INTRODUCTION | The Figure in the Carpet
HENRY JAMES 15 one of the few writers who dared to treat in literary
form, in “The Figure in the Carpet” (1896), the thorny and inexhaust-
ible question of the relationship between the writer (and therefore the
text) and his critics. But far from asserting the critic's powerlessness in
the face of literature, whose essential quality necessarily remains beyond
his grasp, James affirmed two principles contrary to the ondinary con-
ception of literary art: on the one hand, there is indeed an object to be
discovered in each work, and this is the legitimate task of criticism; on
the other, this “secret” is not something unsayable, some sort of superior
and transcendent essence that imposes an ecs
phor of the figure, or pattern, in a carpet—"as concrete there,” he em=
a bird in a cage, a bait on a hook, a piece of cheese in a
‘mouse trap”—was meant to suggest that there is something to be sought
in literature that has not yet been described.
Addressing the writer Verecker, whose “ttle point” he confesses has
always eluded his powers of hermeneutic subtlety, and the meaning
of whose work he confesses never to have understood, James's disap-
pointed critic asks: “Just to hasten that difficule birth, can't you give a
fellow a clue?” To this Verecker replies that the critic is perplexed only
because he has “never had a glimpse” of the “exquisite scheme" d
links all his books: “If you had had one the element in question would
soon have become practically all you'd see. To me it's exactly as palpable
as the marble of this chimney.” His professional honor wounded, the
ic silence. James’ meta-+, with great
id of esoter
lea about life, some sort of philosophy” —per-
necessary to search texts for the expression of a deep
ng that goes beyond their something in the
nae eae in the thought? An element of form or an element of
eine) lalaree se embracing the useless dichotemy between
form and content. “Unless it be,” the critic grasps in desperation, “some
of game you're up to with your style, something you'e after in the
Lge Pethaps it’s a preference for the letter P! . . . Papa, pota~
ead sort of thing?”—thus proposing a purely formal
“There's
wouldn't have
idea in my work,” replies the novelist, tt which T
raw for the whole job. Its the finest, fallest in
tention of the lot.” This, the critic finally succeeds in working out, is
something “in the primal plan; something like a complex figure in a
Persian carpet." The oh na eee in all their superb
icacy” remain—like the
yet at the same time invisible.
flected, “that’s only because itis a secret in spite of itself. I not only
er took the smallest precaution to keep it so, but never dre
ich an accident: see aerate
. izing the critic and his usual assumptions, “The Figure in the
Carpet” invites a rethinking of the whole question of critical perspective
and of the aesthetic foundations on which it rests. In his feverish quest
for the secret of the writer’s work, it never occurs to James’ critic to
mn the nature of the questions that he puts to texts, to reconsider
5 mn, which nonetheless is the very thing that blinds
Da eae that every literary work must be de~
scribed as an absolute exception, a sudden, unpredictable, and isolated
expression of artistic creativity. In this sense, the literary critic practices a
radical monadology: because each work is seen as being unique and irre
ducible, a perfect unity that can be measured in relation only to itself,
the interpreters obliged to contemplate the ensemble of text that form
pi is called the “history of literature" as a random succession of singu-
larities.
‘The solution that James proposes to the critic—discerning the “fig-
the carpet,” which is to say the pattern that appears only once its
ee 4
parent disorder of a complex composition —is to be sought not above
tnd beyond the carpet itself, but by looking at it from another point of
ew. If one is prepared to shift one’ perspective, to step away from a
irticular text in order to examine it in relation to other texts, to try to
ect similarities and dissimilarities between them and look for recur~
{fone tries to take in the composition of the
icas a coherent design, then it becomes possible
perceive the particularity of the pattern that one wishes to make ap=
pear. The persistent tendency of critics to isolate texts from one another
prevents them fiom seeing in its entirety the configuration (to use
Michel Foucault’ term) to which all texts belong: that is, the totality of
texts and literary and aesthetic debates with which a particular work of
‘erature enters into relation and resonance, and which forms the true
basis for its singul real originality.
‘Understanding a work of literature, then, is a matter of changing the
vantage point from which one observes it—of looking atthe carpet a8 2
whole. This is why, to extend James's metaphor, the “superb intricacy”
dof the mysterious work finds its expression in the overall pattern—invis-
ible and yet there forall to see—of all the literary texts through and
against which it has been constructed. On this view, everything that §
‘written, everything that is translated, published, theorized, commented
upon, celebrated—all these things are so many elements of a vast com=
position. A literary work can be deciphered only on the basis of the
Awhole of the composition, for its rediscovered coherence stands revealed
only in relation to the entire literary universe of which itis a part, The
Singularity of individual literary works therefore becomes manifest only
against the background of the overall structure in which they take their
place. Each work that is declared to be literary is a minute part of the
immense “combination” constituted by the literary world as a whole,
“What is apt to seem most foreign to a work of |
struction, its form, and its aesthetic singularity, is in reality what gener-
ates the text itself, what permits its individual character to stand out
the global configuration, or composition, of the carpet—that is, the do
main of letters, the totality of what I call world literary space—that
Hone is capable of giving meaning and coherence to the very form of
individual texts, This space is not an abstract and theoretical construc-
tion, but an actual—albeit unseen—world made up by lands of litera-
carpet asa whole, to se
rodwcion | 3ture; a world in which what is judged worthy of being considered liter~
ary is brought into existence; a world in which the ways and means of
literary art are argued over and decided.
In this broader perspective, then, literary frontiers come into view
that are independent of political boundaries, dividing up a world that is
secret and yet perceptible by all (especially its most dispossessed mem=
ritories whose sole value and sole resource is literature, ordered
by power relations that nonetheless govern the form of the texts that are
i and that circulate throughout these lands; a world that has its
its own provinces and borders, in which languages become
instruments of power. Each member of this republic struggles to achieve
recognition as a writer. Specific laws have been passed freein,
from arbitrary po
pendent regions. Rival languages compete for dominance; revolutions
are always at once literary and political. The history of these events can
be fathomed only by recognizing the existence of a literary measure of
time, of a “tempo” peculiar to literature; and by recognizing that this
world has its own present—the literary Greenwich meridian.
‘My purpose in analyzing the world republic of letters is not to describe
icerature, still less to propose an exhaustive and equally
impossible critical rereading of it. The aim of this book i to bring about
a change of perspective: to describe the literary world “from a certain
‘vantage point,” in the historian Fernand Braudel’ phrase, which
to change the point of view of ordinary 10 explore
that writers themselves have alway and to show that the
Jaws that govern this strange and immense republic—a world of rivalry,
struggle, and inequality—help illuminate in often radically new ways
even the most widely discussed works, in particular those of some of
the greatest literary revolutionaries of the twentieth century—Joyce,
Beckett, and Katka, to be sure, but also, among others, Michaux, Ibsen,
Cioran, Naipaul, Kis, Faulkner,
World literary space as a
embody literary history—has
traced or described. The ambition of the interna-
sm that I propose in the pages that follow is to pro-
never been proper!
tional literary cri
4 | 1me Wome nerunic oF Lees
internal criticism, which looks no further than texts themselves in
searching for their meaning, and external criticism, which describes the
historical conditions under which texts are produced, without, however,
counting for their literary quality and singularity. Ie therefore becomes
Jecessary to situate writers and their works in this immense territory,
which may be thought of asa sort of spatialized history.
Fernand Braudel, as he was preparing to write the economic history
the world from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries, noted
with regret that general works
rt area context.” “I am convinced,” he said, “that history
benefit immeasurably from comparisons made on the only valid
of the world . . . [For] it is easier to make sense of the eco
history of the world than of the economic history of Europe
edged that the analysis of historical
phenomena on a world scale might be thought sufficiently daunting an
ise “to discourage the most intrepid and even the most naive."> I
shall therefore heed Braudel’ advice in what follows, looking to the
‘rary world as a whole in trying to account for the interdependence of
local phenomena, while respecting, his ae eo and modesty
lust the same, trying to make sense of a space of such gigantic complex-
ea ig abandon all the habits avocated with specaized
the divisions between
1 divided view of the
disciplines—which, to some extent, justify
world—because only by going beyond these boundaries will it be possi-
ble to think outside conventional frameworks and to conceive of literary
space as a worldwide reality. :
Te was a writer and translator, Valery Larbaud, who more than fifty
of an “intellectual Interna
‘years ago was the first to hope for the advent
ti fearlessness, for a global approach
the na-
to literary criticism. To his
tional habits of thought that create the
larity, and above a
im. The few attempts that until then had been made to describe world
simple juxtaposit
textbooks of different national literatures.”” But, he continued,
in that the future science of Literature—renoun
other than the descriptive—can lead only to the constitution
Inmiucion | 5