Sartre and the Powers of Literature the Myth of Prose and the Practice of Reading

7/30/2019 Sartre and the Powers of Literature the Myth of Prose and the Practice of Reading

1/21

Sartre and the Powers of Literature: The Myth of Prose and the Practice of Reading

Author(s): Suzanne GuerlacReviewed work(s):Source: MLN, Vol. 108, No. 5, Comparative Literature (Dec., 1993), pp. 805-824Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2904878 .

Accessed: 16/11/2012 22:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

MLN.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:33:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2904878?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2904878?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/21

Sartre ndthe PowersofLiterature: he Mythof Proseand thePractice fReadingSuzanneGuerlac

Engagementhas not been an issue in recentyears. Sympathizersfind the imperativeunambiguous and its legitimacy elf-evident.Critics refer okeep the notion n reserve. tprovides convenientpresuppositionto turnagainsttheworkof writers r criticswhosepolitical lives shockor dissappointus. For both sides,engagementremains a thoroughly amiliarnotion,one associated withan out-dated culturalpolemic thatopposed estheticsto politics.But thenotion of engagements much more intimatelyiedup withour cul-turaland theoretical ituationthan thischaracterization uggests.The conceptionof iterature hatbecame associated withnotionsoficriture,exte,nd transgression as initially laborated duringthe1950's in specificresponse to the ideological pressuresof engage-ment.1 n 1960,the new reviewTelQuel opened with n imperiousdefense of modernistpoetics implicitly imed at the position ofSartre.Subsequently, fcourse,thevery erms fthispolemic-artvs.politics-will be theoretically isplaced and reconfigured ycrit-ics associatedwith TelQuel.As we see in Kristeva'sLa Revolutionulangage oetique, hererevolutionarylaims aremade formodernist,or avant-garde, ignifyingractices, he issue ofengagement s ulti-mately bsorbed into theprogramoftheory.2 n the surface,how-ever, t becomes a dead issue in the contextofpost-structuralismnwhich the rapprochementof philosophyand psychoanalysis adi-cally challenged the statusof the subject.The question of engage-MLN, 108 (1993): 805-824? 1993 byTheJohnsHopkinsUniversityress

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/21

806 SUZANNE GUERLACment ost all urgencyn the faceofthe morecomprehensive ebateconcerninghumanismofanykind.Foucault, ater,would proclaim"the end of man" in the dramatic onclusionof LesMots t eschoses.If post-structuralismuried engagement,however,engagementhas returned o hauntpost-structuralism.oday,feminist nd multi-culturalperspectives resupposesome versionofit.As indicatedbya recent MLA panel entitled "FeministEngagement after Post-structuralism,"ome critics oday ppeal to a notionofengagementin oppositionto theory. hus althoughwhatwe call "theory" ouldbe said to have emerged in reaction to engagement, engagementis now invokedin the name of a depassementf theory.An imper-ative of engagement historicallyframes the thinkingof post-structuralism.We have come full circlewithoutever havingsub-jected this term to close scrutiny.ndeed, the familiarnotion ofengagementhas hardlybeen read.A number ofquestionsremain unclear.What,forexample, is anengaged writer upposed to write? s there a significant ifferencebetween iteraryngagement nd engagementtout ourt?s thefirst,as is so often uggestedwithrespectto Sartre'sowncareer, prelim-inary teptowards he second in continuousprogression?fso, thiswould imply n identification etween iteraryngagementand lit-erary ealism. f committedprose is representational nd transpar-ent, then the two modes of engagementbecome continuouswithone another.Each would involve the subordinationof "merely s-thetic"value to superiorvalues ofan ethical or politicalnature. none case such highervalues would be carriedbythe author'swrit-ing,that s,byhis or hermessage; n the othertheywoulddeterminethe intendedmeaning,or aim,of an action.Accordingto thisview(one whichappears to takeSartre's formulaparler, 'est gir t facevalue) the difference etweenpoliticaland literary ngagementbe-comes trivial n the condition that literaturebe subordinated toostensibly igherends.But perhaps thisview s too simple.Whatifengagement,s Sartrepresents t n WhatsLiterature?,oes not epend upon a rejectionofthe esthetic n favorof the political?What if,on the contrary,n-gagementdepends upon an identificationf the literaryvent andtheabsolute?What fthis dentification eretheverymechanismofengagement? n thiscase the theoryof engagementhould not beconsidered a cure forSartre's"neurosis," s he puts t n Les Mots. tshould be read as a symptom f Sartre'stendency o regard itera-tureas an absolute.



4/21

MLN 807If literaryngagement s not a symptomhat s easyto diagnose,

however, t is at least in partbecause Sartre'spresentation f it inQu'est-ceuela litterature?nnounces that ts anguage,thelanguageofprose, s so transparenthatno act of nterpretation,o readingfit is requiredor even appropriate.We rememberthe thrust f Sar-tre'sresponsetoGide. Poetrysopaque. It cannotsignify,hereforeit cannot become engage. oetry s closer to painting nd itsdiscon-certingmaterialityhan to the signifying perationsof prose. Theyellow treak dechirure]n a Tintoretto ky, orexample, does notsignifynxiety, ccordingtoSartre; t isanxiety,nd yellow ky t thesame time: "... c'est une angoisse faite chose...." What thismeans,Sartre xplains, sthat . .. elle n'estpas du tout isible, 'estcomme un effortmmense et vain, toujoursarretea mi-chemin uciel et de la terre,pour exprimerce que leur nature leur defendd'exprimer . ."3 The oppositionbetweenprose,on the one hand,and poetry nd paintingon theother, nd thesuperior capacity fprose to fulfill a Hegelian conception of art as cultural self-reflexion, merge clearlyfrom even a cursory eading of the firstchapterof What s Literature?

Butthings ecome less clear as we read on. For the astchapterofQu'est-ce ue la litterature?-"Situation e l'ecrivain en 1947"-demystifieshe dea of thetransparencyfprose language. If, n thefirst hapter,speech is portrayeddramatically s a tool ready tohand-"lorsqu'on est en dangeron empoignen'importequel outil"(26)-, in the last chapter language is hardly an instru-ment to be taken forgranted. Language is in crisis;wordsare likeTrojan horses.". . . La realite inguistique staujourd'hui sicompli-quee .. ." (280), Sartrewriteshere, that even ordinarywords suchas "Jew,"collaboration," nd "Europe"no longerfunction: . . Ilssont tombes en panne... ," Sartrewrites; "ils s'arretent a mi-chemin de leursens" (280). This,ofcourse,contradicts he mpres-sion Sartregives n theopeningpages of thefirsthapter.Moreover,we recognize in the expression"ilss'arretent mi-chemin e leursens" the veryformulaSartreused in chapterone to characterizethe opacityof paintingand poetry-"un effortmmense et vain,toujours rrete mi-chemin.... " (16)-in oppositionto the osten-sibly ransparent ignifying owersofprose.The "Situationof the Writer n 1947" explains that the link be-tween speech and action said to epitomize the prose of literaryengagement-parler, c'est gir-has been broken by the war. Lan-guage has fallen ntohistorylongwith he writer nd can no longer



5/21

808 SUZANNEGUERLACbe assumed to be transparent. o become an appropriatetool forengagedwriting,artre ffirmsere, anguageneeds tobe cleansedofpropagandisticdistortions nd broadened to meet the needs ofthecontemporaryituation 282). What smore, however,t s liter-ature that s called upon toperform histask.Literature, hen,doesnot presuppose a transparency f language that t must honor oraccommodate. Instead, it is the responsibilityf literature o savelanguage fromruin, to "restituer ux mots leurs vertus" (282).Transparency husbecomes a gift fliterature,n "artwithout rt"in the Longinian sense, or even an achievement of style-something ike Flaubert'smotusteor themythic criturelanche.In What s Literature?artrewrites hat a society'smyth f litera-ture s a central featureof its deologyas a whole. It is not hard torecognize prose-the transparentprose of literary ngagement-as itselfust such a myth. Wewanted to produce a newideologyforthepost-warra,"Simone de Beauvoirhas written fthe found-ing group of Les TempsModernes.he reviewopens with the essaysthat nowmake up Qu'est-ceue la litterature?artre'sessaycontrib-utes to the kind ofpost-wardeologyde Beauvoir has in mind to theextentthat tprovides,precisely, new,post-warmyth f iterature.Not only is Sartre's mythof prose compatible withhis thinkingabout existential umanism; t also furnishes he ntellectual ore ofthe democratic socialism Sartre went on to advance officiallythrough hefoundingofa political party, he RassemblementDem-ocratiqueRevolutionnaire RDR).To appreciatethemythic tatusof Sartre'stheory f literature sengaged prose,we need onlyread What s Literature?romback tofront. Situationof theWriter n 1947" givesus an analysisof Sar-tre's own historicalcontext as the author of What s Literature?tportraysanguage in a stateofcrisisdue to the mpactofthewar. nthepreceding chapter, ForWhomDoes One Write?", artrerevealsthat the essence ofliteraturehe has been advancingcould be real-ized only n a classless ociety. n such a society, e writes,iterature"depasserait 'antinomie de la parole et de laction" (163). Thechapter"WhyWrite?"presentsthis essence of literaturen "ideal,"utopian terms.Finally, he account ofwritingn theopening chap-ter of thebook, "What sWriting?", hetoricallyulfills heutopianor mythicmodel. For the antinomybetween speech and action,relegatedto the end ofhistorya classless ociety) n the aterchap-terof theessay, s resolvedhere defacto hrough artre'sformula orthe very ssence of literature s committedprose: parler, 'est gir(27).



6/21

M LN 809

If,as we are suggesting, rose is a myth, mythn the serviceof aspecificpoliticaland cultural genda, it shouldbe possibleto read itcritically.t should be possible to challenge Sartre'saccount ofthetransparency f prose and itscorollary, he presumed identity e-tween theprose of engagementnd literary ealism.The questionoftheauthor'smessage sa good place tobeginsucha reading. f, s iscommonly ssumed,engagementoes imply commitmentovaluesother thanmerely stheticones, this s wherewe mightexpect tofind them.Ifwe pursuethe obvious ine of nvestigation,hen-what shouldthe committed author write?-we soon realize that Sartreneveranswers hisquestion. Havingdefinedwriting s "un certainmoded'action qu'on pourraitnommer 'actionpardevoilement" 28), heacknowledgesthat t is legitimate o ask of the author"what spectof the world do you wishto reveal [devoiler]?" ut, ust when thereader expects a serious discussion of what the engaged authorshouldwrite, artremakeslightof the whole question in a mannerreminiscent fProustmocking heyoungMarcelforhis naive beliefthatto be a greatwriter ne must have importantdeas to express:N'a-t-on as coutfime e poser tous es eunes gensqui se proposentd'ecrire ettequestionde principe:Avez-vousuelque chosea dire?'[Sartresks, nd he adds:]Parquoi ilfaut ntendre:uelquechosequivaille apeined'etre ommunique. ais ommentomprendreequien'vaut a peine' si ce n'estparrecours un systemee valeurs ranscen-dents?27)

The author's message,Sartregoes on to suggest,eitherproceedsfrom cliche or ends up a cliche. It is "tout un monde desin-carne . .. ou les affectionshumaines,parce qu'elles ne touchentplus, sont passees au rang d'affections xemplaires,et pour toutdire de valeurs" 34, originalemphasis). The author'smessage,heconcludes is ultimately ". . . une ame faite objet" (38). We are re-mindedhere of the earliercharacterization f theyellow treak ntheTintoretto ainting-"une angoissefaitechose."And we recog-nize thatSartrecriticizes he notionof the author'smessage in thevery ermshe used earlier to disparagetheopaque, non-signifying,modes ofpainting nd poetrynoppositionto the ostensible ignify-ing powersofprose.Sartre, hen,trivializeshequestionof the author'smessage,criti-cizes it,and ultimatelyvades it.And forgood reason.For as Sartreindicatesthroughhis sarcasticuse of italics n the passage alreadycited, the notion of an author's message implies the question of



7/21

810 SUZANNEGUERLACvalues,values in the strong ense of pre-established, r transcen-dental,values. But as the essayExistentialisms a Humanismmakesclear,values in thissense are anathema to Sartre'sconcept offree-dom. To invoke pre-established alues is a gesture of bad faith.Meaningfulvalues, forSartre,can be affirmed nly throughfreeaction.Theycannotbe received;theymustbe generated.Now if Sartre'snotion ofengaged prose impliedexpression,dis-cursivetruth, nd a representational that is, realist) use of lan-guage, then the writer'smessagewould be of preeminent mpor-tance.Responsibilityrcommitment ouldattachtomessage ust asexpressionof an intendedmeaningand transparency ould standfor a relation to idealityof meaning. Instead, Sartre's notion ofintentional onsciousness-that which snothingbutthe outsideofitself-leaves littleroom for the gestationof a vouloir ire. t is aconsciousness without interiority. aradoxically,Sartre has bor-rowedHusserl'snotionof ntentionalitys a paradigmfortheoper-ationofsignification, hich,however, emainspeculiarlyntention-less. The prose speakeruses words-se sert es mots25)-the wayone woulduse a tool.Wordsextendthecapacity fthebody,notthemind;theyprovidea kind ofprosthesis, "prolongement e notrecorps" (26).

Accordingto Derrida's analysis,Husserlin his account ofsignifi-cation suppressedthe indicative ign n favor ftheexpressive nein ordertoprotecttheideality fmeaning.For thesignified,f t staken s something istinct rom referent,perates nrelationtoa"transcendentalignified." xpressive peech impliesthepossibilityofhearingoneselfspeak through n inner voice. Derrida citesHus-serlto theeffect hat"'expressionsfunctionmeaningfully.. evenin solitarymentallife,wheretheyno longer seem to indicate any-thing,'"and he comments:"Bya strangeparadox meaningwouldisolate the concentratedpurity f itsexpressivenessust at themo-ment when therelationto a certainoutside is suspended . . . [thisis] the phenomenological projectin itsessence."4For Sartre,how-ever,thiskindofphenomenological suspensionwould be unthink-able. Words,for Sartre,are ". . indicateursqui jettent [le pro-sateur] hors de lui au milieu des choses" (20). Theyact more likeindicativesignsthan expressiveones. Signification, orSartre, n-volvessomething ike a direct mpositionof wordsupon things sreferents.Wordsare the"designations 'objets,"and linguistic om-petence is a matter fknowingwhether rnotwords". .. indiquent



8/21

MLN 811correctementune certaine chose du monde ou une certaineno-tion" (25). What am suggesting,hen, s that fSartre'saccount ofspeech as action suppressesthe playof the signifieras modernistand post-structuralistriticsmaintain), tsuppressesthe role of thesignified s well. For to the extentthatexpression presupposes anidealityof meaning, it relies upon something ike those eternalverities hatSartreflatlyefuses. artre'smyth fprosereliesnot onthe representationalpotentialof an expressive ignbut ratheronthe pragmatic,or performative,orceof indication.The author'smessage s so problematic n Sartre's ccountofwriting ecause hismodel for the signifyingorce of prose is not one of expressivecommunication.EventhoughSartre hampionsa certain"transpar-ency"of prose in the name of speech, it remainsto be seen whatkind of transparency e has in mind.Sartre ntroduces hemetaphoroftransparencywice n hisessay,once in relation to the questionofstyle nd once in relation to the"etatd'esprit"ofprose. In each case the conventionalmetaphoroftheglass s used in an unconventionalway. Le style, ien sur,fait avaleurde la prose,"Sartre oncedes,but t mustgo unnoticed:"dansun livre .. [la beaute] se cache ... on est sollicitepar un charmequ'on ne voitpas" (30-31). Style educes or charmsus bydissimu-lating tself, artre nsists,nd he adds thisobservation: Puisque lesmotssonttransparentstque le regard es traverse,l serait bsurdede glisserparmieux des vitresdepolies" (30). Paradoxically, hen,transparencys invoked here in thename ofhiding,not revealing.The figure f thedirtywindowpane suggests hatwhat s obscuredwhentheglass s clean is theglass tself, igure orthematerialityflanguage. Sartre's use of the figureof transparencyuggeststhattransparencys itself functionof style. tylepolishes the glass oflanguage.We are reminded of theLonginianrequirement hat ub-lime language dissimulate tsown use of figures o thatartmightappear as nature.Sartrerepeatsthesame figure ortransparency,he windowpaneorglass, nhisdiscussionof theefficacyfprose.Here,however, hefigure s displaced in a peculiar way. "La prose est d'abord uneattituded'esprit,"Sartrewrites, nd he adds: "il y a prose quand,pour parlercommeValery, e motpasse a travers otreregardcom-me le verreau travers u soleil" (26). Now,bycitingValery, artrehas introducedan intertextual llusion,and hence an opacity,ntohis figureforthe transparencyf language. He has also borrowedfrompoetry o characterize conceptionofprosewhichostensibly



9/21

812 SUZANNEGUERLACstands n opposition to poetry, orthe allusion is toValery'spoem"Interieur" romCharmes. ere is the textof thepoem:

Une esclave ux longsyeux harges e molles hainesChange 'eau de mesfleurs,longe uxglacesprochaines,Au litmyst6rieuxrodigue esdoigts urs;Ellemetune femmeu milieude cesmursQui,dansma reverierrantvecdecence,Passeentremesregardsansbrisereur bsence,Commepasse e verre u traversu soleil,Et de la raison ure6pargne'appareil.WhatSartrehas found nValery'spoem is a reversal f theconven-tional topos of transparency-language as windowonto theworld-usually invokedto supportclaimsforrepresentationalanguageand a realist iterarysthetic.Ordinarily, s we sawin Sartre'sownuse of the figure,when it was a question of style,meaning passesthrough he wordas lightpasses through heglass.Here, however,we go in the opposite direction:"le mot passe a traversnotrere-gard,"and "le verre [passe] au travers u soleil."

Valery'spoem characterizesthe differencebetween revery, heinner ife, r Int&ieur,f thetitle, nd the outerworldofperceptionand reason. In themannerofMallarme, t uses language to evokepresence in absence. The inner visionescapes the lucidity fpurereason and remainssecurewithin; hevisionof the woman [p]asseentremes egardsc]ommeasse everre u traversu soleil.t is striking,here,that heglass"passeau travers u soleil"and notthe otherwayaround, as is usuallythe case when it is a question of the figure ftransparency.he poeticreversal s ustifiedbya figurativemeaningof the expressionpasser u travers,hichtheRobertivesas "echap-per a un danger,a une punition." n thepoem, the verres a figureforthe womanwhodoes indeed escape from danger-the dangerof the lucidity f pure reason-which threatensher apparitioninrevery, er presence in interiority,nd in absence.In Sartre'sdepictionofprose the wordoccupies theplace of thewoman.Whereas n thepoem the womanpasses "entremesregards[c]omme passe le verreau travers u soleil,"here "le motpasse atravers otreregard"as " le verre .. au travers u soleil. ...." Theglassremains figure ortheword, lthoughhere again,consistentwithValery's poetic reversal, he glass passes throughthe light n-steadof theotherway round. This timeno figurativemeaningcan



10/21

MLN 813be invoked to ustify hereversal f the conventional opos oftrans-parencywhichSartrehimself ses in the usual mannerelsewhere, swe have seen. The figurativemeaningof "passerau travers,"n thesenseof"toescape fromdanger," eemsnot to be at playhere.Andyet, anger urks. terupts n thevery ext sentence:"Lorsquonest ndanger.. on empoignen'importequel outil" (myemphasis).Andfromhere Sartredevelops the theme of the pragmatic, r instru-mental,value of language. "Ce danger passe," Sartre continues:

on ne se rappellememeplussi c'etaitun marteau u une bfiche. td'ailleurson ne l'a jamais su; il fallait out uste un prolongementde notre orps .. c'etaitun sixieme oigt, ne troisiemeambe,brefunepurefonctionuenousnous ommesssimilee. insi u langage: lest notrecarapaceet nos antennes, l nous protegecontre es au-tres.... (26)

To this extent the passerau traverse,borrowedfromValery, x-plainstheapparentnonsequiturnvolved n the sudden intrusion fthe scene ofdanger.This scene is very mportantn Sartre'sessaybecause it marksacrucialarticulation etweenthe rhetoric ftransparency,ssociatedwitha contemplativemodel of consciousness,and the theme ofinstrumentalityr efficacy,ssociated with n actionmodel ofcom-munication.Danger,ofcourse,has nothing odo with ransparencyperse.It merely etsthe stagefor the identification f speech withaction. But there s somethingmorespecific o this cene ofdanger.Sartrecharacterizes t as "une entreprise oit de moi sur les autressoitde l'autresur moi" (26). The wordentreprisearries hemeaningof attackor aggression, "difference ntredeux personnes" n thesense of a conflict r struggle.The danger thatsuddenly presentsitselfhere is the threat fintersubjectiveiolence,the life or deathstruggle orrecognitionofHegel's master/slavedialectic.The prosateur ses language as a weapon in the violentencounterbetween elf nd other.A rhetoric ftransparency,hen, ttachestowhat is fundamentally n instrumentalityf language-the lan-guage of designation considered as a tool of action and an in-strument f self-defense. his occursbecause of theparallelismbe-tween the intentional structureof consciousness-consciousnessstructureds consciousnessf omething-and thesemiotic tructureof signification, here it is a question of referenceto something.The vectorof this renvois figured, r performed, ythegestureof



11/21

814 SUZANNE GUERLAC

designation.To put this anotherwaywe could saythat the word'sindication of a thingis at the serviceof, and structurally omo-logouswith, onsciousnessoccurring s consciousnessof omething.For Sartre, s we know,thisoperation is epitomizedbytheglance.The word s "transparent,"hen,nottoa meaningor a signified, utto the vectorof consciousness tself. or the signifyingeploymentofa wordis construedas overlappingwiththemovementof inten-tional consciousness;this s embodied in theglance considered asan intentionalmovement f theeye.What s called "transparency,"then,has little o do eitherwith he deality fmeaningwe associatewithan expressive, r representational, se of language, or withasubject's interiorityr vouloir ire. f "le mot passe a travers e re-gard,"as Sartreputs it, t is because significations itselfmodeledafter he regardf consciousness.The glance, however, s also the instrument f recognition. tinitiatesthe inter-subjectivencounter,which for Sartre (as forHegel in the master/slavedialectic) is inevitably violent one. InSartre'sfictional cene ofdanger,however, he violenceof thestrug-gle forrecognition s verbally ublimated.Prose intervenes n thisscene of danger as a "structure econdaire de l'entreprise .. lemomentverbal" (27). The prosateurs definedas one who has cho-sen "un certainmomentde l'action secondairequ'on pourraitnom-mer l'action par devoilement" 28). Speech is action, therefore-parler,c'est gir-in thequite specific ense of this econdary ction,this action ar devoilement.For Sartre, hen,theworddoes pass through heglance,and notthe otherway round, n the sense thatthemodel forthepragmaticor efficacioususe of language is the efficaciousglance-voir, c'estchange76-towhich hefigure f devoilementttaches.The transparen-cy ssociatedwith he nstrumentalityf ignificationoincides,para-doxically,withthe opacityof the instrumenttself, he tool of self-defenseoraggression.The figure ftransparencyas been displacedfromwhat theeyesees to themovement f the ntentional lance-the eyeof consciousness tself s consciousnessof omething.Once focussed on the eye, the devoilementf transparency e-comes an act of transpiercing:Ainsi, n parlant,e d6voile a situation armonprojetmeme de lachanger; . je l'atteinsnpleincoeur,e la transpercetje la fixe ousles egards;pr6sentj'en ispose, chaquemot ueje dis,jem'engage npeuplusdans emonde, t du meme oup, 'en emerge npeu davan-tagepuisquee le d6passevers 'avenir.28,my mphasis)



12/21

MLN 815What s transpierced, owever, snot a meaningor a thing a refer-ent) bya signbut rather situationto be changed.Thus, in the end, the entire relation to the figureof the visible(transparencyncluded) has little o do withrepresentation r ade-quational truth. t is the structure f voir,c'est hangerhat deter-mines,as itscorollary, arler, 'est gir. t is the word as glance hatcorrespondsto thepistolet harge. he target t aims at is neither areferentnor a signifiedbut another subjectivityn a situation ofrecognition.The game is one of se voir u,a kind of ronic (becausedisempowering)versionofthemomentof self-consciousnessn themaster/slave ialectic, nwhichthe mastermust ee himself een bythe slave in order to validatehis powersofnegativeconsciousnessand ofpotentialmastery ver nature as well as overthe slave.The articulation f the apparenttheme oftransparency iththequestion of instrumentalityin the sense of pragmaticeffect, raction) occurs, then, in relation to an inscriptionof the mas-ter/slavedialectic.The action of literary ngagement-of prose-involvesa verbal sublimationof intersubjective iolence . If lan-guage as action (not transparency)ies at the heart ofthe Sartrianmyth fprose-it was a question,we remember, fovercoming heantinomy f speech and action-a first tep in the constitution fthis myth s achieved thanks to the subtextof the master/slavedialectic. For once we take this allusion into account,we see thatspeech is action-the sublimatedaction of an "action secondaire"-because thescene is one ofstruggle o the death.No wonder thequestion of an enduringauthorialmessage seemed trivial.I havegivenso muchweight o the subtext fthe scene ofrecog-nition in the mythof prose because it returns, n a substantiallycorrectedmode, in the next chapterof Qu'est-ceue la litterature?,"Pourquoi6crire?"Here Sartre ddresses thequestionof the iterarywork s text.Forthe iterary ork o be a work, nd notmerely lacksmudgeson whitepaper,he argues, t mustbe unveiledbyanothersubjector consciousnessthroughreading.The motif fdevoilement,which,earlier, nvolvedthe sublimationof intersubjective iolenceinto language as action, shifts ere to an ontologicalmode. It is aquestion of the comingintobeing of the work.The writer alls onthe reader tocompletethecoming ntoappearance of the work ndto this xtent ppeals to the freedomofthereader.The reader whorespondsto thewriter's all freely ompletesthe workthrough hetotalizing ct ofreading.Sartreuses themetaphor and, as we shallsee, the structure)of the giftto characterizethisexchange. The



13/21

816 SUZANNE GUERLACwriter ivesthe gift f thework,the reader givesthe reading thatcompletesthework-"le don de toute sa personne" (57). Literatureis a "ceremoniedu don" (60), a ritual ofgenerosity.6For Sartre,then,thevery xistenceof a literaryworkrequiresaspecial collaborationbetween two freeagents,the writer nd thereader. t involves, uite specifically, reciprocalrecognition n thepartof these twosubjectsof each other's freedom."Ainsi," artrewrites n this second chapterof What s Literature?:

l'auteur crit ours'adresser la liberte es lecteurst l la requiert efaire xister on oeuvre.Mais l ne se bornepas la et il exigeen outrequ'ils ui retournentette onfianceu'il leur donnee, u'ilsreconnais-sent a liberte reatricet qu'ils la sollicitent leur tourparun appelsymetriquetinverse.ci apparait n effet'autre aradoxedialectiquede la lecture:plusnouseprouvonsotreibertelusnous reconnaissonselle el'autre.58,my mphasisAs is wellknown,Kojeve's readingofHegel, so influentialn the1930s,called attention o theparadox latent n Hegel's account ofthe scene ofrecognition: hefactthatbecause he needs theconfir-mation (or objectification)of his status s subject byanother,thepresumably utonomous masteractuallydepends upon the slave.Bataille found this comic.7 Sartreappears to exploit thisparadox.For the"master," hewriterwho seeksessentiality,eeds the"slave,"the reader,forrecognition-recognition of his or her own essen-tialitys artist r creator and recognitionof the objective being ofthe work.But thewriter, nliketheHegelian master, equiresthatthe other not be a slave;he needs thereader to be free, nd to makea freegift f thisfreedom.The writer eeds the reader in order to

completethe work.He appeals to the reader to undertakethistaskand to this xtentnecessarilyppeals to (and hence recognizes) thereader's freedom. "Pours'adressera une liberteen tantque telle,"Sartre insists, il faut la reconnaitre . . pour l'atteindre il n'estqu'un procede: la reconnaitre" 54). Writingnd reading,then, rea collaborationthat nvolvenot onlya shared experience of free-dom but, more specifically, reciprocal recognitionof freedom.This isthe essenceof the iteraryvent s ceremony fthegift.Whatiswriting?t is "une certainefaconde vouloir a liberte" 72) whichinvolves la reconaissancede la libertepar elle-meme" 65).The corollary, hen,to the fact that iterature equiresa collab-oration between twofreesubjects n order to exist or occur) at all,is the factthat t makes such a collaborationpossible throughthe



14/21

MLN 817

dialectic ofreciprocalrecognition,whatSartrecalls theparadoxicaldialectic of reading. The work itself-the text as third term-neutralizes the intersubjective iolence that resultsfrom the con-frontationftwo ubjects, ach vying or hepositionofsubjectwhowillrelegatethe other to theobject statusofslave.The workmedi-ates the intersubjectivencounter,dialectically esolving heoppo-sition betweensubjectand object. It engenders, n Sartre'swords,"... une harmonie rigoureuse entre subjectivity t objectivite"(66), and to thisextentcorrespondswith hefundamental erms fa romanticesthetic."L'oeuvre d'art est valeur parce qu'elle est appel" (55), Sartrewrites.Aswe have seen,writings not value because of the value ofitsmessage; tisvalue in itsvery tructure,r essence, to the extentthat value here means freedom,the necessarycondition for theinvention f value through ction.To the extentthatthe correctedversion of recognitionthat structures he literary ct involves"lareconnaissance de la libertepar elle-meme" (66), literature,forSartre, s an absolute; it is an absolute experienced as estheticoy."La reconnaissancede la libertepar elle-meme stjoie" (65), Sartrewrites.Estheticoy, he continues:accompagnea conscience ositionnelleue le monde stvaleur, 'est-a-dire ne tacheproposee la liberte umaine . . c'estce que e nom-meraimodificationsthetique u projethumain, ar a l'ordinaireemonde pparait omme 'horizon e notre ituation,ommea distanceinfinieuinous epare enous-memes,ommea totaliteynthetiqueudonne,comme 'ensemble.. des obstacles t des ustensiles-maisa-maisune exigence ui s'adresse notre iberte.66)

It isthe estheticmodification fexperiencethatgives he worldtous as project. The dialectic of reading, then,-the verymode ofbeing of the literary vent-is not only an origin,or ground, ofestheticvalue. It is a conditionof possibilityf value in general inthe sense that,groundingvalue in freedom, t establishesthebasisforcommitmentnd responsibilityfanykind. The literaryvent sa paradigmfor ngagementnot as a commitmentotranscendentalvalues (the kind thatmightbe carried n an author'smessage) butas a commitment o the invention fvalue, that s,to freedom. t isin this ense thatthefreechoice said togroundthe writer's ngage-ment s theverydecision to write. t is the commitment o engagewith he iteraryvent tself s dialectic offreedoms. uch a commit-ment s always-and only-engagement la liberte.t is the extraordi-



15/21

818 SUZANNEGUERLACnaryworld of art,and, quintessentially,f text,thatgivesus theconditionsofpossibilityf thisrelationtofreedom. n a sense thereis no literary rt that is not engage, o exteriorityo engagementwithin iterature or writing)because something ike the absolutevalue conventionallyssociatedwith notionofpure art s itself heverymechanismofengagement.The thirdchapterof What s Literature?"For WhomDoes OneWrite?"),which presentsa concrete,historicalanalysisof literaryinstitutions,laboratesthemodel of the iteraryvent ntroduced nthe second chapter.The discussionof the public concretizesandexpands the abstractmeditation n thepositionofthereader,whilethediscussionof social orpoliticalfreedom oncretizes hethemeofmoral or metaphysical reedom-the freedomof the inventionofwritingnd of thereinventionfreading.The essenceof iterature-la litteratureormelle-provides regulative dea both forconcreteliterature-la litteratureoncrete-and or ngagement nthesocialorpoliticalregister. fter hepresentation f his schematic ocialhisto-ryof literature, artrecomments:"ces considerationsdemeurentarbitrairesi on ne les replace pas dans la perspective 'une oeuvred'art,c'est-a-dire,ppel libreet inconditionne une liberte" 154).He adds: "nosdescriptions ous ontpermisd'entrevoir ne sortededialectiquede l'idee de litterature"uchthat,without ryingowritea literary history [histoire des belles lettres], "nous pouv-ons... restituer e mouvementde cettedialectique dans les der-niers ieclespourdecouvrir u bout,fft-ce omme deal, I'essencepurede 'oeuvreitteraire,tconjointement,e typede public-c'est-d-direesocieteu'elle xige155-56,my emphasis).It is literature tself, hen,that, n itsessence, requires [exige]certainsocio-politicalreality. t requires it structurallyn order tofulfill ts essence concretely. n Sartre's historicalargument,thewriter's ublic marksthe concrete,that s,historical, quivalentofthe abstract or formal)positionof thereaderanalyzed n thepre-ceding chapter.It also providesa kind of paradigmforsociety tlarge.For thisreasonthepositionof thereader n chaptertwo-thereaderrecognized n his or her freedom nd reciprocating hisrec-ognition-is the paradigm not only for the historically oncretepublic but for societyas a whole. But, as we have already seen,"... la litterature n acte ne peut s'egaler a son essence pleniereque dans une societe sans classes" (160). Onlyafter he revolution(onlyat the end ofhistory)would the abstract igure f thereaderbecome actualized as a universalpublic.At thispoint the problem



16/21

MLN 819

of the messagewould vanish.For the writer's ubject,man in theworld (thismuch Sartretellsus, and insistsupon) would coincidewithhis interlocutor,he universalpublic in the mode offreedom."L'ecrivainn'a qu'un sujet: la liberte" 70).The essence of literature, hen,yieldsthe utopian social modelprecisely s correctionto the violentand oppressivemodel of themaster/slavedialectic, which, n Kojeve's readingofHegel, corre-spondswith hehistoryf classstruggle.t isnot thecase, then,thatliterary ngagement enjoins the author to write n a transparentprose in order to expresssocial or political ideas, valid and legiti-mate in themselves, nd to encourage theresponsiblesocial or po-litical action thatwould be dictated by those values. Rather,theontologyof the literary ventitself, s foundingmomentofvalue(the absolute value of freedomas condition of possibility or theinventionof any value, "la reconnaissance de la libertepar elle-meme"), provides hemodel for heutopian goal in social relations.As such it calls for ts own concreterealizationthroughrevolution.We have seen in the first wochaptersof What s Literature?hatthe figureof devoilements a leitmotifn Sartre'sargument. n thefirst hapterthe essence of prose was defined as "l'action par de-voilement." t involvedthe unveilingof situation nd a verbal sub-limation of intersubjective iolence. In the next chapterthe motifwasdisplaced to an ontologicalregister, he inherentneed ofa textfor the devoilementfreading to bring t into objectivebeing. Thiswas the basis of the paradoxical dialectic of reading, and of thestructure f the literary vent as mutual recognitionof freedom.Here devoilementnvolvesnot ust a sublimation f the scene of rec-ognition,but a reconfiguration f it. In the thirdsection, "ForWhomDoes One Write?", hefigure f devoilementsdisplacedtotheprocessofhistorical ecoming. t isa figure ssociatedwithfreedomwithinhistorical mbeddednessor situation, hat s,with evolution.RevolutionrequireswhatSartre calls invention."L'action histo-rique," he writes,"ne s'est jamais reduite a un choix entre desdonnees brutes,mais elle est toujourscaracteriseepar l'inventionde solutionsnouvelles" (292). And he adds, "lorsqu'un objet estcache a tous esyeux, lfaut 'inventer e toutespieces pourpouvoirle decouvrir" 292). Here invention tself s a formofunveiling,bringing nto appearance (or being) of somethinghidden. Free-domwithinhistory r situation s thus dentifiedwith heliteraryrcreative rocess tself-invention.What smore,totheextent hat tcan engender its own readership, iterature an potentially esolve



17/21

820 SUZANNEGUERLACthe antinomies f class contradiction. En un mot,"Sartrewrites, lalitterature st,par essence, la subjectivite 'une societe en revolu-tionpermanente.Dans une telle ocietelledepasserait'antinomiee laparole t de l'action" 163, myemphasis).In What s Literature?he literarybsolute remainsmerely para-digmfor the social or politicalend-"la cite des fins."Literature srevolutionaryn itsessence,ontologically. ut,as Sartredepicts t nhis sketchof concrete relationsbetween writer nd public,the his-toricalprocessitself nfolds n terms f thebinary tructure fselfand other.The vicissitudes f writer nd public playout relations falienated recognition.Onlythe result,or effect, f the three-termrelation of the reciprocal recognitionof freedom (writer-text-reader) makes tself elt n Sartre's rgument.Withrespectto histo-ry, his ffect lays he deological,ormythic,ole ofregulativedea."II fauthistorialisera bonne volonte du lecteur," artrewrites nWhat sLiterature? ut it is not untilthe Critique fDialecticalReasonand the analysisof praxisas "logic of freedom,"that Sartre ntro-duces the essence of iterature ntohistorys process. Historys nowconsidered as a processof totalization likereading) instead of as anaccumulationofpast eventsor relations.Sartre'stheory f the col-lectiveagentofpraxis,thegroup in fusion,developshis treatmentof the three-term elation (writer-text-reader) introduced inWhat s Literature? he structure f mediated and reciprocalrecog-nition,which lay at the core of his conception of the essence ofliterature, eturns n the dynamic multiplicityf the group in fu-sion.Sartreemphasizes that the difference etween the series of thepractico-inertnd the group in fusion,the free subject of praxiswhichoperates in a mode of totalization,nvolves he shift rombinary tructure o a ternaryne.8 For the fusedgroupis defined asa three-term elationwhich ncludesself, ther, nd the thirdparty.The position of thirdparty s mobile and relative.Everyonecanoccupythatpositionwithrespectto another. The functionof thisterm s to mediatereciprocityCDR 106) and thereby o neutralizethe self-alienating,r oppositional,featureof the intersubjectiveencounter.To this xtentwe could saythatrevolutionary raxis, hecollective ction of a groupsubject, ctivates heternarytructure fthe literaryvent the relationwriter-text-reader) in relation tothe nvention-or co-creating-of historyhrough ollective evolu-tionary ction.Aswehaveseen,Sartrehad already ntroducedthe themesof the



18/21

MLN 821

giftand of generosity n What s Literature?,ut he did so morerhetoricallyhansubstantively.L'artest ci une ceremoniedu don,"he proclaimed n a passingallusion to the structure f thepotlatch,"et le seul don opere une metamorphose: il y a quelque chosecomme la transmissiondes titres et des pouvoirs dans le ma-tronymat.." (60). In the Critique,owever,whichSartreconsiders"a prolegomenonto anyfuture nthropology"CDR 68), he explic-itly dentifies he ternary elation of the fusedgroup withthe an-thropologicalstructure f the potlatch,where,he argues,it is thematerial object of the giftwhich "sets reciprocity ree."This, ofcourse,wasprecisely herole ofthe text s giftn the second chap-ter of What s Literature?he Critiqueoth makesexplicittheimpor-tanceofthe structure fthegift o Sartre's nalysis f the essence ofliterature nd suggests he importanceof Sartre'stheory f litera-ture to his theory fpraxis.In our readingof What s Literature?e remarkedthe shift romthe first hapter,where the discourse of prose was related to asubtextof intersubjective iolence, to the second chapter,with tsharmoniousresolutionof thattension n thereciprocal recognitionof freedom which is the very ssence of literature or Sartre.Thetermsof this shift eturn n the CritiquefDialecticalReason n rela-tion to the distinction artre drawsbetween alienated reciprocity,inherent nthecollectivityf series n thefieldof thepractico-inert,and the reciprocal,or mediated, reciprocity f the fused group.Indeed Sartre'sanalysis fpraxisas logic of freedomrefers s backto writing s precisely"une certainefacon de vouloir la liberte."Praxis s a "logicof freedom"whosepeculiar ogic,wemight ay,wasadumbratedin the paradoxical dialectic of reading as Sartrepre-sents t in What s Literature?or praxis,Sartrewrites, determinesbonds of reciprocity,"which he defines as relations of "free ex-change betweentwo men who recognize each other in their free-doms." (CDR 109-10).This wasprecisely he essence ofthe literaryevent.The dialectic as logic offreedomwas already n place as theparadoxical dialectic ofreading.We could saythatthegift f itera-ture enables thegenerosity fengagement.9What s Literature?s usuallyconsidered to mark a transitionalphase betweena literary/intellectualartre, n theone hand,and amilitant artrewhorealizes hisengagement s a Marxist ctivistndtheoretician n the other.Literary ngagement s read as a crucialstep in Sartre'sprogressive emystificationithregardto thepow-ersofliterature. his was thethrust fSartre'sclaimin Les Mots: o



19/21

822 SUZANNEGUERLAChavebeen cured ofthe neurosisoftaking iterature s an absolute.But Les Mots oncludes withthesewords:

. . . mon imposture, 'est aussi mon caractere .. Uses, effaces,humi-lies,recoignes, asses oussilence, ous estraits e l'enfantontresteschez le quinquagenaire. a plupartdu temps ls s'aplatissent ansl'ombre,lsguettent:u premiernstant'inattention,lsreleventa teteetpenetrentans e pleinour sousundeguisement.0lThe powersof literature, resented in What s Literature?hroughthemetaphor, nd thestructure,f thegift-literature s ceremoniedu don-are centralto Sartre'sthinking f engagement.It is notonlythecase that t s the"modificationsth6tiquede l'experience"thatfirst ivesthe worldtous as task, s project, nd as value.Morespecifically,hegift fliterature, assesoussilence,ora time,bythemilitant artre,returns, isguised, n Sartre'sanalysisof praxis inthe second partof the CritiquefDialecticalReason.Aswe have seen,the eventofliterature, hroughthemediationofthe third ermofthetext, ransposes hescene of theviolentencounterbetweenthetwoterms fself nd other ntoone ofexemplary ollaboration-areciprocal recognitionof freedom. In his analysisof the giftex-change in theElementarytructuresfKinship, evi-Straussdentifiesthe "positive spect ofreciprocity"s the essentialcharacteristic fthe potlatch.11He specifically alls attention o itsremedial influ-ence in the "integration f the opposition of selfand other."Giftexchange, in hiswords"effectshe transition romhostilityo alli-ance." This is preciselythe role of literature s ceremonieu don,which,with ts ritualofreading,enables the revision f therecogni-tion scene, inscribes the peaceful and egalitarian substituteforHegel's violent nd hierarchical ncounter.This exemplary lliancereturns n the revolutionary roup,which introduces nto historythe energiesof literature s subjectivityf a society n permanentrevolution-"Dans une telle soci6etelle [la litt6rature] epasseraitl'antinomiede la parole et de l'action" (163). We could saythatthedepassement, f toccurs,occursin thepassage from What sLitera-ture? o the Critique fDialecticalReason.The myth f praxis com-pletes themyth fprose.In What s Literature?heliterarybsolute is presentedas a myth,themyth fa socialmodel-- 'essence urede 'oeuvreitterairet .. .letype e .. societeu'elle xige.n the CritiquefDialecticalReason hismyths rewrittens a myth fpraxis, myth f the historical gencyof its own concretefulfilment.12s we suggestedat the outset,we



20/21

MLN 823tendto associateengagementwithtiredpolemicsthatpittedesthe-tics gainstpolitics.When weread engagementmorecritically,ow-ever,wefind hat tproblematizesprecisely hatconventional ppo-sition.Engagement, s Sartre laborates t,provides heparadigmofan exemplary lliance betweenthese two terms.And thisalliancedoes notdepend, as iscommonly onsidered,upon a subordinationof literature o political imperatives.On the contrary,he alliancebetween literature nd politics derives,for Sartre,from the veryessence of iterature. he literarybsolute-the recognition f free-domby tself-providesthe modelfor, s wellas the meansto,socialrelationsat the end ofhistory.Emory niversity

NOTES1 I amthinkingpecificallyf LeDegre ero e icritureyRoland Barthes,Bataille'sessay"Baudelaire" (published in La Litteraturet emal) which was writtenn

response to Sartre'sBaudelaire,nd Blanchot's essays"L'Echec de Baudelaire"and "La Litterature t le droit a la mort."2 Fora moredetailedanalysis fthispointsee Guerlac,"TransgressionnTheory:Genius and the Subject of La Revolution u language oetique"n Ethics, oliticsandDifferencenJuliaKristeva'sWriting,d. KellyOliver (NewYork:Routledge,1993).3 Sartre,Qu'est-ceue la litterature?Paris: Gallimard,1948), 15-16. Subsequentpage referenceswill be givenin parentheses n the textand will referto thisedition. Occasional Englishtranslations re myown.4 Derrida,SpeechndPhenomenandotherssays n Husserl'sTheoryf igns Evans-ton, llinois: Northwestern niversityress,1973), 22.5 "L'homme est l'etre ... qui ne peutmemevoirune situation ans la changer"(28).6 The theme of generositys crucial specifically o Sartre'sanalysisof reading."Ainsi es affections u lecteur,"Sartrewrites, ne sont-ellesamais domineespar l'objet .. elles ont leur source permanente dans la liberte,c'est-a-direqu'elles sont toutesgenereuses-carje nommegenereuseune affectionui a lalibertepour origineet pour fin. Ce que l'ecrivainreclame du lecteurce n'estpas l'applicationd'une liberte bstraite,mais e don de toute sa personne" (57).(This point s discussed n more detail in a book inprogress n Sartre,Bataille,and Bretonfromwhich thisessayhas been taken.)7 See Bataille, "Hegel, La Mortet le Sacrifice" n Deucalion5, 1955, 125, and my

"'Recognition' bya Woman!" in YaleFrench tudies 8, 1990.8 Sartre,TheCritiquefDialecticalReasonTheoryf ractical nsembles,ranslated yAlan Sheridan-SmithLondon: NLB; AtlanticHighlands,NJ:HumanitiesPress,1976) 109. The formation f thegroup in fusion,he writes,nvolves "ternaryrelationoffree, ndividual ction,or freereciprocity,nd of a mediatingthird



21/21

824 SUZANNE GUERLACparty" 366); "everyone s also a thirdparty n relationto reciprocalrelationsbetweenothers" 366). Subsequentreferenceswill refer o thisedition and willbe givenwithinparentheses n the text,withthe indicationCDR.9 It is important o stresshere theparallel importanceof theprocessof totaliza-tionin the account of the dialecticofreadingand in the account of the fusedgroup as subjectofpraxis."Les centmille motsalignesdans un livrepeuventetre us un a un sansque le sensde l'oeuvreenjaillisse,"Sartrewritesn WhatsLiterature?,nd he continues "le sens n'est pas la somme des mots"-like atotalizedcollectivitynseries-"il en est a totalite rganique"-that is tosaythetotalization 51). Whatis more,the distinction etweenseries and totalizationalreadyappears in Sartre's account of reading: if reading involvesboth the"restitutione series causales independantes . . . et de l'expressiond'une final-iteplus profonde" t is the "causalitequi est l'apparence ... et c'est la finalitequi est a realiteplus profonde" 61). Finalitympliestotalization, nd requiresthe totalizing ct of reading,as opposed to the totality ngendered throughseries.Of thefusedgroup Sartrewrites n the Critique-The internal, yntheticconstitution fme bythegroup is simply otalization . ." (376). Of the thirdparty artrewrites: I am among thirdparties nd have no privileged tatus.Butthisoperationdoes not transformme into an objectbecause totalization ythethirdparty nlyreveals a freepraxis...." (379).10 Sartre,Les Mots Paris: Gallimard,1964) 211-212.11 Claude Levi-Strauss,The Elementarytructuresf Kinship, ranslatedby Bell,Strumer, nd Needham (Boston: Beacon Press,1969), 68.12 In La Pensee auvage, evi-StraussmpliesthatSartre'sproposedviewofhistoryssomething ike a myth, r at leasta fiction; e chargesthat t"corresponds o noreality."For further eferencesconcerningthe dialogue between SartreandLevi-Strauss ee Anna Boschetti,Sartre t Les TempsModernesParis: Minuit,1985). Boschetti s one of the fewcriticswho entertains he idea thatWhat sLiterature?nvolvesnot a subordinationof literature o actionbut a defense ofliteraturen the faceofpowerfuldeologiesofaction:"il ne s'agitaucunement,"she writes, de la 'subordination' de la litterature la politique qu'y ont vue,consternes et scandalises, Gide et les autres partisans de la litterature'pure' . . ." 143-4.

Sartre and the Powers of Literature the Myth of Prose and the Practice of Reading

Documents

Transcript of Sartre and the Powers of Literature the Myth of Prose and the Practice of Reading