectatorurged expose put tricks: the spectatormustbe given the double pleasure of representathatwhich arisesfromthisappendage at two places at once, tionalism, which maintainsthe game value and thus,all at the same time,ousts but alienation,bans all formof possession, seriousness, appropriation, also opens up, between the real and the theatrical,an intermediate scenein whichthe transition and particularly is accomplished delightful fromone termto the otherand where all sortsof eventscannot help takingplace: in thisexchangezone, the action and the representation and a whole take turnsat causing accidents,hybrid, forms, provisional difference between two that the these crystallizes "story" typesof reality in the formof a dust cloud of supplementary effects-a sort of cofor the spectator. Thus, realityor perispectacle-that are pure profit more is given to enjoy: the actor is at once the personage something who does an himself),the artist, (with whom he must tryto identify and the actual person, admirablejob ofidentification, who is threatened by on-the-jobaccidents and who receivesa triple ration of sympathy
402
when a piece of machinery carefully hung improperly by the stagehand threebirdswithone stone. givesway, at the riskof killing unAt the risk,too, of having Kreisler,or some other,capriciously roll this surfacespread out between auditoriumand stage along the real, which continuesto the point of becoming a backstage to itself. The stagehand,then,discoversthe rationalefor his art: not to trick, but to set himself up as the technicianof the passage-according to, forexample,the model of ravishing in glissadeproposedby Hoffmann wherehe does a demonstration his texts, as in the Kreisleriana, ofstylistic figure skatingin the letterto the perfect stagehand. In this case it is a questionof "sowing" seriousness-not of destroying it or of overof off hook but it its and it it, throwing taking leaving behind. For thisdeed, the techniqueof "curiouserand curiouser"mustbe used: an a sort of comparativeof emphasison the real throughaugmentation, to the thingdescribed. It would not be, therefore, internalsuperiority a measurable,quantitativeincrease,but an intensification of being, a sort of accelerationin place. Kreisler'smanifesto, which begins at a withwhich humor measurabledistancefromseriousness-a seriousness never breaks,takes offwith a leap and elaboratesa dynamic of sugwhich carriesoffhumor along a curve,plottedin the manner gestion, of its reverberation of a Moebius strip,to the pointwherethe intensity seems to topple it onto its other side-parody. An excessivespeed and-where are we reading? We are quite incapable of saying,"This is whereseriousness stops"; thisis parody. We are let go of in a space that leaves us freeto interpret."Seriousness"encounters at some point of being overthrown, the possibility its limit,the point at which its of meaningelude all affirmation:that can mean anything effects one to attribute to the authorany definite wishes. It is impossible position. so strongly There is a momentat which it reverberates that, as in the adventuresof Alice, effects precede their causes: firstthe piece of cake is eaten, then it is cut. And in the theater, the stagehandis first heard yelling,"What an uproar! what a racket!" And then he sets his stormgoing. In thisway, signifier precedessignified: the thunder makes us jump, then it thunders. And the text refers us back to its There incertitude. will effects of multiplying alwaysbe extrameaning, for each more-than-one, and for each one space enough for everyone, ofme.
UNIVERSITE DE PARIS
VIII
(Translatedby Keith Cohen, de Paris VIII) UniversitC

The Character of &quot;Character&quot;

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Character of &quot;Character&quot;

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Character of "Character" Author(s): Hlne Cixous and Keith Cohen Source: New Literary History, Vol. 5, No.

The Characterof "Character" Cixous H6lene I. Introduction

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

THE CHARACTER OF ccCHARACTER")

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER"

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

THE CHARACTER OF ccCHARACTER"

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

oftheArtist II. Portrait as Artists

THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER"

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER"

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER"

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER "

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

ofRepresentation: III. A Representation

THE CHARACTER OF "CHARACTER"5

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

(Translatedby Keith Cohen, de Paris VIII) UniversitC

You might also like

The Character of "Character"

The Character of "Character"