“Ignorance” and Textuality

Abstract

“From the beginning of my life the problem, for me, has been one of knowing who was speaking when I spoke in my books . . . and if there is invention in my work, it is there. For example,” continues Duras concerning Le Vice-consul, “for the beggar, it took me months to know who was speaking, to tell the story of the beggar, and how someone knew.”¹ The “secret,” so to speak, of Duras’ narrative structuring consists precisely in this: the “someone” in question, interposed voice or glance, does not “know.” From the outset, the author renders him, or her, incapable of knowing. The “someone” speaks from an original, permanent, and textually productive “ignorance.” Displacing the question of knowledge, Duras throws into relief gaps inherent in all narratives, in all relations to the world and to oneself. In her texts, this produces plurivocity and/or heteroglossia regardless of the internal narrative stance.

“It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance men and beasts live — you must also have and acquire the will to ignorance.”

Nietzsche