— 1 — A HISTORY OF TEL QUEL The logic of literature Raymont Patrick ffrench PhD. University College London ProQuest Number: 10105690 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10105690 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 — 2 — Abstract This thesis aims to present a history of Tel Quel - periodical, group and series. It is argued that this can only be done at a significant level if it is realised that the overriding concern of Tel Quel, and what gave it both intellectual and actual existence, was the production of a theory of literature through editorial activities. The present work therefore concerns itself with identifying and analysing the theory of literature produced by the group's writers and theorists, principally Philippe Sellers and Julia Kristeva, through a broadly historical framework which alone can show that this theory remains constant despite the shifts of Tel Quel with regard to the context. The theory is a logic of literature. It proposes that the latter is a transformative experience. Reading and writing, particularly of certain 'limit texts' operate a transgression of the limits of so-called 'normal' experience, and a transformation of language, of phenomena, of the body, of history. This transgression and transformation are possible because language is seen as a potentially infinite, open system, within which restricted, closed systems such as discourse, communication, 'society' and the subject exist. Literature effects the opening of closures within language. It is thus an analytic, dissolutory force, the radicality of which social and political institutions attempt to reduce. The articulation of Tel Quel with the Nouveau Roman, structuralism, Marxism and psychoanalysis is assessed in this light, and so is the association of the review with notable thinkers of the period, such as Barthes and Derrida. A special importance is given to the writing practice it generates, which is described through analysis of some of the numerous creative texts produced by Tel Quel writers, selected to illustrate various aspects of this practice. Even the final dissolution of the review, and its continuation, with a changed practice in L 'Infini, should - 3 - be read from the same internal, theoretical perspective, as a development anchored in the act of literary creation seen as transformative, negative and analytic, as is demonstrated by the tapes of recent interviews which are supplied in a separate volume (with transcripts). — 4 — Table of contents Page Title page 1 Abstract 2 Table of contents 4 CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 5 I. Introduction 6 II. The context of reviews 13 III. The philosophical context 25 IV. The literary context 38 Notes for Chapter One. 49 CHAPTER TWO - INTERVENTION 53 I. The formation of Tel Quel 53 II. The dépassement of the Nouveau Roman / Poetic language 63 III. From avant-garde to science 81 IV. The logic of literature 99 Notes for Chapter Two 149 CHAPTER THREE - THEORY 157 I. The extension of theory - Marxism 157 II. The extension of theory - Psychoanalysis 192 III. The intervention of Julia Kristeva 209 IV. The subject of literature 237 Notes for Chapter Three 269 CHAPTER FOUR - TEXTS 279 Notes for Chapter Four 319 CHAPTER FIVE - DISSOLUTION 322 I. The dissolution of the Marxist system 322 II. Ethics : the Law and its excess. 339 III. The politics of dissidence 350 IV. The exception in literature 365 V. Dissolution 389 Epilogue ; L'Infini 400 Notes for Chapter Five 403 Chronology 409 Bibliography 417 Tapes (with transcripts) in separate volume - 5 - 'Les avant-gardes n'ont qu'un temps; et ce qui peut arriver de plus heureux, c'est, au plein sens du terme, d'avoir fait leur temps. Après elles, s'engagent des opérations sur un plus vaste théâtre. On n'en a que trop vu, de ces troupes d'élite qui, après avoir accompli quelque vaillant exploit, sont encore là pour défiler avec leurs décorations, et puis se retournent contre la cause qu'elles avaient défendue. Il n'y a rien à craindre de semblable de celles dont l'attaque a été menée jusqu'au terme de la dissolution.' Guy Debord - In qirum imus nocte et consumimur iqni — 6 — CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT I.Introduction The first and most obvious question to answer is 'Why study Tel Ouel ' ^ ? TQ has had a massive but unidentified influence upon literary theory. It is implicated in the 'structuralist' and 'post- structuralist' currents that have emerged from France since the 1960 s, and it is normally associated with the names Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, Althusser, Kristeva. TQ must however be distinguished from a loose 'Lacano-AIthusserianism'. Although it played a major part in the rise to prominence of Barthes, Foucault and Derrida and a. fortiori Kristeva , a fact which is often forgotten in discussion of these writers, it is distinct from the thought of these individuals. TQ should not be confused with any rough, undefined, structuralism or poststructuralism. It has a precise and specific character distinct from these currents that has yet to be defined. This thesis therefore attempts to rectify two misconceptions. Firstly, that of the non-specificity of the review. Secondly, that of its difficulty. TQ is often complex and dense, but it is not 'obscure and impenetrable' as the stereotyped view has it. The first misconception , of the non-specificity of the review, also implies that TQ is also at the mercy of shifts in the context, from Nouveau roman to - 7 - Structuralism, to Semiology to Marxism, Maoism, 'Atlanticism' and so on. The thesis thus also attempts to trace the hidden continuity, the permanent thread behind these shifts in strategy. It analyses the specific theory of literature that defines this continuity. The history of TQ we are tracing is an internal history read from the perspective of this theory, rather than from that of the context. It is a history reinterpreted by literature and theory, not one assessed from a sociological point of view. The sociological perspective seems to have determined so far the state of other studies of TQ. The recent study of TQ by Louis Pinto in Bourdieu's review Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales is a sociological reduction that has given rise to a critical reaction in L ' Infini, the continuation of TQ. The sociological reduction and its reaction show what is at stake. However , the sociological reduction is the fullest response to TQ so far. Other considerations are fragmentary^ and do not approach the main issue, of the theory of literature. Indeed, other studies of other reviews have so far been predominantly historical or sociological^, judging the review , be it Les Temps modernes, Esprit or Scrutiny,from the point of view of the context, social or historical. No paradigm exists for our approach, which is internal, assessing the review from the point of view of the theory it develops itself, and working outwards to the context. This seeks to evade the danger of the chronicle , which is a danger for TQ itself in so far as the chronicle would — 8 — relate only the review's reactions to the context and would miss the underlying continuity. On the other hand, there is a danger that in attempting an 'internal' history our perspective will become indistinguishable from that of TQ itself, that the necessary critical distance would be lost. However, instead of adopting an external distance, judging the review from a point outside it, in the context, we desire to maintain an internal critical distance by moving further in to the heart of the theory of literature in question and assessing the historical development of TQ from that point. There is thus a dual movement operative here : inward, to define the continual logic or theory of literature of TQ and outward, to trace the history of the review from that perspective. There are further problems with a study of TQ. Firstly, although part of the particularity of TQ is its anchoring in the literary creativity of those involved in it, the review is one of literary criticism. It is defined not just by direct theoretical statement and creation but also by the choices it makes of the objects of critical study. What is in question here is the distinction between literature and criticism, which TQ itself, among other influences, has done much to erode. Traditionally, criticism analyses literature and a critical study of a critical enterprise would be a criticism at a second remove. At every remove, so to speak, the critical distance is further and the focus less precise. This functions also in the question of the choice of critical object. TQ's choice of critical object must ba followed by - 9 - a further critical choice. Through its choice, TQ identifies a limited area of literature; our choice identifies an area which is limited still further. The loss is not only one of the precision of the focus, but through reasons of space, of breadth, ending with a focus too wide yet not wide enough. The second remove at the same time limits and dissipates the focus. On the other hand, part of the theory of literature TQ defines identifies the importance of writing that transgresses the limits between genres.