Introduction to Parallel Dimensions Studies
29
to a postmodem epistolary novel than to an epistemological essay. The manner
in which the “Envois” were conceived is literary enough in itself, for Derrida
informs us in the introduction that they could be read as a “preface to a book I
never wrote” as well as “the remnants of a correspondence that was recently
destroyed” (Carte 7); the places of the missing segments are indicated in the text
by 52 empty spaces “at the precise location of their incineration” (8) and the
number 52 is the result of an extremely complicated calculation of which
Derrida Claims to have no recollection (9). We are therefore confronted to a
purely formal device that does not complement the traditional didactic intent of
a philosophical essay but rather undermines it by injecting literariness into the
text and blurring its supposed intentionality. Of course, one could argue that
Derrida chooses to formally reflect the doubts regarding language and meaning
he expresses in the content, thus creating a semiotic harmony between form and
content, an aesthetic effect generally associated with literature rather than
philosophy. However, once this has been established, there is not much eise to
say, for the “Envois” do not hold textual authority from a narrative point of
view—they are too personal, elliptical and repetitive to generate a coherent
narration—nor at the epistemological level—they are purposely ambiguous and
confusing; perhaps the true meaning of The Postcard is hidden as well in the
silence of the “incinerated” 52 signs, as the impossible poem of the Great
Unspeakable.
Whether the first part of The Postcard is more literary than
philosophical, indeed very reminiscent of a type of French postmodem novel
illustrated among others by the likes of Philippe Söllers16 has not prevented
post-structuralist critics to abundantly refer to its third chapter, “Le Facteur de
verite,” (“The Factor of Truth”) arguably one of Derrida’s most commonly
quoted essays, hence openly disregarding the ambiguous intentionality of the
volume itself and treading solely on the reputation of its author in order to
provide conceptual credibility to their inquiries, which naturally tend to become
just as “literary” as those of their illustrious model. It appears that, for the ruling
postmodem literary establishment, “literature” is simply a commodity and,
rather to define it, we are still working hard at un-defining it further in order to
accommodate scholarly stylistic creativity and sacrificing what is perhaps the
most convincing feature of our field, namely the pleasure principle.
1.2. Fun Studies
If the concept of literariness does point out to some specificities of
literature, it does not, on the other hand, try to define the literary phenomenon
from the point of view of its relationship to pleasure, imagination and reality,
but rather conceives it as a sort of linguistic mode that implies an inevitable
latency between signifier and signified—and so, whatever is not literal becomes
literary. However, once we take mediatic variations and intentionality into
consideration, we are able to reach a unifying principle that allows us to define
the “literary” phenomenon—which naturally can no longer be conceived as