Synopsis: Difference between revisions
Roos Wijma (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Roos Wijma (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Marcel Bénabou was part of Oulipo (Ouvroir de Litterature Potentielle [Workshop of Potential Literature]) a French group of writers and mathematicians with an interest in the problems of literary form. | Marcel Bénabou was part of Oulipo (Ouvroir de Litterature Potentielle [Workshop of Potential Literature]) a French group of writers and mathematicians with an interest in the problems of literary form. | ||
The main aim of Marcel Bénabou is he wants to write the perfect book. | |||
the | Within that desire he trows all his notes away and he lists all the things he will not do in this book. | ||
Through his writing he reflects on how a (or The) book might have been written. | |||
The book reads like a monologue on the inability to write and the ability to consider oneself a writer. | The book reads like a monologue on the inability to write and the ability to consider oneself a writer. | ||
Each sentence, each word he writes reminds him that he is writing, | Each sentence, each word he writes reminds him that he is writing, | ||
daunted by a conflict between being and doing. | daunted by a conflict between being and doing. | ||
Bénabou writes against literature, against the expectations of the reader.In this "nonbook" Bénabou is constantly trying to complete a sentence. | |||
Bénabou writes against literature, against the expectations of the reader. | It is a book that's always beginning, where everything is introductory, from beginning to beginning, because wherever one finds oneself in this book, it always seems to be the beginning. | ||
Bénabou activity can be conceived as being about beginnings, rather than endings. | |||
So it goes throughout this book as one advances from threshold to threshold. | |||
But the book finds its meaning in the context of the whole. | But the book finds its meaning in the context of the whole. | ||
He stages this book as a game in which an author attempts to write an impossible book, where he invites the reader to play along with him. | He stages this book as a game in which an author attempts to write an impossible book, where he invites the reader to play along with him. | ||
We are not Readers, any more than Bénabou is a Writer. Or rather, we are Readers to the extent that Bénabou is a Writer. It is in this dynamic field, the play of book and Book, writer and Writer, reader and Reader, Bénabou’s writing takes on whatever meaning. | We are not Readers, any more than Bénabou is a Writer. Or rather, we are Readers to the extent that Bénabou is a Writer. It is in this dynamic field, the play of book and Book, writer and Writer, reader and Reader, Bénabou’s writing takes on whatever meaning. | ||
In the book he uses three types of discourse: narrative, dialogue, and borrowed language (quotation, allusion, pastiche). | In the book he uses three types of discourse: narrative, dialogue, and borrowed language (quotation, allusion, pastiche). | ||
By working in this sort of discourse he creates a highly constructed piece of work where he plays tradition and innovation against each other. | By working in this sort of discourse he creates a highly constructed piece of work where he plays tradition and innovation against each other. | ||
Quotations, allusions, and literary references can be found in Bénabou's writing on a level that may even surpass our commonly held notions of intertextuality. | Quotations, allusions, and literary references (for example Pascal, Borges, Walter Benjamin, and Derrida. )can be found in Bénabou's writing on a level that may even surpass our commonly held notions of intertextuality. | ||
But it makes us question as a reader, what in this book is truly “Bénabou"? | But it makes us question as a reader, what in this book is truly “Bénabou"? | ||
Did this the intertextual landscape serves him as a background or a foreground? | Did this the intertextual landscape serves him as a background or a foreground? | ||
One thing can be concluded: those other writers said 'it' better. Besides that they are all man writer's writers, | One thing can be concluded: those other writers said 'it' better. Besides that they are all man writer's writers, | ||
He is therefore more like a intimidated | He is therefore more like a intimidated postmodern echo in the realm of modernism and romanticism, than a real copyist. | ||
But what are we reading? He tells the reader twice like an echo in the voice of Margritte. | But what are we reading? He tells the reader twice like an echo in the voice of Margritte. | ||
Ceci n’est pas un livre. | Ceci n’est pas un livre. | ||
This non-book is more like a blank piece of paper thats trying to find out his front and back side by turning over and over again like a möbius. | |||
An ode to all the books he wanted to write in his entire live. | |||
Revision as of 13:29, 21 October 2012
Title: Why I Have Not Written Any of My Books
Author: Marcel Bénabou
Genre: Non-fiction
Written: 1986 (Eng. 1996)
Length: 114 pages
Original in: French ( Pourqoui je n'ai ecrit aucun de mes livres)
"Writing about writing about writing."
Marcel Bénabou was part of Oulipo (Ouvroir de Litterature Potentielle [Workshop of Potential Literature]) a French group of writers and mathematicians with an interest in the problems of literary form. The main aim of Marcel Bénabou is he wants to write the perfect book.
Within that desire he trows all his notes away and he lists all the things he will not do in this book. Through his writing he reflects on how a (or The) book might have been written. The book reads like a monologue on the inability to write and the ability to consider oneself a writer. Each sentence, each word he writes reminds him that he is writing, daunted by a conflict between being and doing. Bénabou writes against literature, against the expectations of the reader.In this "nonbook" Bénabou is constantly trying to complete a sentence. It is a book that's always beginning, where everything is introductory, from beginning to beginning, because wherever one finds oneself in this book, it always seems to be the beginning. Bénabou activity can be conceived as being about beginnings, rather than endings. So it goes throughout this book as one advances from threshold to threshold. But the book finds its meaning in the context of the whole. He stages this book as a game in which an author attempts to write an impossible book, where he invites the reader to play along with him. We are not Readers, any more than Bénabou is a Writer. Or rather, we are Readers to the extent that Bénabou is a Writer. It is in this dynamic field, the play of book and Book, writer and Writer, reader and Reader, Bénabou’s writing takes on whatever meaning.
In the book he uses three types of discourse: narrative, dialogue, and borrowed language (quotation, allusion, pastiche). By working in this sort of discourse he creates a highly constructed piece of work where he plays tradition and innovation against each other. Quotations, allusions, and literary references (for example Pascal, Borges, Walter Benjamin, and Derrida. )can be found in Bénabou's writing on a level that may even surpass our commonly held notions of intertextuality. But it makes us question as a reader, what in this book is truly “Bénabou"? Did this the intertextual landscape serves him as a background or a foreground? One thing can be concluded: those other writers said 'it' better. Besides that they are all man writer's writers, He is therefore more like a intimidated postmodern echo in the realm of modernism and romanticism, than a real copyist.
But what are we reading? He tells the reader twice like an echo in the voice of Margritte. Ceci n’est pas un livre. This non-book is more like a blank piece of paper thats trying to find out his front and back side by turning over and over again like a möbius. An ode to all the books he wanted to write in his entire live.