Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:53:07 +0200
Subject: Re: MB: Literature and the Right to Death


>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender to
owner-blanchot-AT-localhost using -f
>Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:00:34 -0400
>From: "C. Allan Dinsmore" <chantal-AT-bellatlantic.net>
>Organization: Studio Cleo
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
>To: blanchot-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: MB: Literature and the Right to Death
>Sender: owner-blanchot-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Reply-To: blanchot-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>
>Mmmmm: Sounds more like a surrealist group than a Blanchot group to me
>... (but I like it immensely anyway)

I agree.  Blanchot has a sobriety which sounds very different from what
we`ve been receiving through the list lately.   Blanchot`s stylistic
"trademmark" is the clarifying enigma, the oxymoron.   His writings are
articulated with clarity, though they speak of the unspeakable.
Blanchot`s use of oxymoron postpones the act of interpretation, and creates
thereby a meanwhile between encounter and reading where we can touch the
texts and look into them without grasping them.  

Pointing out these stylistic features is, however, not of high importance
to me.  The question is rather: In what way are our reading  of Blanchot
governed, or even predestinated, by them?  And:  Can we break this
predestination?   Can we transcribe Blanchot another forms of language?
Can we read Blanchot without pretending to be Blanchot?

yours gazeing,
Halvor