Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
University of Wisconsin Press and The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Contemporary Literature.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AN INTERVIEW
WITH
ALAIN
ROBBE-GRILLET
LITERATURE
X
xvI,
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
that it is the viewers who make the painting. I think that is true of a
painting by Marcel Duchamp or of later painting, American pop art,
for example. The spectator before the canvas creates the painting. The
canvas is nothing without that presence. On the other hand, it's easy
to see the art of the last century as a closed universe which has no need
for the spectator, or the reader in the case of the novel.
One could say that the reader of one of my novels or the spectator
at one of my films is not really in front of but within. The work does
not exist except through his presence. That is, unless there is someone
within it who can reproduce the creative process. The relationship
between author, work, and public is no longer the relationshipbetween
someone who creates a finished work and another who receives it. We
now have a work which can exist only in a creative motion, which has
its primaryexistence when the author writes or makes a film and exists
a second time when the reader, the spectator, or in music the listener,
is again within the work as if he were himself creating it. That is something we often have trouble getting the public to admit. The public is
lazy and particularlythe novel-reading public which likes to find itself
before a work which does not imply its active presence and participation. But you can't enjoy a modern work if you don't enter into it.
Q. You speak of a shift in aesthetic attitude and we all make a good
deal of that change. Would you date the shift from Flaubert, from
Mallarme, from Lautreamont ... ?
A. Usually, when speaking of the novel we date it from Flaubert.
That is, we have the impression that between Flaubert and Balzac
something occurred, that Flaubert was the first novelist who asked
himself the capital question, "Why and for what do I write? What is
the power that I exploit? Who is speaking in my books?" etc. It is
almost as though Flaubert was the first to realize that writing is not
innocent, that it is an activity in which both writer and public are fully
engaged, not only by virtue of the anecdotal content but also by virtue
of the manner in which it is written.
Q.
CONTEMPORARY
LITERATURE
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the other hand, seems to have realized that nothing is natural, that
there is nothing natural in the act of writing (I'exercise de l'criture)
just as there is nothing natural in the use of any power. And the sociologists immediately compared this with what was happening to, for
example, political morality. The middle class incarnated by Balzac
really felt that the bourgeois order was the natural one, therefore right
and eternal. It appears that after, say, the revolution of '48, the idea
was suddenly born even in the bourgeoisie itself that the use of power
was not at all natural, that there was nothing natural about the workings of the established order. And, in fact, after 1850, there was a
parallel degeneration of bourgeois political order and narrative order.
It amounted to a declaration of liberty.
Q. Would it be possible to push those limits back a bit? When I read,
for example, your last two books (Maison de rendez-vous and Project
for a Revolution in New York), I think even of seventeenth-century
novels, novels by Furetiere, Sorel, Scaron and the rather complicated
games those authors play.
A. Yes, you know one could say that modern art has appeared very
revolutionaryin relation to what we could call bourgeois art. I am not
giving this term any precise political sense because these middle-class
values and this sense of order are as current in Moscow as they are in
New York and even in Havana. In fact, this middle-class order shaped
itself slowly and had a century of predominance, the end of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth . . . and also the end of the
nineteenth, if we think of writers like Zola. But if we take the art which
preceded that period, that is, even some authors you haven't mentioned, the great writers of the baroque period, for example, we do
find a view of ecriture and the nature of art which is much closer to the
the one we hold today. Even though the bourgeois values finally
triumphed, they were not really in effect during the earlier epoch.
Q. I'd like to return to something you said before. You mentioned
pop art. Is there any relationship between pop art and what you are
doing?
A. Yes, there probably are some connections, since on the one hand
I personally feel their presence, and on the other hand the great American pop artists also feel it. You know, I had a very strange experience.
Last year I spent six months in New York because I was teaching fulltime at New York University. During that period, one thing struck me,
ROBBE-GRILLET
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
275
Q.
Ah, Raymond Roussel! I have one of his books here, the last one
CONTEMPORARY
LITERATURE
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to come out, Epaves. I'm reading it right now. And you see, when a
contemporaryFrench writer like me spends time in New York, he feels
very close to the painters and close also to what is happening in
theater. The New York theater is very lively, more so than the French
theater. The painting milieu also, even though there have been signs
of life here lately, slight signs, and American inspired. French painting
today is strongly influenced by American painting. So, when I am in
New York, I see a lot of art shows, visit galleries and artists' studios.
I see a great many plays, not Broadway, of course, not even offBroadway, but off-off-off. But, as for literary circles, I find more life
in Paris.
Q. Which Parisian writers interest you now? After all, the nouveau
roman is already twenty years old.
A. Yes, the nouveau roman is twenty years old, but it can't date,
since, for me, the nouveau roman is perpetually changing. If you read
the latest book by Claude Simon, Triptyque, or Le Corps conducteur
which preceded it, you'll find them extremely different from what
appeared twenty years ago. In the same way, if you read Project for
a Revolution in New York, you find it very different from Jealousy. I
feel that all of the writers of the nouveau roman have evolved. And
there are some to whom I still feel very close and whose evolution
interestsme very much, particularlySimon and Pinget.
Q. But apart from that, there are certainly other movements. What
about the Tel Quel group?
A. The Tel Quel movement is very hard for me to discuss because,
first of all, I was once very close to it. I was its father, if you wish. They
say as much in the first collective volume they've published, Theorie
d'ensemble. Of course, in the paternal role, my relationship with them
has been "oedipal," especially with Sollers, who had trouble liquidating his.... But what they say about me I can't take very seriously. The
Tel Quel movement is extremely hard to define because it has always
been in flux. It hasn't shown the sort of revolutionary evolution we
find in the work of Simon. It keeps shifting its ground and often for
very personal reasons. The latest transformationsof Tel Quel vis a vis
the French Communist Party are completely mad. For three years
Sollers swore only by the Communist Party and you couldn't say a
ROBBE-GRILLET
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
277
word against the Party without having Sollers accuse you of the worst
crimes. And then suddenly, in a fit of pique, he drags the Party in the
mud. He says that it was never worth anything anyway. Oh well, there
are far too many curious little events for us to be able to speak of a
Tel Quel movement. Quite apart from all that, there are many members of the group besides Sollers himself who are writers.
Q.
There was Jean Pierre Faye, but he's with Change now.
A. He was one of them, yes. There is Denis Roche, very much on the
fringe of the movement.
Q.
A. But Maurice Roche dates back to way before the Tel Quel movement.' He was writing much earlier. He was a friend of Henri Pichette
and he was also a musician. He's not at all a creation of Tel Quel. I
think there are no fundamental differences in our preoccupations and
aims, and besides, I find Sollers grouped more and more with the
nouveau roman by academic critics and even by Jean Ricardou.2
Q.
A. Yes. He tried it once, but I can't see the point. Really, we have
the same enemies. So what's accomplished by this sort of in-fighting?
I don't find it very interesting. I just noticed a list of books on the
nouveau roman in the PMLA bibliography. Sollers is always included
in the nouveau roman. After all, where else would you put him? The
Tel Quelists don't exist as a category since they are always changing
camp.
Q. You know, I think, and Ricardou seems to agree, that there is
another lineage. That is, they have other forebears. Perhaps we should
group them in terms of their roots.
A. Yes, if we ignore our little squabbles, all the nouveau romanciers
show an abiding interest in the problems of fiction, in what we could
call novelistic forms and their evolution. On the other hand, when
Sollers places himself among the descendants of Antonin Artaud, we
have a very different thing, and, in fact, an important difference.
1 Actually, Roche began publishing fiction under the auspices of Tel Quel
in 1966.
2 See Ricardou, Problemes du noveau roman and Pour une theorie du
noveau roman.
278
CONTEMPORARY
LITERATURE
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
279
Surrealistic,yes....
Q.
And the erotic element. The erotic begins with The Voyeur.
A. It's already there, yes. And it's the heroine of The Voyeur who
appears, only with a much bigger role to play, in the Project. She's a
little girl, still pre-adolescent. She belongs to a race we call Lolitas.
Q. Yes, and she reminds me also of Zola's heroine Catherine in
Germinale.
A. Of course, but there are a number of literary heroines who resemble the little girl in my books. There is certainly the Lolita of Nabokov
and also Lewis Caroll's Alice. There are, by the way, allusions to Alice
in the text. Then we have Sade's Justine, a very strange little girl, and
why not also Raymond Queneau's Zazie?
Q.
Yes, and it's also the opening line of the traditional clown when
1
CONTEMPORARY
LITERATURE
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
later books, Feerie pour une autre fois, three-fourths of which con-
Q.
A. No, I don't think so. I think that there has been an evolution in
the novel and that that evolution is quite naturally reflected in the
cinema. For me these are two very different mediums [materiaux].
What is remarkable is that thematic aspect. You know I really enjoy
not so much adapting my novels to the film as employing identical
thematic materials in both, like, for example, the tortured mannequin
we were speaking of earlier, or a broken glass, or blood. These are
really ...
Q.
A.
Yes.
Q.
cinema.
A. Ah yes, there is an attempt to destructure [destructurer],to subvert the narrative, an attempt at deconstructing as they say now.
Q.
A.
ROBBE-GRILLET
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
281
Q.
A. Yes, but I don't call that literary! Those are cinematic textures.
You know they claim that our experimental cinema [cinema de
recherche] is a literary cinema. It's as though there were a norm, a
naturalnessabout certain types of narrative, but I don't believe that is
so. For me the most literarycinema is the cinema of Truffaut, Chabrol,
the novelistic cinema which in fact reproduces literary forms of the
last century. That, for me, is literary cinema. On the other hand, the
cinema which manipulates the cinematic textual materials is really
cinema.
LITERATURE
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A.
Q. But while Kafka never visited America, Celine and you have both
spent time there.
A. Yes, and it was all the more important that I knew things are not
like that. You know, oddly enough, I've received letters from American readers, men, and particularly women, living in New York, who
tell me, "Really, it's extraordinary how you manage to describe the
anguish of this city. I live with that anguish and now each time I pass
the window over the fire escape, I check to see if it's really fastened
shut, etc." You see, they have lived the book totally in terms of the
realist illusion without being disturbed by the accumulation of details
that are completely, historically, false.
Q.
A.
Q.
A. Yes, but why? Simply because it's the horrible projection of our
city of the future.
Q. In your latest books I notice an increasing tendency to include
personages from the earlier books. The effect is rather Balzacian, but
it is oblique Balzac.
A.
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
283
CONTEMPORARY
LITERATURE
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A. There are plenty of things which were not evident in the beginning. For example, they have finally realized that there is a good deal
of humor in my books. But in the beginning nobody noticed it, with
the possible exception of Beckett. One sees more humor now, but it
was there from the start. There were things in Jealousy which made
me laugh heartily but which amused no one else.
Q.
A. Ah, that's very difficult since it concerns the text itself. At times,
for example, textual impossibilities which can go almost unnoticed
but which are for me particularlyfunny.
Q. I find quite a few instances in Project. That book seems funnier
than the others and so do the fragments you did for David Hamilton.
As I read the passages I kept the photos in mind. They are pastoral
in mood, pictures of soft young girls in misty settings. But the texts
poke perverse fun at all that. They are jokes.
A.
Yes, and Hamilton, who has a sense of humor too, liked that.
ROBBE-GRILLET
This content downloaded from 109.121.63.134 on Wed, 13 May 2015 03:01:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
285