Duras (re)Naissance WILLIAM N. ARTZ, JR

DURAS(re) NAISSANCE

BY WILLIAM N. ARTZ, JR.

This is an introduction of Marguerite Duras. Who was Marguerite Duras? What was Marguerite Duras? How was Marguerite Duras? Marguerite Duras was, is, and will forever be a Writer¹, par excellence. This current study on Marguerite Duras, is the culmination of nine graduate credit hours of work, investigation, argument, bafflement, misunderstanding, illumination.

It was clear, from the very beginning, that this would be a quagmire, and a maelstrom of some density, by orders of magnitude. Like any good philosophic examination, however, the answers are within the asking of the questions, not in actual answers. Yet, this is not an exercise, exclusively, on Durassian philosophy. It is any number of things, akin to a notion Michel Foucault gave in an interview at the University of Vermont, in 1982. The interviewer, Martin Rux, asked Foucault about all of the categories used when someone tries to give Foucault an identity, e.g, Marxist, Structuralist, Historian, and so on. Foucault responded, “I don’t feel that it is necessary to know exactly what I am” (Rux 9).

As it is, in essence, with Duras. Duras is Duras. It really is no more complicated than that, and difficult to further implicate. The study of Duras is not founded on some obtuse mathematical formulae, for example, because of that Duras is both misunderstood and classified as something Duras is not. I will, however, add at this point, rather briefly, the following: my approach is transdisciplinary in nature, and it is a way of having a fresh understanding through the history of ideas, intellectual history, philosophy, philology, sociology, pedagogy, digital pedagogy. It is very much a holistic approach to the way, in essence, Duras understood her œuvre, and its evolution.

As an aside, the following does not go without some explication, given the conclusive nature of this study. The thoughts and arguments herein, on Marguerite Duras, are no different than if I were giving these ideas and notions to a group of Duras scholars. As the meaning of Duras, is not the same understanding for those who study Duras, and for those who only experience the literary aspects of Duras. There is very much an affordance aspect to Durassian scholarship, and that is always reflected by those who write about Duras, and those who knew Duras AND write about Duras.

From Laure Adler, Jean Vallier, Dominique Noguez, Didier Éribon, Édouard Louis, Gilles Philippe, Patti Smith, Ocean Vuong, to name but a few, top literary figures and scholars, whose works reflect Duras. If I were writing this essay for the aforementioned, I would change nothing. This is MY understanding of Duras, this is MY interest in Duras, this is MY research on Duras. Any errata and lacunae are indeed my own.

There is a multimodal aspect to Duras, most especially because Duras, is a mode in and of herself. Duras is not autobiography, Duras is within each of her texts, because Duras is a part of the text, her life is a text, her life is the text. It did not end, the reworking of the text, the (re)fashioning of the text took place, until her death 3 March 1996.

Through an investigation of the way in which Duras understood technê, of writing: It is possible to affront this notion in a clear and precise manner; attempting, therefore, possible answers to the aforementioned inquiries. This is both a writing exercise, and an excursus, as well. An essay, that is a means of an ultimate assessment and progression for a given class. An excursus, in that it should give further detail as to the study on Marguerite Duras qua Writer, and that given output, i.e., Writing.

It is, therefore, an exercise that has a two-fold purpose; it is about a very specific topic, around which the “I” qua researcher, must argue, both objectively and subjectively. More than any of this, however, it is about a writer. A writer who has had a profound influence on my life, from many different perspectives, Duras. Again, why Duras?

My interest in Marguerite Duras started very early on in my life as a college student, after watching the

film Hiroshima mon amour, I did everything in my power to get in upper-division French classes, as a freshman, to continue with my interest in Duras. During the time in which I was studying in France, I read L’Amant, and it was everything that I had hoped it would be, and more. I left France in 1986, and as an area of study, I picked up L’Amant, again, and thought about Duras.

During my work as an instructional designer, I would generally spend some two months a year in France, and it afforded me the chance to pick up any number of books, in some of my favorite bookshops in Paris, Aix-en-Provence, and Strasbourg. As a result, I was able to get the complete works of Duras, and now Duras, my Pierre, is the foundation upon which I hope to build my thesis and advance a research regimen².

To go back to the affordance aspects of Duras, I am reminded of a very recent work by Peter Khost, there is a quote Khost uses from the French philosopher/ literary theorist/structuralist Roland Barthes. This is Barthes, as quoted and translated in Khost, Khost’s epigraph, to his recent work in toto:

“Has it ever happened, as you were reading a book, that you kept stopping as you read, not because you weren’t interested, but because you were: because of a flow of ideas, stimuli, associations? In a word, haven’t you ever happened to read while looking up from your book?” - Roland Barthes, The Rustle of Language (Khost 3)

Even though there is, thus, an intrinsic connection within (en deçà)³literature of reader/writer, for the purposes of this Durassian study, I will mainly be focusing mostly on writing. On writing as discussed/argued/ formed during a specific timeframe, in an academic setting. Some of these ideas will appear to be very familiar given previous studies, but these are all (re) current themes that are worth (re)stating, and rehashing, in a sense. The aforementioned words of Barthes are, however, of what reading/writing is comprised, all of which needs further elucidation.

I must add, this is not a thesis defense. It is an introduction to Marguerite Duras, and I argue that one needs to know Duras, to know Duras. What does that even mean? In lieu of a very length and robust introduction to my thesis, this introduction will be expanded into a presentation for my thesis committee, in order to better hone, what will become an introductory chapter of my thesis. It will have any number of uses, such as part of a dissertation, a presentation at a professional academic conference, an article published in a professional academic journal. It is just not one set exercise, it is indeed part and parcel of my current research interests, and variants thereof and therein.

How does one study Duras? What does it mean to study Duras?

The Face of Duras – La Photographie absolue that became L’Amant – Le visage de Duras

Un jour, j’étais âgée déjà, dans le hall d’un lieu public, un homme est venu vers moi. Il s’est fait connaître et il m’a dit : « Je vous connais depuis toujours. Tout le monde dit que vous étiez belle lorsque vous étiez jeune, je suis venu pour vous dire que pour moi je vous trouve plus belle maintenant que lorsque vous étiez jeune, j’aimais moins votre visage de jeune femme que celui que vous avez maintenant, dévasté. »

The opening words/paragraph of L’Amant, Duras at the true apex of her career, some 12 years later – the ultimate end of l’œuvre Duras. An opening that is both classic and iconic, an example of what Writer ought be. Though prose, it is both lyric and poetic, truly only prose Marguerite Duras could have written. My translation, in English, is as follows:

One day, I was already old, in the hall of a public place, a man comes toward me. He introduced himself and he said to me: “I’ve known you forever. Everyone says you were very beautiful when you were young, I have come to tell you that for me I find you prettier now than when you were young, I like less your face of young girl, than that which you have now, devastated/destroyed.” [Essay’s author translation]

In the first version of the manuscript of L’Amant, Duras claims this man was, “[the] brother of Jacque Prévert, in the hallways of [a] television [station].” It was, obviously, changed in the final version of the manuscript that was published, as noted in the third volume of the complete works of Marguerite Duras, published by Gallimard, in the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade edition (Endnote 1; 1868-69).

Too, at this point, briefly, it is important to mention the name Yann Andréa.⁴ It is with Yann Andréa, that Duras really starts trying to understand Desire, not just

2 Given Duras research and scholarship this type of explication is needed, and not a mere aside. 3 The idea of (en deçà) is in opposition to the (au-delà), i.e., outside/beyond. These are, in French, literary/metaphorical terms, and terms that Roland Barthes uses to his great advantage in trying to get at meaning and truth in writing, as closely as is possible.. 4 Yann Andréa né Lemée was the companion of Duras, from 1980, until her death in 1996. Yann Lemée was not a bisexual, he was very much a homosexual who lived with Duras, and he continued having homosexual affairs during the time in which he was with Duras. There is ample, textual, evidence of this. The entire story of Yann Andréa is important for the later Duras, but not appropriate at this juncture on writing. Did Duras and Yann Andréa have an intimate relationship? Does it matter?

erotic Desire, but a true level of Desire.

I will be focusing on L’Amant and Hiroshima mon amour, the film, and subsequent text published by Duras. Both of these are central to Duras as a whole, as all of her work, is inextricably linked. These two works, however, were foundational in making Duras, Duras.

This is a way of giving some structure to a formal discussion on Duras. The class was a rigorous and detailed understanding of Marguerite Duras, qua introduction to further research of Duras and her œuvre.

There is no one heuristic device that is fundamentally key in approaching Duras. One might study her alphabetically, chronologically, intertextually, philosophically, psychologically, rhetorically, ad infinitum, it is very much, par excellence, a holistic approach. Marguerite Duras did not write from an angle, there was (is) no hidden agenda, within Duras, any number of researchers have looked for one. Which is not to give the impression that her work was not both political and revolutionary, it was. But again, what do we want from literature?

The story in Hiroshima mon amour, is exactly what one finds in L’Amant, some 30 years later, a love story of an illicit coming together, both stories are so multifaceted, yet linked. This is a way to (re)focus, through comparative literature coupled with rhetorical theory, and is a way of broadening the scope of my fundamental need/hope/wish/intention to wed the investigation of literature and writing. What is Durassian Style?

Bernard Pivot, the host of the televised literary program Apostrophes⁵, on 28 September 1984, interviewed Marguerite Duras in a live on-air, one-on-one format, episode. It was an interview that became iconic, even the day after its initial broadcast, as Marguerite Duras had not, at the time, given any type of interview in about ten years. What was even more notable, Duras was the only guest, and the program lasted some ten minutes over the allotted time. It was an important moment in the literary history of the twentieth-century France, and in the œuvre of Duras.

The chief editor and director, Jérôme Lindon, of the publishing house Minuit, with whom Marguerite Duras published many of her works, including L’amant the work that was awarded the Prix Goncourt, stated, “L’effet d’Apostrophes fut foudroyant . . . [i]l avait été precede par un tir de barrage de la presse écrite qui, unanimement, reconnaissait le livre comme un événement,” as quoted in Laure Adler’s biography Marguerite Duras, from an interview Adler did with Lindon (787).⁶ Again, the voice of Duras is the voice of Duras. As Mourier-Casile begins her review of Duras on Apostrophes, she claims, I am quoting this as an indentation, as it deserves to be apart from the actual text of this paper, and to also lend credence to/give evidence of, the importance of Durassian voice:

Il y a la voix. D’abord. Oui, bon, je sais : << Ah ! la voix de Duras . . .>> (161)

There is the voice. First [it is difficult to render d’abord in English, it is as much performative, as it is textual/literal/written]. Yes, good, I know : “Ah ! the voice of Duras.” [Essay’s author translation]

It is truly difficult to explicate the verve, the profound depth of these words.

The interview was a Durassian text, a text of Duras by Duras. It truly is not possible to put too much stress on the fact that this episode of Apostrophes was truly foundational in the last decade in the (writing) life of Marguerite Duras. For the purposes of this essay, however, this is where Duras made mention of the fact, on national television, that she, Marguerite Duras, did not think [Jean-Paul] Sartre was a writer. Duras called Sartre a moralist, and was depreciative in her tone, and in following up, that what she was saying, about Sartre, was not a value judgment. Pivot was talking with Duras about her style and form, Duras reminded Pivot that she had actually given (renseignements⁷) on writing, literally had given ideas and information. In due course, what Duras meant in saying Sartre was not a writer will certainly need further elucidation. What is a Writer? What is a Durassian Writer?

In 1964, Jean-Paul Sartre was selected to receive The Nobel Prize in Literature, for his contributions to philosophy AND literature. Though he declined the prize, reasons for which are not relevant to this particular exercise, the Nobel committee considered Sartre

5 Apostrophes was a literary program that lasted 15 years, and amounted to some 724 episodes, consisting of prominent literary figures to those involved in politics and writing. It was broadcast every Friday night at 9:30 p.m., from 1975 through 1990, and was always live. This program consistently had a viewing audience of over 400,000 each week; the Duras interview brought that total to three million. Duras gave this interview, just after her novel L’Amant, was first released. I am only focusing on her statements on Sartre in this current essay, from the interview. This is information taken from Le Monde, and Bernard Pivot interviews, where he specifically talks about his encounter with Duras. In an expanded study, there would obviously referential specifics. 6 It is not clear if the interview Laure Adler had with Jérôme Lindon, was both in writing, and orally. I will translate the quote from Lindon, here, but note the use of the passé simple form of the irregular verb être, the passé simple is exclusively a literary tense, in French. “The effect of Apostrophes was explosive/stunning . . . it had been preceded by a barrage of articles from the written press that, unilaterally, recognized the book to be an (important) event.” [Essay’s author translation] 7 This word has a lot of philosophical baggage, that would be vital to investigate in a more in-depth study.

a pre-eminent writer. Sartre even wrote specifically about literature and writing; how was it possible then, some 20 years later, Marguerite Duras could argue that Sartre was not a writer?

Even though Duras was still unable to define what writing actually was. Duras would say more than once, that she once thought she knew what writing was, but in all actuality, she claimed she did not. Duras would argue, and continued to argue, until her death in March of 1996, that she did not know what writing was. For a French writer to always argue this, especially a writer who had been writing since 1943, to continually contend that she did not know what writing actually was, was both very important, and very problematic. It was, however, emblematic of Duras.

The Durassian style is quick, precise, just, something that Pivot understood, and about which Duras talked at length. It is asyndetic, in that it is not connected by conjunctions, comprised of meaningful silences and lacunae. Duras is famous for doing that, to conveying ideas very quickly. It is a writing that goes beyond even either surrealism, or the nouveau roman.

There is something to unpack here, again, in that Duras talking about not knowing what writing actually is, it is literary, as much as it is philosophic. Not philosophic in the sense of Sartre, but in the sense of Duras. It was notable that Duras, at the apex of her career as writer, would always maintain the question about writing? What is writing? Duras would always claim that she did not know. Again, how could a writer of this caliber and import make such a statement, yet at the same time, argue what a writer was not: Jean-Paul Sartre.

Sartre did not know of what, according to Duras, pure writing was comprised. Though Duras still claimed not to know what writing really was either, for Duras it was “a funny thing, writing.” True writing, what Duras understands as pure writing is something from which a Writer is unable to get away, to extract oneself, from writing. As odd as this sounds, it is Duras. At the very beginning of the interview with Pivot, Duras says the following:

C’est un peu gênant. Ça a duré dix ans le silence autour de moi. Il y a un réflexe de suite qui se produit. (qtd. in Marguerite Duras 787 – quote taken from the actual interview with Bernard Pivot)

It’s a bit embarrassing/awkward. This has lasted ten years, the silence about (around) me (a silence around which I am in the midst). There is a reflex that follows, which takes place. [Essay’s author translation]

What is remarkable/noteworthy here, is again, Duras talking in round numbers, everything is always ten years, that goes outside of writing. Duras spent ten years doing mostly theatre, and then ten years doing mostly film, until she went back to what she was supposed to be doing, and that was writing texts. Like with Barthes, as aforementioned, there are oddities and confusions with Duras, that occur. Yet more evidence, why one needs to know Duras, to study Duras. To understand her voice, and to hear her voice, as aforementioned.

There are some Durassian scholars that understand the work of Duras to have a level of philosophical intrigue, and that is notable. It is key to continually (re) search the idea of Writer, a way of doing a continuing study of a very complex enterprise. It is akin to philosopher always looking for answers to theories of truth. There is no definitive answer, the answer is in the search, in investigating new and novel ways at considering, in this instance, writing.

There is an importance here, and the reason for what appears to be repetition, in that Duras does not proclaim some authoritative notion about writing. What Duras does not claim is a definitive answer to the question about writing. Duras would never make any grand and universal claims about either writing or literature. This is one of the main reasons why I find it hard to argue the claim that what Duras was doing was nothing but a performance. Duras was very aware that it was impossible to have one without the other. This was also the reason for so much vitriol against Duras, if Duras was really écrivaine, then how is it possible for her not to have any notion about writing? Durassian silences are performative, because Duras is not able to actually write. It is certainly a position one could take.

As opposed to giving a specific definition of writing, again, what Duras did was demonstrative of her penchant toward philosophy. Writing is so fundamental, so basic, so elemental, that one must always question and search anew of what this enterprise writing is comprised. It is a question that is au-delà, as explicated above, a French word that is usually translated as ‘beyond,’ in English, but is really a beyond-ness, an idea/ notion that is not attainable, in a sense. The idea I have been trying to convey here is that Duras was not being authoritative, as I had mentioned previously. What is Writing? It truly means so much more in claiming that one is not really sure, than arguing for a very specific definition of writing and the act of writing. This, at first blush, appears simplistic, but it is not, by any means.

For Duras, there is an ever exhaustive (re)search for what writing is actually comprised, there is, again, this beyond-ness. Such that Duras knows what a writer is not, a writer is confronted/affronted/blinded by words,

and in discussing style Marguerite Duras always talks about how words actually move through her. In doing this, actually, a Writer neither worries about style, audience, nor even the way so-called rhetorical devices are to serve as means of inspiration.

Toward the end of the interview Bernard Pivot asks Duras why she drinks:

Pivot: Pourquoi buvez-vous? (Why do you drink?)

Duras: On boit parce que Dieu n’existe pas. (One drinks because God does not exist.)⁸

This was big, this is big. On national television, a close friend of the president of the French republic François Mitterrand, to admit that she [a woman] was an alcoholic, to the point she had been hospitalized, was something. It is not performative Duras, it IS Duras.

There is, in a sense, a continuity with the way in which I wrote this particular exercise; there are neither specific sections, nor specific classifications, that are generally used as boundaries and limits on language. Each area could be used as a study in and of itself, either on Marguerite Duras qua Writer, or about Marguerite Duras and her œuvre. Using Duras as the foundation to my research, in general terms, allows a certain level of both boundless freedom, and limitless growth, in many novel ways.

In understanding Duras, one quickly realizes a prominent leitmotiv, that starts in 1943, with her first work qua Marguerite Duras, Les Impudents, that stretches all the way through the Durassian œuvre until the ultimate, and final ending. Death. It is, interestingly enough, an idea of a little girl who wanted to write books; who was afraid, afraid of death; afraid of writing. Always, always, always, questioning writing, out of an interest, and an immense fear of writing. It is the main reason why Duras reworked all of the texts she wrote, because it is all the same text. Everything is linked. It is actually possible to tug on the leitmotiv, as if it were a string, in any given text/film/play. It is also something that leads many astray in trying to both explicate and understand Duras. Is it possible? Again, yes, to know Duras is to know Duras. Hence, the main tenet of my thesis. Of what does this actually entail?

It is a commonly held notion that, to approach Duras, one needs to know Duras, as trite as that may appear at first blush, it is very much a necessary statement. It is, therefore, my intention to briefly explain, in this exercise, both the nature and the need of Durassian study, and how it might be expanded in further detail, in an investigation on writing. A few initial questions, again, are in order: What is a Writer, as opposed to just a writer? Is there a notable difference? What if the question is considered from the French perspective of écrivain(e)/écriture? What makes this study Durassian? All of these questions, to evoke an Occidental understanding of writing, though limiting, that is both rhetorically and philosophically interesting. This is to invoke, an historical perspective, that is part of the writing process, the technê.

Barthes argues the following, in Le degré zéro de l’écriture, “[l]a diversité des langages fonctionne donc comme une Nécessité, et c’est pour cela qu’elle fonde un tragique” “Diversity of languages functions, thus/ therefore, like a Necessity, it’s for that (reason) it (the diversity/a Necessity) founds a tragic (tragedy) [Essay’s author translation] (59). Working with a text from Barthes does not come without its complexities and confusions. There is some ambiguity as to what the pronoun “elle” refers, as both “diversité” and “nécessité” are feminine, the only difference is “diversité”, here, is a concept, and used with the definite article, whereas “nécessité” is a concept, but here a noun, with the indefinite article.

I use Barthes, though obtuse, as a means of demonstration to evoke the focus on an Occidental understanding of writing, and in essence, literature. The main point, without some sort of detailed focus on a language, it is possible to look at the concept of writing. Looking at the philosophy of writing, for the purposes of my research, in Occident. It is, more specifically, an investigation of writing through comparisons in French literature, and in English literature. This specificity is needed, in order to avoid making assumptions, about a given culture, which is, by its very nature non-evidence based, hence anathema. A notion about which one needs be concerned, even/especially in rhetorical studies AND literary analyses. This is a notion, certainly worth further investigation.

A quote from Henri Michaux, that will set the proverbial stage for the successful completion of this exercise: “Qui cache son fou meurt sans voix.” ⁹“Who hides one’s crazy dies without voice” [Essay’s author translation] (Mourier-Casile 161). The voice of Duras is the voice of Duras, there is a more detailed explication below. This is something that is as literal, as it is

8 This quote is in French, as well, it is a key element in the life of Duras. There is an ethos here, in that Duras is making reference to God, an idea/example of occidental thought. This quote is a WNA transcription from the video of the interview, and WNA translation. This merits further study. 9 I use the full quote from Michaux, in French, because it is key in many different respects. Mourier-Casile begins her article with this quote, and then describing the sound of Duras speaking; it is the voice of Duras, that is the voice of Duras. The article, too, came out in December of 1984, and Michaux died in October of 1984, but most importantly, Michaux was a poet, whose work, like that of Duras, is unclassifiable. The use of Henri Michaux in this context is nothing less than monumental, as trite as that might at first blush appear.

figurative in either hearing, or reading, or watching Marguerite Duras. The sound of Duras speaking (the voice of Duras), is as important as the voice Duras uses in her written texts. To hear Duras, is to affront Duras, knowingly. One has to know Duras, to study Duras. What Duras did was not performative, per se, and a key reason as to why Duras should only ever be truly understood in French, i.e., read in French, listened to in French, seen in French. Translation, though key and foundational, is not of my present concern, but would certainly be needed in a more detailed investigation.

Suffice it to argue, at this point, there is a lyricism in Duras, there are silences in Duras, there IS Duras, and one is unable to translate that in any meaningful and robust way. Écrire/Écriture/Écrivain(e) encompasses so much more, than mere words, and that is the point, especially for a Writer like Marguerite Duras. Writing is a way in which, one who Writes, must lead/drag along their solitary lives. A writing life, lived in parallel to the vulgar¹0 expression of “real” life, whatever that may mean.

Duras re(Naissance), a rebirth and new beginning. A new of looking at Duras, and considering along the way, what we want from Literature, and what we want Literature to do. What is Durassian Writing? It is that Orphic gaze. That solitude. There is, however, an intrinsic maleness in writing, and it is certainly something against which Marguerite Duras fought, and against which it is necessary to always combat. It is beyond the simple idea of the evils of patriarchy, in that it [maleness in writing], goes either undetected, or assimilated. Hence, the need for continued diligent work in rhetoric AND literature. A work that is truly at the avant-garde, in the strictest sense of that word, battling at the very front. That, that is Marguerite Duras.

WORKS CITED¹¹

Adler, Laure. Marguerite Duras. Paris, Gallimard, 1998. Allen, Joseph R. “The Babel Fallacy: When Translation Does not Matter.” Cultural Critique, vol. 102., Winter 2019, pp. 117-150. Project Muse, muse.jhu.edu/article/717523. Accessed 17 May 2019. Barthes, Roland. Le degré zéro de l’écriture, suivi de

Nouveaux essais critiques. Paris, Seuil, 1953, 1972. ---. “Le Plaisir du texte.” 1973. Roland Barthes Œuvres complètes, new edition reviewed, corrected, and presented by

Éric Marty, vol. IV, Paris, Seuil, 2002, pp. 217-64. V vols. ---. “Fragments d’un discours amoureux.” 1977. Roland Barthes

Œuvres complètes, new edition reviewed, corrected, and presented by Éric Marty, vol. V, Paris, Seuil, 2002, pp. 26-296.

V vols. Blanchot, Maurice. L’espace littéraire. Paris, Gallimard, 1955. Breton, André. Manifestes du surréalisme. Gallimard, Paris, 1962. Derrida, Jacques. De la grammatologie. Paris, Minuit, 1967. Duras, Marguerite. “Des journées entières dans les arbres.” 1968. Marguerite Duras Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles

Philippe, vol. II, Paris, Gallimard, 2011, pp. 833-885. IV vols.

Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. “Écrire.” 1993. Marguerite Duras Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. IV, Paris, Gallimard, 2014, pp. 839-906. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. “Écrire.” L’Esprit Créateur, vol. 30, no. 1, Spring 1990, pp. 6-7. Project Muse, doi:10.1353/esp.1990.0014. Accessed 25 November 2018. ---. “Hiroshima mon amour.” 1960. Marguerite Duras

Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. II, Paris,

Gallimard, 2011, pp. 1-76. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Duras, Marguerite, screenplay and dialogue. Hiroshima mon amour. Janus Films, 1959. Directed by Alain Resnais,

The Criterion Collection, 2015. ---. “La Douleur.” 1985. Marguerite Duras Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. IV, Paris, Gallimard, 2014, pp. 1-129. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. “L’Amant.” 1984. Marguerite Duras Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. III, Paris, Gallimard, 2014, pp. 1453-1525. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. “L’Amant de la Chine du Nord.” 1991. Marguerite Duras

Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. IV, Paris,

Gallimard, 2014, pp. 589-751. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. “Le Ravissement de Lol V. Stein.” 1964. Marguerite Duras

Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. II, Paris,

Gallimard, 2011, pp. 285-388. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. “Les Yeux bleus cheveaux noirs.” 1986. Marguerite Duras

Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. IV, Paris,

Gallimard, 2014, pp. 213-288. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. “Moderato Cantabile.” 1958. Marguerite Duras Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. I, Paris, Gallimard, 2011, pp. 1203-1258. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. ---. ““The Thing.” entretien au Gai Pied, 1980.” Yagg, notre histoire, 22 Jan 2015, p. 2. yagg.com/2015/01/22/margueriteduras-the-thing-entretien-au-gai-pied-1980. Accessed 25

November 2018. ---. “Un barrage contre le Pacifique.” 1950. Marguerite Duras

Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles Philippe, vol. I, Paris,

Gallimard, 2011, pp. 279-490. IV vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Foucault, Michel. “Technologies of the Self.” Technologies of

10 In the true sense of the word, i.e., common, a derivative of the Latin vulgate.

11 This Works Cited section is also bibliographic in nature, as there are works, herein listed, from which I do not take direct citations. This section also gives the impression of being either padded, or reference-heavy. Without the foundational texts I use, that are referential in nature, my research would be constructed on a less than sturdy base. Either Works Cited or Bibliography, would be solely an editorial decision, for the purposes of this study I use, obviously, Works Cited. All of the works cited within are of importance and needed.

the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, edited by Luther H.

Martin et al., U. of Mass Press, 1988, pp. 16-49. ---. “The Political Technology of Individuals.” Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, edited by Luther H.

Martin et al., U. of Mass Press, 1988, pp. 145-62. ---. “What Is an Author?” The Foucault Reader, edited by

Paul Rabinow, Pantheon, 1984, 101-120. Khost, Peter H. Rhetor Response: A Theory and Practice of Literary Affordance. PDF ed., Utah State UP, 2018. doi:10.7330/9781607327769. Purchased 22 December 2018. Labre, Chantal. “L’Amant by Marguerite Duras.” Review of L’Amant. Esprit, vol. 96, no. 12, December 1984, pp. 175-77. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24270316.

Accessed 2 March 2019. Lucey, Michael. “The Contexts of Marguerite Duras’s

Homophobia.” GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian

Studies, vol. 19, no.3, 2013, pp. 341-379. Project Muse, doi:10.1214/10642684-2074530. Accessed 25

November 2018. Mailloux, Steven. Disciplinary Identities: Rhetorical Paths of

English, Speech, and Composition. Modern Language

Association of America, 2006. “Marguerite Duras.” Interviewed by Bernard Pivot. Apostrophes, hosted and presented by Bernard Pivot, Antenne 2 – France, 28 September 1984. Institut National de l’Audiovisuel, www.ina.fr. Accessed 4 March 2019. Martin, Rux. “Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with

Michel Foucault.” Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with

Michel Foucault, edited by Luther H. Martin et al., U. of Mass

Press, 1988, pp. 9-15. Mourier-Casile, Pascaline. “Que je vous dise . . .” Regarding the interview of Marguerite Duras by Bernard Pivot on

“Apostrophes” 28 September [1984]. Esprit, vol. 96, no. 12,

December 1984, pp. 161-62. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24270309. Accessed 2 March 2019. Philippe, Gilles. “Marguerite Duras, un nouvel art de la prose.”

Preface. Marguerite Duras Œuvres complètes, edited by Gilles

Philippe, vol. I, Paris, Gallimard, 2011, pp. IX-XLII. IV vols.

Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Qu’est-ce que la littérature? 1948. Preface by Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre, Paris, Gallimard, 2008. Searle, John R. Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the

Real World. Basic Books, 1998. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. U. of California Press, 1990. Sontag, Susan. AIDS and Its Metaphors. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1988. Vallier, Jean. C’était Marguerite Duras: 1914 – 1945. Vol. 1,

Paris, Fayard, 2006. 2 vols.