Introduction: 'Who Could Ever Read This?'
Introduction: 'Who Could Ever Read This?'
复制标题
简介：“谁能读过这篇文章？”
DOI：
10.1080/13534645.2019.1624321
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
Bostock C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bostock C
在《HC for Life，That Is to Say.》一书中，雅克·德里达将他对海琳·西苏作品的第一次阅读描述为与一个“无法识别的文学对象”（objet litteraire non identifiable）或“ULO”的相遇：“这是什么？我或多或少地问自己，这到底是怎么回事？我这是怎么了什么流派？谁能读得懂？”[1]在其他地方，在《从话语到生活》中，他再次回忆起西苏手稿所产生的“眼花缭乱和焦虑”的“双重感觉”，这份手稿后来成为她的第一本书《上帝的名字》。德里达和西苏的作品当然都属于ULO的范畴：他们的文本以不同的方式延伸了体裁，突破了创造性和批判性思维的极限，打破了小说与哲学的界限，并拉开了叙述性和表演性写作模式之间的差异。这期特刊旨在探索未清偿债务的潜力，使我们能够开始以全新的方式思考、阅读和写作，汇集当代作家和学者的作品，他们的作品经常在创造性和批判性理论与实践之间发挥作用。但在开始撰写未清偿债务时，也许首先要区分“无法识别的”和“无法识别的”。贝弗利·比·布拉希奇（Beverley Bie Brahic）将西苏在《我不写的书》（The Book I Don 't Write）中对德里达的评论的描述翻译为一个“不明的文学对象”，暗示着在未来的某个时候可能会被理解的东西，而埃里克·普雷诺维茨（Eric Prenowitz）在《破解这本书》（Cracking the Book）中强调，“不明的”不能也不会被确定、破译或挪用--它仍然是未知的。[2]普雷诺维茨说，德里达排除了它被认同的可能性，“恰恰是让它的未来可以阅读。因此，他含蓄地反对阅读与认同，反对可读与可认同“。[3]因此，ULO是一种不可预见的东西，在它出现时没有被认识到，甚至可能没有出现。
In HC for Life, That Is to Say… Jacques Derrida describes his first reading of Hélene Cixous’ writing as an encounter with an ‘unidentifiable literary object’[objet litteraire non identifiable] or ‘ULO’:‘What is this? I asked myself more or less. What is happening here? What is happening to me? What genre? Who could ever read this?’1 Elsewhere, in ‘From the Word to Life’, he again recalls the ‘double feeling’of ‘dazzlement and anxiety’engendered by Cixous’ manuscript–a manuscript that would become her first book, Le Prenom de Dieu [God’s First Name]. The ULO is, of course, the domain of both Derrida and Cixous: in different ways, their texts stretch genre, press at the limits of creative and critical thinking, unsettle the demarcation between fiction and philosophy and open up the differences between constative and performative modes of writing. This special issue aims to explore the potential of ULOs to enable us to start to think, read and write in radically new ways, bringing together the work of contemporary writers and scholars whose own texts very often play at the intersections between creative and critical theory and practice.But in starting to write about the ULO, there is first, perhaps, a distinction to be made between the ‘unidentifiable’and the ‘unidentified’. While Beverley Bie Brahic translates Cixous’ account of Derrida’s remark in ‘The Book I Don’t Write’as an ‘unidentified literary object’, hinting at something that might be comprehended at some point in the future, Eric Prenowitz stresses, in ‘Cracking the Book’, that the ‘unidentifiable’cannot and will not be determined, deciphered or appropriated–it remains unknown. 2 By excluding the possibility of its identification, Prenowitz says,‘Derrida is precisely leaving its future open–to reading (s). He thus implicitly opposes reading to identification, the readable to the identifiable’. 3 In this way, the ULO is something that is unforeseeable, not recognized when it appears, perhaps not even appearing as such.