In contrast to the idea of the text closed on itself, Florent Coste militates in favor of a theory and a politically engaged practice. How to invent new forms of radicality acting from inside the system ?
A fantasy of purity often irrigates theories of literature. Do they not have to there literature exists independently ? Does the theory itself not gain, strangely, to get rid of any historically attested corpus-to be worth at all times and anywhere ?
Writers “ embedded »»
This double postulation constitutes the main target of Florent Coste in The ordinary of literature. On the one hand, stipulating that “ Social discourse is without outside “(P. 136), the essayist resists the idea of haloing the literature of clean contours, of placing it” in an exception or exclusion zone (P. 111) as prestigious as they are marginal. It should be noted that such conviction, located in the continuity of his work as a medievalist, is not foreign to the current of anti-formalist thought yet mocked in volume, and according to which modern writing would unfortunately be “ withdrawal (ee) on itself in a quest for singularity sometimes leading it to solipsism ».
On the other hand, the model of a theory is also above ground, “ overhang “: A speculative discourse to be held” out of the fray and deprives himself (rait) means to intervene (P. 9). Requalified in “ Atheo’s demon “(P. 17), the academician Antoine Compagnon here paid the cost of a bold criticism, he and his” jaded look “,” the retrospective gaze of the one to whom we no longer do it “(P. 22),” animated by the concern not to touch it and put the ball back in the center (P. 27). Following Explore. Literary investigations (Theoretical questions, 2017), which already denounced the ideas of closed text and critical distance, the present opus militates in favor of a practice and a theory engaged on the far left of the political spectrum.
To be an activist, such a commitment promises to remain an operation or a series of operations. He is the fact of a writer “ implied ” Or “ embedded “, As Bruno Blanckeman then defines it, then Justine Huppe: occurring” Without scenography of the shine “, In a world where the factory of meaning” no longer has an exteriority position ». Quoting Dominique Viart (“ I write the world ), Florent Coste points out that the verb writing is built with prepositions, indirect object supplements, circumstantial supplements: we write has,, on,, in the name of,, among,, against such an opponent, with such an ally, etc.
Admittedly, the diagnosis is not entirely new: it is at the foundation of any sociology of literature and is of common sense. However, he invites you to invent new forms of radicality, necessarily but paradoxically undergoing infiltration: “ Tactics to infiltrate contexts and reorganize action sequences “, For “ default the official or disciplinary institutions of reality such as journalism, intelligence or law “(P. 156-157), for” dismantle social fictions, denaturalize the institutional facts that make things hold “, Without precisely” claim labels of literary or poeticity (P. 160-161).
In The ordinary of literatureare mainly mentioned some interesting experiences of cunning Designed within or on the sidelines of the collective theoretical questions (Christophe Hanna, Franck Leibovici, Nathalie Quintane, Olivier Quintyn, etc.). But any experimental as they are, these tricks and these manipulations, acting from the interior of the system, are actually part of the much broader history of structuralist and post-testate thought, which would have deserved to be mentioned. Let us think in particular of the complete works of Foucault, as well as to Difference and repetition (1968) of Deleuze or at “ Machine and structure (1969) by Guattari.
Critical sense of sense ?
There “ intervention power “(P. 162) and the” combative virtue “(P. 37) loaned to the literary imagination,” in the interstices of knowledge and institutions (P. 159), lead Florent Coste to build a critical dialogue with certain currents today in vogue. The pages devoted to the ethical turning point of literary criticism, sometimes simplifying, are quite effective. This trend, to say it quickly, re -examines literary works according to their usefulness and their formative character: Martha Nussbaum, exemplary, sees it as an enrichment and even an improvement of the reader. This, in accordance with conventional precepts …
Ethical criticism is three times disqualified in The ordinary of theory. First due to “ fairly soothing uses (P. 35) that she would make fiction, understood as a manual of personal development. Then because fiction becomes the “ Relais, (the) transmission belt of neo-liberal governmentality “(P. 121), rather than” justice operator ». Finally because such a conciliatory theorization would prohibit inventing “ other forms of literature action (P. 123). Alexandre Gefen’s work entitled Repair the world And, with him, the “ “therapeutic” conception of writing and reading, of a literature that heals, which treats, which helps, or, at least, which “does good” », Exit exhausted. They are associated, in a curious and more allusive way, the attempts of Axel Honneth and Pierre Rosanvallon aimed at “ conjure social invisibility (P. 122).
Are also attached to them, without the position of the essayist seeing very clear to them, the praise made by Hélène Merlin of a literature “ transitional »(Housed a full space between the real traumatic and the subject under construction) and the advocacy of Jérôme David in favor of a criticism of the” first degree (Rehabilitating the reader’s support). It will be understood that these competing intellectual development, eager to (re) connect literature and life, fish in the eyes of Florent Coste by a crispin of critical sense.
Inconsistencies
It was not this surprising race for radicalism, the whole could convince. We have retraced a few lines of strength completely suggestive and full of brilliance. Some fundamental problems, however, arouse a certain perplexity. Let us first note that the very object of this test remains confused: whatultimately he maintains us ?
One of two things, it seems: either it is a question of evoking “ the ordinary of literature », And the subtitle That can (still) literary theory ? loses his evidence, not to say about his relevance ; Or the critic shows “ the services that theory renders when we make it “(P. 8), but then it is difficult to understand the place it gives to literary practices (in this case their supposed power of destabilization).
How to understand this form of inconsistency ? Either The ordinary of literature proves to be composite – and in fact its first pages relate to theory, when its last two thirds characterize certain practices rather (for example the so -called “literature” out of the book “, there “ exposed literature “, etc.). Either the floating continues the four chapters during: he would then have gained to be assumed, reflected, perhaps theorized. Either an essential link makes it possible to establish the two objects treated.
However, this link exists. It appears in filigree, in the volume, here and there. According to Florent Coste, “ A theory can unlock writing possibilities and stimulate initiatives (P. 12). Naive question: is this his objective, degraded echo of the very end of New speech of the story (1983) by Genette ? Or is this a way of describing the authors and the authors of the chosen corpus, who indeed have a theoretical head ? The question remains ajar – without benefiting from the lighting brought, after Michel Charles, by criticisms like Marc Escola, Sophie Rabau or Florian Pennannech.
The gesture of the essayist and the status conferred on the literary theory alone are not sharper. We have pointed out that The ordinary of literaturewhile ironicing on anti-theory speeches (“ Haircutress in four, annoyingly esoteric, frankly abstrurse “, Etc.), devalued” The white collars of the concept »(P. 8) And the overhanging postures.
However, Florent Coste claims for criticism an eminent control function: he defines it as a “ explanation “And like a” vigilance ” – it being understood that” Literature does not always do what she says and she does not say what she does either (P. 10). Not without normative accents, the discourse held in place seems to renew, ultimately, the separation initially challenged between the critical sphere and the literary sphere.
Metamorphoses of literature
We touch there, moreover, to an important third problem: that covers “ literature »In the present opus ? The central thesis that runs through him wants literature to create “ The conditions for critical and reflexive knowledge, distinguishing the meshes from the net that hegemony seeks on the contrary to tighten (P. 135). What, however, of all the counterexamples that come to mind ? The network of works cited, the proper names celebrated in the body of the text or in note have any representativeness whatsoever ?
These works and names are located. They would have deserved to be, in any case. One of two things again: either they revolutionize the literary field and remain by nature (relatively) peripheral ; either they play “ the ordinary of literature “, But then become (very) relating their character of experimentation and their disruptive charge. This is also our impression: basically, the corpus elected by Florent Coste seems to us to register fully in the vast set of “ field literatures »Cartographled in 2005 by Bruno Vercier and Dominique Viart and, more recently-in a very fine way-, by Mathilde Roussigné, Morgane Kieffer and Estelle Mouton-Rovira. Together himself composite, heir to realism invented in XIXe century.
The book is nonetheless stimulating: the probe shots by Florent Coste and his theoretical proposals, far from the “ Discursive and disciplinary kept hunts (P. 158), say a lot about the institution, on the powers, on the metamorphoses of said literature.