Gilbert Arias
Coli 221: Graduate School & Job Applications: Style & Praxis
Rowan G. Tepper
June 4, 2010
Response
Through out reading My Instant Death/Demeure by Maurice Blanchot & Jacques Derrida, I was a little confused at first on what was going on. Although, as I kept reading, it began to get clearer of what points Derrida trying to makes. One point that I found interesting was the section about Fiction and Testimony. For Blanchot’s piece to be considered an Autobiography, it became questionable with it being tested with testimony. For example, how “I” speaks for itself, recounts for itself or confess itself to another, as Derrida stated on pg. 43. He begins to elaborate on Blanchot’s piece on having aspects of fiction through autobiographic methods and the words he uses to describe his claim death. Derrida breaks down the testimony aspect as he states on pg. 45, through being a survivor, the witness and the experiencer of the severe incident. With these two methods, I can understand why Derrida questions the story because it made me more confused about whether this incident actually occurred to him or someone else or not.
Derrida argues how it can be considered autobiographical because he speaks in first person, and keeps repeating “my death” and with “I”. I can see why he agrees on questioning how it can be considered an autobiography. The fiction comes through questioning how can someone experience his or her own death because death means “end” and or not capable and impossible to be living. But Derrida brings up instead shouldn’t it be considered a survivor? I feel this issue occurs with a lot of autobiographies that are put out. No one knows if some one is telling the truth within in every word of his or her book or maybe exaggerating it, to make it sound more appealing to the audience. From past autobiographies I read, situations and experiences have felt a little over dramatic to convey and add substance to the reading. Though it is still questionable to myself how can someone who has said they experienced their own death, but I understand with experiencing it and witnessing it can be a testimony if you have decided to share it with the world.
Good point about the autobiographies, and I completely agree. Authors are probably very likely to make certain things sound more dramatic to appeal to the reader more.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the comment about the autobiography. I actually think that your comment about how people exaggerate is the key to understanding this particular piece of work. Usually the exaggerations we read seem somewhat plausible and we convince ourselves that it is believable, particularly when we are reading non-fiction. However, it seems like Blanchot takes this exaggeration to another level. The fact that writing about experiencing your own death seems completely implausible forces us to recognize that there is some truth and some fiction in this narrative- this is something that is perhaps true in all literary works, but we don't realize it, because the fiction is easily veiled by the truth or vice versa. As indicated in the text, it is also very possible that the death experience is a metaphor of sorts, one where the alternative meaning is not quite clear. Overall I agree with your comments- also, I'm glad that I was not the only one who was initially confused when reading Blanchot.
ReplyDelete