Before reading “The Instant of My Death”, I never seriously considered the relationship between literature and experience nor fiction and truth. What allows people to connect to something, such as literature, if literature is a language that does not exist? This means (according to author Jacques Derrida) no human has physically come into contact with language so how can one justify the truth of something no one has ever experienced? Therefore, the relationship between literature and experience becomes very important. Derrida claims, “European literature, for example, is coextensive in time with European culture and therefore embraces a period of some twenty-six centuries.” There are many different literary cultures, thus to understand European literature, in this argument, one would need to spend time in Europe, but without European nationalism. This shows how literature is closely related to experience. Experience allows literature to exist in the identity of an historical event. According to Derrida, Literature can say anything, accept anything, and simulate everything. This permits fiction to become passed off as truth. I thought it was very interesting how Derrida argues, you must find testimony in literature or anything for that matter because tying testimony or proof of existence, to literature automatically links the language to a field of existence.
After reading “Demeure” I returned to “The Instant of My Death” again. After reading it for a second time the story seemed completely new. Derrida explains each part of the story, which gives the fictional excerpt truth. For example, by using specific grammar structure and verbs that verifies connection to reality, such as, “At that instant, in this large house, and the Nazi lieutenant, this gives testimony to fiction. Now the story feels as if it was an actual experience after historical context is established. I thought this book really helped me understand the importance of literature and the use of language. I never thought about so many of the philosophical questions that were brought up. It was a great book to start the class with!
You wrote, "According to Derrida, Literature can say anything, accept anything, and simulate everything. This permits fiction to become passed off as truth." This is a great point. I think it can be added that literature can also stimulate anything. That is why there truly is no fine line between fiction and reality. For the reader the words may "stimulate" many things, and with this a unique connection exists between the author and the reader.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your authentic comment about how it is important not just to know the language, but to also live/experience the culture related to the language, in order to truly understand what is going on in the narrative. Even if we understood French, many of the comments still might not make sense because we don't understand how things worked during that time period in that particular nation.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the concept of experience adds an additional layer of confusion and ambiguity that we, the readers, must break through. Not only must we overcome translation issues, but we must also overcome our lack of experience in the relevant area, and learn how to properly distinguish fact from fiction. This is especially challenging for the reader, but I guess that's what makes such works good- it forces the reader to really think about what they are reading instead of simply accepting what is written on the page.
Thanks Jeremy
ReplyDeleteAnd Apoorva, I could not agree more. I think the best fiction novels are the kind that really force you to relate and connect to the fictional experience. After breaking through translation of the language and connecting to the story then I am able to relate to the experience I am reading. I am not reading just to read and accept, but rather challenging my brain to pick apart the language and engage in the story as if I was a character or bystander in the novel. I totally agree with you.