Notes on: Deleuze, G and
Guattari, F. ( 2004) A Thousand
Plateaus.London: Continuum.
Chapter eight. 1874: Three Novellas, or "What
Happened?"
Dave Harris
As a literary genre, the novella is the opposite
of the tale, in terms of its direction: the issue
is what happened. The tale gets the reader asking
what is going to happen, the novel operates in
'perpetual living present (duration)' (213). The
detective novel is a hybrid since something has
happened already, but we have to reconstruct it,
to discover something. It is not just a matter of
dimensions of time, because past and future can
become immediate and connected with the present
[citing Husserl here]. However, the novella
presents something which is already cast into the
past. We can see this in two pieces : a tale by
Maupassant and a novella by d'Aurevilly tackle the
same theme. Both novellas and tales require a
great deal of attention and precision. The writer
appears differently in both.
The novella doesn't just recall the past, but
indicates that 'something unknowable and
imperceptible' has happened. There are also
particular 'postures of the body and mind'
involved, [later referred to as states of the
body], a attitudes or positions, which take the
form of folds in the novella, and unfolding in the
tale. Overall, the novella features 'What
happened? (The modality or expression), Secrecy
(the form), Body Posture (the content). Fitzgerald
shows the genre by asking himself what could have
happened that produced this in the present. It is
not just a question of memory. It arises not
just at moments of fatigue and disillusion.
It is like perceiving that something is already
there in a room or has just happened, or is over:
'perceptual semiotics' (215). There is no
guarantee of recovering those perceptions.
We're going to discuss the novella in terms of
'lines of writing', conjugated with other lines
'lifelines, lines of luck or misfortune, and lines
productive of the variation of the line of writing
itself, lines that are between the lines of
writing'. All genres have these lines, but they
take a specific form in the novella: living lines
are used to deliver 'a special revelation'.
The first example is 'In the Cage' by Henry
James [which I have not read]. The heroine is a
telegrapher, and her normal life can be seen as
plotted on 'the line of rigid segmentarity on
which everything seems calculable and foreseen'
[one segment ends at work and links to a segment
of leisure, segments lead to an engagement and
wedding and so on]. 'Our lives are made like
that': the 'great molar aggregates' like the state
or institutions; people as members of an
aggregate, 'feelings as relations between
people'(216). These lines control our identities
'including personal identity', and can provide the
basis of our relationships with each other. This
is the 'molar or rigid line of segmentarity' and
it dominates our lives, 'and always seems to
prevail in the end'. It can include tenderness and
love, so it is not all bad. Events in the novella
reveal the existence of another life, as a
mysterious couple send coded telegrams. We now
have a more 'supple flow', with 'quanta' seen as
embryonic segments. The heroine tries to decode
what is going on, and suspects a dangerous secret
or 'dangerous posture'. The secret itself is not
discussed, and might be completely unimportant:
the point is not to discover it. What does matter
is that 'a strange passional complicity, a wholly
intense molecular life' develops for the heroine
as she relates to the couple. It is not simply
that this is imaginary, more that two kinds of
politics are now available - the conventional
macropolitics with classes or sexes, and a new
micropolitics that sees the relationships in a
different way. Couples are seen differently as an
aggregate of molar factors, or as affected by
'less localizable relations' of flows and
particles. Here, couples suggest doubles,
including possible alternative selves. This is the
'line of molecular or supple segmentation', and
the quanta refer to deterritorialization. The
present becomes more vivid, ungraspable,
molecularized, with things operating 'at speeds
beyond the ordinary thresholds of perception'
(217). This is 'not necessarily better'.
These two lines interweave, producing supple
currents or rigid points [somebody French --
Sarraute -- praises English novelists as well as
Proust for being particularly good at spotting
these molecular lines that people follow, breaking
with fixed segmentarity, developing
'micromovements' lots of fine segmentations, tiny
cracks and postures, different agencies, all
offered as a 'subconversation' at the micro
level]. The heroine reaches a limit on this supple
line as the secret itself takes over and puts an
end to the micro relationship. Rigid segmentarity
returns and people marry their existing partners,
but still 'everything has changed'(218), in the
form of the emergence of 'a kind of line of
flight' challenging segments of all kinds, leading
to 'a kind of absolute deterritorialization'. The
secret itself was to do with love and sexuality,
but the main issue was how it affected
relationships, not its precise form. Somehow this
leads to an absence of any kind of form, 'nothing
but a pure abstract line', where there is nothing
to hide, and we have 'become imperceptible'
[because previously, having the secret came to
define her subjectivity?]. Becoming imperceptible
here means knowing how to become nobody, how to
look entirely normal like the knight of faith
[discussed elsewhere], while moving on a line that
is far from conventional. Of the three lines, the
first produces 'many words in conversations,
questions and answers'; the second 'silences,
allusions and hasty innuendoes'; the third means
we can speak of anything at all, because 'it is no
longer possible for anything to stand for anything
else'. These three lines are intermingled [in life
as well as in the novella?]
The second example is 'The Crack Up', by F.
Scott Fitzgerald [which I have read]. The writer
talks about his life and how it has run into
disillusion and impotence [he still writes, but
not with any passion]. His life has become
'increasingly rigid and desiccated', along his
line of segmentarity. The major social changes
from the outside that he describes have moved on
his life and led to rigidity [he thinks that the
talkie cinema, for example, will make novels
redundant]. However, there is another type of
cracking at the micro level, more subtle and
supple, and this can arise [behind your back],
even when things seem to be going well. One clear
and noticeable example is the effects of ageing
which creep up on you and affect yourself and your
desires, and make you unable to engage in moments
of intensity. These effects are not so perceptible
and not clearly directional: they take place 'in
the immanence of a rhizome' rather than as
something 'determined by the transcendence of a
tree'. These lead to a crack up that is suddenly
realized when it is too late, and we see that
there are connections with other segmentations as
well, again rhizomatic, and micropolitical [I
think this is referring to the other slow
transitions that went initially unnoticed by Scott
Fitzgerald, in his marriage, in his career, in his
ability to write effortlessly and all the rest of
it: he found himself having to cope with these
more and more, which is, I suppose, a form of
micropolitics].
Fitzgerald does consider following a third line of
rupture, a clean break [heading off to somewhere
remote], but he is aware that some apparent clean
breaks end up in the old constraints again.
Temporary breaks, as in holidays or voyages, used
to work, but will not serve now [escape leads to
returns to normality as we know]. Other writers
have also known that no matter how far you travel,
you still meet the same kind of people, 'always
your daddy and mommy'(220). This is a comment on
the limits of supple segmentarity. A proper clean
break means the past no longer exists, and so 'one
has become imperceptible and clandestine', and
nothing can affect us any more - 'I no longer have
any secrets, having lost my faces, form, and
matter'. Even love no longer compels [or
interpellates] us - we choose. We have become an
abstract line, absolute deterritorialization, a
becoming 'like everybody/the whole world' [by
remaining indifferent to the world?]. A genius
knows how to do this, how to enter
'becomings-animal, becomings- molecular, and
finally becomings-imperceptible' (221) [so now the
subsequent chapter on becomings makes a lot more
sense?] [They also say that 'It should not be said
that the genius is an extraordinary person, nor
that everybody has genius']. Fitzgerald himself
describes himself right at the end as an animal,
but there is a despairing tone, indicating the
dangers of true flight and its tendency to
suicide. Overall, we get from this novella
the three lines that comprise a life: 'break line,
crack line, rupture line'['break' here does not
mean clean break, that is 'rupture']. The line of
flight is 'abstract, deadly and alive,
nonsegmentary'
Third example: 'The Story of the Abyss and the
Spyglass' by P. Fleutiaux [which I have not
read] . [We start with some amazing imagery --
D&G or PF?]. Some segments are near and others
more distant; they encircle an abyss or black
hole; each segment has on it two kinds of
'lookouts, near-seers and far-seers'. The nears
have a simple spyglass and they are on the lookout
for gigantic cells and great binary divisions and
dichotomies, producing well defined segments like
classrooms and barracks. Occasionally, they need
to clarify things with 'the terrible Ray
Telescope' which cuts out shapes [that is defines
them, with signifiers, to preserve the molar order
from ambiguity], overcodes. There is a denial of
metaphor [by PF? ]in the interests of speaking or
writing literally of a line of rigid segmentarity.
The long distance seers focus on
microsegmentarity, details, possibilities, lines
that might turn into shapes, a rhizome or
molecular segmentarity that cannot be overcoded by
a signifier. They operate on a second line, supple
segmentarity, produced by 'anonymous
segmentation', with no apparent goals, offering
only becomings, or something that's already formed
up. There is a parallel with some work in biology
where the great movements of cell division are
accompanied by all sorts of migrations and
processes and impulses passing through thresholds
of intensity. We can see this in societies as
well, with rigid macro segments 'cross cut
underneath' by other kinds of segments. Again
these metaphors are resisted in the name of
writing literally, developing lines of writing.
These lines are perceptual, but also matters of a
'semiotics, practice, politics, theory' (223),
which are always connected. One's own line 'may or
may not conjugate with others', and if it does
not, there is no point in arguing - 'you should
flee... It's no use talking; you first have to
change telescopes, mouth and teeth, all of the
segments'. Life follows lines like this, 'whether
connectable or not': they don't always work even
if they are homogenous'. Those with distance
vision also can see the damage done by the cutting
telescope, seeing something that others do not.
They still collaborate with the project of
control, but still 'feel a vague sympathy for the
subterranean activity revealed to them', an
ambiguity, that one day might lead to a line of
flight.
Individuals and groups are all traversed by lines
of various kinds or zones, all differing. Each of
the three kinds of lines is actually best
understood as a bundle. We tend to be more
interested in one line rather than the others, and
perhaps one line does indeed assume greater
importance. Some lines are imposed from outside,
others arise by chance or are invented, especially
lines of flight. These might be the most difficult
of all, and not all groups or people ever develop
them, and some lose them. We can learn from the
painter Julien, who abstracts lines from
photographs, but these are very diverse lines.
Lines can vary by species or by individuals.
Deligny has mapped lines and paths for autistic
children, distinguishing, for example lines of
drift and customary lines, and these constantly
cross and intersect, producing something
unpredictable, a gesture that itself emits lines.
[More on Deligny, who worked at La Borde with
Guattari, in Dosse, ch
3] So there can be a line of flight with
singularities on it, and a molar line with
segments, 'and between the two (!), there is a
molecular line with quanta that cause it to tip to
one side or the other' (224). These lines have no
energy in themselves, but they compose us. They
can take the form of a rhizome. They are not
governed by the rules of language, rather it is
the other way round, and the same with writing
which has its own lines. They can not be
classified with a single signifier, since
signifiers only occur after lines have become
rigid. There is no structure, certainly not an
arborescent one, no closed system which will
prevent escape. In the case of Deligny, 'lines are
inscribed on a Body without Organs', itself an
abstract line, not a matter of imaginary figures
or symbolic functions, but real.
It is this body that is 'the practical object of
schizoanalysis' (225) which asks questions like
'what are your lines...what is your line of
flight... Are you going to crack up?… Which lines
are you severing and which are you extending or
resuming?'. Schizoanalysis relates to these lines,
as the analysis of desire which 'is immediately
practical and political', and actively
participates in the drawing of lines, as 'the art
of the new'. There is 'no problem of application'
because lines can be used to grasp a life, a work
of literature or a society
There are 'many problems' however. The particular
character of each line might vary, for example. We
might be tempted to see rigid segments as over
coded by the state; supple segments as something
interior, 'imaginary or phantasmic'; the line of
flight as 'entirely personal, the way in which an
individual escapes on his or her own account' and
takes refuge somewhere, in the desert or in art.
All of these are 'false impressions'. Supple
segments do not exist in the imaginary; micro
politics are just as extensive and real as
macropolitics, and politics on the grand scale
must always operate at the micro level as well to
overcome obstacles. The larger the aggregates, the
more molecular the agencies that are required.
Similarly, lines of flight do not mean running
away from the world, but rather 'in causing
runoffs, as when you drill a hole in a pipe'. All
societies leak. Lines of flight are not just
imaginary or symbolic, but require activity. There
can be signifying breaks in society, following
some new invention, especially one that disrupts
the State [running away while seeking a gun etc.],
like the lines of flight followed by the nomads
who were to invent the war machine. A single group
or an individual can display all the lines
discussed here, and groups and individuals can
create lines of flight for themselves. 'Lines of
flight are realities; they are very dangerous for
societies' (226), although they can be managed.
Lines can also vary in importance. Rigid
segmentarity is the easiest one to detect, but we
should also look for supple segments that cross
cut, 'a kind of rhizome surrounding its roots'.
Then we can look for lines of flight and the
consequences. However, we can also start with the
line of flight, as perhaps this is the primary
one: they are certainly always there from the
beginning. Supple segmentarity can be seen as a
kind of compromise with relative
deterritorializations and reterritorializations.
Supple lines are ambiguous. Lines can also combine
or contradict each other, so that one individual's
line of flight 'may not work to benefit that of
another group or individual' [congratulations! You
have just discovered JS Mill]. One person's love
can mean another person's imprisonment. There is
no assurance that lines of flight will be
compatible or even compossible, and 'there is no
assurance that the body without organs will be
easy to compose'.
Lines are mutually immanent. None is transcendent.
'Each is at work within the others'. In
particular, 'lines of flight are immanent to the
social field' (227). Supple segmentarity can
reproduce on its own level 'micro oedipuses, micro
formations of power, micro fascisms'. The line of
flight can fall into a black hole, and thus
reconstruct very rigid segments. [The example is a
curious one, referring to sowing your wild oats as
producing subsequent rigidity, apparently a rebuke
to Melville from Lawrence]. Secrets are difficult
to manage, whether they are a dirty secret of a
rigid line, an empty secret in supple
segmentarity, or a secret life on a line of
flight.
Finally, there are dangers specific to each line.
'There is not much to say' about rigid lines,
which will persist anyway. The second line is
ambiguous. The line of flight can be 'imbued with
such singular despair in spite of its message of
joy', and this can lead to death and demolition
because it strikes at our core. It is common to
see how novelists can break after their artistic
exertions [the example is Chekhov]. It might be
impossible to avoid 'falling into a black hole of
bitterness and sand', although it is difficult to
judge overall. Certainly, 'nothing is easy on the
lines that compose us'. We all have specific
couples, doubles, clandestines, and mixes.
Sometimes they complement each other, as when
Fitzgerald said that his drinking somehow helped
Zelda maintain a relationship with him, as a
result of their complementary flaws [she was mad].
Relationships can remain even though individuals
destroy themselves. All the lines are present in
the discussion cited on 228. [Again the important
thing here is that the line of flight makes you
clandestine, that a couple becomes a double, and
that this can be 'more successful now that nothing
is importance any longer']. What matters is the
conjunction, 'the AND that made one and the other
imperceptible', a line of flight leading towards a
new acceptance, not 'renunciation or resignation',
but something aimed at happiness.
back to menu page
|
|