Deux approches centrées sur le personnage

Abstract

The present article complacently falls into the trap of more or less bombastic show-offish quoting – in particular when it comes to the conceptualizing of narrative. The only noteworthy quote really is not one; with its open quotation marks, it is both faulty and open. That misquote forms the title of the conclusion: «Neither the sun, nor... , nor... The argument of the article might be of interest for three different reasons. «First, it draws attention to facile (neostructuroliberoneurobehaviorist) practices of «the therapeutic function of narrative» (Eco). Second, the article draws on two good examples. Thirdly, the article takes its cue from a (reliable) commentary on Guibert’s Aids Trilogy, on,the one hand, and a (more personal) commentary on Mars on the other. It proposes, possibly, that if mimesis III is to make its way toward the horizon of the humanities, one needs to be able to think death through. Such «thinking» is of the order of «impossible necessity» (Derrida). Anger (Zorn) and immediacy Guibert are approximations to such thinking.