Customer Reviews

Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is to serve as a rebutal to the earlier so- called review. De Man's war time involvement with the Dutch fascists was indeed unfortunate, as was Heideggar's espousal of nazism, as well Eliade's support of the Romanian fascists. This does not however take away from the beauty of their literary and philisophical works. Something that as a Jew I have had to grapple with. Derrida is an Algerian Jew, and was Paul de Man's close friend. His approach to reading is principly an ethical one. Perhaps you should turn your attention to his book on de Man. And perhaps also, you should reread the above book, or first read some other books on deconstruction, as your characterization of it was terribly off base. Deconstruction in it's Derridean form is extremely subtle, requiring a mental agility to grasp the closeness of it's readings. You would be doing yourself a service by reapproaching it more with an attentive honestness not exhibited in the above review. As to the book in question, I have always enjoyed Paul de Man's work, however if you are not familiar with continental philosophy it may not be the best opening into that world-Derrida, Delueze, Cixous and later Hedeggar may prove more stimulating and enjoyable.

I have been reading Nietzsche for 42 years, since The Will To Power was translated into English by Walter Kaufmann and Hollingdale. The issues that concerned me then are central to the discussion by Paul de Man in Allegories of Reading on fictitious truths. Chapter 6 allows Nietzsche to suggest that Aristotle's law of contradiction about A that opposite attributes cannot be ascribed to A merely applies to the apparent or assumed state for a logic that allows us to arrange a world that should be true for us. "In fact, logic (like geometry and arithmetic) applies only to fictitious truths." (p. 121, section 516 of Der Wille zur Macht by Nietzsche).

Thinking is considered a fiction, too. Having an artificial arrangement for the purpose of intelligibility falls apart when "Considered as persuasion, rhetoric is performative but when considered as a system of tropes, it deconstructs its own performance. Rhetoric is a text in that it allows for two incompatible, mutually self-destructive points of view, and therefore puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way of any reading or understanding." (p. 131). The aporia both generates and paralyzes rhetoric.

I agree with Aaron C Sparenberg, and for further support suggest a reading of Dr. James Paxson's article "Historicizing Paul de Man's Master Trope Prosopopeia: Belgium's Trauma of 1940, the Nazi Volkskörper, and Versions of the Allegorical Body Politic," published in Historicizing Theory. Being at all familiar with de Man's work, one inevitably would understand how complex such issues can be, and would refrain from making such rash generalizations, particularly when the evidence at hand is printed materials -- as is quoted at the opening of The Allegories of Reading, "Quand on lit trop vite ou trop doucement on n'entend rien." The book itself is, as has been noted before, complex and filled with intense close readings of challenging texts. But these readings are truly rewarding when you reach a full understanding. (The end of each chapter tends to ignite a triumphant climax in which you at once understand how the intricacies of close readings reflect a grander picture of literature and the act of reading as we know it.) The Allegories of Reading deserves not one reading, but many close rereadings for full comprehension.

One of the best analyses upon the metaphor subject. The chapter about the Marcel Proust metaphors is pure light. Do not lose it!

Genesis and Genelogy alone is worth five stars. If you don't believe me - read it.

Paul De Man spent his early years in Europe as a confirmed Anti-Semitic fascist. When the Nazis invaded his homeland, he actively collaborated in creating and disseminating virulent polemics against Jews. After the war De Man fled to America. He was hired to teach at Yale (great background check, guys) while desperately attempting to conceal his wartime activities. De Man became famous at Yale for founding the School of Deconstructionism, an intellectually disreputable philosophy which claimed that works of art may be freely interpreted by observers without consideration for the creator's intentions. In other words, Hitler's "Mein Kampf" might have one meaning to a Bantu and another meaning to a Swede without concern for Hitler's intentions. This type of moral equivocation appealed to members of the politically correct sect, which faithfully regurgitated De Man's shallow assertions. Early in his Yale career De Man's European escapades became known to the senior staff and faculty at Yale. When confronted by his accusers, De Man lied. Yale never publicized De Man's record of violent bigotry (great moral courage, guys), allowing De Man to proselytize his message of moral relativism for decades without public recognition of the Great Scholar's character or moral fitness.

In the person of Paul De Man the politically correct are forced to confront the true nature of their inhuman philosophy. Thomas Jefferson preached freedom and liberalism while owning slaves, in direct contradiction of his philosophy, becoming a hypocrite. De Man preached genocide against helpless minorities, lied after the fact, and never apologized for his actions. In doing so he conformed perfectly to the moral relativism of political correctness. Deconstructionism became the intellectual shield behind which hides the totalitarian urge.