Subject: MB: LRD
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 18:27:00 +0000



Everything is the matter of the relation between the writer and the work.   
 If the paradox is not resolvable, then the writer must begin without any   
possible solution.  But is it the writer who begins?  That is to say what   
makes the writer write this sentence rather than any other?  Some   
conscious decision?  Blanchot tells us, referring to Valery, that the   
work does not begin in a decision but by circumstance, luck.   
 Nonetheless, the writer recognises himself in the fortuitous product.   
 No one is born a writer, one becomes a writer in the externality of the   
work, but precisely in the activity of writing, the externality of the   
word is taken up in the interiority of the writer, for the relation   
between the writer and the word is still a relation between a subject and   
object, where the subject recognises itself in the object.  His sentence,   
like Kafka's sentence, is the perfect expression of his own talent.  Thus   
the impossibility of writing is completely resovled and just as before   
there seems to be no difference between Blanchot and Hegel. We are   
speaking of dialectics here.   Any yet, Blanchot adds a disconcerting   
reminder which disturbs the mediation of the writer and his work.  The   
sentence does not only exist for the writer, but also for the reader, and   
in this sense the writer is robbed of his posession of the work;  it   
becomes something other to him, and the recognition which seemed to   
sublate the impossibility of writing vanishes.
stawla