Leiris, Perec, and Benabou
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IDENTITY IN PLAY: LEIRIS, PEREC, AND BÉNABOU A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2018 FABIENNE CHEUNG SCHOOL OF ARTS, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ……p. 3 Abstract ……p. 4 Declaration and Copyright Statement ……p. 5 Acknowledgements ……p. 6 Introduction ……p.7 Chapter 1 – Michel Leiris: ‘Faire un livre qui soit un acte’……p. 32 Chapter 2 – Georges Perec: ‘J'écris pour vivre et je vis pour écrire’……p. 80 Chapter 3 – Marcel Bénabou: ‘tu cours, comme moi, le risque de t’y perdre’…...p. 127 Conclusion ……p. 174 Bibliography……. p. 187 Appendix ……p. 200 Word count: 76,222 words 2 List of Abbreviations LCC – Barthes, R., La Chambre claire: note sur la photographie (Paris: Seuil, 1980) Pourquoi / PQ – Bénabou, M., Pourquoi je n’ai écrit aucun de mes livres (Paris: Seuil, 2010, first published 1986) Jette - Bénabou, M., Jette ce livre avant qu’il soit trop tard (Paris: Editions Seghers, 1992) Epopée / EF - Bénabou, M., Jacob, Ménahem et Mimoun: Une Epopée familiale (Paris: Seuil, 1995) ADH – Leiris, M., L’Âge d’homme (Paris: Gallimard, 2006, first published 1939; 1945) Miroir – Leiris, M., Miroir de la tauromachie (Paris: Editions Fata Morgana, 1981) W – Perec, G., W ou le souvenir d’enfance (Paris: Editions Denoël, 1975) LC – Perec, G., Le Condottière (Paris: Seuil, 2012) P/C – Perec, G., Penser / Classer (Paris: Hachette, 1985) JSN - Perec, G., Je suis né (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1990) VME – Perec, G., La Vie mode d’emploi (Paris: Hachette, 1978) CA – Perec, G., Un Cabinet d’amateur (Paris: Editions Ballard, 1979) L’Œil – Perec, G. and White, C., L’Œil ébloui (Paris: Hachette / Le Chêne, 1981) Espèces – Perec, G., Espèces d’espaces (Paris: Galilée, 1975) 3 Abstract This thesis concerns the autobiographical writing of Michel Leiris (1901-1980), Georges Perec (1936-1982), and Marcel Bénabou (1939 - ). The thesis interrogates the idea that identity is ‘in play’ for all three interrelated writers. Identity being ‘in play’ carries with it the suggestion from French of ‘en jeu’. I will demonstrate the ways in which identity is not only ‘in play’, but ‘at stake’ for Leiris, Perec, and Bénabou. My research offers the first study to bring together these writers to examine how they respond to the challenge of communicating ludically their identity in their autobiographical writing. Autobiography is for these writers beset with ludic possibilities that compound the task of self-enquiry: it is both risky and full of creative potential. Writing itself is, for these three, an exercise of identity: an ongoing, provisional, and unfinished process by which, through the play of writing and reading, the writer can approach greater insight into his self. The thesis has three principal research questions. These have allowed me to show how Leiris, Perec, and Bénabou’s autobiographical concerns overlap, inform, and influence each other, yet also how their individual contexts shape their responses to similar autobiographical tension points during this period of French literary history. The first research question asks: in what ways do Leiris, Perec, and Bénabou posit their self in their autobiographical writing? All three writers resist a totalized, unified self assumed to be found as a product of autobiographical writing. Instead, their texts posit a complex, composite, multipart self, inflected with provisionality and open- endedness. The second research question asks: how do Leiris, Perec, and Bénabou each approach the difficulties of autobiographical writing? These writers have a common interest in the difficulties and limit points of autobiography, even to the point of suggesting its failure. I identify the techniques and mechanisms that Leiris, Perec, and Bénabou employ to contend with these difficulties. The final research question asks: what is the place of the reader in relation to Leiris, Perec and Bénabou’s texts? These writers demand an active reader, who is invited to participate in a relationship of reconstructive exchange with the author as a partner in the literary game, supplementing the writers’ lacunary self-knowledge. The thesis’ methodology is guided by close reading of the chosen texts using extended commentary and a range of critical and theoretical insights woven into my analysis. The thesis is structured into three chapters, which examine Leiris, Perec and Bénabou in turn. It is thus possible to see how their autobiographical concerns overlap, inform, and influence each other, all whilst respecting the specific contexts of each writer and his response. My thesis can inform discussion about how identity is constituted through the stories we construct and tell about our lives; in the case of these three writers, their identity is put not only ‘in play’ but ‘at stake’ in their autobiographical writing. 4 Declaration No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. Copyright Statement i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=24420), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/about/regulations/) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses 5 Acknowledgements I would firstly like to extend my sincerest thanks to my thesis supervisors, Prof Ursula Tidd and Dr Jérôme Brillaud. Their judicious advice, generous time and patience, and indisputable academic rigour has made my PhD journey not only intellectually but personally rewarding in innumerable ways. They have been exemplary scholars and collaborators, providing a model that I can only hope to emulate. The same goes, too, for Prof Dee Reynolds, whose perspective has always been given in a refreshing spirit of generosity. My thanks must also go to an earlier academic mentor, Prof Ian Maclachlan, who from the beginning of my academic career as a lowly and wide-eyed undergraduate to the present day has always been genuinely interested, involved, and enthusiastic. I admire his vast knowledge and personal attributes, but most of all his devotion to the joys of food. Teaching at the University of Manchester has provided me with an experience that has forever shaped my outlook on the purpose and aims of education: I was lucky to work with Dr Barbara Lebrun and Dr Cathy Gelbin in this respect. I would have been unable to pursue the current research without the bequest made by Dr Fanni Bogdanow to the University of Manchester. It has remained a constant reminder throughout the writing of this thesis that Dr Bogdanow, like Georges Perec, avoided the horrors of the Holocaust as a child by escaping on a train; her parents, like Perec’s mother, experienced the camps at Auschwitz, along with those at Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. It appears fitting that Dr Bogdanow’s bequest live on in the current research. I thank my friends from various walks of life – school, Merton, France, Manchester, and beyond – for their valuable support, humour, and perspective. My family have seen me through all the phases of my life and academic career: from the first day of school to graduation ceremonies, they have been there, unwavering. My final thanks go to James, whose steadfast presence, love, and intellect has imbued this thesis, and my life, with more than he shall ever know. 6 Introduction ‘[L]e jeu découle du je’; ‘le je découle du jeu’1 This thesis concerns the autobiographical writing of Michel Leiris (1901 – 1980), Georges Perec (1936 – 1982), and Marcel Bénabou (1939 – ). I will interrogate the idea that identity is ‘in play’ for all three interrelated writers. Identity being ‘in play’ carries with it the suggestion from French of ‘en jeu’, inspired by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France’s 2014–2015 exhibition on the Ouvroir de la Littérature Potentielle (more commonly ‘Oulipo’), entitled ‘La Littérature en jeu(x)’.2 I will demonstrate the ways in which identity is not only ‘in play’, but ‘at stake’ for Leiris, Perec, and Bénabou. For all three writers, the homophonic interplay between ‘je’, ‘jeu’, ‘en jeu’ and ‘enjeu’ is highly evocative of the stakes of autobiography.3 The interplay between identity and gaming echoes and reflects in stimulating and idiosyncratic ways through their work. My research seeks to demonstrate that identity is ‘en je’, ‘en jeu’, ‘en jeux’, and implicates certain ‘enjeux’ for Leiris, Perec, and Bénabou in their autobiographical writing: at stake, in play, and centred around the exploration of the ‘je’.