UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

In Derrida’s dream: a poetics of a well-made crypt Castricano, Carla Jodey 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-25030X.pdf [ 10.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088058.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088058-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088058-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088058-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088058-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088058-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088058-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088058-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088058.ris

Full Text

IN DERRIDA'S DREAM: A POETICS OF A WELL-MADE CRYPT by CARLA JODEY CASTRICANO B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1988 M.A., Simon Fraser University, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of English) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1997 © Carla Jodey Castricano, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of <&> i— i <, U The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date J (JL>f DE-6 (2/88) 11 Abstract This question u s u a l l y a r i s e s out of Derridean dec o n s t r u c t i o n : what i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g and death? This d i s s e r t a t i o n , however, explores Jacques Derrida's evocation of the living-dead f o r purposes of t h e o r i z i n g what might be thought of as Derrida's "poetics of the c r y p t . " The f i r s t s e c t i o n , "The F i r s t P a r t i t i o n : Without the Door," proposes the term "cryptomimesis" to desc r i b e how, i n Derrida's w r i t i n g , (the) "crypt" f u n c t i o n s as the model, method and theory of a formal p o e t i c s based upon the fantasy of i n c o r p o r a t i o n . Cryptomimesis i s a w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e that leads one to understand language and w r i t i n g i n s p a t i a l terms of the cr y p t - a c o n t r a d i c t o r y topography of i n s i d e / o u t s i d e . Such w r i t i n g a l s o produces a r a d i c a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l model of the i n d i v i d u a l and c o l l e c t i v e " s e l f " c onfigured i n terms of phantoms, haunting and (refused) mourning. This d i s s e r t a t i o n a l s o argues that Derrida's p o e t i c s of the crypt e x i s t i n a c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n s h i p of correspondence w i t h the Gothic and examines how Derrida's w r i t i n g i n t e r s e c t s or " f o l d s " i n t o that genre, t a k i n g as a premise that each i s already i n h a b i t e d , even haunted, by the other. Sections such as " ' D a r l i n g , ' I t Said": Making a Contract With the Dead," and "The Question of the Tomb," develop t h i s Ill notion of "correspondence" by examining a set of texts written by two American Gothic writers. The discussion posits that the works of Edgar A l l a n Poe and Stephen King give insight into Derrida's preoccupation with inheritance and legacy while illuminating his concern, i n terms of writing, with the uncanny i n s t i t u t i o n of architecture. This d i s s e r t a t i o n attempts to theorize Derrida's writing practice i n s p a t i a l terms by drawing upon Nicolas Abraham and Maria Torok's theory of the phantom and the crypt. It demonstrates how cryptomimesis involves the production of an uncanny imaginary space by playing with thetic r e f e r e n t i a l i t y . F i n a l sections, "An Art of Chicanery" and "Inscribing the Wholly Other: No Fixed Address," develop the notion that to suspend the t h e t i c r e l a t i o n i s to confound (classical) d i s t i n c t i o n s between subject and object or " s e l f " and "other." Above a l l , t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n attempts to demonstrate how, i n Derrida's work, cryptomimesis i s about writing the other and how such writing, predicated upon revenance and haunting, problematizes notions of the "subject," "autobiography," and "transference" and, therefore, problematizes t e x t u a l i t y i t s e l f . IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iv Acknowledgement vi Dedication vii Convocation 1 The First Partition: Without the Door 4 Poetics of the Crypt 18 Transgenerational Haunting 23 Inheritance: Legacy. Ghosts. Haunting. 29 To Write With Ghosts 34 Cryptomimesis or, the Return of the Living-Dead 48 A Problem of Spacing: Behind the Door Is Inside Myself 54 Departed Is the Subject 62 The Name of the Not 69 Who Would Be Able to Read It? 79 "'Darling,' It Said": Making a Contract With the Dead 85 A Break in the Economics of Eschatology 91 The Logic of Haunting 109 "We Have Put Her Living in the Tomb" 114 Peristalsis: A Love Story 125 The Question of the Tomb 133 Glas: Staging Contamination 140 The Exclusion of the Disgusting 143 Writing on the Threshold of Undecidability 151 A Cryptic Spacing: The Destruction of Representation 162 Returning with a Differance 165 An Art of Chicanery 175 How to Speak to It 191 What Divides in This Place? 194 Strange Barriers 200 The Law of Another Generation 206 Inscribing the Wholly Other: No Fixed Address 210 Notes 216 Works Consulted 233 v i Acknowledgement I want to thank Lorraine Weir—her acumen, her encouragement and her confidence over four years of s u p e r v i s i o n have g r e a t l y supported t h i s work. I a l s o thank J.C. Smith and Peter Quartermain f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t , advice and enthusiasm. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and the S o c i a l Sciences and Humanities Research C o u n c i l provided f i n a n c i a l support, f o r which I am a l s o g r a t e f u l . I a l s o want to thank Margaret Eady f o r her generous response to a question that, years ago, opened a door. And e s p e c i a l l y , I want to thank Jacqueline Larson f o r c o n t i n u i n g to share her keen i n s i g h t , f o r her e d i t o r i a l advice and f o r the love and encouragement she o f f e r e d when the end seemed nowhere i n s i g h t . For my mother, Norine C a s t r i c a n o Yesterday, you may remember, we made each other a promise. I now r e c a l l i t , but you already sense a l l the t r o u b l e we w i l l have i n ord e r i n g a l l these presents: these past presents which c o n s i s t of the present of a promise, whose opening toward the present to come i s not that of an expectation or an a n t i c i p a t i o n but that of commitment. —Jacques Derrida "The A r t of Memoires" 1 Convocat ion Whoever wants to dream must mix all things together. —Durer "To begin (writing, l i v i n g ) we must have death," writes Helene Cixous i n "The School of the Dead" {Three Steps on the Ladder of Writing 5 ) . If I say that we have begun, w i l l you understand? Drawn to Cixous' text I f i n d that the page,which opens'like a door upon these words, i s marked with a t i c k e t stub for a performance of Mozart's Requiem. But I did not know then what I know now: what we must have to begin. Otherwise, I might have continued to gaze at Frida Kahlo's Pensando en la Muerte, and, not seeing her death, or perhaps mine i n hers, forget. But death t e l l s us there i s no meaning outside memory. Helene Cixous says, "I l i k e the dead, they are the door keepers who while closing one side 'give' way to the o t h e r , " ( 5 ) the other being the dead in us, i n whose memory we l i v e and by whose death—or at least by the p o s s i b i l i t y of whose death—"within me" or "within us" become possible. This spacing i s what the dead "give." In mourning, says Derrida: "[w]e weep p r e c i s e l y over what happens to us when everything i s entrusted to the sole memory that i s 'in me' or 'in us'"("Mnemosyne" 3 3 ) — t h i s i n t e r i o r i t y made always already possible only by the impossibility of " t r u l y " mourning the ( p o s s i b i l i t y of the) 2 death of the other. "[0]ne must always begin by remembering," says Derrida; " i t i s the law"(35). If I say that we have begun, w i l l you (remember to) understand? One must always begin by remembering. And the way not to forget, says Cixous, i s to write. Perchance to dream. Says Cixous, "Dreams remind us that there i s a treasure locked away somewhere and writing i s the means to t r y and approach the treasure"(88). Approach can be t e r r i f y i n g , but t h i s i s the place where the other begins: where death enters the picture. Why else would Derrida say, writing's case i s "grave"("Plato's Pharmacy" 130)? Sometimes, when we are reading, we dream that we are writing but, says Cixous, " [ c j l e a r l y this i s n ' t true. We are not having the dream, the dream has us "{Three Steps 98) . Whenever "the dream has us," we are f i l l e d with longing and disquiet for we are i n the re a l of our desire which always takes the form of a secret. As i n a dream, a rebus-text always says "something that i s never said, that w i l l never be said by anyone else and which you unknow; you possess the unknown secret"(Cixous 85 emphasis mine). You possess the unknown secret and you have forgotten that you have unknown i t , a l l along. As dreams are always about unknowing, remembering and forgetting, so, too, i s a rebus-text. Thus, i n the s p i r i t of dreaming, Cixous writes, 3 [w]hen choosing a text I am c a l l e d : I obey the c a l l of certa i n texts or I am rejected by others. The texts that c a l l me have d i f f e r e n t voices. But they a l l have one voice i n common, they a l l have, with t h e i r differences, a ce r t a i n music I am attuned to, and that's the secret. ( 5 ) When texts c a l l to us what do they say and i n whose voice do they speak? What c a l l s to us i n secret, always takes the form of (a) haunting, e s p e c i a l l y as i t concerns the other " i n us" l i v i n g on—so to speak—as a spectral e f f e c t of the text. 4 The First Partition: Without the Door jonas and ezekial hear me now/ steady now ifeel your ghost about/ i'm not ready for the dead to show its face/ whose angel are you anyway? —"Jonas & Ezekial," The Indigo Girls, Rites of Passage "'We have put her living in the tomb! ... I ... t e l l you that I heard her f i r s t feeble movements i n the hollow c o f f i n . I heard them—many, many days ago ...! J t e l l you that she now stands without the door.' ' "(Poe, "The F a l l of the House of Usher" 547). Nearly two hundred years ago, Edgar A l l a n Poe's obsessive and overwrought Roderick Usher utters the words that s t i l l resonate i n the genre since come to be known as the American Gothic. Like many Gothic narratives, Poe's story, "The F a l l of the House of Usher," concerns i t s e l f with haunting and issues of unresolved mourning and features a vengeful return from the tomb. The image of Madeline of Usher's return from the dead foreshadows the continuing obsession with that trope i n contemporary mass culture. Although some c r i t i c s continue to disavow the Gothic as being s u b - l i t e r a r y and appealing only to the puerile imagination—Fredric Jameson refers to the Gothic as "that boring and exhausted paradigm" (289) 1— others, such as Anne Williams, claim that the genre not only remains very much a l i v e but i s e s p e c i a l l y v i t a l i n i t s 5 e v o c a t i o n o f the "undead," an o n t o l o g i c a l l y ambiguous f i g u r e which has been the focus of so much c r i t i c a l a t t e n t i o n 2 t h a t another c r i t i c , S l a v o j Z i z e k , f e l t c o m p e l l e d to c a l l the r e t u r n o f the l i v i n g dead "the fundamental f a n t a s y o f contemporary mass c u l t u r e " ( 2 2 ) . 3 The p r o l i f e r a t i o n of works i n contemporary mass c u l t u r e evok ing t h a t " fantasy"—inc lud ing f i c t i o n by Stephen K i n g (Pet Sematary and Salem's Lot) P e t e r S t r a u b {Ghost Story)and Anne R i c e {Interview With a Vampire) as w e l l as f i l m by George Romero{Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead) and F r a n c i s F o r d Coppo la {Bram Stoker's Dracula)—all bear w i tness to Z i z e k ' s c l a i m . However, w h i l e c u r r e n t c r i t i c a l a t t e n t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y f e m i n i s t , p s y c h o a n a l y t i c and c u l t u r a l c r i t i c i s m has been aimed a t the s o c i a l , s e x u a l and i d e o l o g i c a l d imens ions of the r e t u r n of the l i v i n g - d e a d , h a u n t i n g and mourning, tha t same c r i t i c a l focus has been l i m i t e d to the n o v e l , s h o r t s t o r y and f i l m . 4 T h i s c r i t i c a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n c o n t i n u e s d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t many of the f a m i l i a r G o t h i c t r o p e s and t o p o i have appeared not o n l y i n works o f p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , 5 but a l s o i n a d i s c o u r s e which has taken up the i s s u e of the c o n d i t i o n s of t r u t h w i t h i n Western m e t a p h y s i c s , namely D e r r i d e a n d e c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t i s c u r i o u s t h a t i n the l a s t twenty y e a r s the l i v i n g - d e a d , the r e v e n a n t , the phantom, the c r y p t , a l o n g w i t h t h e i r e f f e c t s of h a u n t i n g and mourning , have been a p p e a r i n g w i t h i n c r e a s i n g f requency 6 i n "the w r i t i n g s o f Jacques D e r r i d a and t h a t t h i s i n c l i n a t i o n has , f o r the most p a r t , gone u n a d d r e s s e d . 6 A l t h o u g h D e r r i d a has drawn a t t e n t i o n to the way t h a t l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s are dominated by p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumpt ions , I w i l l not presume to r e a d D e r r i d a ' s works w i t h the aim of p r o v i d i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l commentary. I n s t e a d , I propose the e x p l o r a t i o n of a c e r t a i n t erra in—a c r y p t , i n fact—with an ear tuned to h e a r i n g how, i n D e r r i d a ' s work, (the) crypt f u n c t i o n s as b o t h the model and method (theory)—the s t r u c t u r a l machine o r formal p r i n c i p l e o f a p o e t i c s , l e t ' s say—behind D e r r i d a ' s p r o d u c t i o n of " ( s ) c r y p t o g r a m s . " W h i l e the n o t i o n of the c r y p t i n t h i s case r e c a l l s the p s y c h o -t ( r ) o p o g r a p h y sugges ted by Abraham and T o r o k i n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n , the concept a l s o c o n s i s t s of what N i c o l a s Rand r e f e r s to as the " d e p o s i t i o n of the t i m e - h o n o r e d d i s t i n c t i o n between i n s i d e and o u t s i d e " ( " T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n " The Wolf Man's Magic Word I x v i i i ) . A l t h o u g h the term "(s )cryptogram" l ends i t s e l f to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t e x t u a l i t y as a p e r f o r m a t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l space , I propose the term cryptomimesis to d e s c r i b e a w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e t h a t , l i k e c e r t a i n G o t h i c c o n v e n t i o n s , generates i t s uncanny e f f e c t s through the p r o d u c t i o n of what N i c h o l a s Rand might c a l l a " c o n t r a d i c t o r y ' topography of i n s i d e o u t s i d e ' " {topique des fors) ( T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n WMMW I x v i i i ) . Moreover , the term 7 cryptomimes i s draws a t t e n t i o n to a w r i t i n g p r e d i c a t e d upon e n c r y p t i o n : the p l a y o f r e v e l a t i o n and concealment lodged w i t h i n parts of i n d i v i d u a l words . A s h o r t d i g r e s s i o n i s n e c e s s a r y h e r e , i f o n l y to r e c a l l D e r r i d a ' s r e t i c e n c e to employ any s i g n as "a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l p a s s , a password to open a l l d o o r s , d e c i p h e r a l l t e x t s and keep t h e i r c h a i n s under s u r v e i l l a n c e " ( " P a s s e - P a r t o u t " 12) . In s h o r t , we must be wary o f d e s i g n a t i n g any s i n g l e word as a "master-key ." To do so would be "to p r e d e s t i n e one ' s r e a d i n g , " which i s what D e r r i d a says about "the f e a r f u l r e a d e r , the r e a d e r i n a h u r r y to be de termined , d e c i d e d upon d e c i d i n g . . . " ( " E n v o i s " 4 ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , D e r r i d a extends a caveat to the r e a d e r who r e q u i r e s a "readable" i t i n e r a r y , who disavows u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and who, i n f e a r i n g i n d e t e r m i n a c y or u n d e c i d a b i l i t y , r e f u s e s the " c a l l " of the o t h e r . T h i s has to do w i t h the s t r u c t u r e o f a t e x t , w i t h r e s p o n d i n g to the t e x t o f the o t h e r i n a p e r f o r m a t i v e way. T h i s " p e r f o r m a t i v i t y , " says D e r r i d a " c a l l s f o r . . . r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the p a r t of the r e a d e r s . A r e a d e r i s not a consumer, a s p e c t a t o r , a v i s i t o r , not even a ' r e c e i v e r " ("An I n t e r v i e w w i t h Jacques D e r r i d a " 51) . A l t h o u g h D e r r i d a i s m i n d f u l t h a t the moment of "transcendence" i s " i r r e p r e s s i b l e , " he i s c a r e f u l to p o i n t out t h a t " i t can be c o m p l i c a t e d or f o l d e d . . . " (45) . T h i s remark d i r e c t s our 8 a t t e n t i o n to the c h a l l e n g e s p r e s e n t e d by c r y p t o m i m e s i s , a p r a c t i c e of w r i t i n g t h a t simultaneously encourages and r e s i s t s t ranscendent r e a d i n g and, because i t i n v o l v e s the p l a y of phantoms, compels an i r r e d u c i b l e p l u r a l i t y . Thus , to d w e l l upon the word "crypt" i s not to d e s i g n a t e e i t h e r the word or the t h i n g as the master key t h a t w i l l u n l o c k the " t r u t h . " Rather i t i s to use i t as a " p o s i t i v e l e v e r , " ( P o s i t i o n s 41) which i s how D e r r i d a d e s c r i b e s a word or term t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s a d e c o n s t r u c t i v e r e a d i n g . In h e r p r e f a c e to Of Grammatology G a y a t r i Sp ivak r e f e r s to such a p o s i t i v e l e v e r thus : I f i n - t h e p r o c e s s of d e c i p h e r i n g a t e x t i n the t r a d i t i o n a l way we come a c r o s s a word t h a t seems to h a r b o r an u n r e s o l v a b l e c o n t r a d i c t i o n , and by v i r t u e of b e i n g one word i s made sometimes to work i n one way and sometimes i n another and thus i s made to p o i n t away from the absence o f a u n i f i e d meaning, we s h a l l c a t c h a t t h a t word. I f a metaphor seems to suppress i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s , we s h a l l c a t c h a t t h a t metaphor. We s h a l l f o l l o w i t s adventures through the t e x t and see the t e x t coming undone as a s t r u c t u r e of concealment , r e v e a l i n g i t s s e l f - t r a n s g r e s s i o n , i t s u n d e c i d a b i l i t y . ( lxxv) In the case of c r y p t o m i m e s i s , to c a t c h upon the word "crypt" as the " p o s i t i v e l e v e r " i s a l s o to c r y p t upon the word "catch"—the term t h a t a l e r t s us to the cunn ing q u e s t i o n s , the s u r p r i s e s , the d e c e p t i o n s and the unexpected d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n a t t e m p t i n g to f o l l o w the "adventures" o f a word through a t e x t t h a t i s "coming undone as a s t r u c t u r e of concea lment ." I t i s i n the sense o f 9 performance, or performativity, therefore, that I understand the workings of the crypt i n Derrida's writing. Keeping these "adventures" i n mind, I would argue that because of a certa i n economy—what I said I would c a l l cryptomimesis—Derrida's works bear traces of being "ghost-written." By drawing upon such figures as the crypt, the phantom and the living-dead, cryptomimesis u t i l i z e s and foregrounds the dynamics of haunting and mourning to produce an autobiographical deconstructive writing through the trope of " l i v e b u r i a l , " a trope that Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick describes as "a str u c t u r a l name for the Gothic salience of 'within'"( 5). 7 Similarly, I want to suggest that cryptomimesis functions i n terms of textual mime to produce not only what Gregory Ulmer refers to as "paraliterature" ("The Object of Post-Criticism" 94)—which he sees as being "a hybrid of l i t e r a t u r e and c r i t i c i s m , art and science..."(94)—but also what 1 prefer to c a l l e ither "cryptography" or "phantomime," since these terms draw attention to the uncanny dimensions of a writing practice that takes place as a ghost or cryp t - e f f e c t of haunting and mourning. And because th i s work i s exploratory and not to be considered exhaustive, I wish to avoid t o t a l i z i n g and thematizing gestures. Therefore, I'm this work i n what C l i n t Burnham, i n his aesthetics of Marxist theory, c a l l s "a 10 f a i r l y ' B r u t a l i s t ' manner." Says Burnham, "the watchwords [of such an a e s t h e t i c s ] might be: v u l g a r , r e d u c t i v e , s i m p l i s t i c and a b s o l u t i s t " ( x i v ) . Because I am r e a d i n g D e r r i d a ' s works where, a r g u a b l y , they i n t e r s e c t o r " f o l d " i n t o the G o t h i c i n N o r t h Amer ican p o p u l a r c u l t u r e — t a k i n g as a premise t h a t each i s a l r e a d y i n h a b i t e d , even haunted by the o t h e r , f o l d e d w i t h i n the other—I have assumed, by a s l e i g h t o f hand, t h a t the works o f p o p u l a r c u l t u r e , themselves g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d " v u l g a r , r e d u c t i v e , s i m p l i s t i c and a b s o l u t i s t , " have something to say about Derrida's w r i t i n g . I have i n mind Mark W i g l e y ' s c l a i m t h a t "[ t ]he f i s s u r e s t h a t d i v i d e any t e x t are a c t u a l l y f o l d s t h a t b i n d them to t h a t which appears to be o u t s i d e them, and i t i s p r e c i s e l y these f o l d s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e the t e x t s as such , p r o d u c i n g the v e r y sense of an i n s i d e and an o u t s i d e t h a t they s u b v e r t " ( 4 ) . And because I would argue t h a t D e r r i d a ' s "poe t i c s of the c r y p t " e x i s t s i n a c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n of correspondence w i t h the G o t h i c , the word "speculat ion"—and a l l i t implies— s h o u l d s erve as a "watchword" d i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n to what "binds" the two; not o n l y because the word "specu la te" suggests t h a t i t i s my t a s k "to pursue an i n q u i r y ; to form a t h e o r y , " but a l s o because the word draws our a t t e n t i o n to the work ing of a c e r t a i n economy which , on the one hand has always powered the G o t h i c engine and, on the o t h e r , has 11 d r i v e n D e r r i d a ' s concern w i t h i n h e r i t a n c e and l e g a c y . Indeed, "to speculate"—derived from the L a t i n specula, a watch tower and specere, to look—is to engage i n a c e r t a i n f i n a n c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n , one t h a t i n v o l v e s r i s k of l o s s . My s p e c u l a t i o n s l e a d me to c o n s i d e r t h a t i n b o t h the s o - c a l l e d G o t h i c and i n D e r r i d a ' s work, what i s a t s take i s the performance of a g h o s t l y i n h e r i t a n c e and a d e b t . T h i s n o t i o n a l s o extends to the c r i t i c a l r e c e p t i o n a f f o r d e d the two s i n c e r e a d i n g i s l i k e w i s e i n d e b t e d or drawn i n t o the performance of a p h a n t o m - d r i v e n d e b t . The n a t u r e o f the debt can b e s t be a p p r e c i a t e d i n l i g h t of the E n g l i s h word "revenant" and the F r e n c h "revenance ." These words not o n l y b r i n g to mind the theme of one r e t u r n e d from the dead and a l l tha t t h i s i m p l i e s but a l s o how t h a t theme i s bound to a c e r t a i n economy, f o r the word c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to t h e i r a f f i n i t i e s w i t h "revenue" and w i t h revenir—from the F r e n c h to come back or to amount to and thus to the n o t i o n of ( f i n a n c i a l ) " r e t u r n ( s ) " ( B a s s "Glossary" to The Post Card x x v i i i ) . What r e t u r n s , however, i s always l i n k e d to d e s i r e , which i s what D e r r i d a means when he says t h a t the c r y p t i s "the vault o f d e s i r e " ( " F o r s " x v i i ) . T h i s remark d i r e c t s our a t t e n t i o n to the (economic) f u n c t i o n of a c r y p t which , l i k e a v a u l t , i s to keep, to save, to keep safe t h a t which would r e t u r n from i t to a c t , o f t e n i n our p l a c e . Thus, wherever the theme of the l i v i n g -12 dead a r i s e s , whether i t be i n s o - c a l l e d G o t h i c t e x t s or i n D e r r i d a ' s works, the t o p i c of revenance and d e s i r e cannot be s e p a r a t e d from t h a t of "ghos t ly i n h e r i t a n c e , " not o n l y to what i s r e c e i v e d by descent or s u c c e s s i o n but what r e t u r n s i n the form of a phantom to tax the l i v i n g . Indeed, S l a v o j v v Z i z e k ' s remark t h a t the dead r e t u r n from the grave to a c t as " c o l l e c t o r s of some u n p a i d symbol i c debt" (23) l i k e w i s e draws a t t e n t i o n to the element of o b l i g a t i o n i n t r i n s i c to revenance w h i l e a l l u d i n g a l s o to the uncanniness of i t s d i s c h a r g e . How do the dead r e c o v e r a debt? How do the l i v i n g a c q u i t themselves? D e r r i d a suggests what i s a t s take i n t h i s c o n t r a c t by p o s i n g the q u e s t i o n , "[h]ow to s p e c u l a t e on the debt of another coming back t o , amounting to [a s o i revenant] o n e s e l f ? " ( " N o t i c e s (Warnings)" 260) . As u s u a l , D e r r i d a ' s q u e s t i o n i m p l i e s a n o t h e r . I t l e a d s us to the c u t t i n g edge of c r y p t o m i m e s i s . How, u n l e s s one speculates i n a c e r t a i n way, can one see "oneself" as "amounting" to the debt of another? How i s such a sum determined? What c u r r e n c y i s used as the medium of exchange? What f i n a n c i n g suppor t s such an u n d e r t a k i n g ? How w i l l the debt be s e t t l e d ? What i n t e r e s t i s due? Who w i l l pay i t ? A c e r t a i n d o u b l i n g i s , a f t e r a l l , i m p l i e d . Here , the word "speculate" r e t u r n s , r e m i n d i n g us o f i t s a f f i n i t y w i t h "specular"—a word which i n i t s t u r n evokes L a c a n ' s c o n c e p t i o n of the m i r r o r s tage . And L a c a n ' s n o t i o n o f the 13 m i r r o r s tage as b e i n g "format ive of the f u n c t i o n o f the I" ( l ) shares an uncanny l i n k w i t h the word " s p e c t r e . " But where the f i r s t word ."specular" draws a t t e n t i o n to the m i s r e c o g n i t i o n , a n t i c i p a t i o n and r e t r o a c t i o n o f L a c a n ' s temporal d i a l e c t i c — i t s s p e c u l a r determinants—spectre suggests an uncanniness to t h a t s t r u c t u r e by drawing a t t e n t i o n to the spectral n a t u r e of the "I" i n terms of g h o s t l y i n h e r i t a n c e and an u n r e s o l v e d debt or p r o m i s e . In e f f e c t , the v e r y i d e a of the f i r s t - p e r s o n s i n g u l a r , w i t h a l l i t s c l a i m s to agency and c o n s c i o u s n e s s , i s i r r e v o c a b l y undermined when t h a t pronoun i s shown to be p l u r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d . What then does i t mean to s p e c u l a t e ? What phantoms come i n t o p l a y ? E s p e c i a l l y when one w r i t e s ? D e r r i d a suggests t h a t S p e c u l a t i o n always s p e c u l a t e s on some s p e c t e r , i t s p e c u l a t e s i n the m i r r o r of what i t p r o d u c e s , on the s p e c t a c l e t h a t i t g i v e s i t s e l f and t h a t i t g i v e s i t s e l f to see . I t b e l i e v e s i n what i t b e l i e v e s i t sees : i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . {Specters of Marx 146) In an essay e n t i t l e d , "The L o s t Object—Me," N i c h o l a s Abraham and M a r i a T o r o k ' s a c c o u n t i n g of the phantom i n terms of the a n a l y s a n d g i v e s us i n s i g h t not o n l y i n t o the gaps p r o d u c e d i n a n a l y s i s by t h a t s p e c t r a l s t r u c t u r e , but a l s o i n t o the workings of the economy of c r y p t o m i m e s i s : The 'shadow of the [ love] o b j e c t ' s t r a y s e n d l e s s l y about the c r y p t , u n t i l i t i s f i n a l l y r e i n c a r n a t e d i n the p e r s o n of the s u b j e c t . F a r from d i s p l a y i n g i t s e l f , t h i s k i n d of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s d e s t i n e d to 14 remain c o n c e a l e d . We c o n s i d e r i t u s e f u l to complement F r e u d ' s m e t a p s y c h o l o g i c a l f o r m u l a , i n 'Mourning and Melancho l ia '—which shows ' the ego i n the g u i s e of the object '—by i t s o p p o s i t e , i n o r d e r to s i g n a l an i n i t i a l c l i n i c a l f i n d i n g : the 'object' in its turn, carries the ego as its mask, t h a t i s , e i t h e r the ego i t s e l f or some o t h e r fagade. T h i s one i s an i m a g i n a r y and c o v e r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a c r y p t o f a n t a s y t h a t , b e i n g u n t e l l a b l e , cannot be shown i n the l i g h t o f day . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n concerns not so much the o b j e c t who may no l o n g e r e x i s t , but e s s e n t i a l l y the 'mourning' t h a t t h i s ' o b j e c t ' might a l l e g e d l y c a r r y out because of h a v i n g l o s t the s u b j e c t : the s u b j e c t , c o n s e q u e n t l y , appears to be p a i n f u l l y missed by the ' o b j e c t . ' C l e a r l y , an i d e n t i f y i n g empathy of t h i s type c o u l d not say i t s name, l e t a lone d i v u l g e i t s a im. A c c o r d i n g l y , i t h i d e s b e h i n d a m a s k . . . . The mechanism c o n s i s t s of exchanging one ' s own i d e n t i t y f o r a f a n t a s m i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the ' l i f e ' — b e y o n d the grave—of a l o s t o b j e c t o f l o v e . . . (141) A g a i n , Abraham and T o r o k ' s remarks r e g a r d i n g the phantom i n terms of " r e i n c a r n a t i o n " — l i t e r a l l y "re - f l e sh ing"—can be f r u i t f u l l y examined through the economy of the c r y p t , g i v i n g us to unde r s tand the n a t u r e of c r y p t o m i m e t i c w r i t i n g . To " r e i n c a r n a t e " i s to " b r i n g [the] s o u l o f (person) i n t o another body a f t e r d e a t h , " f o r the purpose of work ing through "karma," a concept t h a t suggests the "fatedness" of the " i d e n t i f y i n g empathy" ment ioned by Abraham and T o r o k . Thus , the phantom—be i t u n d e r s t o o d as e i t h e r the "shadow of the ob jec t" or the " b u r i e d speech" of another"—returns itself i n "the p e r s o n of the s u b j e c t " o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , the t e x t . Through a c e r t a i n form of inher i tance—a term which suggests not o n l y r e i n c a r n a t i o n , but a l s o karma, d e s t i n y , moira—the phantom takes p l a c e through b o t h the "I" and the 15 body, which i s " c l e a r l y . . . [why i t ] c o u l d not say i t s name, l e t a lone d i v u l g e i t s a i m . " In t h i s sense , the concept of r e i n c a r n a t i o n i s mean ing fu l to the economy of the c r y p t s i n c e i t i n v o l v e s the m a n i f e s t a t i o n , in the flesh, of a t a c i t "agreement" w i t h the dead. In the G o t h i c , as i n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , " c o n t r a c t s " w i t h the dead always take the form of a "concealed" promise to do or not do. Haunt ing always i m p l i e s a d e b t . Whether i t ' s the ghost o f the k i n g i n Hamlet or the ghost of A l f o n s o i n The Castle of Otranto, h a u n t i n g has an economic b a s i s i n the sense t h a t the r e t u r n of the dead from the g r a v e , as S l a v o j Z i z e k sugges ts , " m a t e r i a l i z e s a c e r t a i n s y m b o l i c debt beyond p h y s i c a l e x p i r a t i o n " ( 2 3 ) . In the Amer ican G o t h i c , N a t h a n i e l Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables, f o r example, demonstrates the economics of h a u n t i n g when each h e i r to the p r o p e r t y i n h e r i t s the g r e a t g u i l t o f h i s a n c e s t o r : To the t h o u g h t f u l mind t h e r e w i l l be no more t i n g e of s u p e r s t i t i o n i n what we f i g u r a t i v e l y e x p r e s s , [says the n a r r a t o r , ] by a f f i r m i n g tha't the ghost of a dead progeni tor—perhaps as a p o r t i o n of h i s own punishment—is o f t e n doomed to become the E v i l Genius of the f a m i l y . (13) As t h i s passage demonstrates , h a u n t i n g . i m p l i e s not o n l y debt but a l s o g u i l t . Hawthorne's n o v e l e x p l o r e s not o n l y p e r s o n a l but n a t i o n a l g u i l t p r e d i c a t e d upon c a p i t a l i s m and thus forms a bond w i t h Stephen K i n g ' s Pet Sematary, a n o v e l t h a t takes up the i s s u e of p e r s o n a l debt i n the c o n t e x t o f the c o l o n i a l 16 a p p r o p r i a t i o n of i n d i g e n o u s l a n d s . What these n o v e l s demonstrate i s the sense o f i n e x o r a b l e d e s t i n y upon which the G o t h i c t u r n s to take up the i s s u e of h a u n t i n g and r e t u r n . 8 A l t h o u g h t h i s r e t u r n does not always depend on literal dea th , but a r e t u r n of t h a t which i s " b u r i e d , " i t remains a f u n c t i o n o f the phantom r i s i n g out of the unconsc ious o f a n o t h e r . The work of p s y c h o a n a l y s t D a n i e l Gunn, who has e x p l o r e d the r o l e which language and the "I" p l a y i n the development of s u b j e c t i v i t y , d e s i r e , and a sense of the body, has r e l e v a n c e h e r e . A l t h o u g h h i s d i s c u s s i o n focuses on i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n f a m i l i e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y the p r o d u c t i o n o f ambiva lence , i t a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n to how the "phantom" m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f t r a n s g e n e r a t i o n a l l y , i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y and thus , t e x t u a l l y : [o]ne t h i n g a r e a d i n g o f K a f k a or o f Shakespearean comedy . . . s h o u l d g i v e i s the c o n f i d e n c e to contend t h a t p a r e n t a l demands need not n e c e s s a r i l y be so s e l f - e v i d e n t l y j u s t or f r e e of the ambivalence w i t h which the c h i l d i s t r y i n g to cope as p s y c h o a n a l y s i s has tended to i m p l y . What i f p a r e n t a l demands are not i n h e r e n t and n a t u r a l , but are r a t h e r the recycling of a previous demand which has been inadequately dealt with? (74) In Abraham and T o r o k ' s terms, the phantom " r e i n c a r n a t e d i n the p e r s o n of the s u b j e c t " would be an analogue o f Gunn's n o t i o n of the " r e c y c l i n g o f a p r e v i o u s demand which has been i n a d e q u a t e l y d e a l t w i t h . " What Gunn and Abraham and T o r o k make c l e a r i s t h a t b o t h " r e i n c a r n a t i o n " and " r e c y c l i n g " a r e the b a s i s of an economy i n which r e t u r n o r h a u n t i n g comes 17 i n t o p l a y , as Gunn sugges t s , through "the body, and the ' I ' through which the body at tempts to g a i n access to language and d e s i r e . . . " ( 7 6 ) . Gunn's c i t a t i o n of one of p s y c h o a n a l y s t Maud Mannoni ' s d i a l o g u e s w i t h a p a t i e n t i l l u s t r a t e s what i s a t s take i n t h i s phantom economy of d e s i r e . The d i a l o g u e , says Gunn, "leads d i r e c t l y i n t o the t r o u b l e d h e a r t l a n d of the pronoun": ' I ' v e got a headache ' , s a i d a s i n g l e c h i l d of t h r e e . (He had been brought to me [Maud Mannoni] because i t was i m p o s s i b l e to keep him i n i n f a n t s c h o o l where he e n d l e s s l y compla ined about h i s head, and seemed i l l , p a s s i v e and i n p a i n . In a d d i t i o n , he was s u b j e c t to in somnia , f o r which h i s d o c t o r c o u l d f i n d no o r g a n i c c a u s e ) . W i t h me he went through the same s o l i l o q u y . 'Who i s s a y i n g t h a t ? ' I asked h im. ' I ' v e got a headache ' , he went on r e p e a t i n g i n the same p l a i n t i v e tone . 'Where? Show me where y o u r head a c h e s . ' I t was not a q u e s t i o n h e ' d ever been asked . ' T h e r e ' , he s a i d , p o i n t i n g to h i s t h i g h near the g r o i n . 'And whose head ' s t h a t ? ' ' I t ' s Mummy's." (qtd i n Gunn 77) 9 What we have i s a k i n d of phantom l i m b t h a t i s not the r e s u l t of amputat ion but o f what r i s e s up out o f the unconsc ious of a n o t h e r . The "re turns" w i t h i n t h i s economy a r e c l e a r l y uncanny. Yet though they are fundamental to p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , r e t u r n s l i k e t h i s are a l s o c r u c i a l to the G o t h i c where h a u n t i n g u s u a l l y takes the c o n t r a c t u a l form of a g h o s t l y i n h e r i t a n c e . Such a g h o s t l y i n h e r i t a n c e i s a l s o fundamental to D e r r i d a whose thoughts r e g a r d i n g the c r y p t ' s 18 f u n c t i o n suggest t h a t cryptomimes i s—l ike the crypt—is itself, "the contract w i t h the dead" ("Fors" x x x v i i i emphasis m i n e ) . Poetics of the Crypt Of c o u r s e , to some, the d e s i r e to j u x t a p o s e the name of Jacques D e r r i d a w i t h tha t of Stephen K i n g , P e t e r S t r a u b , George Romero and even Count D r a c u l a might seem monstrous i n i t s e l f but then , as Donna Harraway sugges t s , "[m]onsters have always d e f i n e d the l i m i t s o f community i n Western i m a g i n a t i o n s " ( 1 8 0 ) . There are many wings i n the G o t h i c mansion, however. Without the d oor , the s t r u c t u r e l i e s open to s p e c u l a t i o n . F o r b e t t e r or f o r worse, I have taken on the t a s k o f drawing t o g e t h e r an u n l i k e l y c o u p l e , namely Jacques D e r r i d a and the phantoms of p o p u l a r c u l t u r e f o r purposes o f t h e o r i z i n g what I have c a l l e d D e r r i d a ' s p o e t i c s of the c r y p t where t h i s term lends i t s e l f to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of b o t h the dynamics o f mourning and h a u n t i n g t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e D e r r i d a ' s c o m p o s i t i o n a l mode as w e l l as the way t h a t the "crypt" (and a l l i t i m p l i e s ) , so i n t e g r a l to the G o t h i c genre , d e l i n e a t e s the uncanny s p a t i a l topography of D e r r i d a ' s work. I f the f a m i l i a r e lements o f G o t h i c f i c t i o n -dreams, c r y p t s , phantoms—are p r e s e n t i n D e r r i d a ' s work, so much more so are the dynamic and uncanny s t r u c t u r a l 19 p r i n c i p l e s of the G o t h i c : a sense of the unspeakab le ; a correspondence between dreams, language and w r i t i n g and t r a c e s of the theme of l i v e b u r i a l , a l l of which Eve Koso f sky Sedgwick d e s c r i b e s as f u n d a m e n t a l l y G o t h i c ("Language as L i v e B u r i a l " 37-96) . B r i e f l y , the works o f D e r r i d a to which I s h a l l r e f e r " c a l l " to us w i t h the s t o r y of t h e i r own p l u r a l , f l u i d and s imul taneous p r o d u c t i o n . E n c r y p t e d and e n c r y p t i n g , these works l e a d us to r e f l e c t upon the n a t u r e o f language and of w r i t i n g i n s p a t i a l terms (of the c r y p t ) t h a t , i n t u r n , produce a r a d i c a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l model o f the i n d i v i d u a l and c o l l e c t i v e "se l f" c o n f i g u r e d i n s p e c t r a l terms of phantoms and h a u n t i n g . In works such as " F o r s , " " C a r t o u c h e s , " Memoires: for Paul de Man, Glas, The Ear of the Other, " L i v i n g O n , " and Specters of Marx, these t r o p e s and t o p o i demonstrate t h a t the l o g i c of h a u n t i n g and the n o t i o n of the r e t u r n o f the l i v i n g - d e a d are i m p l i e d i n " i n d i v i d u a l " being— the s o - c a l l e d subject—as w e l l as the h i s t o r i c a l , s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l . They a l s o suggest a c e r t a i n i n t e r s e c t i o n between the n o t i o n of the "subject" and ( i n t e r - ) t e x t u a l i t y i n terms of s p e c t r a l e f f e c t s . W r i t t e n from the b o r d e r between i n c o r p o r a t i o n and i n t r o j e c t i o n , the t e x t s t h a t I w i l l d i s c u s s 1 0 a r e c r y p t o p h o r i c i n t h a t by s e t t i n g f r e e c e r t a i n shadows they p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s t a g i n g o f the enigma of a g e n e r a t i o n i n the throes of u n r e s o l v e d mourn ing . 20 One f i n a l c a v e a t . Of c o u r s e , t h e r e are many " D e r r i d a s " and one. must be c a r e f u l o f a s c r i b i n g to D e r r i d a [the one who s igns ] what, i n e f f e c t , the c u l t u r a l t e x t " D e r r i d a " a c c o m p l i s h e s . T h i s n o t i o n has p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n terms of t r a n s l a t i o n . I r e f e r s p e c i f i c a l l y to my r e a d i n g o f D e r r i d a ' s work i n E n g l i s h r a t h e r than i n F r e n c h . In "Des Tours des B a b e l " , D e r r i d a argues t h a t t r a n s l a t i o n i s " imposs ib le" because i t i s not the t r a n s m i s s i o n or r e p r o d u c t i o n of some o r i g i n a r y meaning t h a t p r e c e d e d i t . 1 1 In these terms, the " D e r r i d a " to whom I am r e f e r r i n g s h o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , be u n d e r s t o o d as a t e x t u a l e f f e c t of (an E n g l i s h ) t r a n s l a t i o n . T h i s n o t i o n i s suggested by Mark W i g l e y when he says , "the v e r y sense o f something o r i g i n a l i s but an e f f e c t of t r a n s l a t i o n , the t r a n s l a t i o n a c t u a l l y p r o d u c i n g what i t appears to s i m p l y r e p r o d u c e " ( 3 ) . A l t h o u g h my i n t e n t i o n i s to t h e o r i z e what I am c a l l i n g D e r r i d a ' s p o e t i c s o f the c r y p t , I a l s o have a supplementary g o a l , which i s to c a l l a t t e n t i o n to what makes such a p r o j e c t v i a b l e , namely the p e c u l i a r resonance which o c c u r s between a meet ing o f t r a j e c t o r i e s : " D e r r i d a " in America and American G o t h i c l i t e r a t u r e . A l t h o u g h D e r r i d a warns a g a i n s t making the assumpt ion t h a t one knows what i s meant or d e f i n e d by the word "Amer ica ," i t i s c l e a r t h a t he c o n s i d e r s the p l a c e he p r o v o c a t i v e l y c a l l s "the new E u r o p e " (Specters of Marx 40) to be an e f f e c t of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t ' s dream. In t h i s sense, 21 Amer ica i s the excess or beyond of a Europe t h a t i s y e t to come. T h i s i s what Joseph R i d d e l means when he d e s c r i b e s " ' A m e r i c a ' [as be ing] not so much a h i s t o r y of what o c c u r r e d as a dream to be a r r i v e d a t . I t i s a p o i n t o f a r r i v a l i n f i n i t e l y d e f e r r e d by the a c t o f s e a r c h i n g f o r i t " (99) . In these terms, "America" was never d i s c o v e r e d but was " i n v e n t e d . " The same h o l d s t r u e o f "American" l i t e r a t u r e which R i d d e l contends i s "a f u t u r a l o t h e r , to which the a c t u a l l i t e r a r y t e x t s we have and s tudy are k i n d s o f p r e f a c e s or notes toward; p r o l o g u e s w r i t t e n b o t h a f t e r and b e f o r e the f a c t , b e f o r e the l e t t e r " ( 2 1 ) . In these terms, "American" o r "America" become not o n l y the name of a c e r t a i n d i s p l a c e m e n t t h a t i s i n t e g r a l to D e r r i d a ' s thought but a l s o an a l l e g o r y of h a u n t i n g . R i d d e l p o i n t s t h i s out , s a y i n g [ t ]here i s a ' scene ' r e c a l l e d i n one of the a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l "Envois" . . . t h a t might remind us of the d i s p l a c e m e n t ' l i t e r a t u r e ' e f f e c t s w i t h i n contemporary d i s c o u r s e , and the p e r f o r m a t i v e r o l e t h a t Poe i n p a r t i c u l a r , but a l s o Amer ican l i t e r a t u r e i n g e n e r a l , and even the p l a c e and name ' A m e r i c a , ' a r e made to p l a y i n t h a t d i s c o u r s e . I t i s a scene and s t o r y of p l a c e and d i s p l a c e m e n t , an a l l e g o r y , as i t were, of h i s t o r y , d i s c o u r s e , c r i t i c i s m , and of a c e r t a i n p r o b l e m a t i c s o f accounts—of r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g the dead. (17) 1 2 I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t D e r r i d a , l i k e R i d d e l , p e r c e i v e s "America" i n these terms. In "Mnemosyne" D e r r i d a r e f e r s to the prob lem of d e f i n i n g "America" and c a l l s the U n i t e d S t a t e s t h a t h i s t o r i c a l space which today, i n a l l i t s d imens ions and through a l l i t s power p l a y s , 22 r e v e a l s i t s e l f as b e i n g u n d e n i a b l y the most s e n s i t i v e , r e c e p t i v e , or r e s p o n s i v e space of a l l to the themes and e f f e c t s of d e c o n s t r u c t i o n . In the war t h a t rages over the s u b j e c t of d e c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e r e i s no f r o n t , t h e r e are no f r o n t s . But i f t h e r e were, they would a l l pass through the U n i t e d S t a t e s . . . . In t h i s f i c t i o n of t r u t h , ' A m e r i c a ' would be the title of a new novel on the h i s t o r y o f d e c o n s t r u c t i o n and the d e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f h i s t o r y . (18 emphasis mine) W i t h D e r r i d a ' s remarks i n mind, i t seems a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t c e r t a i n of D e r r i d a ' s works be r e a d as i n t e r s e c t i n g w i t h the G o t h i c i n "America" s i n c e i t i s t h i s encounter t h a t produces a sense of an uncanny "correspondence" w h i c h , to use R i d d e l ' s p h r a s e , i s a scene "of r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g the dead ." Both R i d d e l ' s and D e r r i d a ' s remarks suggest t h a t s i n c e "America" i s , to use R i d d e l ' s terms, "always a l r e a d y a t e x t w i t h o u t o r i g i n , a t r a n s l a t i o n o f a t r a n s l a t i o n , " ( 1 0 0 ) the U n i t e d S t a t e s can b e s t be spoken of i n terms of " l i t e r a t u r e . " In these terms, i f America were "the t i t l e of a new n o v e l , " t h a t n o v e l would be " i n p r o g r e s s " because i n t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n , A m e r i c a would be "the beyond of modernism, a l i t e r a t u r e burdened w i t h p r o d u c i n g a p a s t i t never had, except i n the f i g u r e o f r e v o l u t i o n , i n o r d e r to mime t h a t p a s t i n t o a f u t u r e i t l agged b e h i n d " ( 1 0 1 ) . Thus , i f A m e r i c a i s the dream of Europe , America i s a l s o a r e b u s - t e x t , a [Gothic ] "novel" based on the dream of " r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g the d e a d . " By now, i t s h o u l d be c l e a r t h a t the works of D e r r i d a to which I w i l l r e f e r are not meant to summarize h i s w r i t i n g s as a whole . I do, however, w i sh to draw a t t e n t i o n 23 to D e r r i d a ' s a f f i n i t y w i t h the G o t h i c i n A m e r i c a and to suggest ways of r e a d i n g h i s work i n terms of i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the s t a g i n g o f a c u l t u r a l i m a g i n a r y i n which the t r o p e of the l i v i n g - d e a d and t h e i r r e t u r n from the grave m a t e r i a l i z e s a c e r t a i n u n p a i d symbol i c d e b t . Transgenerational Haunting: Living On The r e t u r n of the dead from the g r a v e , the phantom and the revenant are not mere ly worn-out c o n v e n t i o n s of the G o t h i c . R a t h e r , these f i g u r e s draw a t t e n t i o n to an uncanny d imens ion i m p l i c i t i n F r e d r i c Jameson's a s s e r t i o n t h a t p o s t -modern c u l t u r e f u n c t i o n s as "a w o r l d t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o sheer images of i t s e l f " ( 1 8 ) . S i m i l a r l y , these "images" a l s o suggest what, on a c o l l e c t i v e and s o c i a l l e v e l , i s a t s t a k e i n S l a v o j Z i z e k ' s remark t h a t " c e r t a i n s t a t e or i d e o l o g i c a l apparatuses . . . a l t h o u g h they are c l e a r l y a n a c h r o n i s t i c . . . p e r s i s t because they do not know [that they are dead]"(44). V v Whi le Z i z e k ' s and Jameson's remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to a phenomenon w i t h which the G o t h i c has always been concerned— what might b e s t be c a l l e d transgenerational haunting, where t h a t term i m p l i e s a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f the v o i c e s o f one g e n e r a t i o n i n the unconsc ious o f another—their a s s e r t i o n s a l s o suggest t h a t the works o f the G o t h i c i n p o p u l a r c u l t u r e might l e n d themselves to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of how c e r t a i n o f 24 D e r r i d a ' s works s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s tage , t h e o r i z e , and t h e r e b y p a r t i c i p a t e i n another v a r i a t i o n o f t r a n s g e n e r a t i o n a l h a u n t i n g . In a c e r t a i n sense, to be haunted i s to be c a l l e d upon. A c c o r d i n g to W a l t e r Benjamin a t e x t " c a l l s " to us f o r t r a n s l a t i o n . In t h i s way, a t e x t , D e r r i d a would say, " l i v e s o n . " I t a l s o means t h a t when i t i s s i g n e d by the o t h e r , or " t r a n s l a t e d , " a t e x t "comes back" i n a c e r t a i n way; a phenomenon which always o c c u r s , D e r r i d a says , when "another makes use of [a t ex t ] or c i t e s i t " ( " R o u n d t a b l e on T r a n s l a t i o n " 158) . But the t e x t t h a t comes back i s never the same t e x t ; i t i s , thus , "never an echo . . . t h a t comes back . . . o r , i f there i s , i t ' s always d i s t o r t e d " ( 1 5 8 ) . I t ' s always " d i s t o r t e d " because , b e i n g t r a n s l a t e d , i t has s i g n e d i t s e l f i n the ear of the other—a ( t e x t u a l ) s t r u c t u r e which i s , a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , b o t h "uncanny" and "double"("Otob iographies" 33 ) . Thus , when we are c a l l e d by a c e r t a i n t e x t , i t i s perhaps w i t h an ear "attuned" to "a c e r t a i n music" t h a t the s p e c t r a l signature comes i n / t o p l a y (which might be a way of e v e n t u a l l y d e s c r i b i n g my i d i o s y n c r a t i c "engagement" w i t h "Jacques D e r r i d a " i n " A m e r i c a . " ) . Whenever a t e x t " c a l l s " to us , i t i s f o r the purpose o f (doing) dreamwork w i t h g h o s t s , phantoms, s p e c t e r s , r e v e n a n t s : a l l those whose r e t u r n prompts us to remember 25 t h a t dreamwork i s a l s o memory work which m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f i n terms of h a u n t i n g . A l t h o u g h what haunts us i s what we i n h e r i t , the l e g a c y i s always c o n t r a d i c t o r y . D e r r i d a suggests t h a t i t takes the form of a double b i n d : s e c r e c y and c h o i c e . Thus , whenever a t e x t c a l l s to us , we are b e i n g asked to c o n f i r m an i n h e r i t a n c e and to respond to an i n j u n c t i o n . We b e g i n by c h o o s i n g . T h i s "choice" i s always doub le -edged f o r i t takes the form of i n v i t a t i o n and r e s i s t a n c e . How are we to respond to the c a l l of a t e x t which i s a l s o a r e s i s t a n c e ? T h i s i s the b a s i s of h a u n t i n g . In Specters of Marx, D e r r i d a ' s remarks i l l u m i n a t e t h i s d o u b l e - b i n d : [a]n i n h e r i t a n c e i s never g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r , i t i s never one w i t h i t s e l f . I t s presumed u n i t y , i f t h e r e i s one, can c o n s i s t o n l y i n the injunction to reaffirm by choosing. "One must" means one must f i l t e r , s i f t , c r i t i c i z e , one must s o r t out s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t i n h a b i t the same i n j u n c t i o n . And i n h a b i t i t i n a c o n t r a d i c t o r y f a s h i o n around a s e c r e t . I f the r e a d a b i l i t y o f l e g a c y were g i v e n , n a t u r a l , t r a n s p a r e n t , u n i v o c a l , i f i t d i d not c a l l f o r and a t the same t ime de fy i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , we would never have a n y t h i n g to i n h e r i t from i t . We would be a f f e c t e d by i t as by a cause—natural or g e n e t i c . One always i n h e r i t s from a secret—which says ' r e a d me, w i l l you ever be a b l e to do so? ' (16) The answer to t h i s q u e s t i o n i s b o t h yes and no . To be c a l l e d by a t e x t i s to be drawn i n t o the c r o s s r o a d s o f s e c r e c y and d e s i r e . T h i s paradox i s what Shoshana Felman has i n mind when she asks 26 [w]here does i t r e s i s t ? Where does a t e x t p r e c i s e l y . . . make no sense, t h a t i s , r e s i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ? Where does what I see and what I r e a d r e s i s t my unders tand ing? Where i s the ignorance—the r e s i s t a n c e to knowledge—located? And what can I l e a r n from the l o c u s of t h a t i gnorance? (80) In these terms, the s e c r e t b e s t kept i s the one from o u r s e l v e s . Y e t , i n terms of i n h e r i t a n c e , Fe lman' s remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to one aspec t of h a u n t i n g t h a t remains at work even when i t i s unconsc ious or d i savowed. Where Felman asks "what can I l e a r n " from those t e x t s t h a t r e s i s t her " u n d e r s t a n d i n g , " Helene Cixous might r e s p o n d t h a t these t e x t s "teach us how to die"(22) because , i n e f f e c t , they show t h a t "[e]ach of us , i n d i v i d u a l l y and f r e e l y , must do the work t h a t c o n s i s t s o f r e t h i n k i n g what i s y o u r dea th and my d e a t h , which are i n s e p a r a b l e " ( 1 2 ) . To u n d e r s t a n d t h a t "your d e a t h and my death" are " i n s e p a r a b l e " i s to p e r c e i v e t h a t what c o n s t i t u t e s the d i v i s i o n between "se l f" and "other" i s d e a t h . In these terms, a t e x t t h a t "teach[es] us how to d i e " would a l s o be a t e x t from which we might l e a r n to l i v e . But t h i s , of c o u r s e , i s always a l r e a d y a q u e s t i o n of h a u n t i n g and i n h e r i t a n c e . In Specters of Marx, D e r r i d a ' s remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to the s p e c t r a l dynamics i m p l i c i t i n the c a l l o f t e x t s t h a t t e a c h us how to d i e . More i m p o r t a n t l y , they suggest t h a t any d i s c u s s i o n of "ourse lves"—inc lud ing "you," "me" "us" and 27 "I"—is s p e c t r a l l y de termined , e s p e c i a l l y when i t i s unconsc ious or d isavowed: To l e a r n to l i v e : a s t r a n g e watchword. Who would l e a r n ? From whom? To t e a c h to l i v e , but to whom? W i l l we ever know? W i l l we ever know how to l i v e and f i r s t of a l l what ' to l e a r n to l i v e ' means? ( x v i i ) To b e g i n ( w r i t i n g , l i v i n g ) we must have d e a t h . We must have death because i t i s " [ o ] n l y from the o t h e r and by d e a t h " ( x v i i i ) says D e r r i d a t h a t we come i n t o the c o n f i g u r a t i o n of " o u r s e l v e s . " To u n d e r s t a n d t h i s , however, we must " l e a r n to l i v e with g h o s t s , i n the upkeep, the c o n v e r s a t i o n , the company, or the companionship . . . " ( x v i i ) . D e r r i d a ' s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t we have "to l e a r n to l i v e with g h o s t s " ( x v i i i ) does not mean mere ly a b e i n g - w i t h b u t , as he sugges t s , " t h i s b e i n g - w i t h s p e c t e r s would a l s o be , not o n l y but a l s o , a p o l i t i c s of memory, of i n h e r i t a n c e , and of g e n e r a t i o n s " ( x i x ) . W r i t t e n to address t o d a y ' s d i s a v o w a l o f Marx, a d i s a v o w a l which D e r r i d a sees as an at tempt to e x o r c i s e M a r x ' s ghost , these remarks come out of D e r r i d a ' s r e a d i n g o f M a r x ' s "spectropoet ics"—Marx's o b s e s s i o n w i t h ghos t s , s p e c t e r s and s p i r i t s — i n which D e r r i d a , whose p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the r e t u r n of the dead o u t g o t h i c i z e s the G o t h i c , argues t h a t we are a l l h e i r s of Marx and t h a t i t i s our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to s i f t through our inher i tance—the p o s s i b l e l e g a c i e s t h a t come to us i n the s p i r i t of M a r x i s m ( s ) . To l e a r n to l i v e with ghosts i s to r e t h i n k 28 o u r s e l v e s through the dead o r , r a t h e r , through the r e t u r n of the dead ( i n us) and thus through h a u n t i n g . How, then , to r e c a l l D e r r i d a , a r e we "[ t ]o l e a r n to l i v e , " e s p e c i a l l y when we c o n s i d e r the uncanny i m p l i c a t i o n s of D e r r i d a ' s q u e s t i o n s when asked from the p e r s p e c t i v e of mourning, i n h e r i t a n c e and haunt ing? To learn to live: a s t r a n g e watchword. Who would l e a r n ? From whom? To t e a c h to l i v e , but to whom? W i l l we ever know? W i l l we ever know how to l i v e and f i r s t o f a l l what ' to l e a r n to l i v e ' means? ( x v i i emphasis on pronouns mine) D e r r i d a ' s q u e s t i o n s remind us t h a t we i g n o r e the dead at our p e r i l . To ask, Who would l e a r n ? and From whom?, i s to draw a t t e n t i o n to h a u n t i n g and thus , to phantom s t r u c t u r e s of s u b j e c t i v i t y and, by so d o i n g , to l a u n c h an i n q u e s t i n t o the u n d e c i d a b i l i t y of " i d e n t i t y . " Who would l e a r n , i n d e e d , i f the "I" w i t h which one speaks i s a "revenant" t h a t i s y e t to come? By drawing our a t t e n t i o n to how, as E s t h e r Schor puts i t , "the dead shape the l i v e s we are a b l e to l i v e " ( 4 ) the q u e s t i o n , "To t e a c h to l i v e , but to whom?" reminds us of a c e r t a i n ghost story—one which can but f e a t u r e a r e t u r n from the dead as a debt , as a promise and as a t r a n s l a t i o n . 29 Inheritance. Legacy. Ghosts. Haunting D e r r i d a ' s work can be seen to take up what Anne W i l l i a m s c a l l s "the q u i n t e s s e n t i a l G o t h i c i s s u e " which i s t h a t of " l e g i t i m a t e descent and r i g h t f u l i n h e r i t a n c e " ( 2 3 9 ) . In f a c t , D e r r i d a ' s c o n c e r n w i t h i n h e r i t a n c e t u r n s upon the ( d i s s i m u l a t i o n of the) p r o p e r name as a s i t e o f "haunt ing" s i n c e , as D e r r i d a remarks , "only the name can i n h e r i t , and t h i s i s why the name, to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the b e a r e r , i s always and a priori a dead man's name, a name of d e a t h " ( " O t o b i o g r a p h i e s " 7 ) . In D e r r i d a ' s work, however, the "name of death" i s not o n l y m u l t i p l e and " f e m i n i n e , " i t i s a l s o autobiographical, g i v i n g us to t h i n k of "autobiography" as a s p e c t r a l e f f e c t (of w r i t i n g ) t h a t r e n d e r s s e x u a l i t y / g e n d e r u n d e c i d a b l e . Thus , when D e r r i d a w r i t e s , " [ e ] v e r y t h i n g I w r i t e i s t e r r i b l y a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l " ("Roundtable on Autob iography" 72) , the emphasis on the " t e r r i b l y " cannot be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d s i n c e , as D e r r i d a a s s e r t s , the adverb must be g i v e n the meaning t h a t comes d i r e c t l y from i t s n o m i n a t i v e r o o t — ' i n a manner t h a t i n s p i r e s t e r r o r ' ( o n e w i l l have to wonder who or what i n s p i r e s t e r r o r , and i n whom)—rather than i t s more f a m i l i a r , b a n a l i z e d meaning, as , f o r example, when one wants to s i g n i f y the i n t e n s i t y of one ' s at tachment to someone or someth ing . Y e t , 30 n o t i c e t h a t even the l a t t e r sense i m p l i e s excess or extreme. (72) The p a r e n t h e t i c a l remark—"one w i l l have to wonder who o r what i n s p i r e s t e r r o r , and i n whom"—suggests the l i n k between h a u n t i n g and a u t o b i o g r a p h y . T h i s i s one r e a s o n why D e r r i d a s p e c u l a t e s t h a t "one w r i t e s not o n l y f o r those y e t to l i v e but f o r the d e a d . . . . I t h i n k one w r i t e s a l s o for the dead"("Roundtable on Autob iography" 53) . Here , as e l sewhere i n D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g , the p r e p o s i t i o n s tages an u n d e c i d a b i l i t y . F i r s t l y , the word "for" draws a t t e n t i o n to i t s r o l e i n "Fors"—Derr ida ' s essay which s e r ve s as a foreword to and an e l a b o r a t i o n of N i c o l a s Abraham and M a r i a T o r o k ' s a n a l y s i s of F r e u d ' s most wel l -known a n a l y s a n d i n The Wolf Man's Magic Word: A Cryptonymy—in which D e r r i d a p l a y s upon the word fors. In the F r e n c h e x p r e s s i o n le for interieur, for d e s i g n a t e s the i n n e r h e a r t : s u b j e c t i v e i n t e r i o r i t y . In the p l u r a l , fors—derived from L a t i n foris—is an a r c h a i c p r e p o s i t i o n meaning "except f o r , b a r r i n g , save"(Johnson, " T r a n s l a t o r s Note to ' F o r s ' " x i ) . Thus , to w r i t e " f o r ( s ) " the dead i s to a n t i c i p a t e our own. S i m i l a r l y , the word "for" i n E n g l i s h suggests tha t one w r i t e s not o n l y as an agent f o r the dead, but a l s o tha t the dead w r i t e in our place, a n o t i o n t h a t i s suggested by D e r r i d a ' s a s s e r t i o n , " [ d j e p a r t e d i s the s u b j e c t " ( " C a r t o u c h e s " 190) . That i s , i n the case o f the p r o p e r name, which i s "not to be confused w i t h the b e a r e r , " one w r i t e s as the ( s t i l l l i v i n g ) 31 dead, i n t h e i r name or i n t h e i r memory which i s what D e r r i d a i m p l i e s when he says , "every name i s the name of someone dead o r , of someone l i v i n g who i t can do wi thout" ("Roundtable on Autob iography" 53) . W r i t i n g , t h e r e f o r e , n e c e s s a r i l y draws a t t e n t i o n to i t s e l f i n terms of i n h e r i t a n c e , l egacy and h a u n t i n g . The p r o p e r name i s , however, not o n l y m u l t i p l e but can , i f i t i s the name of a phantom, a l s o be s e c r e t ; t h a t i s , "barred" from c o n s c i o u s n e s s . S t a g i n g the s i g n a t u r e ( s ) , then , becomes a c o m p l i c a t e d a f f a i r s i n c e i t i s no l o n g e r o n l y a mat ter of spacing—wherein i t i s "the ear o f the o t h e r t h a t signs"(51)— but r a t h e r of i n s c r i b i n g o r l e t t i n g be i n s c r i b e d (the unspeakable name of )an a l t o g e t h e r Other—a phantom, s h a l l we say, or a l i v i n g - d e a d — ( r e t u r n i n g as i n h e r i t a n c e ) i n p l a c e of the " s u b j e c t . " T h i s s t r u c t u r e i s what Abraham and Torok r e f e r to when they are s p e a k i n g i n terms of the phantom and the a n a l y s a n d : "It takes some t ime to u n d e r s t a n d [ that the analysand] speaks and l i v e s someone e l s e ' s words and a f f e c t s " ( "The Lost Object-Me" 150) . Thus , when D e r r i d a says , " [ e ] v e r y t h i n g I w r i t e i s t e r r i b l y a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l , " we are l e f t w i t h the q u e s t i o n D e r r i d a ' s pronoun sugges t s : whose autobiography are we talking about? One might argue t h a t a t a c e r t a i n p o i n t , D e r r i d a ' s concerns i n t e r s e c t or f o l d i n t o those of the G o t h i c where each approaches the i s s u e of i n h e r i t a n c e , l e g a c y and 32 h a u n t i n g p r e c i s e l y through the f i g u r e of a ghos t , phantom or revenant who, h a v i n g r e t u r n e d from the dead, haunts the l i v i n g w i t h unspeakable secrets—unspeakable because they are unconscious—which were taken to the grave but which r e t u r n v i a the agency of the p r o p e r name. 1 3 In the case of the Wolf Man, as Gregory Ulmer p o i n t s out , what i s unspeakable i s s e a l e d i n a p s y c h i c v a u l t as a "word t h i n g " which then , says Ulmer, "functions as the Wolf Man's name, naming the s i n g u l a r i t y of h i s d e s i r e , d i s s o c i a t e d e n t i r e l y from the names of h i s f a t h e r s , b o t h c i v i l and p s y c h o a n a l y t i c . . . " (Applied Grammatology 62) . However, as Ulmer p o i n t s out , even "a word t r e a t e d as a t h i n g t h a t i s unspeakable a c h i e v e s u t t e r a n c e by means of a complex t r a n s l a t i o n p r o c e s s " ( 6 2 ) . Where t h i s n o t i o n of the r e t u r n of a phantom a r g u a b l y r e s o n a t e s throughout D e r r i d a ' s work—it p r e d i c a t e s D e r r i d a ' s r e c e n t r e a d i n g and r e - r e a d i n g of Marx i n which D e r r i d a s p e c u l a t e s a t g r e a t l e n g t h about the f a c t t h a t the f i r s t noun t h a t appears i n The Manifesto of the Communist Party i s "specter"—it a l s o c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to i t s obv ious a f f i n i t i e s w i t h the American G o t h i c i n which the r e t u r n of the dead from the grave and i t s a t t e n d a n t h a u n t i n g can be u n d e r s t o o d to demonstrate , f o r b e t t e r o r f o r worse, what i s a t s take when, to r e c a l l Ulmer above, "a word t r e a t e d as a t h i n g t h a t i s unspeakable a c h i e v e s u t t e r a n c e . " 33 In G o t h i c f i c t i o n and f i l m what "achieves u t t e r a n c e " i s a l s o , g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , t h a t which horrifies. I t h o r r i f i e s because i t i s unspeakable and i t haunts f o r the same r e a s o n . That which i s unspeakable can , a c c o r d i n g to E s t h e r R a s h k i n i n her d i s c u s s i o n o f n a r r a t i v e and the metapsychology o f s e c r e t s , "determine the d e s t i n y of a f a m i l y l i n e , " a remark t h a t suggests what i s a t s take i n D e r r i d a ' s r e a d i n g of Marx i n terms of g h o s t s , h a u n t i n g and i n h e r i t a n c e . A c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , M a r x ' s work might be thought o f as a " v i r t u a l space of- s p e c t r a l i t y " which s tages "a c e r t a i n dramaturgy of modern Europe"(5) i n terms of h a u n t i n g . I t i s "the e x p e r i e n c e o f the s p e c t e r , [says D e r r i d a , ] t h a t i s how Marx, a l o n g w i t h E n g e l s , w i l l have . . . thought , d e s c r i b e d or d iagnosed" t h i s p e r f o r m a t i v e c o m p r i s i n g the "great u n i f y i n g p r o j e c t s " of modern E u r o p e ( 5 ) . To have r e c o u r s e to a c e r t a i n s p i r i t o f Marxism, says D e r r i d a i s a l s o "to engender new ghosts"(87) s i n c e "one must assume the inheritance o f Marxism, assume i t s most ' l i v i n g ' p a r t , which i s to say, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , t h a t which c o n t i n u e s to put back on the drawing b o a r d the q u e s t i o n of l i f e , s p i r i t , or the s p e c t r a l , of l i f e - d e a t h beyond the o p p o s i t i o n between l i f e and death ,"(54) i n o t h e r words, the p r o p e r name of Marx r e t u r n i n g as l i v i n g - d e a t h . 34 To Write With Ghosts I t would be a p p r o p r i a t e a t t h i s t ime to r e c a l l D e r r i d a ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t " i t i s n e c e s s a r y to i n t r o d u c e h a u n t i n g i n t o the v e r y c o n s t r u c t i o n of a c o n c e p t " ( Specters of Marx 161) . On the one hand, t h i s remark draws our a t t e n t i o n to the f a c t t h a t the word "haunting" i s e t y m o l o g i c a l l y bound to t h a t of "house." On the o t h e r hand, the comment suggests t h a t h a u n t i n g i s to concept as h a u n t i n g i s to "house." That i s , the n o t i o n o f h a u n t i n g draws a t t e n t i o n to the " c o n s t r u c t i o n " or c r e a t i o n of an inside. T h i s i s what Mark W i g l e y i m p l i e s when he c l a i m s t h a t h a u n t i n g i s "always the h a u n t i n g o f a house ," or o f a "space" s i n c e , he c o n t i n u e s , "space i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h a t which houses"(163) . H a u n t i n g , then , i m p l i e s interiority, t h a t i s , the n e c e s s a r y c o n s t r u c t i o n o f an " i n s i d e " whether of a house, a t e x t , a t h e s i s , a system of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n or a " s u b j e c t . " T h i s i s what D e r r i d a suggests when he says , " [ h ] a u n t i n g [marks] the v e r y e x i s t e n c e of E u r o p e . I t would open the space and the r e l a t i o n to s e l f of what i s c a l l e d by t h i s name, a t l e a s t s i n c e the M i d d l e A g e s " ( S p e c t e r s of Marx 4 ) . But by what mechanism does an " i n s i d e " come about? To the ex ten t t h a t thought , or memory—that we, ourselves—are i n e l u c t a b l e measures of a spacing, we a r e drawn i n t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h a u n t i n g t h a t necessarily i n c l u d e s mourning 35 s i n c e , a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , "only through the e x p e r i e n c e of the o t h e r , and of the o t h e r who can d i e , l e a v i n g i n me or i n us t h i s memory of the o t h e r , " does the "me" or the "us" a r i s e ("Mnemosyne" 3 3 ) . S i m i l a r l y , h a u n t i n g and a l l i t i m p l i e s i s a t rope t h a t not o n l y i s i n t e g r a l to the G o t h i c genre but a l s o f u n c t i o n s to l i n k w r i t i n g w i t h a r e t u r n from the dead . Where D e r r i d a t h i n k s i n terms of h a u n t i n g , he does so through N i c o l a s Abraham and M a r i a T o r o k ' s t h e o r y of the "phantom," and the c r y p t , b o t h o f which are p s y c h i c s t r u c t u r e s of i n c o r p o r a t i o n . When Abraham and Torok speak of the phantasy o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n , they draw upon the n o t i o n t h a t words of d e s i r e can a c t as phantoms when they a r e e x c l u d e d from the P r e c o n s c i o u s . T h i s i s a l s o what D e r r i d a i m p l i e s when he says , "[a]s f o r language, i t i n h a b i t s the c r y p t i n the form of 'words b u r i e d a l i v e ' . . . " ( " F o r s " xxxv)—a remark t h a t makes D e r r i d a sound e v e r y b i t as "Gothic" as , f o r example, Edgar A l l a n Poe whose works c o n s i s t e n t l y evoke s i m i l a r c o n c e r n s . 1 4 As f a r as p s y c h o a n a l y s i s i s concerned , however, D e r r i d a i s r e f e r r i n g to how e x c l u d e d words "migrate" to the Unconsc ious where, as Abraham and Torok would argue , they work as i f they were r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of r e p r e s s e d things. I t i s t h e i r absence i n the P r e c o n s c i o u s which s i g n i f i e s t h a t the trauma never took p l a c e . 1 5 I n c o r p o r a t i o n o c c u r s when the p r o c e s s of i n t r o j e c t i o n i s b l o c k e d by c o n f l i c t i n g d e s i r e s . The 36 i n a c c e s s i b l e o b j e c t of d e s i r e i s then i n c o r p o r a t e d as a "fantasy" w i t h i n the body and h i d d e n from the ego i n a "crypt" from which i t r e t u r n s to haunt e i t h e r through o t h e r w o r d s - t h a t - h i d e or through somatic symptoms t h a t can be r e a d , as F r e u d p o i n t e d out , as the l i t e r a l i z a t i o n of a f i g u r e of speech . In F r e u d ' s terms the r e t u r n of the r e p r e s s e d r e l i e s on the concept of latency—that i s , b e h i n d an e x p r e s s e d emotion l i e s one which i s c o n t r a r y and thus , r e p r e s s e d . What has been r e p r e s s e d w i l l e v e n t u a l l y f o r c e i t s way back i n t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s . A c c o r d i n g to Abraham and T o r o k , however, the concepts of the c r y p t and the phantom g i v e us to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t what mat ters i s , as N i c h o l a s Rand p o i n t s out , the f a c t t h a t " a c t u a l events are t r e a t e d as i f they had never o c c u r r e d . I n s t e a d of the s h i f t i n g f o r t u n e s of opponents l o c k e d i n combat . . . [as i n the F r e u d i a n s t r u c t u r e of o p p o s i t i o n s ] , what mat t er s i s the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a s h u t - u p or e x c l u d e d r e a l i t y . T h i s i s why [Abraham and Torok] speak of preservative r e p r e s s i o n , and c o n t r a s t i t w i t h F r e u d ' s concept of dynamic r e p r e s s i o n " ( " I n t r o d u c t i o n " to The Shell and the Kernel 18) . In these terms, the r e t u r n of the d e e p l y r e p r e s s e d c o n s i s t s of a r e t u r n o f a "phantom," an e n t i t y which might as w e l l be t h a t of an O t h e r . In t h i s c o n t e x t , c o n s i d e r the uncanniness of Abraham and T o r o k ' s "reading" of the Wolf Man i n The Wolf Man's Magic Word: 37 The person i n d e s p a i r who, r e n d e r e d h e l p l e s s by d e p r e s s i o n , c o n s u l t e d F r e u d i n 1910 was not q u i t e the same as the one who l a y on h i s couch a few days l a t e r . They appeared to be two s e p a r a t e peop le i n one, w i t h o u t e i t h e r o f them r e p r e s e n t i n g the b a s i c i d e n t i t y o f the Wolf Man. A l t h o u g h o f t e n h a v i n g the same d e s i r e s as he, they remained n e v e r t h e l e s s d i s t i n c t from him. As a r e s u l t , a paradox emerged i n which the s exua l l i c e n s e l o u d l y c l a i m e d by one would o n l y r e i n f o r c e r e p r e s s i o n i n the o t h e r . We s u s p e c t e d the e x i s t e n c e of a c o h a b i t a t i o n , a t the c o r e of the same p e r s o n , i n v o l v i n g h i s e l d e r s i s t e r ' s [as w e l l as h i s f a t h e r ' s ] image and h i s own. Two peop le i n a t h i r d one. (3) Two peop le i n a t h i r d one: an uneasy model of s u b j e c t i v i t y , to be s u r e . In these terms, what r e t u r n s to haunt i s , as E s t h e r Rankin p o i n t s out i n h e r d i s c u s s i o n of Abraham and T o r o k ' s t h e o r y of the phantom, the ' u n s a i d ' and the ' u n s a y a b l e ' of the o t h e r . The s i l e n c e , gap, or s e c r e t i n the speech of someone e l s e [ i s what becomes the phantom who, t h u s , ] ' speaks ' i n the manner of a v e n t r i l o q u i s t " ( 4 4 ) . T h i s i s an i n t r i g u i n g thought to keep i n mind when c o n s i d e r i n g D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e , e s p e c i a l l y where i t i s d e s c r i b e d i n terms of i n s c r i b i n g or l e t t i n g be i n s c r i b e d the a l t o g e t h e r other—a f e m i n i n e i n t e r l o c u t o r — b y d i s p l a c i n g a c e r t a i n m a s c u l i n i t y t h a t s i t u a t e s i t s e l f before the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f m a s c u l i n e and f e m i n i n e . 1 6 T h i s i s why D e r r i d a remarks "each t ime i t i s she, i t i s you who s i g n s the t e x t by r e c e i v i n g i t " ( " R o u n d t a b l e on Autob iography" 79). W r i t i n g the a l t o g e t h e r o t h e r , i n D e r r i d a ' s case , i s p r e d i c a t e d upon a r e - t h i n k i n g of the s u b j e c t as a "non-38 p l a c e , " a thought tha t runs c o n t r a r y to the t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n t h a t the s u b j e c t takes p l a c e (Wigley 176) . W h i l e Abraham and T o r o k ' s t h e o r y of the phantom c a l l s i n t o q u e s t i o n F r e u d ' s n o t i o n of the u n i v e r s a l i t y of p s y c h i c development, i t a l s o l eaves the door a j a r on the q u e s t i o n of the s o - c a l l e d subject—a q u e s t i o n which D e r r i d a c o n s t a n t l y poses—who i s assumed to be f u l l y c o n s c i o u s and, hence, f u l l y s e l f - k n o w a b l e . As N i c o l a s Abraham p o i n t s out , a n a l y s i s becomes an uncanny a f f a i r : E f f e c t i n g t r a n s f e r e n c e i n the presence o f a phantom i s a l l the more c h a l l e n g i n g s i n c e the p l a y i n g out or a c t u a l i z a t i o n o f the i n t e r n a l drama must o c c u r not between the a n a l y s t and the p a t i e n t . . . but between the a n a l y s t and the p a t i e n t ' s a n c e s t o r (or whoever e l s e may have o r i g i n a t e d [a] s e c r e t ) . At s take f o r the a n a l y s t i s a s s u r i n g t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l 'on the c o u c h , ' m e t a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , i s the one r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the f o r m a t i o n of the phantom. O u t l a n d i s h as t h i s may seem, t h i s o f t e n means a n a l y z i n g , v i a the m e d i a t i n g presence of the p a t i e n t , someone who i s l o n g s i n c e deceased . ("Notes on the Phantom" 174) T h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n , i n which the unspeakable i s s i l e n t l y t r a n s m i t t e d to someone e l s e , i s a p p r o p r i a t e l y c a l l e d the phantom. A c c o r d i n g to T o r o k , the phantom c a l l s i n t o q u e s t i o n the n o t i o n o f the i n t e g r i t y o f the " I , " s i n c e i t "is a l i e n to the s u b j e c t who harbours i t " ( " S t o r y of Fear" 181) . The s o - c a l l e d s u b j e c t , t h e r e f o r e , i s haunted by the " l i v i n g - d e a d knowledge of someone else's s ecre t"(Abraham "The I n t e r m i s s i o n o f ' T r u t h ' " 189) . T h i s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g remark when i t i s c o u p l e d w i t h Stephen K i n g ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the 39 b a s i s o f a h o r r o r s t o r y i s t h a t they d e a l w i t h "secre t s b e s t l e f t u n t o l d and t h i n g s b e s t l e f t u n s a i d " and y e t , he c o n t i n u e s , they " a l l promise to t e l l us the s e c r e t " ( D a n s e Macabre 5 0 ) . The i d e a t h a t the phantom might be "someone who i s l o n g s i n c e deceased" t a c i t l y c o n s t i t u t e s a G o t h i c s t o r y , which i s p r e c i s e l y what Anne W i l l i a m s , i n Art of Darkness: A Poetics of Gothic, suggests about the c o l l e c t e d works of F r e u d which , W i l l i a m s argues , are p r o f o u n d l y G o t h i c i n t h e i r concerns w i t h the f a m i l y romance. One might make a s i m i l a r argument r e g a r d i n g the works of N i c h o l a s Abraham who, f o r example, says , "[ t ]o be s u r e , a l l the d e p a r t e d may r e t u r n , but some are d e s t i n e d to haunt" ("Notes on the Phantom" 171) . F o r t h a t m a t t e r , the argument extends to Jacques D e r r i d a , whose remarks o f t e n r e c a l l the uncanny a spec t s of c e r t a i n G o t h i c t r o p e s . In " C a r t o u c h e s , " D e r r i d a ' s remarks have the e f f e c t of c a l l i n g up the image of D r a c u l a , the p a r a d i g m a t i c f i g u r e o f the l i v i n g - d e a d i n p o p u l a r c u l t u r e : "what can one d e s i r e o f a c o f f i n i f not to have i t f o r one's own, to s t e a l i t , to put o n e s e l f i n s i d e and see o n e s e l f i n i t . . . ? " ( 1 9 1 ) . E a r l i e r I s a i d t h a t a c c o r d i n g to W a l t e r Benjamin a t e x t c a l l s to us f o r a t r a n s l a t i o n . I f t h i s i s the case how am I to e x p l a i n what i t i s t h a t " c a l l s " to me when I "hear" Jacques D e r r i d a say, "[ t ]he i n h a b i t a n t of a c r y p t i s always a l i v i n g dead, a dead e n t i t y we are p e r f e c t l y w i l l i n g to keep a l i v e , but as dead, 40 one we are w i l l i n g to keep, as l o n g as we keep i t , w i t h i n us , i n t a c t i n any way save as l i v i n g " ? ( " F o r s " x x i ) . How am I to account f o r t h i s d i s c o u r s e o t h e r than to c o n s i d e r i t s summons t h a t i t be c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t of the G o t h i c ? When Jacques D e r r i d a says "the i n h a b i t a n t of a c r y p t i s always a l i v i n g - d e a d , " he i s s a y i n g n o t h i n g new to an e n t i r e g e n e r a t i o n of N o r t h Amer ican r e a d e r s and f i l m - g o e r s whose a t t r a c t i o n to the h o r r o r genre r a i s e s v a r i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , not the l e a s t of which i s posed by Noe l C a r r o l l who asks Why h o r r o r ? . . . [ I ] f h o r r o r n e c e s s a r i l y has something r e p u l s i v e about i t , how can audiences be a t t r a c t e d to i t ? Indeed, i f h o r r o r caused o n l y f e a r , we might f e e l j u s t i f i e d i n demanding an e x p l a n a t i o n o f what c o u l d m o t i v a t e peop le to seek out the genre . But where f e a r i s compounded w i t h r e p u l s i o n , the ante i s , i n a manner of s p e a k i n g , r a i s e d . (158) Indeed, to s p e c u l a t e upon the c o n n e c t i o n s t h a t might be made between the w r i t i n g of Jacques D e r r i d a and the works of a genre t h a t has l o n g been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t r a c t i o n and r e p u l s i o n l eads one i n t o some s t r a n g e t e r r i t o r y . A l t h o u g h i t might be a misnomer to c a l l Jacques D e r r i d a a G o t h i c n o v e l i s t ( i t ' s t empt ing though) , i t would a l s o be a m i s t a k e to deny h i s a f f i n i t y w i t h the genre s i n c e the e lements o f the G o t h i c are u n d e n i a b l y p r e s e n t i n h i s w o r k . 1 7 What do the works of p o p u l a r c u l t u r e t e l l us about Jacques D e r r i d a ? Susan Buck-Morss p o i n t s out t h a t W a l t e r Benjamin took s e r i o u s l y "the d e b r i s o f mass c u l t u r e as the source o f 41 p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r u t h " ( i x ) . B e n j a m i n ' s g o a l i n the Arcades P r o j e c t , as Buck-Morss sugges t s , was to take m a t e r i a l i s m so s e r i o u s l y t h a t the h i s t o r i c a l phenomena themselves were brought to speech . The p r o j e c t was to t e s t "how ' c o n c r e t e ' one can be i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the h i s t o r y of p h i l o s o p h y . " C o r s e t s , f e a t h e r d u s t e r s , r e d and green c o l o r e d combs, o l d photographs , s o u v e n i r r e p l i c a s of the Venus d i M i l o , c o l l a r but tons to s h i r t s l ong discarded—these b a t t e r e d h i s t o r i c a l s u r v i v o r s from the dawn of the i n d u s t r i a l c u l t u r e t h a t appeared t o g e t h e r i n the d y i n g arcades as a w o r l d o f s e c r e t a f f i n i t i e s were the p h i l o s o p h i c a l i d e a s , as a c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f c o n c r e t e , h i s t o r i c a l r e f e r e n t s . (3-4) B u c k - M o r s s ' s remarks suggest, t h a t i f these urban o b j e c t s can draw a t t e n t i o n to themselves as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c o u r s e , then the "objects" of p o p u l a r c u l t u r e — a r g u a b l y the themes, t r o p e s and t o p o i of G o t h i c f i c t i o n and film—might g i v e themselves over to b e i n g r e a d "as a c o n s t e l l a t i o n of c o n c r e t e , h i s t o r i c a l r e f e r e n t s " 1 8 t h a t o t h e r w i s e might be u n s p e a k a b l e . Thus , when D e r r i d a remarks t h a t "the c r y p t from which the ghost comes back be longs to someone e l s e " ( n o t e to "Fors" 119), we are g i v e n to u n d e r s t a n d l ) t h a t we are b e i n g drawn i n t o the unconsc ious t r a n s m i s s i o n and r e c e p t i o n of " l i v i n g -dead knowledge"(which i s thus , n e s c i e n c e ) ; 2 ) t h a t we are b e i n g drawn i n t o c l o s e p r o x i m i t y w i t h t h a t which d e f i e s v e r b a l i z a t i o n because i t i s the condition of w r i t i n g , speak ing and b e i n g and i s t r a c e a b l e o n l y through i t s o p e r a t i o n . As f a r as the c r y p t i s concerned what can "take 42 p l a c e " can do so o n l y by producing concealment—that i s , the (crypt ) effect o f i n t e r i o r i t y — w h i c h i s a c c o m p l i s h e d by " [ c o n s t r u c t i n g a system of p a r t i t i o n s , w i t h t h e i r i n n e r and o u t e r s u r f a c e s " ( " F o r s " x i v ) . D e r r i d a , i n f a c t , i s everywhere concerned w i t h a c e r t a i n "beyond p l a c e , " "non-place" o r "no-p l a c e " [non-lieu] which , he t e l l i n g l y d e s c r i b e s as "the o t h e r p l a c e " ( x x i ) . D e r r i d a ' s remarks on the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the " c r y p t i c enc lave" not o n l y r e c a p i t u l a t e Abraham and T o r o k ' s n o t i o n of the c r y p t i n terms of topography and t o p o i but a l s o r e c a l l Eve K o s o f s k y Sedgwick's a s s e r t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d s to the G o t h i c . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the s t r u c t u r i n g o f the c r y p t i c e n c l a v e , w i t h i t s a b i l i t y "to i s o l a t e , to p r o t e c t , to s h e l t e r from . . . p e n e t r a t i o n " ( D e r r i d a , "Fors" x i v ) evokes Sedgwick's comments r e g a r d i n g the uncanny and spontaneous p r o d u c t i o n o f "strange b a r r i e r s " which " s p r i n g up and m u l t i p l y " through the formal energy o f the G o t h i c (2 0). S i m i l a r l y , D e r r i d a ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the c r y p t i s "built by v io lence"(xv)—and t h a t to p e n e t r a t e i t we must use a c e r t a i n " b r e a k - i n technique"(xv) which " c o n s i s t s o f l o c a t i n g the c r a c k or the l o c k , c h o o s i n g the ang le of a p a r t i t i o n and f o r c i n g e n t r y " ( x v ) — r e c a l l s Eve K o s o f s k y Sedgwick ' s remarks r e g a r d i n g the "extremes of magic or v io l ence"(20 ) n e c e s s a r y to b r e a c h the s t r a n g e b a r r i e r s e r e c t e d i n the G o t h i c . Sedgwick's a s s e r t i o n s p o i n t to the way t h a t the s t r u c t u r i n g 43 p r i n c i p l e of the G o t h i c c o n s i s t e n t l y evokes the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n — i n c l u d i n g the e n c r y p t i o n o f l i b i d i n a l f o r c e s . D e r r i d a ' s comments r e g a r d i n g the p s y c h i c a p p a r a t u s o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n suggest t h a t he has found t h a t f a n t a s y e f f i c a c i o u s i n terms of d e c o n s t r u c t i v e a u t o b i o g r a p h y . 1 9 When c o u p l e d w i t h Sedgwick's comments r e g a r d i n g the s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e of the G o t h i c — p r e d i c a t e d upon the p r o d u c t i o n of "strange b a r r i e r s " which " s p r i n g up and m u l t i p l y " — D e r r i d a ' s remarks r e g a r d i n g the c r y p t suggest the s i m i l a r i t i e s o r avenues of correspondence t h a t e x i s t between t h a t p r i n c i p l e and the f a n t a s y o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n as proposed by Abraham and T o r o k . I t i s t h i s correspondence t h a t c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to Jacques D e r r i d a ' s p r a c t i c e of w r i t i n g with ghos t s t h a t I c a l l c r y p t o m i m e s i s . What s tands out i n D e r r i d a ' s work i s the m u l t i p l e f u n c t i o n i n g o f the c r y p t . F i r s t l y , D e r r i d a ' s d e s i g n a t i o n of ' c r y p t ' as a name (which i s not to be c o n f u s e d w i t h any bearer ) l eads us i n t o a t h i n k i n g of t h a t which s i g n s , or takes p l a c e , posthumously. But i n o r d e r to s i g n , the name ' c r y p t ' needs an e q u a l l y uncanny s t r u c t u r e : the ear o f the o t h e r . The c r y p t a l s o d e s i g n a t e s a p l a c e , "a v e r y s p e c i f i c and p e c u l i a r p l a c e " a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , who draws our a t t e n t i o n to the c r y p t ' s s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s when he says t h a t the c r y p t houses "the ghost t h a t comes h a u n t i n g out of the Unconsc ious o f the other" and t h a t "the c r y p t from which 44 the ghost comes back be longs to someone e l s e " ( n o t e to "Fors" 119) . One c o u l d c a l l t h i s r e t u r n the work of mourning . D e r r i d a ' s concerns w i t h the c r y p t suggest t h a t the phantom f i g u r e s as the effect of what, a l t h o u g h i t i s b a r r e d from c o n s c i o u s n e s s , r e t u r n s to "haunt". E s t h e r R a s h k i n draws a t t e n t i o n to t h i s phenomenon i n her d i s c u s s i o n of the phantom which , she s a y s , " c a n ' p e r e g r i n a t e ' i n s e v e r a l d i r e c t i o n s and i n h a b i t s t r a n g e r s as w e l l as f a m i l y members"(10) . 2 0 H e r e i n , the phantom i s pas sed on through g e n e r a t i o n s as a s e c r e t t h a t i s unspeakable because silenced. S i l e n c e f i g u r e s h e a v i l y i n the t r a n s m i s s i o n of the unsayab le s e c r e t as N i c h o l a s Rand sugges t s : Whether i t c h a r a c t e r i z e s i n d i v i d u a l s , f a m i l i e s , s o c i a l groups , or e n t i r e n a t i o n s , s i l e n c e and i t s v a r i e d forms—the u n t o l d or unsayab le s e c r e t , the f e e l i n g u n f e l t , the p a i n d e n i e d , the unspeakable and c o n c e a l e d shame of f a m i l i e s , the c o v e r - u p of p o l i t i c a l c r i m e s , the c o l l e c t i v e d i s r e g a r d f o r p a i n f u l h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t i e s — m a y d i s r u p t our l i v e s . ( I n t r o d u c t i o n to The Shell and the Kernel 21) W h i l e these remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to the phantom as the s i l e n t t r a n s m i s s i o n o f a s e c r e t , they a l s o suggest a r e l a t i o n s h i p among the phantom, h a u n t i n g and w r i t i n g s i n c e each, i n i t s own way, p o s i t s t h a t the r e t u r n of the dead enacts an inher i tance—a " w i l l , " perhaps beyond the g r a v e : a n o t i o n tha t a l s o r e c a l l s D e r r i d a ' s remarks on w r i t i n g and i t e r a b i l i t y beyond the dea th of the a d d r e s s e e . In o t h e r words, w r i t i n g , t e x t u a l i t y , the phantom and h a u n t i n g are not 45 only interrelated; they are inseparable. To make thi s assertion i s also to say that writing i s phantom-driven and that we a l l have our ghosts, a thought that renders c l a s s i c a l notions of s u b j e c t i v i t y more enigmatic than ever. As Derrida puts i t i n Specters of Marx, "everyone reads, acts, writes with his or her ghosts, even when one goes after the ghosts of the other"(139). To write with ghosts, however, i s to e f f e c t a writing practice that admits the unheimlich—the uncanny e f f e c t of a certain spacing of which Derrida says, " [ i ] t feels i t s e l f occupied, i n the proper secret ... of i t s inside, by what i s most strange, distant, threatening"(144-145). Such a writing would, by necessity, be cryptic because i t stands on the border of divulging and hiding, remembering and forgetting, producing a curious fort/da tension that i s , as Deleuze and Guattari say of writing that deals with the "secret," always "becoming"(289). In effect, the crypt i s a model and a method of producing concealment or what Heidegger c a l l s aletheia. The crypt, therefore, i s not to be thought of merely as a metaphor for the unconscious, hidden, secret, underground or latent nor as a " l i t e r a l meaning"("Fors x i i i ) , but rather as a term r e f e r r i n g to a writing practice that takes into account a secret, a tomb, a b u r i a l and a return; aspects of what Derrida c a l l s "metaphoricity i t s e l f . " 46 A writing that i s always becoming (secret), then, would proceed hieroglyphically, as a rebus does, to acquire i t s own form. This "form," therefore, would not be s t a t i c but "most strange, distant [and] threatening" because i t i s ceaselessly reconstituted, changing, multiple, f l u i d , feminine, but without example! According to Deleuze and Guattari, the more the secret i s made into a structuring, organizing form, the thinner and more ubiquitous i t becomes, the more i t s content becomes molecular, at the same time as i t s form dissolves. It r e a l l y wasn't much, as Jocasta says. The secret does not as a r e s u l t disappear, but i t does take on a more feminine status. What was behind ... Schreber's paranoid secret a l l along, i f not a becoming-feminine, a becoming woman? (A Thousand Plateaus 289) Derrida's experimentation with the rebus technique—which, as Gregory Ulmer puts i t , amounts to "the reduction of the phonetic i n favor of the ideographic element i n writing," {App l ied Grammatology 71)—has had the e f f e c t of r a i s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y that the secret or, better yet, secrecy, functions as the s t r u c t u r a l enigma which inaugurates the scene of writing. That "scene," i n Derrida's terms, mobilizes various forces, or i f you prefer various agencies or 'subjects,' some of which demand the narrative of the other, seek to extort i t from him, l i k e a secret-less secret.... ("Living On— Border Lines" 2 60) In t h i s scene, writing comes before language. It produces d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n — s p a c i n g — i n an enigmatic way, the model of 47 which might be. unders tood i n terms of dream p r o d u c t i o n , where in the twin p r o c e s s e s of c o n d e n s a t i o n and d i s p l a c e m e n t f u n c t i o n i n s e c r e t to c r o s s the p h o n e t i c w i t h the i d e o g r a p h i c . 2 1 48 Cryptomimesis or, the Return of the Living-Dead Much has already been written about Derrida's "non-li n e a r " writing and his attempts to balance the ideographic with the phonetic elements of writing. Gregory Ulmer's comments best elucidate the range and magnitude of Derrida's e f f o r t s : [g]rammatology confronts nothing less than the sediment of four thousand years of the hi s t o r y of language, during which time everything that r e s i s t e d l i n e a r i z a t i o n was suppressed. B r i e f l y stated, this suppression amounts to the denial of the pluridimensional character of symbolic thought o r i g i n a l l y evident i n the 'mythogram' (Leroi-Gourhams's term), or nonlinear writing (pictographic and rebus wr i t i n g ) . In the mythogram, meaning i s not subjected to successivity, to the order of l o g i c a l time, or to the i r r e v e r s i b l e temporality of sound. The l i n e a r schema of unfolding presence, where the l i n e relates the f i n a l presence to the originary present according to the s t r a i g h t l i n e or the c i r c l e , became a model, Derrida says, and as such became inaccessible and i n v i s i b l e . Given Heidegger's demonstration that t h i s mundane concept of temporality (homogenous, dominated by the form of the now and the i d e a l of continuous movement, straight or c i r c u l a r ) i s the determining concept of a l l ontology from A r i s t o t l e to Hegel, and the assumption that the l i n e a r i t y of language e n t a i l s just this concept of time, Derrida concludes that 'the meditation upon writing and the deconstruction of the h i s t o r y of philosophy become inseparable.' (Applied Grammatology 8; Grammatology 86) . Where Ulmer's interest i n Derrida's "meditation upon writing" takes the form of what he c a l l s "applied 49 grammatology," my c o n c e r n i s to e x p l o r e and e l a b o r a t e upon what I have c a l l e d D e r r i d a ' s p o e t i c s of the c r y p t . T h i s phrase draws a t t e n t i o n to cryptomimes i s as t e x t u a l p r o d u c t i o n t h a t i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the r e t u r n of the so -c a l l e d l i v i n g dead, h a u n t i n g and mourning . In c r y p t o m i m e s i s , the s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e i s a b j e c t i o n . A t t r a c t i o n and r e p u l s i o n generate a w r i t i n g t h a t might be b e s t thought o f i n terms of de/composition, s i n c e t h a t word draws a t t e n t i o n not o n l y to death and to the decay t h a t the c r y p t i m p l i e s but a l s o to how cryptomimes i s i s a w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e t h a t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d i s i n t e g r a t i o n , by the b r e a k i n g - u p of language i n t o i t s e lements or c o n s t i t u e n t s . In these terms, decomposition—and a l l i t implies—might a l s o be thought o f as the a e s t h e t i c p r i n c i p l e b e h i n d cryptomimes i s wh ich , because i t s e t s up a c h a l l e n g e to " tas t e ," has i t s a f f i n i t y w i t h G o t h i c " h o r r o r . " " [ I ] t i s d i s g u s t t h a t c o n t r o l s e v e r y t h i n g , " says D e r r i d a i n a f o o t n o t e to " O t o b i o g r a p h i e s " ( 2 3 ) . A l t h o u g h D e r r i d a i s commenting on N i e t z s c h e ' s r e c o g n i t i o n o f the r o l e of d i s g u s t i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , h i s remarks serve a l s o to suggest a correspondence between h i s work ( D e r r i d a ' s ) and the a e s t h e t i c s of G o t h i c h o r r o r , the key element o f which , a s s e r t s Noe l C a r r o l l i n The Philosophy of Horror, i s "d i sgus t" (158 ) . In f a c t , I w i l l argue t h a t D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e suggests not o n l y a k i n s h i p w i t h 50 G o t h i c h o r r o r i n p o p u l a r c u l t u r e but a l s o a l i n k which may be made between D e r r i d a ' s a e s t h e t i c s , s t a t e d i n a r c h i t e c t u r a l terms, and Edgar A l l a n Poe 's "The F a l l o f the House of U s h e r . " Poe ' s s t o r y a l e r t s us to the c r y p t as b e i n g b o t h a p o e t i c d e v i c e and a d i s c u r s i v e e f f e c t as w e l l as a s i t e o f d i s g u s t i n the form of a b j e c t i o n . But to r e t u r n , b r i e f l y , to the n o t i o n of "decompos i t ion": the term g i v e s us to u n d e r s t a n d what N i c h o l a s Rand means when he d i s c u s s e s "the p r o c e s s e s o f i n t e g r i t y and s imul taneous d i s i n t e g r a t i o n D e r r i d a has o u t l i n e d h i s t o r i c a l l y and p r a c t i c e d i n h i s r e a d i n g s over the l a s t twenty y e a r s . . . . " ( " T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n " to The Wolf Man's Magic Word l x i x ) . Rand goes on to say: [u] nder'stood as an ' i m p o s s i b i l i t y to b e , ' d i s i n t e g r a t i o n does not c o u n t e r a c t the n o t i o n o f or the f a c t of i n t e g r i t y . D i s i n t e g r a t i o n i s the opaque beyond or f a r s i d e of apparent i n t e g r i t y inasmuch as i n t e g r i t y (Being) i s n o t h i n g but the p o t e n t i a l l y t e l l i n g and a l l u s i v e account o f why and how something c o u l d not be . Wi th t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of what i s , i n r e l a t i o n to something beyond t h a t c o u l d not be , [we can] s i t u a t e D e r r i d e a n d e c o n s t r u c t i o n r e t r o a c t i v e l y as the s y s t e m a t i c e x p l o r a t i o n of f i c t i t i o u s v e r b a l s c e n a r i o s t h a t a r t i c u l a t e o b s t a c l e s to b e i n g , ( l x i x ) Even though D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e has been d e s c r i b e d i n terms of the rebus t e c h n i q u e , I want to s h i f t a t t e n t i o n to how the c r y p t f u n c t i o n s i n D e r r i d a ' s work as a p o e t i c device t h a t determines what Ulmer r e f e r s to above as the " p l u r i d i m e n s i o n a l c h a r a c t e r of symbol i c t h o u g h t . " The c r y p t 51 reminds us that Derrida's writing practice i s predicated upon "decomposition" which i s , as Gregory Ulmer suggests, "another version of what Derrida describes as the most fundamental feature of language—iterability, the p r i n c i p l e shared by both speech and writing" ( A p p l i e d Grammatology 58). Ulmer points out that the c r u c i a l element of Derrida's de/compositional mode of writing i s the grapheme, which remains i t e r a b l e and, l i k e the mark, may continue "to function in the absence of its context"(58). In effect, the crypt serves as a de/compositional p r i n c i p l e predicated upon detachment, dissolving, d i s i n t e g r a t i o n : And this i s the p o s s i b i l i t y on which I want to i n s i s t [says Derrida]: the p o s s i b i l i t y of disengagement and c i t a t i o n a l graft which belongs .to the structure of every mark, spoken or written, and which constitutes every mark i n writing before and outside of every horizon of semio-linguistic communication; i n writing, which i s to say i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of i t s functioning being cut off, at a cer t a i n point, from i t s " o r i g i n a l " desire-to-say-what-one-means and from i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a saturable and constraining context. Every sign, l i n g u i s t i c or non-linguistic, spoken or written (in the current sense of this opposition), i n a small or large unit, can be cited, put between quotation marks; in so doing i t can break with every given context, engendering an i n f i n i t y of new contexts i n a manner which i s absolutely i l l i m i t a b l e . ("Signature Event Context" trans./qtd i n Gregory Ulmer Applied Grammatology 58-59) 2 2 To achieve such a writing, Derrida follows the lead of Abraham and Torok whose "theory of r e a d a b i l i t y " was predicated upon t h e i r phonetic analysis of the Wolf Man's dreams which, they argue, are comprised of the combinations 5 2 of sounds derived from three languages, English, Russian and German. In the famous wolf dream, for example, Abraham and Torok demonstrate the workings of c i t a t i o n when they demonstrate how the phrase, "It was night"—in Russian, notchiu—breaks from i t s context to s l i p into the homophonically similar English, "not you"(The Wolf Man's Magic Word 34), a s h i f t that demonstrates how the inner workings of the crypt are predicated upon the ear as well as the mouth, which Gregory Ulmer describes as an "organ of [Derrida's] new philosopheme"(Applied Grammatology 57) i n that the mouth offers "a model for a methodology of decomposition" (57). In Derrida's work the word "crypt" should always be thought of as being put between quotation marks, which remind us of "teeth" and, therefore, of decomposition, assimilation and, especially, incorporation. 2 3 In fact, Derrida's remark that "the crypt i s the vault of desire"("Fors" x v i i ) suggests a ce r t a i n architecture, one that keeps a desire "safe" from assimilation—and, therefore, " a l i v e . " Encryption involves the production of an architecture that preserves and pays homage to desire, which i s why Derrida says of the crypt that i t "commemorates the exclusion of a s p e c i f i c desire from the i n t r o j e c t i o n process: A door i s s i l e n t l y sealed off l i k e a condemned passageway inside the Self, becoming the outcast 53 s a f e " ( x v i i ) . Where the n o t i o n of commemoration a l s o suggests a c e r t a i n funereal p r a c t i c e — l e t ' s c a l l i t an "undertaking" since Derrida i s so fond of that word—it a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n to the dynamics of a t e x t u a l production—a k i n d of w r i t i n g beyond the grave—that i s p r e d i c a t e d not only upon condensation and-displacement, as i n dream-writing, but a l s o upon the twin psychic processes of haunting and (the r e f u s a l of ) mourning which, l i k e dream production, are unconscious processes that exceed the l i m i t s of p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c o u r s e . Gregory Ulmer p o i n t s out what i s at stake f o r D e r r i d a : the model f o r an unconscious w r i t i n g — i t s r a t i o n a l e — i s provided by t h e o r i e s devised to e x p l a i n the language of the Wolf Man, whose compulsive or unconscious c o n d i t i o n separating him from h i s 'name,' or 'signature,' makes him a t e s t case f o r a new theory of w r i t i n g . Derrida's s t r a t e g y f o r exceeding the l i m i t s of p h i l o s o p h i c a l discourse i s to l e a r n to w r i t e the way the Wolf Man spoke. {Applied Grammatology 60) To l e a r n to w r i t e the way the Wolf Man spoke i s to draw upon the n o t i o n of i n c o r p o r a t i o n — t h e psychic process r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the formation of the " c r y p t . " "[T]he model f o r an unconscious w r i t i n g — i t s r a t i o n a l e — [ s a y s Ulmer] i s provided by t h e o r i e s devised to e x p l a i n the language of the Wolf Man, whose compulsive or unconscious c o n d i t i o n [separated] him from h i s 'name' or 'signature' ..." (60) . Although Abraham and Torok's reading of the Wolf Man's dreams provides D e r r i d a w i t h a s t r a t e g y f o r writing,. D e r r i d a does not concur w i t h Abraham and Torok's n o t i o n that i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s a pathology 54 i n h i b i t i n g mourning. Rather, the fantasy of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s understood by Derrida as an i n h i b i t i o n necessary f o r the very p o s s i b i l i t y of the "subject." Thus, "to l e a r n to w r i t e the way the Wolf Man spoke" i s to do the work of refused mourning, which i s cryptomimesis. A Problem of Spacing: Behind the Door Is Inside Myself The work of mourning r e q u i r e s that a space be created w i t h i n the s e l f so that the other can be a s s i m i l a t e d , digested, made part of us. That " s e l f , " nevertheless, i s c o n s t i t u t e d only i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to an other who i s never a s s i m i l a t e d but who necessarily remains other, o u t s i d e , over-there, never to be "devoured." P a r a d o x i c a l l y , however, i t i s only i n bereavement that t h i s " s e l f " appears. Says Derrida, " i t does not appear before [the] possibility of mourning"("Mnemosyne" 28). A paradox ensues because, as one reader has found, "[t]he c o n d i t i o n f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y of mourning i s the c o n d i t i o n f o r i t s i m p o s s i b i l i t y " ( B r a c k e n 225). C h r i s Bracken e l u c i d a t e s the paradox, e x p l a i n i n g , [ i ] t i s mourning which e s t a b l i s h e s the enclosure where the other i s h e l d i n the work of mourning. Since mourning b u i l d s up the s e l f where mourning unfolds, i t has to occur i n advance of i t s e l f i f i t i s to happen at a l l . But that i s impossible. (225) I t i s only by g r i e v i n g f o r another who has yet to die — t h e anticipation of mourning—that, says Derrida, " a l l 'being-in-55 us,' 'in me,' 'between us', or between ourselves" i s constituted i n advance("Mnemosyne" 28). It i s the possibility of death, therefore, that determines the "within-me" and the "within-us." With t h i s i n mind, Freud's axiom might then be re-written: "profound mourning" i s the "reaction to the [anticipated] loss of someone who i s loved." But what happens when mourning i s refused? Although Derrida's remarks on mourning demonstrate the paradox i m p l i c i t i n the so-called normal work of mourning, they also give us to understand how the necessary r e l a t i o n of Being to the law i s determined by the equally necessary " f a i l u r e " to mourn, otherwise known as incorporation, a process which denotes a fantasy. Referred to by Abraham and Torok i n The Shell and the Kernel as a "fantasmic mechanism,"("The Il l n e s s of Mourning" 113) incorporation i s d i s t i n c t from i n t r o j e c t i o n (a gradual process), i n that i t signals the " f a i l u r e " or the "refusal" to digest or assimilate the other. If the dead other i s not to be i n t e r i o r i z e d , i t i s , nonetheless, taken inside the subject and lodged within the ego, but as a secret, sealing the loss of the object and marking the refusal to mourn. Incorporation marks the l i m i t s of i n t r o j e c t i o n since i t consists of the desire (whose?) to keep the dead alive, safe, inside me. 56 But how can the dead l i v e i n s i d e me? Where would they f i n d "lodging"? Abraham and Torok use the concept of the crypt to designate a unique i n t r a p s y c h i c topography which i n e x p r e s s i b l e mourning e r e c t s i n s i d e the subject as a secret tomb which houses the i d e a l i z e d dead other as l i v i n g . They see the crypt as a formation c o n s t i t u t e d through the fantasy of i n c o r p o r a t i o n , which simulates i n t r o j e c t i o n . Two i n t e r r e l a t e d procedures comprise the "magic" of in c o r p o r a t i o n : "demetaphor iza t ion (taking l i t e r a l l y what i s meant f i g u r a t i v e l y ) and objectivation (pretending that the s u f f e r i n g i s not an i n j u r y to the subject but i n s t e a d a l o s s sustained by the love object)"("Mourning or Melancholia" 125-126). In "Mourning or Melancholia," Abraham and Torok describe the cryp t ' s s t r u c t u r e : R e c o n s t i t u t e d from the memories of words, scenes, and a f f e c t s , the o b j e c t a l c o r r e l a t i v e of the l o s s i s b u r i e d a l i v e i n the crypt as a f u l l - f l e d g e d person, complete w i t h i t s own topography. The crypt a l s o includes the a c t u a l or supposed traumas that made i n t r o j e c t i o n i m p r a c t i c a b l e . A whole world of unconscious fantasy i s created, one that leads i t s own separate and concealed e x i s t e n c e . Sometimes i n the dead of n i g h t , when l i b i d i n a l f u l f i l l m e n t s have t h e i r way, the ghost of the crypt comes back to haunt the cemetery guard .... (130) The ghost comes back because what i s b u r i e d i s u n t e l l a b l e and, th e r e f o r e , ( n e c e s s a r i l y ) i n a c c e s s i b l e to the gradual, p a i n f u l , a s s i m i l a t i v e work of mourning. De r r i d a i s c a r e f u l to p o i n t out an apo r i a i n the t h i n k i n g about the "'normal' 'work of mourning'" which, he says, "since Freud," has been based upon the n o t i o n o f " m t e r i o r i z m g memory" and a s s i m i l a t i o n — " p o s s i b l e " mourning, i n o t h e r words—to the e x c l u s i o n of a n t i c i p a t e d mourning as a p r i o r s t r u c t u r e e n a b l i n g the "me" or the "us" ("Mnemosyne" 34) . I t i s w i t h t h i s s t r u c t u r e — c r y p t i c i n c o r p o r a t i o n — i n mind t h a t cryptomimes i s performs the ( imposs ib l e ) work of mourning . A c c o r d i n g to F r e u d , "profound mourning" i s the " r e a c t i o n to the l o s s of someone who i s l oved"("Mourning and M e l a n c h o l i a " 244) . F r e u d a l s o c l a i m s t h a t "the work which mourning performs" c o n s i s t s o f a l o n g , s low and " p a i n f u l " w i t h d r a w a l of the at tachments which connect us to the l o v e d one who has d i e d (244) . Wi thdrawal of a t tachments , moreover, i s a c c o m p l i s h e d o n l y through p r o l o n g e d memory work which , says D e r r i d a , " e n t a i l s a movement i n which an i n t e r i o r i z i n g i d e a l i z a t i o n takes i n i t s e l f o r upon i t s e l f the body and v o i c e of the o t h e r , the o t h e r ' s v i s a g e and p e r s o n , i d e a l l y and q u a s i - l i t e r a l l y d e v o u r i n g them"("Mnemosyne" 34) . An i n t e r i o r i z i n g i d e a l i z a t i o n then c o n c l u d e s the work of mourning through an a c t o f assimilation—an i n t r o j e c t i o n — which , through what D e r r i d a c a l l s , " f a i t h f u l i n t e r i o r i z a t o n , " expands the s e l f . The f a n t a s y of c r y p t i c i n c o r p o r a t i o n d i f f e r s from i n t r o j e c t i o n i n t h a t the l o s t o b j e c t i s not a s s i m i l a t e d but i s s u s t a i n e d i n some way. T h i s i s c r y p t o m i m e s i s . J u d i t h B u t l e r draws a t t e n t i o n to the d i f f e r e n c e between i n t r o j e c t i o n and i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n her 58 d i s c u s s i o n of m e l a n c h o l y , "which denotes a magical r e s o l u t i o n of l o s s , " v e r s u s mourning: Abraham and Torok suggest t h a t i n t r o j e c t i o n of the l o s s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mourning e s t a b l i s h e s an empty space, l i t e r a l i z e d by the empty mouth which becomes the c o n d i t i o n of speech and s i g n i f i c a t i o n . The s u c c e s s f u l d i s p l a c e m e n t of the l i b i d o from the l o s t o b j e c t i s a c h i e v e d through the f o r m a t i o n of words which b o t h s i g n i f y and d i s p l a c e t h a t o b j e c t ; t h i s d i s p l a c e m e n t from the o r i g i n a l o b j e c t i s an e s s e n t i a l l y m e t a p h o r i c a l a c t i v i t y i n which words ' f i g u r e ' the absence and surpass i t . . . . Whereas i n t r o j e c t i o n founds the p o s s i b i l i t y o f m e t a p h o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s a n t i -m e t a p h o r i c a l p r e c i s e l y because i t m a i n t a i n s the l o s s as r a d i c a l l y unnamable; i n o t h e r words, i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s not o n l y a f a i l u r e to name or avow the l o s s , but erodes the c o n d i t i o n s o f m e t a p h o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f . (Gender Trouble 68) . I t i s apparent i n B u t l e r ' s remarks t h a t she, l i k e Abraham and T o r o k , c o n s i d e r s the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n — t h a t i s , the r e f u s a l o f l o s s o r melanchol ia—in terms of a c e r t a i n p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y . D e r r i d a , on the o t h e r hand, sees i n c o r p o r a t i o n as the possibility of the s u b j e c t , which i s how Mark W i g l e y d e s c r i b e s D e r r i d a ' s r e - t h i n k i n g of the s u b j e c t i n terms of the c r y p t (17 6 ) . W i g l e y suggests t h a t [ t ]he s u b j e c t i s c o n s t r u c t e d as such by the s p a c i n g of the c r y p t . I t ' s t h e r e f o r e not j u s t t h a t the c r y p t i s the d e s i r e d e f f e c t o f D e r r i d a ' s t e x t s or even t h a t the c r y p t i s always an e f f e c t o f d e s i r e . More than the maintenance of a f o r b i d d e n d e s i r e , the c r y p t i s the v e r y f i g u r e o f d e s i r e . (176) I t becomes c l e a r , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t D e r r i d a c o n s i d e r s t h a t h a u n t i n g , the phantom and the c r y p t are always a l r e a d y the v e r y c o n d i t i o n o f the s u b j e c t . In terms of c r y p t o m i m e s i s , 59 the s u b j e c t i s a c r y p t - e f f e c t of the t e x t , the s p e c t e r of d e s i r e . Abraham and Torok a l s o d e s i g n a t e the f i g u r e o f the phantom to draw a t t e n t i o n to what they c a l l the "shadow of the o b j e c t . " T h i s , they say, "comes back to haunt by b e i n g reincarnated in the person of the subject." In c r y p t o m i m e s i s , the moment of uncanniness i s brought about through the shadow-ef fec t o f the o t h e r , a t e x t u a l f i g u r e of d e s i r e t h a t , i n Abraham and T o r o k ' s terms, " c a r r i e s the ego [or some other facade] as its mask" ("The L o s t Object—Me" 141) . D e r r i d a i n f e r s t h i s unheimlich shadow s t r u c t u r e i n "Otob iographies" when he comments, "[ t ]he ear i s uncanny. Uncanny i s what i t i s ; double i s what i t can become" (33) . 2 4 Where the phantom i n d i c a t e s a r i f t i n the ego, i t r e t u r n s to haunt i t s hos t through a mechanism which , a c c o r d i n g to Abraham and Torok , " c o n s i s t s of exchanging one ' s own i d e n t i t y f o r a fantasmic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the ' l i f e ' — beyond the grave—of an o b j e c t o f l o v e . . . " ( " T h e L o s t Object— Me" 142) . A l t h o u g h i t takes many forms i n e n d o c r y p t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , "the ' I , ' " say Abraham and T o r o k , "is u n d e r s t o o d as the l o s t object's fantasied ego"(148 emphasis mine) who haunts the s u b j e c t through a k i n d o f ventriloquism. The w r i t e r of "Envois" p l a y s upon t h i s a r t o f speak ing as i f the v o i c e appears to come from some source other than the speaker : 60 [ i ] n your name you are my d e s t i n y , f o r me you are • d e s t i n y . E v e r y t h i n g began, you remember, when I pronounced i t , you had y o u r hands on the whee l , and I know tha t I am w r i t i n g t h i s , my d e s t i n y , f a t e , my chance, when on the envelope I risk, which i s indeed how I f e e l the t h i n g , when I r i s k the f i r s t word of the a d d r e s s . I address m y s e l f to you , somewhat as i f I were s end ing my s e l f , never c e r t a i n of s ee ing i t come back , t h a t which i s d e s t i n e d f o r me. And when I am a b l e to pronounce i t , when I s o f t l y c a l l m y s e l f by your name, n o t h i n g e l s e i s t h e r e , do you h e a r , n o t h i n g e l s e , no one e l s e i n the w o r l d . Even us perhaps and yes our e x i s t e n c e i s t h r e a t e n e d . (45). As the speaker i m p l i e s , the o s c i l l a t i o n s between "se l f" and "other" are p r e c a r i o u s . A r i s k i s i n v o l v e d i n s end ing the "Envois" s i n c e i t i s dea th t h a t l i e s between the two. Indeed, the speaker appears to f i n d h i m ( ? ) s e l f o c c u p i e d by the (phantom of the) o t h e r , whose absence , n e v e r t h e l e s s , opens the space f o r w r i t i n g : I ask myse l f o c c a s i o n a l l y q u i t e s i m p l y i f you e x i s t and i f you have the s l i g h t e s t n o t i o n o f i t . No l i t e r a t u r e w i t h t h i s , not w i t h you my l o v e . Sometimes I t e l l m y s e l f t h a t you are my l o v e : then i t i s o n l y my l o v e , I t e l l m y s e l f i n t e r p e l l a t i n g m y s e l f t h u s . And then you no l o n g e r e x i s t , you are dead, l i k e the dead woman i n my game, and my l i t e r a t u r e becomes p o s s i b l e . (29) In the " E n v o i s , " the phantom r e t u r n s to haunt because i t must s i g n i f y the l o s s which i s the r e s u l t of r e f u s e d mourning . In t h i s sense, what "speaks" i n the "Envois" i s w r i t i n g i t s e l f , a l r e a d y o c c u p i e d by the o t h e r : "You g i v e me words, you d e l i v e r them, d i s p e n s e d one by one my own, w h i l e t u r n i n g them toward y o u r s e l f and a d d r e s s i n g them to y o u r s e l f . . . " (12) 61 Comprised of "subjects" who, l i k e Poe ' s R o d e r i c k Usher , f e e l themselves haunted , the "Envois" open ly admit the unheimlich through v e r t i g i n o u s s h i f t i n g s between the d i s t i n c t i o n s of " i n s i d e " and " o u t s i d e . " In these terms "to be" i s to be haunted, i f not by the dead, then by what N i c h o l a s Rand r e f e r s to as " t h e i r l i v e s ' u n f i n i s h e d b u s i n e s s [ that] i s u n c o n s c i o u s l y handed down to t h e i r d e s c e n d a n t s " ( E d i t o r ' s Note to "Secrets and P o s t e r i t y " , The Shell and the Kernel 167) . The w r i t e r of the l e t t e r d a t e d 4 June 1977 b r i n g s t h i s n o t i o n forward: Have you seen t h i s c a r d , the image on the back [dos] of t h i s card? I s tumbled a c r o s s i t y e s t e r d a y , i n the B o d l e i a n (the famous O x f o r d l i b r a r y ) , I ' l l t e l l you about i t . I s topped dead, w i t h a f e e l i n g of h a l l u c i n a t i o n ( i s he c r a z y or what? he has the names mixed up!) and of r e v e l a t i o n a t the same t ime , an a p o c a l y p t i c r e v e l a t i o n : S o c r a t e s w r i t i n g , w r i t i n g i n f r o n t of P l a t o , I always knew i t , i t had remained l i k e the n e g a t i v e of a photograph to be deve loped f o r t w e n t y - f i v e c e n t u r i e s — i n me, o f c o u r s e . ("Envois" 9) As the "Envois" suggest , the i d e a of the phantom and h a u n t i n g have i m p l i c a t i o n s beyond i n d i v i d u a l or even f a m i l i a l p s y c h o l o g y s i n c e t h i s concept generates the p o t e n t i a l f o r i n q u i r y i n t o the advent of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Because t h i s concept may, as N i c h o l a s Rand sugges t s , "prov ide a new p e r s p e c t i v e f o r i n q u i r i n g i n t o the . . . r o o t s of c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n s and p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g y " ( E d i t o r ' s Note to "Secrets and P o s t e r i t y " , The Shell and the 62 Kernel 169), i t also has the pot e n t i a l to generate writing that, to use Derrida's term, "refuses i t s e l f to philosophy"("A 'Madness' Must Watch Over Thinking" 347). Departed Is the Subject The theory of the phantom (along with the crypt and the effects of mourning and haunting) c l e a r l y has p a r t i c u l a r resonance when i t comes to theorizing cryptomimesis. It draws our attention to Derrida's e f f o r t s to show that the mode of being of the l i t e r a r y work of art i s analogous to how a certain " s u b j e c t i v i t y " i s predicated upon mechanisms of haunting and mourning. Likewise, the theory of the phantom demonstrates how writing takes the form of a displacement that i s necessarily cryptically structured by a refusal of mourning which, again, finds i t s analogy i n the (future) p o s s i b i l i t y of the subject. Derrida's reply to the question "why i s i t so important to write" suggests what i s at stake here: the s e l f does not exist, i t i s not present to i t s e l f before that which engages i t i n this way and which i s not i t . There i s not a constituted subject that negates i t s e l f at a given moment i n writing for some reason or another. It i s given by writing, by the other. ("A 'Madness' Must Watch Over Thinking" 347) In these terms, to undertake a piece of work i s to do the work of mourning which, i n cryptomimesis, demands that one 63 put i n t o p r a c t i c e what D e r r i d a c a l l s i n " C a r t o u c h e s , " a "theory of c o f f i n s " ( 1 8 6 ) . A t h e o r y of c o f f i n s draws a t t e n t i o n to the f u n c t i o n o f a c r y p t ( that i s , to house the remains of the dead) and a l s o to e v e r y t h i n g t h a t the c r y p t i m p l i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n terms of the G o t h i c : i n h e r i t a n c e , h a u n t i n g , mourning . In the G o t h i c the c r y p t ' i m p l i e s the revenant , the ghost and h a u n t i n g . D e r r i d a ' s work i n t e r s e c t s w i t h t h a t of the G o t h i c when i t comes to the s u b j e c t of h a u n t i n g . And to i n t r o d u c e the subject o f h a u n t i n g i s , of c o u r s e , to go to the h e a r t o f c r y p t o m i m e s i s . When D e r r i d a w r i t e s i n " C a r t o u c h e s , " "[d]eparted i s the subject"(190) he i s not o n l y b i n d i n g t o g e t h e r v a r i o u s s t r a n d s of thought t h a t go i n t o the d e c o n s t r u c t i o n of presence and of "consc iousness" but a l s o a l l u d i n g to a w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e t h a t might , p a r a d o x i c a l l y , be c a l l e d posthumous and t h e r e f o r e " p o s t - D e r r i d e a n , " f o r i t evokes h i s own n o t i o n t h a t [ f ] o r the w r i t t e n to be the w r i t t e n , i t must c o n t i n u e to ' a c t ' and to be l e g i b l e even i f what i s c a l l e d the author of the w r i t i n g no l o n g e r answers f o r what he has w r i t t e n , f o r what he seems to have s i g n e d , whether he i s p r o v i s i o n a l l y absent , or i f he i s dead, or i f i n g e n e r a l he does not s u p p o r t , w i t h h i s a b s o l u t e l y c u r r e n t and p r e s e n t i n t e n t i o n or a t t e n t i o n , the p l e n i t u d e o f h i s meaning, of t h a t v e r y t h i n g which seems to be w r i t t e n ' i n h i s name.' ("Signature Event Context" 91) 64 F o r w r i t i n g to c o n t i n u e to ' a c t ' , i t must do so from beyond the grave ; tha t i s , i t "comes b a c k . " In t h i s sense a l l w r i t i n g , says D e r r i d a , i f i t i s to be " i t e r a b l e , " must be a b l e to f u n c t i o n i n the r a d i c a l absence of e v e r y e m p i r i c a l l y de termined addressee i n g e n e r a l . And t h i s absence [cont inues D e r r i d a ] i s n o t . a cont inuous m o d i f i c a t i o n o f p r e s e n c e ; i t i s a break i n p r e s e n c e , ' d e a t h , ' or the p o s s i b i l i t y o f the ' d e a t h ' of the addressee , i n s c r i b e d i n the s t r u c t u r e of the mark . . . . (91) Thus, to say "departed i s the s u b j e c t , " i s to a l l u d e to what makes w r i t i n g p o s s i b l e : dea th , or a b r e a k i n p r e s e n c e . I t i s a l s o to suggest what i s a t s take i n a w r i t i n g t h a t , i n t h i s case , draws a t t e n t i o n to i t s e l f g r a m m a t i c a l l y as a sentence p r e d i c a t e d ( i f t h i s can be the word) upon the dislocation o f the sense of b e i n g t h a t , i n terms of l o g o c e n t r i s m , i s t i e d to what D e r r i d a c a l l s i n Of Grammatology, "the precomprehens ion of the word being...."(A Derrida Reader 37) The s u b j e c t of l o g o c e n t r i s m , as D e r r i d a makes a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r , i s an e f f e c t of language o r , b e t t e r y e t , of the l i n e a r sentence . T h i s l i n e a r model i s one way of u n d e r s t a n d i n g what D e r r i d a means when he says t h a t Western metaphys ics and thus presence "is p r o d u c e d as the d o m i n a t i o n of a l i n g u i s t i c form"(40) . I t i s the l i n e a r model , which i s t h a t of the s u b j e c t - p r e d i c a t e and the p r e s e n t i n d i c a t i v e of the v e r b "to be" t h a t produces b o t h the "subject" and meaning i n u n f o l d i n g p r e s e n c e , which i s why to w r i t e , "departed i s the subjec t" i s to suggest t h a t the s u b j e c t i s 65 i n s t e a d a phantom structure—as i n the "departed"—and a l s o t h a t w r i t i n g i s n e c e s s a r i l y marked by d e p a r t u r e , by l e a v e -t a k i n g and by d e a t h . To w r i t e , thus , i s to anticipate the memory of one's other; one's d e p a r t e d . The word "departed" which has i t s r o o t s i n the L a t i n dispertire, to d i v i d e , reminds us of D e r r i d a ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t w r i t i n g has "a p o s s i b i l i t y of f u n c t i o n i n g cut off, a t a c e r t a i n p o i n t , from i t s ' o r i g i n a l ' meaning and from i t s b e l o n g i n g to a s a t u r a b l e and c o n s t r a i n i n g c o n t e x t " ( " S i g n a t u r e Event Context" 9 7 i t a l i c s mine ) . S i m i l a r l y , l i n k i n g the n o t i o n of d e p a r t u r e w i t h tha t of one 's o t h e r r e c a l l s D e r r i d a ' s remarks r e g a r d i n g the ear of the o t h e r which , he says , i s "double ." To w r i t e "departed i s the subjec t" i s to b r i n g forward the n o t i o n o f h a u n t i n g , f o r i t i s not enough mere ly to c l a i m t h a t the t r a n s c e n d e n t a l s i g n i f i e r of "God" or the "author" i s "dead" f o r the undoing of (the s u b j e c t of) l o g o c e n t r i s m / p h o n o c e n t r i s m / o n t o - t h e o l o g y i s never a b s o l u t e . One c a n ' t h e l p but wonder i f ( i t i s ) God (who) i s dead, (why) does he c o n t i n u e to haunt? W h i l e the q u e s t i o n seems u n r e s o l v a b l e , i t might be b e t t e r a d d r e s s e d i f one c o n s i d e r s the paradox i n the dream, r e p o r t e d by F r e u d i n The Interpretation of Dreams, about the f a t h e r who does not know he i s dead: "[the dreamer's ] f a t h e r was a l i v e once more and was t a l k i n g to him i n h i s u s u a l way, but (the remarkable t h i n g was t h a t ) he was n e v e r t h e l e s s dead, o n l y he d i d not 66 know i t " ( 4 3 0 ) . L a t e r , as Jane G a l l o p o b s e r v e s , Lacan w i l l p o i n t out j u s t how ambiguous the pronoun he r e a l l y i s{Reading Lacan 157-185) . What r e t u r n s to haunt i s what remains of a c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e . C a l l i t the t h i r d p e r s o n s i n g u l a r of the p r e s e n t i n d i c a t i v e through which b e i n g i s u n d e r s t o o d . A l t h o u g h , as Heidegger p o i n t s out , "we e x p l a i n the i n f i n i t i v e to be to o u r s e l v e s through the is"{An Introduction to Metaphysics 92), the "Envois" demonstrate what happens when t h a t v e r b form i s d i s p l a c e d by t h a t which i s f o r e v e r a b s e n t . Ye t i t cannot be d i s p e n s e d w i t h c o m p l e t e l y , which i s one r e a s o n why D e r r i d a remarks i n Of Grammatology t h a t one "cannot criticize metaphys ics r a d i c a l l y w i t h o u t s t i l l u t i l i z i n g i t i n a c e r t a i n way"(19) . To u t i l i z e metaphys ics " i n a c e r t a i n way" i s not "to attempt a s tep o u t s i d e metaphysics"—for there i s no "outside"—but r a t h e r to i n h a b i t i t or b e t t e r y e t to haunt i t , w i t h i n a g e s t u r e of d i s p l a c e m e n t made p o s s i b l e though the c r y p t . Such a d i s p l a c e m e n t put s metaphys i c s under e r a s u r e because , as D e r r i d a remarks , i t "obeys a d i f f e r e n t t ropography"("Fors" x i i i ) . Whi l e D e r r i d a ' s t h e m a t i z i n g o f the c r y p t i s o f t e n a p p a r e n t , the more i m p o r t a n t and l e s s apparent c h a l l e n g e o f cryptomimes i s i s to d e v i s e a mode of thought t h a t undermines what G a y a t r i S p i v a k r e f e r s to as a " l o n g i n g f o r a c e n t e r , an a u t h o r i z i n g p r e s s u r e " ( " T r a n s l a t o r ' s Pre face" l x i x ) . In cryptomimes i s t h i s i s 67 accomplished through a writing "that takes the form of everything a crypt implies: topoi, death, cipher"("Fors" x i i i ) . The function of such a displacement i s to induce the reader to do memory work, which i s also dream-work that encourages what Derrida refers to as "active interpretations, which substitute an incessant deciphering for the disclosure of truth as a presentation of the thing i t s e l f . " 2 5 Cryptomimesis i n v i t e s interminable analysis i n that i t i s a kind of writing that i s s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l yet co-exists i n a r e l a t i o n of correspondence with other writing. It i s a dream of language that produces an uncanny tropography sim i l a r to that of the Gothic novel i n that i t seems to turn upon what Eve Sedgwick c a l l s the "half-submerged association [between dreaming and language] that occurs i n Gothic novels when a dream i s ... described as 'unspeakable' or the past ... as 'buried'"(62). Cryptomimesis i s , i n short, a b u r i a l practice that, l i k e incorporation, preserves desire, keeping i t a l i v e i n a complex architecture: "[t]he love-object (in phantasy l i f e ) i s walled up or entombed and thus preserved as a b i t of the outside inside the inside, kept apart from the 'normal' introjections of the Self"(Ulmer Applied Grammatology 60-61). To entomb the object i s to keep i t preserved, a l i v e "inside the inside," kept "apart." Again, t h i s i s why Derrida c a l l s the crypt, "the vault of desire." 68 D e r r i d a ' s remarks suggest t h a t a c r y p t , l i k e a r e b u s , i s marked by c r o s s c u r r e n t s o f d e s i r e t h a t are productive f o r , i n t h i s case , a "vaul t" i s not o n l y a r c h i t e c t u r a l — a dome, c e i l i n g , a r c h or safe—it i s a l s o p e r f o r m a t i v e , s i n c e i t suggests the "mounting" of d e s i r e as w e l l as the f u n c t i o n of the c r y p t which i s to keep sa fe the c o n t r a d i c t o r y demands " s p r i n g i n g " from i n c o r p o r a t i o n . Says D e r r i d a , To crypt: I do not t h i n k I have y e t used i t as a v e r b . To c r y p t i s to c i p h e r a symbol i c or s e m i o t i c o p e r a t i o n tha t c o n s i s t s of m a n i p u l a t i n g a s e c r e t code which i s something one can never do a l o n e . [ C r y p t i c o p e r a t i o n i n v o l v e s ] v e r b a l machinery or m a c h i n a t i o n s , o f t e n l e x i c a l o r even n o m i n a l . A machine, yes , and a c a l c u l a t i n g s h r e w d n e s s . . . . ("Fors" xxxv i ) To c r y p t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y G o t h i c . The dynamic s t r u c t u r e b r i n g s forward what Sedgwick, i n h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f G o t h i c themes, c a l l s "a r e l a t i o n of correspondence"(41) Here , "correspondence" i s " d i s t i n g u i s h e d from d i r e c t communicat ion, which i s seen as i m p o s s i b l e ; i n s t e a d i t moves by a r e l a t i o n of c o u n t e r p a r t and d o u b l e s , and i s s u b j e c t to dangerous d i s t o r t i o n s and i n t e r f e r e n c e s " ( 4 1 ) . A c r y p t o m i m e t i c machine moves by a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n o f " c o u n t e r p a r t s and d o u b l e s , " a s k i n g of i t s r e a d e r , a s i m i l a r , s i n g u l a r a f f i r m a t i o n : yes, (a) c r y p t , but how to get i n t o i t ? S i n c e there are always ghosts i n the machine, engaging i n a c r y p t i c o p e r a t i o n r e q u i r e s a " c a l c u l a t i n g shrewdness ." T h i s shrewdness i s perhaps what L o r r a i n e Weir has i n mind i n 69 her approach to r e a d i n g J o y c e ' s c r y p t i c o p e r a t i o n s , a t a s k v e r y much l i k e r e a d i n g D e r r i d a ' s . T h i s p r o c e s s , says W e i r , r e q u i r e s not p a s s i v e submis s ion on our p a r t b u t , r a t h e r , engagement i n i t s p r o c e s s i n g . Thus not a c o n v e r s i o n , not a permanent t r a n s c o d i n g o p e r a t i o n , but the demand p l a c e d on the l i s t e n e r by complex mus ic , the w i l l i n g n e s s to be programmed, to e n t e r i n t o p r o c e s s u a l l y governed e x p e c t a t i o n , a n t i c i p a t i o n , and r e s o l u t i o n . Our t a s k , to r e a r r a n g e o u r s e l v e s ' i n ' the system, i s i n i t i a l l y a t h e o l o g i c a l one. But where i s ' i n s i d e ' ? I f to p r o c e s s the system i s not to s t a n d ' o u t s i d e ' i t s semantic c l a i m s , then how do we approach the t a s k of s t a n d i n g ' i n s i d e ' i t ? (3) How, indeed , to "arrange" o u r s e l v e s i n what Weir c a l l s a "performance system" when cryptomimes i s evokes what might be thought of as the " d i z z i n e s s of mind" r e f e r r e d to by P a u l de Man i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the p o e t i c s i g n ' s c a p a c i t y to "set i n mot ion an imaging a c t i v i t y t h a t r e f e r s to no object in particular"("The Dead-End of F o r m a l i s t C r i t i c i s m " 236) . And de Man was not even t a l k i n g about a c r y p t ! In c r y p t o m i m e s i s , the "imaging a c t i v i t y " can be u n d e r s t o o d as the work o f the phantom b u t , s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g the phantom cannot be thought s i n c e h a u n t i n g i m p l i e s a r e t u r n o n l y o f t h a t which i s unthinkable. The Name of the Not In a n a l y s i s , b r i n g i n g the phantom to l i g h t i s d i f f i c u l t s i n c e , a c c o r d i n g to N i c o l a s Abraham, "the phantoms 70 i n h a b i t i n g our minds do so w i t h o u t our knowledge"("The I n t e r m i s s i o n of ' T r u t h ' " 189) . The t a s k i s no l e s s d i f f i c u l t i n t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s , f o r , as i n the psyche , phantoms d w e l l i n s e c r e t , e n c r y p t e d i n the unconsc ious m a n i f e s t i n g i n the v e r y n a t u r e of "what r e t u r n s to haunt , i n the n a t u r e o f the t h i n g ' p h a n t o m i z e d ' . . . . " Whether one i s s p e a k i n g of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s or t e x t a n a l y s i s , b r i n g i n g the phantom to l i g h t i s d i f f i c u l t not o n l y because the p r o c e s s of t r a n s f e r e n c e i s a t work, but because the c r y p t from which the phantom r e t u r n s , and which i s l odged i n "my" u n c o n s c i o u s might w e l l b e l o n g to the p r e c e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n . Reading f o r the "phantom" becomes even more d i f f i c u l t s i n c e what i s "phantomized," a c c o r d i n g to N i c o l a s Abraham, i s wrapped i n s i l e n c e "because i t was unspeakable i n words"(188-189) . Whether i n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s or t e x t a n a l y s i s , what i s phantomized or e n c r y p t e d i s pas sed on as an (unconsc ious) i n h e r i t a n c e . T h i s i d e a o f an unconsc ious l e g a c y u n s e t t l e s any c l a s s i c a l n o t i o n s of the s u b j e c t , the u n c o n s c i o u s and, f o r t h a t m a t t e r , "autobiography" s i n c e the t h e o r y of the phantom suggests t h a t the "I" w i t h which one speaks a l s o f u n c t i o n s as the c r y p t out o f which the ghost r e t u r n s . D e r r i d a remarks on t h i s complex s t r u c t u r e when, i n "Roundtable on A u t o b i o g r a p h y , " he r e f e r s to an a n a l y s i s o f N i e t z s c h e ' s "ghost" which , D e r r i d a sugges t s , c o u l d be under taken i n the g e n e r a l space where N i e t z s c h e i m p l i e s , "I 71 am my f a t h e r and my m o t h e r . . . . I am t h e i r c r y p t and they b o t h speak to me. They b o t h speak i n me so whatever I say, they address i t to each o t h e r " ( 5 8 - 5 9 ) . Whether i n terms of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s or t e x t a n a l y s i s , D e r r i d a ' s use of the word "address" to d e s c r i b e the c r y p t ' s e f f e c t i s s i g n i f i c a n t because i t draws a t t e n t i o n to the c r y p t , the phantom, h a u n t i n g and i n h e r i t a n c e i n terms of w r i t i n g and s e n d i n g . T h i s suggests t h a t what determines the effects of the c r y p t i n the unconsc ious o f a s u b j e c t or a t e x t can be thought i n terms of what D e r r i d a , i n "Envois" c a l l s " p o s t a l i t y " : " p o s t a l maneuvering , r e l a y s , d e l a y , a n t i c i p a t i o n , d e s t i n a t i o n , t e l ecommunica t ing network, the p o s s i b i l i t y , and t h e r e f o r e the f a t a l n e c e s s i t y of g o i n g a s t r a y , e t c " ( 6 6 ) . The n o t i o n o f " p o s t a l maneuvering" draws a t t e n t i o n not o n l y to the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t what i s sent out w i l l never a r r i v e a t i t s d e s t i n a t i o n , but a l s o to the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t what i s sent out i s unconsc ious i n t h a t i t i s , as Lacan would say, the d i s c o u r s e o f the o t h e r tha t i s , as D e r r i d a would add, y e t to come. T h i s thought becomes apparent i n D e r r i d a ' s r e f e r e n c e to w r i t i n g as an "enigma of a t r u t h to be made"("A 'Madness' Must Watch Over T h i n k i n g " 347) . A l t h o u g h t h i s i d e a has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r b o t h p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and t e x t a n a l y s i s , i t suggests t h a t what the two have i n common i s the p o s t a l system. However, what makes a n a l y s i s d i f f i c u l t i n e i t h e r 72 case i s the c r y p t . In "Roundtable on A u t o b i o g r a p h y , " D e r r i d a r e f e r s e x p l i c i t l y to such d i f f i c u l t y : When i t ' s a t e x t t h a t one i s t r y i n g to d e c i p h e r or d e c r y p t u s i n g [Abraham and T o r o k ' s t h e o r y o f the c r y p t ] , or when one i s l o o k i n g f o r a ghost or a c r y p t i n a t e x t , then t h i n g s get s t i l l more d i f f i c u l t , or l e t us say more n o v e l . I say a ghost and a c r y p t : a c t u a l l y the t h e o r y o f the ' g h o s t ' i s not e x a c t l y the t h e o r y of the ' c r y p t . ' I t ' s even more c o m p l i c a t e d . A l t h o u g h i t ' s a l s o connec ted to the c r y p t , the ghost i s more p r e c i s e l y the e f f e c t of a n o t h e r ' s c r y p t i n my u n c o n s c i o u s . ( 5 9 ) To say t h a t t h i n g s get more "novel" when one i s l o o k i n g f o r a ghost or a c r y p t i n a t e x t i s to draw a t t e n t i o n to the dynamics of t r a n s f e r e n c e t h a t n e c e s s a r i l y e x i s t between a t e x t t h a t cannot se t l i m i t s to the way i t w i l l be r e a d and p o s t a l i t y . I t i s d i f f i c u l t , perhaps i m p o s s i b l e , to l o o k f o r a ghost o r a c r y p t i n a t e x t because , a l t h o u g h they a r e f i g u r e s of return, the ghost and the c r y p t a r e , themse lves , the c o n d i t i o n of t e x t u a l i t y i n g e n e r a l t h a t i s y e t to come. Because the ghost and the c r y p t are c o n d i t i o n s o f t e x t u a l i t y , they are n e c e s s a r i l y "unspeakable i n words ." One c o u l d argue , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the e f f e c t of a n o t h e r ' s c r y p t i n the unconsc ious i m p l i e s c e r t a i n s p a t i a l de terminants a l t h o u g h i t e ludes the d i s t i n c t i o n s between e i t h e r / o r . In a c e r t a i n way, the t h e o r y of the c r y p t evokes what Mark T a y l o r r e f e r s to as "the n o t . " A c c o r d i n g to T a y l o r , the not " f a l l s between b e i n g and n o n - b e i n g " ( 1 ) . The "not ," o f c o u r s e , has been v a r i o u s l y named: "God, Sa tan , the 73 good, e v i l , b e i n g , nonbe ing , a b s o l u t e knowledge, nonknowledge, the u n c o n s c i o u s , " ( 1 1 ) and now, p e r h a p s , the phantom. But what 's i n a name? W h i l e the name "God" might be a name f o r the unnameable, i t i s a l s o , T a y l o r suggests the name t h a t makes the disappearance o f the name appear . ' G o d , ' then might be the name f o r t h a t i n language which does not p r o p e r l y b e l o n g to language . I f i t were a name t h a t does not name, the name 'God' might , i n a c e r t a i n sense be a name f o r the unnameable . . . the unnameable t h a t haunts language as a s t r a n g e e x t e r i o r i t y ' w i t h i n ' d i s c o u r s e . (11) Both Weir and T a y l o r evoke a c e r t a i n s p a t i a l model of language t h a t draws our a t t e n t i o n to how d i s t i n c t i o n s between " i n f e r i o r i t y " and " e x t e r i o r i t y " a l s o have t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . However, where T a y l o r d i f f e r s from Weir and draws our a t t e n t i o n to D e r r i d a ' s a f f i n i t y w i t h the G o t h i c i s i n h i s e v o c a t i o n of haunting as the uncanny c o n d i t i o n of language, which i n t u r n i m p l i e s t e x t u a l i t y and p o s t a l i t y . T a y l o r ' s remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to the work ing o f a s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e t h a t , i n c r y p t o m i m e s i s , can be thought of i n terms of the " c r y p t i c enc lave" produced by v i r t u e o f r e f u s e d mourning("Fors" x i v ) . S i m i l a r l y , T a y l o r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t what haunts language e x i s t s as "a s t r a n g e e x t e r i o r i t y ' w i t h i n ' d i s c o u r s e " evokes the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t , i n the f i r s t p l a c e , produces the c r y p t i c e n c l a v e as an answer to l o s s . L i k e the c r y p t , the s t r a n g e topography of language h i d e s and h o l d the unnameable. The l o s t o b j e c t (of d e s i r e ) haunts o n l y because , by n e c e s s i t y , 74 i t was not p r o p e r l y b u r i e d / i n t r o j e c t e d . In e f f e c t , the c r y p t draws a t t e n t i o n to language as haunted a r c h i t e c t u r e which , i n D e r r i d a ' s work, appears to Mark W i g l e y as "the i r r e p r e s s i b l e h a u n t i n g of space , the s p e c t r a l economy of the haunted h o u s e . . . . [Th i s economy] underp ins D e r r i d a ' s work w i t h o u t ever b e i n g i t s apparent s u b j e c t , i s f i r s t and foremost the e n i g m a t i c movements of d i s p l a c e m e n t or d i s l o c a t i o n " ( 1 7 7 ) . G i v e n the workings of the c r y p t , these "enigmatic movements of d i s p l a c e m e n t or d i s l o c a t i o n , " make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r a r e a d e r to s i t u a t e h e r s e l f " i n s i d e " what D e r r i d a h i m s e l f r e f e r s to as the " d i z z y i n g topography" of the " c r y p t . " The r e g i o n of the c r y p t o f f e r s the r e a d e r such u n s t a b l e ground because i t draws us i n t o an encounter w i t h w r i t i n g t h a t , i n N i c h o l a s Rand's words (he i s r e f e r r i n g to the Wolf Man's w r i t i n g ) , " r e s o l v e s the f o l l o w i n g di lemma: how to l i v e w i t h o u t h a v i n g to say yes or no to r e a l i t y or f i c t i o n w h i l e c o n t i n u i n g to r e f e r to b o t h " ( T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n The Wolf Man's Magic Word l v i i i ) . A l t h o u g h r e f e r r i n g to F r e u d ' s most famous a n a l y s a n d , Rand's comments r e g a r d i n g S e r g e i Panokov—better known as the Wolf Man—il luminate D e r r i d a ' s wi sh to l e a r n to w r i t e the way the Wolf Man spoke. A c c o r d i n g to Rand, the Wolf Man " c o u l d not a c q u i r e an i d e n t i t y , be i t s e x u a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l , u n l e s s he found some device f o r the s u s p e n s i o n of the p o s i t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s of language , t h a t i s , of i t s c a p a c i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h t r u e from f a l s e and determine v a l u e " ( l v i i emphasis m i n e ) . Moreover , c l a i m s Rand, the Wolf Man "appeared to be two s e p a r a t e peop le i n one, w i t h o u t e i t h e r o f them r e p r e s e n t i n g the b a s i c i d e n t i t y o f the Wolf M a n " ( l v i i ) . In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , the "device" to which Rand r e f e r s i s , of c o u r s e , the c r y p t , the p s y c h i c mechanism p o s i t e d by Abraham and Torok to be the Wolf Man's invent ion— a " f a l s e u n c o n s c i o u s : the c r y p t i n the ego"(The Wolf Man's Magic Word lxxi )—the purpose of which i s to c o n c e a l and p r e s e r v e the scene of a s e d u c t i o n . Second ly , the mechanism to which Rand r e f e r s enables the scene of s e d u c t i o n to c o n t i n u e to s i g n i f y unbeknownst to S e r g e i Panokov a t a c o n s c i o u s l e v e l ; hence, the appearance o f " c o h a b i t a t i o n , a t the [Wolf Man's] core" by h i s s i s t e r and h i s f a t h e r , each " d i s t i n c t from h i m " ( 3 ) . What then , does i t mean f o r D e r r i d a to want to l e a r n to w r i t e the way the Wolf Man spoke s i n c e , i n D e r r i d a ' s work, what i s produced i s the coming of the o t h e r as a textual effect. The mat ter i s not one of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . In f a c t , Abraham and Torok p o s i t t h a t the s o - c a l l e d Wolf Man might j u s t as w e l l have been an e f f e c t of Freud's r e a d i n g . S i m i l a r l y , they p o s i t the n e c e s s i t y f o r a "new c o n c e p t u a l apparatus" based upon " t r a n s l a t i o n " of " e s t a b l i s h e d text" r e s u l t i n g i n an "invented" t e x t {WMMW l x x i i ) . T h i s remark demonstrates not o n l y t h a t the Wolf Man, r e f e r r e d to by 76 Abraham and Torok , and by D e r r i d a , i s an i n v e n t i o n based upon t r a n s l a t i o n . I t a l s o r a i s e s the q u e s t i o n posed by C h r i s t i e McDonald of "how to t h i n k about the r e l a t i o n s h i p of an e m p i r i c a l , i n d i v i d u a l l i f e to the s t r u c t u r e o f the w r i t t e n t e x t " ( P r e f a c e to The Ear of the Other i x ) . A l t h o u g h the Wolf Man w r i t e s , as D e r r i d a says of N i e t z s c h e , "with h i s name and i n h i s name" d e s c r i b i n g how he has become what he i s , meaning i s s t r u c t u r a l l y d e f e r r e d i n h i s t e x t , u n t i l a r e a d e r " a l l i e s w i t h him and c o u n t e r s i g n s i n h i s or h e r name"(McDonald, P r e f a c e to The Ear of the Other i x ) . In t h i s way, c l a s s i c a l n o t i o n s of a u t o b i o g r a p h y are undermined f o r , as McDonald w r i t e s , the autos, the s e l f as the s u b j e c t of b i o g r a p h y i s d i s p l a c e d i n t o the o tos , the s t r u c t u r e of the ear as p e r c e i v i n g organ so t h a t [ a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a ] ' i t i s the ear of the o t h e r t h a t s i g n s . ' T h i s means, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t e x t does not f u l l y c o n t r o l i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; nor can any s i n g l e r e a d i n g preempt the f i e l d o f r e a d i n g s . Both the t e x t and i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s remain p l u r a l . ( ix) . In these terms, the c r y p t and the ear are i n e x t r i c a b l y i m p l i c a t e d . T h i s i s one r e a s o n , among many, why r e a d i n g f o r the s o - c a l l e d Wolf Man o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , f o r "Freud" o r " D e r r i d a " i s as d i f f i c u l t and as i n d e t e r m i n a t e as l o o k i n g f o r a ghost or a c r y p t i n a t e x t . I am reminded here of comments made i n a foo tno te by D e r r i d a i n The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, w i t h r e g a r d to the s i g n i n g of h i s p r o p e r name: 77 I r e g r e t tha t you [tu] do not v e r y much t r u s t my s i g n a t u r e , on the p r e t e x t t h a t we might be s e v e r a l . T h i s i s t r u e , but I am not s a y i n g so i n o r d e r to make myse l f more i m p o r t a n t by means of some supplementary a u t h o r i t y . And even l e s s i n o r d e r to d i s q u i e t , I know what t h i s c o s t s . You are r i g h t , d o u b t l e s s we are s e v e r a l , and I am not as a lone as I sometimes say I am when the c o m p l a i n t escapes from me, or when I s t i l l put e v e r y t h i n g i n t o s educ ing y o u . ("Envois" 6 ) C e r t a i n l y the d i f f i c u l t i e s of r e a d i n g f o r " D e r r i d a " are a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s passage . To whom i s i t addressed? From whom? In most cases , D e r r i d a ' s r e a d e r w i l l f i n d t h a t N i c h o l a s Rand's remarks w i t h r e g a r d to the "Wolf Man" a p t l y d e s c r i b e "Jacques D e r r i d a " : "the Wolf Man i s a c o l l e c t i o n of p o e t i c d e v i c e s , a compendium of rhymes, puns , s i l e n t d i s t o r t i o n and s e c r e t v e r b a l c o n t o r t i o n s " ( T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n The Wolf Man's Magic Word l v i i ) . To speak of s e d u c t i o n i s one t h i n g . But to speak i n a p o l y p h o n i c v o i c e i s ano ther , because i t r e c a l l s D e r r i d a ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t "a c r y p t be longs to someone else;" a c r y p t i s "the l o d g i n g , the haunt o f a hos t of ghosts" ("Fors" x x i i i ) 2 6 Whi le t h i s remark r e t u r n s us to the p e r s i s t e n c e o f the dead, i t a l s o l ends i t s e l f to a t e l l i n g o f the o t h e r which i s w r i t i n g . Indeed, these remarks suggest t h a t " D e r r i d a , " l i k e the Wolf Man, i s p l u r a l — " a c o l l e c t i o n of p o e t i c d e v i c e s " e t c . They a l s o draw our a t t e n t i o n to the f a c t t h a t " D e r r i d a , " l i k e the Wolf Man, i s (a t ext ) always a l r e a d y p l u r a l l y o c c u p i e d , i n a word, haunted by the i n h a b i t a n t s of a c r y p t who, as D e r r i d a h i m s e l f knows, "speak [ through 78 v e n t r i l o q u i s m ] from a topography f o r e i g n to the s u b j e c t " ( " F o r s " 119) . We can hear c o n f i r m a t i o n of t h i s uncanny s t a t e of a f f a i r s when i n "Envois" we r e a d , I t r u l y b e l i e v e t h a t I am s i n g i n g someone who i s dead and t h a t I d i d not know. I am not s i n g i n g f o r the dead ( t h i s i s the t r u t h a c c o r d i n g to G e n e t ) , I am s i n g i n g a d e a t h , for a dead man or woman a l r e a d y [dej'a] . A l t h o u g h s i n c e the gender and number remain i n a c c e s s i b l e f o r me I can always p l a y on the p l u r a l . And m u l t i p l y the example or working hypotheses , the hypotheses of m o u r n i n g . 2 7 (143) To "sing" a death i s a l s o to s i g n a d e a t h , to save {fors) the i n n e r h e a r t , e n c r y p t e d and e n c r y p t i n g b o t h i n t e r i o r i t y and e x t e r i o r i t y : the [ f o l d s of the] hypotheses of mourning . From a t h e o r y of c o f f i n s to a p o e t i c s of the c r y p t , a s / c r y p t i c p r a c t i c e which r e t u r n s to thought , through the r e f u s a l of mourning, to t h i n k i n g , the e x c l u d e d unheimlich: a ghost w r i t i n g t h a t s i g n s i n the ear o f the o t h e r . 79 Who Would Be Able To Read It? The eye by which I see God is the same eye by which he sees me. —Angelus Silesius In D e r r i d a ' s work, the c r y p t f u n c t i o n s m u l t i p l y . A c o n c e p t u a l a p p a r a t u s , i t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i l l u m i n a t e s (a t ex t ) w h i l e i t a n t i c i p a t e s ( a n / o t h e r ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n the p r o c e s s , i t c r e a t e s what Ro land B a r t h e s r e f e r s to as a " s c r i p t o r " who i s "born s i m u l t a n e o u s l y " w i t h the t e x t and i s " i n no way equipped w i t h a b e i n g p r e c e d i n g o r exceed ing the text"("The Death o f the Author" 145) . Among the i s s u e s t h a t t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n addresses i s the r e d u c t i o n of a t e x t / l i t e r a t u r e to b i o g r a p h y , w h i l e the o t h e r i s the p e r c e p t i o n t h a t l i t e r a r y works are "express ions" of the a u t h o r ' s mind . T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e l eads not o n l y to b i o g r a p h i c a l c r i t i c i s m but a l s o to the p e r c e p t i o n of the author as the v o i c e o f a s i n g l e p e r s o n , perhaps a"Great Man", who i s " c o n f i d i n g " i n us (143). What B a r t h e s a s s e r t s i s t h a t " i t i s language t h a t speaks, not the a u t h o r " ( 1 4 3 ) . T h i s remark r e f l e c t s B a r t h e s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the a u t h o r i s an i d e o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t of l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i s m and i s , i n f a c t , an i l l u s i o n r o o t e d i n e m p i r i c i s m ' s i n s i s t e n c e on 80 "experience" as the source of knowledge, a n o t i o n t h a t the t h e o r y of the phantom and the c r y p t has c o n s i s t e n t l y c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . B a r t h e s proposes t h a t removing the "Author" from the t e x t i s to remove l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t c l o s e w r i t i n g . I n s t e a d , Bar thes a s s e r t s t h a t the author i s a f u n c t i o n of the t e x t , produced s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h i t s w r i t i n g . B a r t h e s a l s o contends t h a t w r i t i n g i s p e r f o r m a t i v e and t h a t s i n c e the w r i t i n g of the t e x t takes p l a c e i n the "here and now," the reader a l s o becomes the w r i t e r which i s , a g a i n , another f u n c t i o n of writing. Thus , i n D e r r i d a ' s terms, the ear of the o t h e r and the c r y p t are p e r f o r m a t i v e s : t e x t u a l s t r u c t u r e s (of d e s i r e ) t h a t a l s o b r i n g forward the uncanniness i m p l i c i t i n B a r t h e s ' p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h a t they b r i n g i n t o the p i c t u r e the p e r f o r m a t i v i t y o f mourning and h a u n t i n g . To c r y p t , t h e r e f o r e , i m p l i e s t r a n s l a t i o n , the i n v e n t i o n o f a t e x t t h a t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s t i e d to another which i s l i v i n g on as a c o n d i t i o n of t h a t i n v e n t i o n . T h i s p e r f o r m a t i v i t y i s c o n s i s t e n t l y i n e v i d e n c e i n D e r r i d a ' s engagement w i t h H e i d e g g e r ' s t e x t s . H e i d e g g e r ' s e ssay , "The T h i n g , " f o r example, appears to l i v e on i n D e r r i d a ' s essay , " F o r s , " which d i s p l a c e s , y e t saves H e i d e g g e r ' s n o t i o n of t h i n g n e s s . In " F o r s , " the t h e o r y of the c r y p t b r i n g s i n t o thought the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i m p l i c i t i n H e i d e g g e r ' s e ssay "The T h i n g . " D e r r i d a i m p l i e s t h i s n o t i o n when, i n " F o r s , " h i s q u e s t i o n "What i s a c r y p t ? " 8 1 echoes H e i d e g g e r ' s i n t e r r o g a t i v e , "What i s the jug?" Whereas H e i d e g g e r ' s at tempts to come to terms w i t h h i s q u e s t i o n draw a t t e n t i o n to the d i f f i c u l t y i m p l i c i t i n c h a l l e n g i n g what D e r r i d a c a l l s "the v e r y form of the [ i n s t i t u t i n g ] q u e s t i o n " of p h i l o s o p h y (from Of Grammatology, A Derrida Reader 34) , D e r r i d a demonstrates i n "Fors" t h a t the " t i e s t i " i s , l i k e the s u b j e c t who u t t e r s i t , a c r y p t e f f e c t o f language: What i s a c r y p t ? No c r y p t p r e s e n t s i t s e l f . The grounds [lieux] a re so d i s p o s e d as to d i s g u i s e and to h i d e : something, always a body i n some way. But a l s o to d i s g u i s e the a c t o f h i d i n g and to h i d e the d i s g u i s e : the c r y p t [ l i k e H e i d e g g e r ' s "jug"?] hides as it holds. . . . A c r y p t i s never n a t u r a l through and through , and i f , as i s w e l l , known, physis has a tendency to e n c r y p t ( i t s e l f ) , t h a t i s because i t o v e r f l o w s i t s own bounds and e n c l o s e s , n a t u r a l l y , i t s o t h e r , a l l o t h e r s . (x iv) D e r r i d a ' s remarks suggest t h a t he i s u s i n g the c r y p t to d e s c r i b e the workings o f what he c a l l s e l sewhere the s t r a t e g y of "sous rature." In " F o r s , " f o r example, D e r r i d a ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the c r y p t forms an "enc losure" t h a t f u n c t i o n s "to p u r l o i n the thing from the r e s t " seems echoed i n G a y a t r i S p i v a k ' s d i s c u s s i o n of sous rature, which she p e r c e i v e s as a g e s t u r e " e f f a c i n g the presence of a t h i n g and y e t k e e p i n g i t l e g i b l e " ( T r a n s l a t o r ' s Pre face" Of Grammatology x i i ) . T h i s i s c e r t a i n l y the case w i t h D e r r i d a ' s r e a d i n g - w r i t i n g i n g e n e r a l and of h i s r e a d i n g - w r i t i n g o f He idegger , i n p a r t i c u l a r . The p o i n t i s , t h a t " D e r r i d a " comes about through h i s r e a d i n g ( i n c o r p o r a t i o n ) of "Heidegger ," a t e x t t h a t i n c i t e d D e r r i d a 82 to c o u n t e r s i g n . T h i s i s one r e a s o n why D e r r i d a c l a i m s , "I a lmost always w r i t e i n response to s o l i c i t a t i o n s or p r o v o c a t i o n s " ( " A n I n t e r v i e w W i t h Jacques D e r r i d a " 41) . In D e r r i d a ' s work, the c r y p t i s a t e x t u a l d e v i c e e n a b l i n g words to p o i n t to a t l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s a t the same t ime . The e f f e c t i s a complex and p a r a d o x i c a l t e x t u a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t extends an i n v i t a t i o n to the r e a d e r to l e a r n how to countersign. W h i l e t h a t i n v i t a t i o n might be unders tood as l e a r n i n g to w r i t e the way the Wolf Man spoke, i t can a l s o be u n d e r s t o o d i n terms of s o l i c i t a t i o n and p r o v o c a t i o n . T h i s i s why, a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , r e a d i n g -w r i t i n g i s "something one can never do a l o n e , " because the s t r u c t u r e o f the c r y p t always i m p l i e s an o t h e r , a revenant t h a t i s y e t to come. As to the q u e s t i o n , "Who would be a b l e to r e a d [ t h i s w r i t i n g ] ,"(74) D e r r i d a ' s answer i s t e l l i n g : t h e r e i s no p r e - g i v e n r e s p o n s e . By d e f i n i t i o n the r e a d e r does not e x i s t . Not b e f o r e the work and as i t s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d " r e c e i v e r . " The dream . . . concerns what i s i n the work which produces i t s r e a d e r , a r e a d e r who d o e s n ' t y e t e x i s t , whose competence cannot be i d e n t i f i e d , a r e a d e r who would be "formed," " t r a i n e d , " i n s t r u c t e d , c o n s t r u c t e d , even engendered, l e t ' s say invented by the work. Invented , which i s to say b o t h found by chance and produced by r e s e a r c h . The work then becomes an i n s t i t u t i o n forming i t s own r e a d e r s , g i v i n g them a competence which they d i d not possess b e f o r e : a u n i v e r s i t y , a seminar , a c o l l o q u i u m , a c u r r i c u l u m , a course. I f we t r u s t e d the c u r r e n t d i s t i n c t i o n between competence and performance , we would say t h a t the work ' s performance produces or i n s t i t u t e s , forms or i n v e n t s , a new competence f o r the r e a d e r or the addressee who thereby becomes a c o u n t e r s i g n a t o r y . 83 I t teaches him or h e r , if s/he is willing, to c o u n t e r s i g n . (74) To be w i l l i n g to c o u n t e r s i g n , we must conc lude t h a t i n s t e a d of c o n t a i n i n g or r e f l e c t i n g e x p e r i e n c e , language produces i t . To t h i s end, cryptomimes i s e n t e r s the scene when i t i s no l o n g e r a q u e s t i o n of i m i t a t i o n but one of i n v e n t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , cryptomimes i s demonstrates t h a t w r i t i n g i s no l o n g e r a q u e s t i o n of communicat ion, but of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . G r e g o r y U l m e r ' s comments r e g a r d i n g the language o f the Wolf Man suggest what i s a t s take i n terms of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g to c o u n t e r s i g n : The cryptonymy of v e r b a l m a t e r i a l t h a t the Wolf Man d e r i v e d from h i s f e t i s h scene (the maid on h e r knees s c r u b b i n g the f l o o r , i n v e s t e d as a s i g n o f the p r i m a l scene) d i d not opera te by the u s u a l p r o c e d u r e s of representat ion—the s y m b o l i z i n g o r h i d i n g of one word b e h i n d another , or one t h i n g by a word or a word by a t h i n g . R a t h e r , h i s names were genera ted by p i c k i n g out from the extended s e r i e s of 'a l losemes'—the c a t a l o g u e o f uses a v a i l a b l e f o r a g i v e n word—a p a r t i c u l a r usage, which i s then t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a synonym ( c r e a t i n g thus even g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e from the s e c r e t name). The p a t h from c r y p t to speech may f o l l o w e i t h e r semantic or phon ic p a t h s , w i t h the p l a y between homonyms and synonyms b e i n g p a r t o f the mechanism. Thus , the a l losemes of Tieret [the word a l l u d i n g to v a r i o u s usages meaning to r u b , to s crape which c a r r i e s w i t h i t the e f f e c t of a p r o p e r name], . . . p r o v i d e a range o f a s s o c i a t i o n s and d i s s o c i a t i o n s among the semantic f i e l d s r e l a t e d to r u b b i n g . a n d / o r wounding s c r u b b i n g t h a t p r o v i d e the Wolf Man w i t h h i s v o c a b u l a r y . The l i n k a g e of the u t t e r e d word to the s e c r e t name i s so t o r t u o u s , a r e l a y - l a b y r i n t h of [what D e r r i d a d e s c r i b e s as] 'non-semant ic a s s o c i a t i o n s , p u r e l y p h o n e t i c c o m b i n a t i o n s . ' " {Applied Grammatology 62-63) 84 To f o r e g r o u n d D e r r i d a ' s e v o c a t i o n of the c r y p t , the phantom and the ( r e t u r n of the) l i v i n g - d e a d — t r o p e s and t o p o i t h a t have been c o n s i s t e n t l y used by D e r r i d a to demonstrate how " a l l o n t o l o g i z a t i o n , a l l s e m a n t i c i s a t i o n ( p h i l o s o p h i c a l , h e r m e n e u t i c a l or p s c h y o a n a l y t i c a l ) " ( S p e c t e r s of Marx 9) a re the ( b o d i l y ) remains of the dead—is to t r a c e the " r e l a y -l a b y r i n t h ( ine) " d e s i g n of c r y p t o m i m e s i s . I t i s to e x p l o r e the n o t i o n t h a t D e r r i d a ' s c o m p o s i t i o n a l mode p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the production of the "fundamental fantasy" of contemporary mass c u l t u r e by evok ing the l i v i n g - d e a d as p e r f o r m a t i v e , uncanny t e x t u a l s t r u c t u r e s . S i m i l a r l y , c ryptomimes i s l ends i t s e l f to a t h i n k i n g of D e r r i d a ' s ( c o m p o s i t i o n a l ) b r e a k w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l "mimesis ," which i s i n "the s e r v i c e of . . . o n t o t h e o l o g i c a l humanism"("Economimesis"), the v a l u e s and assumptions o f r e a l i s m . I t a l s o l ends i t s e l f to a t h i n k i n g of the uncanny a spec t s of D e r r i d a ' s poetics—how to w r i t e with ghosts—a p o e t i c s which e x i s t s i n a c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n s h i p o f "correspondence" w i t h the G o t h i c . 85 "'Darling,' it sa id" : Making a Contract With the Dead We go to the School of the Dead to hear a little of what we are unable to say. —Helene Cixous (Three Steps on the Ladder of Writing 53) Whi le the workings of c ryptomimes i s can be thought through D e r r i d a ' s t h e o r y of c o f f i n s , the c r y p t ' s t r i p a r t i t e economy of d e s i r e , indebtedness and h a u n t i n g can a l s o be approached through G o t h i c t e x t s which , through t h e i r e v o c a t i o n o f the " d i s g u s t i n g , " g i v e one the sense of what, i n c r y p t o m i m e s i s , works to a b o l i s h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d i s t a n c e . S ince they e x p l o r e the c o n t r a c t u a l a s p e c t s i m p l i c i t i n the r e t u r n of the dead from the g r a v e , G o t h i c t e x t s a l s o t r a c e the uncanny r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t D e r r i d a evokes between w r i t i n g and the l i v i n g - d e a d and demonstrate t h a t what i s d i s g u s t i n g a c t u a l l y p r e v e n t s mourning because i t i s " u n a s s i m i l a b l e " ("Economimesis" 2 2 ) . In Stephen K i n g ' s Pet Sematary, f o r example, the r e t u r n of the dead p r e s e n t s us w i t h the m o t i f of r e t u r n p r e d i c a t e d not o n l y upon a p r o f o u n d mourning f o r the death of a l o v e d one—a mourning t h a t never l eads to a s s i m i l a t i o n , i n t e r i o r i z a t i o n or i d e a l i z a t i o n , I might a d d -but a l s o upon the uncanniness t h a t a r i s e s when what returns manages to evoke the u n r e p r e s e n t a b l e , which i s what D e r r i d a 86 c a l l s i n "Economimesis ," "the a b s o l u t e o t h e r of the system"( 22) . The n o v e l i s the s t o r y o f L o u i s C r e e d , a young p h y s i c i a n , who—together w i t h h i s w i f e R a c h e l , two s m a l l c h i l d r e n , s i x - y e a r o l d E l l i e and two-year o l d Gage and t h e i r c a t , Church ( short f o r Churchi l l )—moves to a s m a l l town i n Maine where he has been h i r e d to manage the u n i v e r s i t y i n f i r m a r y . The Creeds are b o t h e x c i t e d and anx ious over t h e i r purchase of a l a r g e , c o m f o r t a b l e house which , a l t h o u g h i t i s on t r e e d acreage , i s a l s o near the highway, a r o a d t r a v e l e d c o n t i n u o u s l y by l a r g e t r u c k s . Soon a f t e r t h e i r a r r i v a l , t h e i r e l d e r l y ne ighbour , J u d C r a n d a l l takes them to v i s i t the "Pet Semetary" i n the woods b e h i n d t h e i r house, a cemetery t h a t has , f o r g e n e r a t i o n s , been the b u r i a l p l a c e f o r c a t s and dogs who have been k i l l e d on the highway. A l t h o u g h the Creeds are d i s t u r b e d by the p l a c e , they manage to t u r n t h e i r a t t e n t i o n s to the b u s i n e s s o f s e t t l i n g i n t o the house . On L o u i s ' s f i r s t day a t work, however, a s tudent d i e s a g o n i z i n g l y i n h i s arms but not b e f o r e r i s i n g up to t e l l L o u i s , " ' D o n ' t go beyond, no mat ter how much you f e e l you need t o . The b a r r i e r was not meant to be b r o k e n ' " ( P e t Sematary 87 ) . T h i s c r y p t i c u t t e r a n c e takes on meaning f o r L o u i s a few days l a t e r when h i s d a u g h t e r ' s c a t , C h u r c h , i s k i l l e d on the highway. L o u i s , c o n v i n c e d t h a t he wants to spare h i s daughter the p a i n t h a t the c a t ' s dea th w i l l cause 87 h e r , i s i n i t i a t e d by J u d i n t o the s e c r e t t h a t l i e s j u s t beyond the b o r d e r o f the Pet Semetary—an a n c i e n t Micmac b u r i a l ground i n h a b i t e d by a m a l e v o l e n t s p i r i t , Wendigo. L o u i s b u r i e s the c a t a c c o r d i n g to J u d ' s i n s t r u c t i o n and the next day the c a t r e t u r n s , a l i v i n g - d e a d , seeming i n a l l r e s p e c t s i t s former s e l f u n t i l L o u i s b e g i n s to n o t i c e o t h e r w i s e : [Louis ] l e t Church i n t o the house, got h i s b l u e d i s h , and opened a t u n a - a n d - l i v e r c a t d i n n e r . As he spooned the gray-brown mess out of the can , Church p u r r e d uneven ly and rubbed back and f o r t h a l o n g L o u i s ' s a n k l e s . The f e e l o f the c a t caused L o u i s to break out i n g o o s e f l e s h , and he had to c l e n c h h i s t e e t h g r i m l y to keep from k i c k i n g him away. H i s f u r r y s i d e s f e l t somehow too s l i c k , too th i ck—in a word, loathsome. (151) L a t e r , w h i l e t a k i n g a b a t h , L o u i s n o t i c e s t h a t C h u r c h , who has p e r c h e d on the lowered seat of the t o i l e t and i s watch ing him, i s , i n d e e d , different: C h u r c h had never l o o k e d l i k e this—had never swayed, l i k e a snake t r y i n g to h y p n o t i z e i t s p r e y -not b e f o r e he was f i x e d and not a f t e r w a r d . F o r the f i r s t t ime and l a s t t ime [Louis ] p l a y e d w i t h the i d e a t h a t t h i s was a d i f f e r e n t c a t , one t h a t j u s t l o o k e d l i k e E l l i e ' s . . . . I t was C h u r c h , a l l r i g h t . 'Get out o f h e r e , ' L o u i s whi spered h o a r s e l y a t h im. C h u r c h s t a r e d a t him a moment longer—God, h i s eyes were d i f f e r e n t , somehow they were d i f f e r e n t — a n d then l e a p e d down from the t o i l e t s e a t . He l a n d e d w i t h none of the uncanny grace c a t s u s u a l l y d i s p l a y . He s t a g g e r e d awkwardly, haunches t h u d d i n g a g a i n s t the tub , and then he was gone. It, L o u i s thought . Not he; i t . (153) 88 L i k e Hawthorne's c h a r a c t e r s i n The House of the Seven Gables whose c h o i c e s c o n s o l i d a t e the a n c e s t r a l debt and c o n t r i b u t e to the l e g a c y of g u i l t , s e c r e t s and m i s f o r t u n e , L o u i s Creed at tempts to r e p r e s s the h o r r o r of what he knows. But the l o a t h i n g he f e e l s i s u n m i s t a k a b l e . When h i s two-year o l d son, Gage, i s k i l l e d on the same r o a d , L o u i s d i s i n t e r s him and then r e - b u r i e s him o n l y to have Gage r e t u r n from the grave s i m i l a r l y changed and then k i l l Jud C r a n d a l l and the c h i l d ' s own mother . F i n a l l y , he i s put to (a second) death by h i s f a t h e r who then s t u b b o r n l y r e t u r n s to the b u r i a l ground w i t h the body of h i s w i f e , R a c h e l . The n o v e l ends w i t h L o u i s C r e e d s i t t i n g a l o n e i n h i s k i t c h e n , p l a y i n g s o l i t a i r e . W a i t i n g f o r R a c h e l ' s r e t u r n , L o u i s so lemnly r e f l e c t s upon the economy i n t o which he has bought: What you buy is what you own, and sooner or later what you own will come back to you, L o u i s C r e e d thought . He d i d not t u r n around but o n l y l o o k e d a t h i s c a r d s as the slow, g r i t t i n g f o o t s t e p s approached . He saw the queen of spades . He put h i s hand on i t . The s teps ended d i r e c t l y b e h i n d h im. S i l e n c e . A c o l d hand f e l l on L o u i s ' s s h o u l d e r . R a c h e l ' s v o i c e was g r a t i n g , f u l l of d i r t . "Darling," i t s a i d . (411) In s p i t e of the h o r r o r evoked by K i n g ' s novel—or maybe because of it—we become aware t h a t the economics of revenance have some b a s i s i n d i s g u s t . What does i t mean "to 89 come back" (from the dead) i f , as L o u i s C r e e d r e a l i z e s , "sooner or l a t e r what you own w i l l come back to you"? In t h e o l o g i c a l accounts o f the C r u c i f i x i o n , i t i s the hope of s a l v a t i o n tha t i s e l a b o r a t e d i n the R e s u r r e c t i o n , an event which " f i l l e d [ J e s u s ' s d i s c i p l e s ] w i t h joy" when he "came and s tood among them" (John 20:19-20 The Jerusalem Bible: Reader's Edition). Indeed, f o r C h r i s t ' s dea th to have redempt ive meaning C h r i s t must r e t u r n from the dead, but such an o c c a s i o n of r e t u r n i n K i n g ' s w o r l d , as K i n g ' s n o v e l sugges t s , i n s p i r e s not " j o y , " but r a t h e r h o r r o r . In o t h e r words, whatever r e t u r n s had b e t t e r be C h r i s t , o r t h e r e i s g o i n g to be t r o u b l e . 2 8 As f a r as the s t o r y o f C h r i s t i s concerned , r e s u r r e c t i o n from the dead i m p l i e s s a l v a t i o n from death—that i s , i t o f f e r s e t e r n a l l i f e or p r e s e n c e . K i n g ' s n o v e l , however, p r o v i d e s a s t r a n g e c o u n t e r s i g n a t u r e , a t w i s t to an e s c h a t o l o g i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f i n f i n i t e b e i n g , s i n c e i t suggests t h a t what r e t u r n s from the grave i s a l i v i n g - d e a t h nearer to what D e r r i d a might c a l l "the nonpresence of the o t h e r " ( f r o m Of Grammatology i n A Derrida Reader 43 ) . The n o t i o n tha t "non-presence" c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to the uncanny aspec t of what one "owns" o r , i n any case , " w r i t e s , " i l l u s t r a t e s what D e r r i d a means by the " u n r e p r e s e n t a b l e " : i t [ l i k e tha t which u t t e r s the word " d a r l i n g " a t the end of K i n g ' s nove l ] i s unnameable i n i t s 90 s i n g u l a r i t y . I f one c o u l d name i t or r e p r e s e n t i t , i t would b e g i n to e n t e r i n t o the a u t o - e f f e c t i v e c i r c l e of mastery o r r e a p p r o p r i a t i o n . An economy would be p o s s i b l e . The d i s g u s t i n g X cannot even announce i t s e l f as a sensible o b j e c t w i t h o u t b e i n g caught up i n a t e l e o l o g i c a l h i e r a r c h y . I t i s t h e r e f o r e i n - s e n s i b l e and u n - i n t e l l i g i b l e , i r r e p r e s e n t a b l e and unnameable, the a b s o l u t e o t h e r of the system. ( 2 2 ) I f , on the one hand, D e r r i d a r e n d e r s en igmat i c the " e s c h a t o l o g i c a l meaning of b e i n g as presence" through a " d e c o n s t r u c t i o n of c o n s c i o u s n e s s , " ( Of Grammatology i n A Derrida Reader 43) K i n g , on the o t h e r hand, r e f l e c t s upon the c r i s i s of b e i n g when—to use D e r r i d a ' s terms to d e s c r i b e the n o v e l ' s themat ic concern—"the r e l a t i o n s h i p to dea th as the c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e o f the l i v i n g present" (49) shows i t s e l f not as a redempt ive event b u t , r a t h e r , as a " r e t u r n " of an unspeakable "nonpresence" t h a t a b o l i s h e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d i s t a n c e . K i n g ' s use of the word " i t " to d e s c r i b e the r e t u r n o f C r e e d ' s w i f e from the grave suggests t h a t what r e t u r n s not o n l y d e s t a b i l i z e s the gender c a t e g o r i e s g i v e n by p r o n o m i n a l d i s t i n c t i o n s , but a l s o exceeds the o n t o l o g i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t , human. Indeed, what f i n a l l y croaks the word "dar l ing"' a t the end of K i n g ' s n o v e l i s unspeakable i n t h a t , i n a c e r t a i n sense, i t i s not. 91 A Break in the Economics of Eschatology When the dead r e t u r n i n f i c t i o n and f i l m they are c a l l e d by v a r i o u s names: from N o s f e r a t u (meaning the "undead") D r a c u l a , C a r m i l l a , L o u i s and L e s t a t , C h u r c h , the ca t who r e t u r n s i n Stephen K i n g ' s Pet Sematary, to the anonymous "things" i n George Romero's s e r i e s of f i l m s . As r e v e n a n t s , they walk among the l i v i n g , e i t h e r d e v o u r i n g or " i n f e c t i n g " t h e i r p r e y w i t h a c o n d i t i o n o f t e n ambiguous ly r e f e r r e d t o , at l e a s t i n vampire l o r e , as the "dark g i f t " (a term which has resonance f o r r e a d e r s of b o t h vampire f i c t i o n and d e c o n s t r u c t i o n ) . R e g a r d l e s s , however, o f what the l i v i n g - d e a d are "called"—and Stephen K i n g ' s Pet Sematary i s a g a i n a case i n p o i n t — t h e i r r e t u r n from the dead i s an o c c a s i o n of h o r r o r t h a t g i v e s us to u n d e r s t a n d what i s a t s take i n D e r r i d a ' s remark, i n " P l a t o ' s Pharmacy," t h a t " [ w ] r i t i n g ' s case i s grave" (A Derrida Reader 127) . When Gage, the C r e e d s ' son, comes back, i t i s , to use the words of one c r i t i c , as "a n ightmare made r e a l . " The n ightmare i s made r e a l because i n s p i t e o f L o u i s C r e e d ' s b e s t intentions, Gage's r e t u r n i s out of h i s f a t h e r ' s c o n t r o l . In s u g g e s t i n g a t h r e a t to the p a t e r n a l p o s i t i o n , Gage's r e t u r n from the dead and L o u i s ' s l o s s o f c o n t r o l g r a p h i c a l l y a l l e g o r i z e p h i l o s o p h y ' s condemnation of w r i t i n g : 92 F o r a w r i t i n g to be a w r i t i n g i t must c o n t i n u e to ' a c t ' and to be r e a d a b l e even when what i s c a l l e d the author of the w r i t i n g no l o n g e r answers f o r what he has w r i t t e n , f o r what he seems to have s i g n e d . . . . T h i s e s s e n t i a l d r i f t b e a r i n g on w r i t i n g as an i t e r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e , cu t o f f from a l l a b s o l u t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , from consciousness as the u l t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y , orphaned and s e p a r a t e d a t b i r t h [or, i n t h i s case , death] from the a s s i s t a n c e o f i t s f a t h e r , i s p r e c i s e l y what P l a t o condemns i n the Phaedrus. I f P l a t o ' s g e s t u r e i s , as I b e l i e v e , the p h i l o s o p h i c a l movement p a r e x c e l l e n c e , one can measure what i s a t s take h e r e . ("Signature Event Context" (181) One can measure what i s a t s take here because when Gage l a t e r k i l l s and then p a r t i a l l y devours h i s mother, L o u i s i s so d i s t r a u g h t t h a t , a c c o r d i n g to Mary P h a r r , he "can t h i n k of no way to h e a l her beyond the gruesomely obvious" and r e t u r n s her body to the Micmac b u r i a l ground w i t h e q u a l l y h o r r i f y i n g r e s u l t s . In the book ' s e p i l o g u e , he w a i t s , b o t h h o p e f u l and d e s p a i r i n g , a lone i n the k i t c h e n u n t i l , as P h a r r says , "she—it—comes back"(125) . R a c h e l ' s r e t u r n from the dead prompts a r e t u r n to a p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n : what does i t mean "to come back" (from the dead) i f , as L o u i s Creed r e a l i z e s , "sooner o r l a t e r what you own w i l l come back to you"? The phrase "come back to you" has a s i n i s t e r edge to i t . By c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n to a c e r t a i n return—of / o n "what you [a lready] own"—the remark i m p l i e s a r e t u r n on t h a t which has been sent out , perhaps u n c o n s c i o u s l y . I t r e t u r n s as something unspeakable because i t i s u n r e c o g n i z a b l e as one ' s own. In "The Roundtab le on 93 T r a n s l a t i o n , " D e r r i d a ' s remarks suggest t h a t w r i t i n g i s l i k e t h a t : [ I ] t would be n e c e s s a r y to a n a l y z e v e r y c l o s e l y the e x p e r i e n c e of h e a r i n g someone e l s e r e a d a t e x t you have a l l e g e d l y w r i t t e n or s i g n e d . A l l of a sudden someone puts a t e x t r i g h t i n f r o n t o f you a g a i n , i n another c o n t e x t , w i t h an i n t e n t i o n t h a t i s b o t h somewhat yours and not s i m p l y y o u r s . Each t ime i t happens, i t ' s a v e r y c u r i o u s , v e r y t r o u b l i n g e x p e r i e n c e . . . . What I can say i s t h a t i t i s never the same t e x t , never an echo, t h a t comes back to y o u . I t can be a v e r y p l e a s a n t or a v e r y u n p l e a s a n t e x p e r i e n c e . I t can r e c o n c i l e you w i t h what y o u ' v e done, make you l o v e or hate i t . There are a thousand p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Yet one t h i n g i s c e r t a i n i n a l l t h i s d i v e r s i t y , and tha t i s t h a t i t ' s never the same. . . . Perhaps the d e s i r e to w r i t e i s the d e s i r e to l a u n c h t h i n g s t h a t come back to you as much as p o s s i b l e i n as many forms as p o s s i b l e . That i s , i t i s the d e s i r e to p e r f e c t a program or a m a t r i x h a v i n g the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l , v a r i a b i l i t y , u n d e c i d a b i l i t y , p l u r i v o c a l i t y , e t c e t e r a , so t h a t each t ime something r e t u r n s i t w i l l be as d i f f e r e n t as p o s s i b l e . (158) K i n g ' s n o v e l g i v e s us to u n d e r s t a n d the import o f D e r r i d a ' s remarks, f o r the r e t u r n of R a c h e l C r e e d draws a t t e n t i o n to the uncanniness i m p l i c i t i n the "something" i n w r i t i n g t h a t r e t u r n s , perhaps through c i t a t i o n , as one ' s own, even though, as D e r r i d a says i n "Roundtable on T r a n s l a t i o n , " "the t e x t ' s i d e n t i t y has been l o s t " (158) . In t h i s c o n t e x t , the word "own" i s a l s o t e l l i n g . The most common usage of the t r a n s i t i v e v e r b "to own" i s to denote p o s s e s s i o n . An owner i s one who has p r o p e r t y . To own a l s o means "to acknowledge a u t h o r s h i p , p a t e r n i t y o r 94 p o s s e s s i o n , " a l l terms i n d i c a t i n g r i g h t s of p r o p e r t y and l e g i t i m a c y . However, "to own" d e r i v e s from the A n g l o - S a x o n agnian, a word meaning to a p p r o p r i a t e , which i s synonymous w i t h the v e r b s to s e i z e , c o n f i s c a t e , u surp and e x p r o p r i a t e . F i n a l l y , the word d i r e c t s our a t t e n t i o n to b o t h i t s A n g l o -Saxon and M i d d l e E n g l i s h forms, unnan and unnen, words which mean "to grant" and thus i m p l y the more b e n i g n a c t of g i f t -g i v i n g . In a l l case s , the b a s i s of t h i s economy—of "what you buy" and "what you own"—seems to be t h a t of r e t u r n on an inves tment , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether one s e i z e s or g r a n t s . However, the e s s e n t i a l u n d e c i d a b i l i t y o f the word produces p r o f o u n d ambiva lence around the i s s u e o f ownership , i n h e r i t a n c e and l e g a c y . On the one hand, the word suggests t h a t p o s s e s s i o n comes about by f o r c e , w h i l e on the o t h e r hand, i t i m p l i e s t h a t what one owns has been a g i f t . F o r D e r r i d a , the g i f t (le don) has always been a prob lem. D e r r i d a contends t h a t a g i f t cannot be g i v e n and remain a g i f t , f o r as soon as i t i s p r e s e n t e d i t demands r e s t i t u t i o n and becomes, thus , a debt . That t h i s economy f u n c t i o n s i n Pet Sematary can been seen when, i n one c r i t i c ' s response to the n o v e l , she remarks on the " r e s u r r e c t i o n " of C h u r c h : "It comes home, seeming ly a f r e e g i f t of some god; soon enough, though, the a s t o n i s h e d d o c t o r r e a l i z e s a p r i c e has been p a i d " ( P h a r r 122) . In K i n g ' s n o v e l , 95 the r e t u r n of the dead from the grave—"seemingly a f r e e g i f t of some god"—is a n y t h i n g but " f r e e . " I n s t e a d , the g i f t i s shown to be an i n h e r i t a n c e as w e l l as a debt , the s e c u r i t y f o r which i s u n s p e a k a b l e . A l t h o u g h the n a r r a t i v e p i v o t s upon the unspeakable , i t b r i n g s forward , through the n o t i o n s of i n h e r i t a n c e and i n d e b t e d n e s s , the i t e r a b i l i t y of t r a n s g e n e r a t i o n a l h a u n t i n g . S i n c e the C r e e d family—and, e s p e c i a l l y Louis—is l i t e r a l l y consumed by f o r c e s which i t i s not equipped to u n d e r s t a n d , the n a r r a t o r draws a t t e n t i o n to the l e g a c y of the b u r i a l ground, an i n h e r i t a n c e which anticipates the a r r i v a l of u n s u s p e c t i n g o t h e r s j u s t as i t had awai ted the C r e e d s : And then the house s t o o d empty i n the May sunsh ine , as i t had s tood empty on t h a t August day the y e a r b e f o r e , w a i t i n g f o r the new p e o p l e to a r r i v e . . . as i t would w a i t f o r o t h e r new p e o p l e to a r r i v e a t some f u t u r e d a t e . A young m a r r i e d couple perhaps , w i t h no c h i l d r e n (but w i t h hopes and p l a n s ) . B r i g h t young m a r r i e d s w i t h a t a s t e f o r Mondavi wine and Lowenbrau beer—he would be i n charge o f the N o r t h e a s t Bank's c r e d i t department perhaps , she w i t h a d e n t a l h y g i e n i s t ' s c r e d e n t i a l or maybe t h r e e y e a r s ' e x p e r i e n c e as an o p t o m e t r i s t ' s a s s i s t a n t . He would s p l i t h a l f a c o r d of wood f o r the f i r e p l a c e , she would wear h i g h - w a i s t e d c o r d u r o y pants and walk i n M r s . V i n t o n ' s f i e l d , c o l l e c t i n g November's f a l l g r a s s e s f o r a t a b l e c e n t e r p i e c e , her h a i r i n a p o n y t a i l , the b r i g h t e s t t h i n g under the g r a y s k i e s , t o t a l l y unaware than an i n v i s i b l e V u l t u r e rode the a i r c u r r e n t s overhead . They would c o n g r a t u l a t e themselves on t h e i r l a c k of s u p e r s t i t i o n , on t h e i r hardheadedness i n s n a r i n g the house i n s p i t e o f i t s h i s tory—they would t e l l t h e i r f r i e n d s t h a t i t had been f i r e - s a l e p r i c e d and joke about the ghost i n the a t t i c , and a l l of them would have another 96 Lowenbrau or another g l a s s o f Mondavi , and they would p l a y backgammon or M i l l e Bourne . And perhaps they would have a dog . (396) A l o n g passage , I i n c l u d e i t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , because i t p o i n t s to the p e r f o r m a t i v i t y of such an i n h e r i t a n c e . That the l e g a c y awai ts or even a n t i c i p a t e s those who "would c o n g r a t u l a t e themselves on t h e i r l a c k of s u p e r s t i t i o n " a t t e s t s to the v i t a l i t y o f t h a t which c o n t i n u e s to l i v e on. I t a l s o c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to the l i n k s between t r a n s g e n e r a t i o n a l h a u n t i n g , revenance and i n d e b t e d n e s s . In K i n g ' s n o v e l , the dead r e t u r n not o n l y because they were not p r o p e r l y b u r i e d but a l s o because they r e p r e s e n t , i n D e r r i d e a n terms, a c e r t a i n r e m a i n d e r . That i s , as r e v e n a n t s , they r e t u r n (as) the l e g a c y o f p r e v i o u s g e n e r a t i o n s i n the a n t i c i p a t i o n of f u l f i l l i n g a c o n t r a c t which , i n Pet Sematary, the Creeds w i l l c o u n t e r s i g n . K i n g ' s n o v e l makes t h i s i d e a a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r i n t h a t i t demonstrates how the n o t i o n of the Amer ican dream, founded upon the n o s t a l g i a o f f a m i l y l i f e and the r i g h t to ownership of l a n d , i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the v i o l e n c e of c o l o n i a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n of i n d i g e n o u s l a n d s . In the e a r l y pages of the n o v e l , f o r example, the Creeds a r e a p p r o a c h i n g the house they have j u s t purchased—"a b i g o l d New E n g l a n d co lonia l"(16)—beyond which 97 was a l a r g e f i e l d f o r the c h i l d r e n to p l a y i n , and beyond the f i e l d were woods t h a t went on damn near f o r e v e r . The p r o p e r t y a b u t t e d s t a t e l a n d s , the r e a l t o r had e x p l a i n e d , and t h e r e would be no development i n the f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e . The remains o f the Micmac I n d i a n t r i b e had l a i d c l a i m to n e a r l y e i g h t thousand a c r e s i n Ludlow and i n the towns eas t of Ludlow, and the c o m p l i c a t e d l i t i g a t i o n , i n v o l v i n g the f e d e r a l government, as w e l l as tha t o f the s t a t e , might s t r e t c h i n t o the next c e n t u r y . (16) P r e p a r e d to c l a i m i t as t h e i r own, the Creeds u n c o n s c i o u s l y take p o s s e s s i o n of l ands t h a t are haunted , i f not by " c o m p l i c a t e d l i t i g a t i o n " then c e r t a i n l y by "the remains of the Micmac I n d i a n t r i b e . " A l t h o u g h r e l i e v e d a t l a s t to be "home," as the Creeds put i t , L o u i s i s a l s o " t e r r i f i e d " f o r "[h]e had mortgaged twelve y e a r s o f t h e i r l i v e s f o r t h i s . . . " ( 1 6 ) . By the end of the n o v e l , however, when the house becomes l e s s than heimlich, the Creeds end up w i t h more (or l e s s ) than they b a r g a i n e d f o r , becoming themselves " c o l l e c t o r s of some u n p a i d symbol i c d e b t , " to r e c a l l the words of S l a v o j Z i z e k w i t h r e g a r d s to the r e t u r n of the dead. C l e a r l y , f o r the C r e e d s , the economics o f revenance had proven to be v i a b l e : "What you buy i s what you own," L o u i s t h i n k s to h i m s e l f as the hand from the grave reaches out to touch h im. A s i m i l a r ambiva lence i s sugges ted i n the use of the word "buy" s i n c e i t not o n l y means to p u r c h a s e , but a l s o i n i t s "slang" usage, "to a c c e p t , b e l i e v e , be d e c e i v e d by , s u f f e r and r e c e i v e as punishment"(The Concise Oxford 98 Dictionary 135) . G i v e n t h a t the f i r s t - p e r s o n s i n g u l a r o f the i n f i n i t i v e to b e l i e v e i n L a t i n i s credo—"I bel ieve"—the word "buy," e s p e c i a l l y i n i t s s l a n g usage, c a r r i e s w i t h i t an e f f e c t of the p r o p e r name "Creed" t h a t does not a c c o r d w i t h the s t o r y of h i m s e l f t h a t L o u i s C r e e d would like to b e l i e v e . In t h i s sense, the word "buy" f u n c t i o n s as L o u i s C r e e d ' s s e c r e t name, t h a t i s , the name he c a l l s h i m s e l f i n s e c r e t through i t s d e n i a l . To the e x t e n t t h a t the name C r e e d draws a t t e n t i o n to i t s e l f i n terms of i m p l y i n g a system of b e l i e f , i t a l s o evokes the l i n k , a g a i n i n s l a n g usage, between b e l i e f , s e l f - d e c e p t i o n and s u f f e r i n g or punishment . G i v e n the many t imes t h a t L o u i s C r e e d j u s t i f i e s h i s r e t u r n to the b u r i a l ground, he c o n t i n u e s , i n s p i t e of the warnings he has r e c e i v e d , to d e c e i v e h i m s e l f w i t h r e s p e c t to h i s i n t e n t i o n s . In s h o r t , L o u i s l i e s to h i m s e l f . However, i n h i s denia l— which i s the l i e he "owns"—Louis, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , t e l l s to h i m s e l f an e l a b o r a t e f i c t i o n o f the t r u t h and the t r u t h o f h i s f i c t i o n by f o r g e t t i n g . In e f f e c t , L o u i s ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to h i m s e l f suggests a system of exchange, an economy i n which he—Louis—transfers g u i l t i n t o a s e c r e t account , one which i s m a i n t a i n e d through " f o r g e t f u l n e s s " under the word-name "buy." F o r example, w h i l e c o n t e m p l a t i n g the r e b u r i a l of h i s dead son i n the Micmac b u r i a l ground—in s p i t e o f J u d C r a n d a l l ' s s t o r i e s r e g a r d i n g b o t h an imal s and p e o p l e whose r e t u r n from the Pet Semetary was an o c c a s i o n of horror—a 99 vagrant thought crosses Louis's mind: "What do you want to buy next, Louis..?"(Pet Sematary 256). In the novel, t h i s type of inner dialogue i s i t a l i c i z e d , a technique often used by Stephen King to suggest thought mandated by what Bakhtin would c a l l a "dialogic imperative"(426). King's strategy demonstrates that there can be no actual monologue but, rather, that thought i s both heteroglossic and hybridized. 2 9 In short, the "subject" i s a compendium of s t r a t i f i e d discourses, not s t a t i c but always becoming. This instance i n the novel i s a t y p i c a l hybridized construction: For a long time—it seemed l i k e a long time, anyway—[Louis] believed [the knock at the door] was only i n his head, a h a l l u c i n a t i o n . But the knocking just went on and on, patient, implacable. And suddenly Louis found himself thinking of the story of the monkey's paw, and a cold terror slipped into him. He seemed to f e e l i t with a t o t a l physical r e a l i t y — i t was l i k e a dead hand that had been kept i n a r e f r i g e r a t o r , a dead hand which had suddenly taken on i t s own disembodied l i f e and slipped inside his s h i r t to clutch the f l e s h over his heart. It was a s i l l y image, fulsome and s i l l y , but oh, i t didn't feel s i l l y . No. Louis went to the door on feet he could not f e e l and l i f t e d the latch with nerveless fingers. And as he swung i t open, he thought: I t ' l l be Pascow [the student who warned Louis about the b a r r i e r before dying i n his arms]. Like they said about Jim Morrison [the i l l - f a t e d singer of the 1960s American rock band, "The Doors" who died of a drug overdose], back from the dead and bigger than ever. Pascow standing there in his jogging shorts, big as life and as mouldy as month-old bread. Pascow with his horribly ruined head, Pascow bring the warning again: Don't go up there [to the Pet Sematary]. What was that old song by the Animals? 1 0 0 Baby please don't go, baby PLEASE don't go, you know I love you so, baby please don't go... [Upon opening the door , L o u i s f i n d s J u d C r a n d a l l s t a n d i n g t h e r e , but] [ t ] ime seemed to have t u r n e d c l e v e r l y back on i t s e l f . I t was T h a n k s g i v i n g a g a i n . Soon they would put the s t i f f , u n n a t u r a l l y t h i c k e n e d body of E l l i e ' s c a t Wins ton C h u r c h i l l i n t o a p l a s t i c garbage bag and s t a r t o f f . Oh, do not ask what is it; let us go and make our visit. (257). A l o n g passage , i t i s p r o v o c a t i v e i n t h a t i t demonstrates the way t h a t h e t e r o g l o s s i a c r e a t e s what B a k h t i n c a l l s " h i g h l y p a r t i c u l a r i z e d character zones" ("Discourse i n the Nove l" 316) . B a k h t i n c o n t i n u e s : These zones are formed from the fragments o f c h a r a c t e r speech [polurec'], from v a r i o u s forms f o r hidden transmission of someone else's word, from s c a t t e r e d words and s a y i n g s b e l o n g i n g to someone else's speech, from those i n v a s i o n s i n t o a u t h o r i a l speech of o t h e r s ' e x p r e s s i v e i n d i c a t o r s ( e l l i p s i s , q u e s t i o n s , e x c l a m a t i o n s [to which , i n t h i s case , I would add i t a l i c s and em-dashes ] ) . (316, emphasis mine) B a k h t i n ' s ' r e m a r k s draw a t t e n t i o n to a n o t i o n t h a t K i n g ' s n o v e l demonstrates and t h a t D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g c o n s i s t e n t l y evokes: t h a t of the s u b j e c t as m u l t i p l e and i n d e t e r m i n a t e ; i n s h o r t , a d i s c u r s i v e , t e x t u a l e f f e c t brought about through s y n t a c t i c markers , pronomina l s h i f t s and c i t a t i o n a l use of o t h e r t e x t s . In s h o r t , K i n g ' s n o v e l f u n c t i o n s r a t h e r l i k e Glas i n t h a t i t demonstrates how the s o - c a l l e d p r o t a g o n i s t i s an e f f e c t of what D e r r i d a c a l l s c i t a t i o n . Above, "Loui s Creed" i s an e f f e c t of j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f t e x t s o r g a n i z e d i n t o what G r e g o r y Ulmer might c a l l a c o l l a g e , the e f f e c t i v e n e s s 101 of which i s t h a t , as Ulmer sugges t s , "the p i e c e , d i s p l a c e d i n t o a new c o n t e x t , r e t a i n s a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h i t s former context" (Applied Grammatology 59) . In t h i s sense , c u l t u r a l "texts" such as W. W. J a c o b s ' "The Monkey's Paw," the song "Baby P l ease D o n ' t Go" by the 1960's B r i t i s h r o c k group The A n i m a l s , the c u l t u r a l i c o n J i m M o r r i s o n and T . S . E l i o t ' s "The Love Song of J . A l f r e d P r u f r o c k " not o n l y l i v e on i n K i n g ' s n o v e l through i n c o r p o r a t i o n but a r e l odged t h e r e i n what D e r r i d a might c a l l "a hos t of g h o s t s . " T h i s n o t i o n o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s sugges ted i n B a k h t i n ' s remarks which I have i t a l i c i z e d i n the above passage and which draw a t t e n t i o n to one of the concerns addres sed i n Pet Sematary: the w r i t i n g of a n o v e l as a k i n d o f v e n t r i l o q u i s m through which m u l t i p l e "voices" a r e , as D e r r i d a might say, "put between q u o t a t i o n marks" o r , i n o t h e r words, e n c r y p t e d . In t h i s sense , what "re turns" i n the n o v e l "Pet Sematary" i s w r i t i n g i t s e l f , and what "speaks" i n the n o v e l are o t h e r t e x t s , themselves a l r e a d y i n h a b i t e d — s h a l l I say, "haunted"—by o t h e r t e x t s . When j u x t a p o s e d w i t h D e r r i d a ' s i n t e r e s t i n the c r y p t -e f f e c t of h a u n t i n g , K i n g ' s n o v e l demonstrates i n i t s development o f the c h a r a c t e r of L o u i s C r e e d what enables the p r a c t i c e o f cryptomimes i s amidst a m u l t i p l i c i t y of c o n t r a d i c t o r y t e x t s / v o i c e s . In s h o r t , L o u i s C r e e d has to l e a r n to f o r g e t . He has to p r a c t i c e f o r g e t f u l n e s s . W h i l e k n e e l i n g a t h i s son ' s grave , L o u i s r a t i o n a l i z e s what he i s 102 about to do, w i t h the thought , "How c o u l d he r e f u s e to take the chance a v a i l a b l e to him—this one, u n b e l i e v a b l e chance—on the b a s i s of [a s t o r y t h a t J u d had r e l a t e d to him]"(289). The caveat tha t comes to h i s mind speaks of a d u a l economy of c o n t r a d i c t i o n and d e s i r e : Y o u ' r e s l a n t i n g a l l the ev idence i n f a v o u r of the c o n c l u s i o n you want to produce , h i s mind p r o t e s t e d . A t l e a s t t e l l y o u r s e l f the goddamned t r u t h about the change i n Church [the c a t ] . Even i f you want to d i s q u a l i f y the an imal s . . . what about the way he i s ? Muddled . . . t h a t ' s the b e s t word of a l l , that sums it up. (289 emphasis mine) In a way, t h i s passage demonstrates the dynamics of remembering and f o r g e t t i n g , which N i e t z s c h e saw, a c c o r d i n g to Hayden White , as "the unique a t t r i b u t e of the human animal"(346). To a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , L o u i s ' s dilemma suggests tha t the c h a l l e n g e to b e i n g as well as to w r i t i n g i s t h a t of l e a r n i n g to f o r g e t , a t a s k which r e c a l l s the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t h a t i t a l l o w s f o r the unconsc ious p r e s e r v a t i o n of the "past ." In h i s r e a d i n g of N i e t z s c h e , White suggests [ t ]he extreme case o f remembrance of t h i n g s p a s t would be "the man . . . who i s condemned to see 'becoming' everywhere"(Nie tz sche 6). Such a man would—like Roquent in i n S a r t r e ' s Nausea—no l o n g e r b e l i e v e i n h i s own e x i s t e n c e , but would i n s t e a d see e v e r y t h i n g f l y p a s t i n an e t e r n a l s u c c e s s i o n and l o s e h i m s e l f i n the s tream of becoming. Without f o r g e t f u l n e s s no a c t i o n i s p o s s i b l e , no l i f e i s c o n c e i v a b l e . . . [ u n l e s s , a c c o r d i n g to N i e t z s c h e , the organism i s an animal]. (348) 103 T h i s i s the c h a l l e n g e t h a t L o u i s C r e e d must face i n K i n g ' s n o v e l i n o r d e r to a c t . I t i s a l s o the c h a l l e n g e f a c i n g the r e a d e r of D e r r i d a ' s work. To r e a d " D e r r i d a " i s one t h i n g ; "to move from r e a d i n g to c r i t i c i s m , " i n B a r t h e s ' s words, i s ano ther : "It i s no l o n g e r to d e s i r e the work but to d e s i r e one ' s own language"(Barthes q t d i n K r i s t e v a ' s Desire in Language 115) . But how can a r e a d e r e x t r i c a t e h e r s e l f from "the work" i n o r d e r to speak of i t when the work i n v i t e s entanglement , when the work encourages her to "lose [ h e r s e l f ] i n the s tream of becoming," which seems another way of d e s c r i b i n g c i t a t i o n through which " [e ]very s i g n , l i n g u i s t i c or n o n - l i n g u i s t i c , spoken or w r i t t e n . . . i n a s m a l l or l a r g e u n i t . . . can break w i t h e v e r y g i v e n c o n t e x t engender ing an i n f i n i t y of new c o n t e x t s i n a manner which i s a b s o l u t e l y i l l i m i t a b l e " ( D e r r i d a , "S ignature Event Context" q t d i n Ulmer, Applied Grammatology 59) . Thus , when L o u i s C r e e d t h i n k s , "what you buy i s what you own, and sooner or l a t e r what you own w i l l come back to y o u , " we are g i v e n to unders tand the p o t e n t i a l of t h i s " i l l i m i t a b i l i t y " f o r h o r r o r s i n c e i t not o n l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g so haunted as the m u l t i p l e but a l s o tha t whatever r e t u r n s from the "grave" to haunt us must pass through d e a t h . Lawrence S c h e h r ' s i n s i g h t i n t o t e x t u a l p r o d u c t i o n e l u c i d a t e s t h i s n o t i o n : 104 We a v o i d the a m b i g u i t i e s o f the t e x t [ i f ] we choose to b e l i e v e , a priori, t h a t we are d e a l i n g w i t h c h a r a c t e r s . [This ] r e d u c t i o n shows what p r i c e we pay f o r making the f a c i l e i n t e r c o n v e r s i o n from s e m i o s i s (or d i a g e s i s ) to mimesis and back a g a i n , as i f the two p r o c e s e s s were somehow e q u i v a l e n t . Death i s a t the c e n t e r , and we cannot get from one to the o t h e r w i t h o u t p a s s i n g through d e a t h . (44) To pass through death i s to e f f e c t a t r a n s f e r e n c e , however. What g i v e s K i n g ' s n o v e l i t s e v o c a t i v e power, and where i t e x i s t s i n a c e r t a i n correspondence w i t h D e r r i d a ' s work, i s made apparent w i t h i t s c o n c e r n w i t h t h i s n o t i o n o f " c r o s s i n g . " One way to u n d e r s t a n d t h i s movement, which i s l i k e a t r a n s f e r e n c e , i s to c o n s i d e r the account by N i c o l a s Abraham and M a r i a Torok o f how the Wolf Man t r a n s l a t e d a word— tieret, to rub—into an image, t h a t of the f l o o r s c r u b b e r who became i n v e s t e d w i t h h i s d e s i r e . What they see i s a genuine dream p r o c e s s i n f u l l w a k e f u l n e s s . In o r d e r to t e l l h i m s e l f h i s d e s i r e [the Wolf Man] has to have r e c o u r s e to dream d i s t o r t i o n . The erogenous f a n t a s y , Grush the f l o o r s c r u b b e r , the washerwoman at the f o u n t a i n as w e l l as the p a r e n t s ' coitus a tergo, were n o t h i n g but a word, t r a n s l a t e d i n t o an image. The face , the p e r s o n of the woman are of no importance , p r o v i d e d she i l l u s t r a t e s , she embodies the taboo word. (WMMW 2 2 ) Here we might even use the word imago to suggest what i s a t s take i n c r o s s i n g the abyss s e p a r a t i n g the r e a l from the s y m b o l i c . A l t h o u g h the term i s d e f i n e d by Jane G a l l o p as "an unconsc ious image or c l i c h e " 3 0 which shapes one ' s 105 u n d e r s t a n d i n g and i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the workings o f t r a n s f e r e n c e , we might a l s o u n d e r s t a n d how the imago's image or c l i c h e c o u l d , i n f a c t , be d e t e r m i n e d by a word o r by a fragment of a word, say a sememe, morpheme or phoneme. F o r example, i n K i n g ' s n o v e l the word "sematary" seems, a t f i r s t , to be a c h i l d i s h m i s s p e l l i n g of the word "cemetery." I f i n d , however, t h a t t h e r e i s more to the d i s p l a c e m e n t of the "c" to an "s," and of the "e" of cemetery, to an " a , " s i n c e i t suggests a c e r t a i n passage s i m i l a r to t h a t proposed by D e r r i d a i n the s h i f t from " d i f f e r e n c e " to "differance". In K i n g ' s n o v e l , the d i s p l a c e m e n t encourages us to t h i n k not o n l y i n terms of "semant ics ," but a l s o l eads us to c o n s i d e r the Greek semantikos—"significant"—because i t draws a t t e n t i o n to the Greek semaino, which i s to s i g n i f y , e v o l v e d from sema, s i g n or tomb. Whereas the d i s p l a c e m e n t suggests a k i n d of w r i t i n g to o n e s e l f , the r e t u r n of which i s a k i n d of l e g a c y or an i n h e r i t a n c e o f t h a t which i s a s e c r e t , i t i s towards the sign and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to l i f e and d e a t h , t h a t our a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d . In the n o v e l "Pet Sematary" i s a s i g n i n d i c a t i n g a b u r i a l ground f o r p e t s . Where the word "pet" l e a d s us to t h i n k of the an imal who i s tamed and t r e a t e d w i t h fondness , i t a l s o a l l o w s us to c o n s i d e r the "pet names" of which there are many throughout the n o v e l , "Church" b e i n g but o n e . 3 1 S i m i l a r l y , we are a l s o g i v e n to t h i n k of the f a m i l i a r or 106 "pet form" of a name—perhaps a t r a n s l a t i o n of the p r o p e r name Stephen K i n g s i n c e K i n g ' s f i r s t name Stephen, decomposes, i n p a r t , i n t o the word "pets ." Meanwhile , the p r o p e r name Stephen K i n g y i e l d s such c r y p t i c anagrams as kings pet hen and king pets hen, t r a n s p o s i t i o n s which t u r n the p r o p e r name i n t o a r e b u s . 3 2 T h i s e n c r y p t i o n of the p r o p e r name i s mentioned by D e r r i d a i n "Roundtable on T r a n s l a t i o n , " when he asks , [ i ] s i t p o s s i b l e not to know one ' s own name? . . . Is i t p o s s i b l e f o r the u n c o n s c i o u s p r o p e r name-t h a t to which the o t h e r addresses h i m / h e r s e l f i n us , t h a t which responds i n us—to be s e c r e t ? . . . Can such a name e x i s t ? . . . [L ]e t us put the h y p o t h e s i s f o r w a r d . L e t ' s suppose I have a s e c r e t p r o p e r name t h a t has n o t h i n g to do w i t h my p u b l i c p r o p e r name or w i t h what anyone may know about me. Suppose a l s o tha t from t ime to t ime some o t h e r may c a l l me by t h i s s e c r e t p r o p e r name, e i t h e r by u t t e r i n g c e r t a i n words or s y l l a b l e s o r by making c e r t a i n ge s tures or s i g n s . (The s e c r e t p r o p e r name, the a b s o l u t e i d i o m , i s not n e c e s s a r i l y on the o r d e r of language i n the p h o n i c sense but may be on the o r d e r of a g e s t u r e , a p h y s i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n , a scene of some s o r t , a t a s t e , a s m e l l . And i t i s to t h i s appea l t h a t I would e s s e n t i a l l y respond, t h i s c a l l t h a t would command me a b s o l u t e l y ) . (106) As t h i s passage sugges ts , c o n d e n s a t i o n and d i s p l a c e m e n t work to produce a name i n the same way they produce a r e b u s -f i g u r e i n a dream. I am i n c l i n e d to t h i n k , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t K i n g ' s n o v e l might be r e a d as an a l l e g o r y of c r y p t o m i m e s i s , s i n c e i t r e f l e c t s a debate o f the a u t h o r with himself w i t h r e g a r d s to the l i n k between w r i t i n g and ( l i v i n g - ) d e a t h and the d e c o m p o s i t i o n of the p r o p e r name. The d i a l o g u e i s about 107 a p a r t i c u l a r economy— an uncanny contract predicated upon b u r i a l , revenance and haunting—which can again be thought through the crypt. "Writing's case i s grave" (says Derrida i n "Plato's Pharmacy") and through this assertion we understand why Derrida says of the crypt that i t i s "perhaps i t s e l f the contract with the dead"("Fors" x x x v i i i ) . To consider th i s "contract" we w i l l examine the word "case" because i t c a l l s attention (1) to the instance of a thing's occurring; (2) to writing as a "case history" as i n the record of a person's ancestry, psychoanalytic record or medical h i s t o r y of disease; (3) to what encloses something i n a box; (4) to law as s e t t l e d by decided case and (5) to the grammatical term to i d e n t i f y a pronoun. "Case" derives from the La t i n casus, " f a l l , " which i n French i s tomber, and i t s cognate capsa (copere hold). Why then i s the case of writing grave? Derrida makes a case for writing when he takes issue with Heidegger over the issue of "essence." Derrida does so by suggesting that both essence and the so-called subject are an ef f e c t of language. When Heidegger, i n his essay, "The Thing," makes a case for an a p r i o r i necessity of essence, Derrida argues i n "Fors" that the "Thing" i s necessarily a "crypt e f f e c t " ( x i i i ) not because i t i s predicated upon the notion of language as the "house" of 108 being i n which man "dwells"—these metaphors evoke a p a r t i c u l a r nostalgia for "home"—but rather upon the understanding of language as being motivated by and/or performative of i t s ties with the dead as well as being performative of the "subject" as a spectral e f f e c t (of the text and thus of Writing). When Derrida uses the phrase "what i s engaged and bound" to describe the crypt e f f e c t (of writing), he makes e x p l i c i t the contractual aspects of language i n terms of indebtedness, inheritance, promise, pledge and betrothal, a l l of which imply the s p i r i t of return i n that which i s yet to come, a phenomenon which Derrida c a l l s elsewhere a "hauntology": [ r j e p e t i t i o n and f i r s t time: t h i s i s perhaps the question of the event as question of the ghost. What is a ghost? What i s the effectivity or the presence of a specter, that i s , of what seems to remain as i n e f f e c t i v e , v i r t u a l , insubstantial as a simulacrum? Is there there, between the thing i t s e l f and i t s simulacrum, an opposition that holds up? Repetition and f i r s t time, but also r e p e t i t i o n and l a s t time, since the s i n g u l a r i t y of any first time makes of i t also a last time. Each time i t i s the event i t s e l f , a f i r s t time i s a l a s t time. Altogether other. Staging for the end of history. Let us c a l l i t a hauntology. This logic of haunting would not be merely larger and more powerful than an ontology or a thinking of Being (of the 'to be,' assuming that i t i s a matter of Being i n the 'to be or not to be,' but nothing i s less c e r t a i n ) . It would harbor within i t s e l f , but l i k e circumscribed places or p a r t i c u l a r [crypt] effects, eschatology and teleology themselves. It would comprehend them, but incomprehensibly. {Specters of Marx 10) 109 In a word, "hauntology" c a l l s a t t e n t i o n not only to Derrida's k i n s h i p w i t h the Gothic i n terms of i t s s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e , but a l s o to h i s concern to demonstrate the p e r f o r m a t i v i t y of the cr y p t i n terms of i t s staging ontology and eschatology as phantom e f f e c t s . The Logic of Haunting When Derrida says, i n "Fors," [t]he c r y p t keeps an undiscoverable place, w i t h reason,"(xii) i t i s the logic of haunting that becomes evident. This l o g i c of haunting i s that which produces "the Thing" as a k i n d of c o n t r a c t u a l e f f e c t p r e d i c a t e d upon "what i s engaged and bound" t r a n s g e n e r a t i o n a l l y . Although t h i s c o n t r a c t takes place i n secret, i t i s not only unconscious, but i s a l s o a c t i v e . In Specters of Marx, Derrida a l l u d e s to t h i s s p e c t r a l e f f e c t when he says that among a l l the temptations I w i l l have to r e s i s t ... there would be the temptation of memory: to recount what was f o r me, and f o r those of my generation, who shared i t during a whole l i f e t i m e , the experience of Marxism, the q u a s i - p a t e r n a l f i g u r e of Marx, the way i t fought in us w i t h other f i l i a t i o n s , the reading of t e x t s and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a world i n which M a r x i s t i n h e r i t a n c e was—and s t i l l remains, and so w i l l remain—absolutely and thoroughly determinate. One need not be a Ma r x i s t or a communist i n order to accept t h i s obvious f a c t . We a l l l i v e i n a world, some would say a c u l t u r e , that s t i l l bears, at an i n c a l c u l a b l e depth, the mark of t h i s i n h e r i t a n c e 1 1 0 whether i n a d i r e c t l y v i s i b l e fashion or not. (14) What Derrida i s describing here i s the condition of haunting i n terms of a "world" or a "culture" that "bears" the dead: "bears" i n the sense of "giving b i r t h to" and also of "conveyance," "sustainment" and "transport." This notion of an active contractual r e l a t i o n s h i p with the dead i s s i m i l a r l y referred to by Michel de Certeau when he asserts that [d]iscourse about the past has the status of being the discourse of the dead. The object c i r c u l a t i n g i n i t i s only the absent, while i t s meaning i s to be a language shared ... by l i v i n g beings. Whatever i s expressed engages a group's communication with i t s e l f through th i s reference to an absent, t h i r d party that constitutes i t s past. The dead are the objective figure of an exchange among the l i v i n g . (Michel de Certeau qtd in Schor 4) What i s t e l l i n g i n de Certeau's remarks i s the evocation of haunting and mourning i n terms which suggest that our relationship to the dead i s an economic one. In a recent work Esther Schor develops this notion i n her discussion of mourning within the s o c i a l and textual practice of the B r i t i s h Enlightenment., asserting that [t]he Enlightenment culture of mourning was instrumental i n mediating between received ideas of virtue, both c l a s s i c a l and Christian, and a burgeoning, property-based commercial society. In the f i r s t chapter of his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith designates an originary act of sympathy for the dead as the motivation for a l l I l l subsequent occasions of sympathy. The most urgent significance of this myth l i e s 'in Smith's economic metaphors for the re l a t i o n s between the l i v i n g and the dead. According to Smith, sympathetic 'tribute' 'paid' to the dead i s not given freel y ; rather i t i s an 'indebted' consideration for the moral value with which the dead endow the l i v i n g . Moreover, the d i f f u s i o n of sympathy from the grave outward i s characterized as a series of exchanges; sympathy i s extended to the mourner by a disinterested party i n exchange for a curbing of g r i e f . Smith's theory of mourning, both as a theory of God's displacement by the dead, and as an e t h i c a l framework for the d i s c i p l i n e of 'manner,' dramatizes the Enlightenment's translation of an ethic of v i r t u e into an ethics of value. F i n a n c i a l worth finds i t s moral c o r r e l a t i v e i n 'worthiness'; commodification i n 'dearness'; monetary expense, i n the a f f e c t i o n of 'loss.' The c i r c u l a t i o n of sympathy maps i n a moral realm the dynamic process of exchange, negotiation, c i r c u l a t i o n ; that i s , the mechanisms by which both value things and values themselves are d i s t r i b u t e d within a culture. (5) What Schor's remarks suggest i s the extent to which the logic of haunting i s predicated upon the economics of revenance. The "incalculable depth" of this economy cannot be underestimated since i t functions, c r y p t i c a l l y , to produce the experience of " i n t e r i o r i t y " and " e x t e r i o r i t y " as crypt effects of language returning to i t s e l f as the subject. This system of exchange i s suggested by Derrida's remark that "[t]he cryptophore engages i t s e l f towards the dead, grants the dead, as c o l l a t e r a l , a mortgage within i t s e l f , a pledge within the body..."("Fors" x x x v i i i , emphasis mine). 112 Stephen King's novel i l l u m i n a t e s the terms of the psychic economy to which Derrida r e f e r s . In t h i s context, the Creeds have indeed made that "pledge" by t a k i n g out a mortgage. But a mortgage r e q u i r e s c o l l a t e r a l , that which i s handed over as s e c u r i t y f o r f u l f i l l m e n t of a co n t r a c t or payment of a debt and i s l i a b l e to f o r f e i t u r e i n case of f a i l u r e to pay. This n o t i o n seems evident i n Stephen King's naming the son, Gage. In King's novel, i t i s the son who i s a mort/gage, l i t e r a l l y , a "dead pledge" that, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , returns from the grave to f u l f i l l a c o n t r a c t . A pledge, moreover, i s a l s o a promise and the novel does concern i t s e l f w i t h the uncanniness of what always, promises (to r e t u r n ) : i n p a r t i c u l a r , writing. Although i t i s not made e x p l i c i t i n King's t e x t , what returns (to oneself) would amount to an i n h e r i t a n c e — a l e g a c y — i t would l i v e on even beyond the grave from which i t continues to s t a t e i t s case. In a fort/da economy such as t h i s , one's ghost—what remains (of w r i t i n g ) a f t e r one's death—might be what l i v e s on. The economy of w r i t i n g that D e r r i d a c a l l s " e x p r o p r i a t i o n — t h e attempt to b r i n g back one's g h o s t l y i n h e r i t a n c e " — i s s t r a n g e l y reminiscent of the economy that King's novel proposes and m a t e r i a l i z e s . Consider Derrida's remarks i n "The Roundtable on T r a n s l a t i o n , " where he i s di s c u s s i n g h i s response to hearing himself quoted by another: 113 T h i s i s what goes on w i t h t e x t s . When I saw, f o r example, tha t i t was a p i e c e of " L i v i n g On" t h a t Donato was q u o t i n g , I was r e a d i n g i t through Donato ' s t e x t : i t was something v e r y s t r a n g e which r e t u r n e d u t t e r l y w i t h o u t me. I thought : T h a t ' s not bad , but i t ' s not the same. I t ' s never the same i n any case , and i t never r e t u r n s . T h i s i s b o t h a bad t h i n g and a good t h i n g . O b v i o u s l y , i f i t came back , t h a t would a l s o be t e r r i b l e . One wants i t to r e t u r n e x a c t l y l i k e i t i s , but then one a l s o knows v e r y w e l l tha t i f i t d i d come back e x a c t l y l i k e i t i s , one would have o n l y one w i sh and t h a t i s to r u n away. (158-159) A l t h o u g h f a m i l i a r , i t i s never the same i n any case , and because o f t h a t i t never r e t u r n s except as d i f f e r e n c e . D e r r i d a ' s remarks about w r i t i n g i n t e r s e c t w i t h K i n g ' s n o v e l a t the p o i n t of no r e t u r n . Both p o s i t t h a t a r e t u r n , i n D e r r i d a ' s words, "would . . . be t e r r i b l e " since—and I t h i n k the h o r r o r genre bears t h i s out—"if i t d i d come back e x a c t l y l i k e i t i s , one would have o n l y one w i sh and t h a t i s to r u n away." F o r D e r r i d a , the r e t u r n of the same, a l t h o u g h i t would be i m p o s s i b l e would, i f i t c o u l d o c c u r , be t e r r i b l e , f o r i t would h e r a l d a movement so uncanny as to be u n b e a r a b l e . As i t i s , what does r e t u r n i s u n d e n i a b l y uncanny, anyway. The p o i n t a t which D e r r i d a and K i n g in tersec t—and which the G o t h i c has c o n s i s t e n t l y t u r n e d upon— can be h e a r d i n D e r r i d a ' s remark on h e a r i n g h i s t e x t c i t e d , i n t h a t n e v e r t h e l e s s , " i t [ l i k e R a c h e l Creed?] was something very strange which r e t u r n e d utterly without me." 114 "We Have Put Her Living in the Tomb": An Aesthetics of Revenance Since i t appears to harbour a c o n t r a d i c t i o n , l e t us, momentarily, dwell upon Derrida's use of the word "without," f o r i t acts as a c r y p t i c marker d i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n to an aspect of cryptomimesis that I would l i k e to c a l l the uncanny a e s t h e t i c s of revenance. Let us f i r s t approach t h i s i ssue by way of r e c a l l i n g the anguished c r i e s of Poe's Roderick Usher, w i t h which I opened t h i s work: "We have put her living in the tombl ... I ... t e l l you that I heard her f i r s t feeble movements i n the hollow c o f f i n . I heard them— many, many days ago ...! I tell you that she now stands without the door." While the word "without" denotes an absence or a lac k (of a door?), i t a l s o f u n c t i o n s as a s p a t i a l determinant i n d i c a t i n g where "she"—Madeline Usher-stands having returned from the crypt and, thereby, r e s i s t e d untimely b u r i a l . We are given to understand that a b a r r i e r -namely, a do o r — e x i s t s necessarily between Roderick Usher and hi s s i s t e r , Madeline, f o r when the doors are f i n a l l y breached, and Madeline Usher crosses the thre s h o l d , Roderick j o i n s h i s s i s t e r i n death: [a]s i f i n the superhuman energy of h i s utterance there had been found the potency of a s p e l l — t h e huge antique panels to which the speaker pointed, threw slowly back, upon the i n s t a n t , t h e i r ponderous and ebony jaws. I t was the work of the rushing gust—but then without those doors there did stand the l o f t y and enshrouded f i g u r e of the Lady Madeline of Usher. There was blood upon her 115 whi te robes , and the ev idence o f some b i t t e r s t r u g g l e upon e v e r y p o r t i o n o f her emaciated frame. F o r a moment she remained , t r e m b l i n g and r e e l i n g to and f r o upon the threshold—then, w i t h a low moaning c r y , f e l l h e a v i l y inward upon the p e r s o n of her b r o t h e r , and i n h e r h o r r i b l e and now f i n a l d e a t h - a g o n i e s bore him to the f l o o r a c o r p s e , and a v i c t i m to the t e r r o r s he had d r e a d e d . ("The F a l l o f the House of Usher" 5 4 7 ) Having b u r s t from the c o p p e r - l i n e d v a u l t , Made l ine Usher i s a l i v i n g - d e a d who r e t u r n s to s e t t l e a c e r t a i n - account w i t h her t w i n : a debt upon which we can o n l y s p e c u l a t e s i n c e i t remains to be seen. What has happened? Abraham and T o r o k ' s a n a l y s i s o f the Wolf Man suggests a c u r i o u s p a r a l l e l between M a d e l i n e U s h e r ' s in terment by her twin b r o t h e r and the f a n t a s y o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n . In f a c t , Abraham and T o r o k ' s remarks r e g a r d i n g the Wolf Man's " i n c o r p o r a t i o n " of h i s s i s t e r seem i n d e b t e d to Poe ' s s t o r y of the i l l - f a t e d twins i n terms of "speaking" the Wolf Man's u n c o n s c i o u s : " [ s ]uch an i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the s i s t e r i s . . . unders tood as the o n l y p o s s i b l e means o f combining w i t h i n her two i n c o m p a t i b l e r o l e s : t h a t o f Ego I d e a l and t h a t o f Love O b j e c t . I t was the o n l y means o f l o v i n g her i n o r d e r not to a n n i h i l a t e h e r , and of a n n i h i l a t i n g her i n o r d e r not to l o v e her."(WMMW 4 ) When h i s w i f e ended her l i f e , the Wolf Man u l t i m a t e l y s u f f e r e d what Abraham and Torok r e f e r to as an a t t a c k of "depres s ive a g i t a t i o n worse than any he had ever e x p e r i e n c e d , " ( 7 ) a d i a g n o s i s which seems to a c c o r d w i t h R o d e r i c k U s h e r ' s a g i t a t i o n f o l l o w i n g h i s s i s t e r ' s i n t e r m e n t . 116 A c c o r d i n g to Abraham and T o r o k , i t was t h i s i l l n e s s — a n " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the mourning of an i n t e r n a l Father"(7) for the s i s t e r as a l o v e object—that p r o t e c t e d the Wolf Man from the "grave danger" of "making a l i n k between h i s e r o t i c d e s i r e f o r h i s s i s t e r and her s u i c i d e " ( 7 ) . A l t h o u g h i n Poe 's s t o r y M a d e l i n e Usher does not commit s u i c i d e , the account of her entombment and her r e t u r n from the c o p p e r - l i n e d v a u l t draw a t t e n t i o n to the "grave dangers" t h a t the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i m p l i e s and t h a t cryptomimes i s draws upon to g i v e "voice" to what D e r r i d a c a l l s the " l i v i n g f e m i n i n e , " of which he t e l l i n g l y remarks "[o]ne b u r i e s o r burns what i s a l r e a d y dead so tha t l i f e , the l i v i n g f e m i n i n e , w i l l be r e b o r n and r e g e n e r a t e d from these a s h e s " ( " O t o b i o g r a p h i e s " 26) . I f we r e c a l l t h a t the f u n c t i o n o f a c r y p t i s , i n D e r r i d a ' s words, "to save [a] l i v i n g death" through p r e s e r v a t i o n , we can r e a d the correspondence between the f a n t a s y o f incorporat ion—which cryptomimes i s mimes—and Poe's s t o r y , "The F a l l of the House of U s h e r , " which cryptomimes i s i n c o r p o r a t e s . What i s c e n t r a l to t h i s c l a i m i s the n o t i o n t h a t the r e p r e s s i o n w i t h which each (cryptomimes i s and i n c o r p o r a t i o n ) i s concerned i s not c o n f i n e d "to images, thoughts , and f a n t a s i e s but above a l l a c t s on words themselves" (Rand, " I n t r o d u c t i o n " The Shell and the Kernel 18) . In the case of the Wolf Man, f o r example, i t i s the 117 word tieret that f u n c t i o n s , a l b e i t not e x c l u s i v e l y , as the magic word that, says Gregory Ulmer, " c a r r i e s w i t h i t the e f f e c t of a proper name"(Applied Grammatology 62). Ulmer p o i n t s out that f o r the Wolf Man, other words—goul f ik , (the f l y of h i s f a t h e r ' s trousers) and vidietz (a witness, a l l u d i n g to the glimpse of the pri m a l scene)—are a l s o p a r t of the name. The name i s magic [says Ulmer] because i t has only to be u t t e r e d f o r the bearer to o b t a i n 'actual or sublimated sexual s a t i s f a c t i o n ' ( t h e name as symptom). (62) To understand what i s at stake i n the Wolf Man's cryptonymy i s to i l l u m i n a t e the mechanism of cryptomimesis. Ulmer has argued that the Wolf Man's cryptonymy d i d not operate by the usual procedures of representation—the symbolizing or h i d i n g of one word behind another, or one t h i n g by a word or a word by a t h i n g . Rather, [the Wolf Man's} names were generated by p i c k i n g out from the extended s e r i e s of vallosemes'—the catalogue of uses a v a i l a b l e f o r a given word—a p a r t i c u l a r usage, which i s then t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a synonym ( c r e a t i n g thus even greater distance from the se c r e t name). The path from crypt to speech may f o l l o w e i t h e r semantic or phonic paths, w i t h the p l a y between homonyms and synonyms being p a r t of the mechanism. Thus, the allosemes of Tieret, f o r example to rub, to g r i n d , to wound, to p o l i s h — p r o v i d e a range of a s s o c i a t i o n s and d i s s o c i a t i o n s among the semantic f i e l d s r e l a t e d to rubbing and/or wounding-scrubbing that provide the Wolf Man w i t h h i s vocabulary. (62-63) Derrida's remarks on the Wolf Man's Verbarium confirm that the l i n k i n g of the u t t e r e d word to the se c r e t name i s a 118 " l a b y r i n t h " compri sed of "non-semantic a s s o c i a t i o n s , p u r e l y p h o n e t i c combinat ions": The Wolf Man's Magic Word shows how a s i g n , h a v i n g become a r b i t r a r y , can r e m o t i v a t e i t s e l f . And i n t o what l a b y r i n t h , what m u l t i p l i c i t y of heterogeneous p l a c e s , one must e n t e r i n o r d e r to t r a c k down c r y p t i c m o t i v a t i o n , f o r example i n the case o f TR, when i t i s marked by a proper-name e f f e c t (here, Tieret) and when, c o n s e q u e n t l y , i t no l o n g e r be longs s i m p l y to the i n t e r n a l system of language . Such m o t i v a t i o n does n e v e r t h e l e s s f u n c t i o n w i t h i n the system and no l i n g u i s t i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s can deny i t . F o r example, when Turok (Turk, the T u r k i s h f l a g i n the dream of the moon w i t h a s t a r ) says (?) , means (? ) , t r a n s l a t e s (? ) , or i n any case a l s o i m i t a t e s , induces the w o r d - t h i n g Tieret. ("Fors" x l v i i ) That D e r r i d a has taken on the t a s k of l a y i n g down such a m o t i v a t e d l a b y r i n t h i s remarked by Ulmer who p o i n t s out t h a t "[t ]he TR of the Verbarium accounts f o r the GL of Glas"{Applied Grammatology 63) . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n draws our a t t e n t i o n to a w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e p r e d i c a t e d upon the b r e a k - u p of words and the d e c o m p o s i t i o n o f the p r o p e r name which Ulmer suggests i s "the key to the p r o d u c t i o n of the t e x t " ( 6 3 ) . Ulmer a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n to D e r r i d a ' s n o t i o n of the p r o p e r name as the "permeable membrane, (the tympan, the hymen, a l l o w i n g c o n t a m i n a t i o n between the i n s i d e and o u t s i d e ) " ( 6 3 ) . The n o t i o n l i n k i n g the hymen (and the tympan) to the p r o p e r name i s c e n t r a l to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , i n terms of c r y p t o m i m e s i s , between Poe's work and D e r r i d a ' s . 119 F i r s t l y , Poe 's p r o p e r name gets countersigned as a mat ter of course i n D e r r i d a ' s work, the c o u n t e r s i g n a t u r e a p p e a r i n g c o n s i s t e n t l y through D e r r i d a ' s e v o c a t i o n o f the uncanny i n t e r s e c t i o n s between a r c h i t e c t u r e and mourning , and between the f a m i l y and the tomb. S i m i l a r l y , "Fors" "Cartouches" and Glas are concerned w i t h the c o m p l i c a t i o n s o f g h o s t l y r e t u r n s and unheimlich c o n d i t i o n s , concerns t h a t are a l s o sugges ted by Mark W i g l e y who argues t h a t the "ongoing subtext" of Glas i s "the oikos as ' tomb"(174) . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n j u s t as w e l l d e s c r i b e s "The F a l l of the House o f Usher" i n which the f i g u r e s of the house and the f a m i l y are i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the tomb as t h e i r ( l i v i n g - d e a d ) c e n t e r . Even though the "subjects" of Glas a re Hege l and Genet , i n a c e r t a i n way, Poe 's "work" i s heard as a k i n d of " r e f r a i n - e f f e c t " i n D e r r i d a ' s . 3 3 I t m a n i f e s t s i n a way t h a t r e c a l l s the d o u b l i n g s i n Poe's t e x t where the d i s t i n c t i o n s s l i p between the i n t e r i o r of the Usher house and i t s e x t e r i o r , and R o d e r i c k U s h e r ' s " b a l l a d , " "The Haunted Pa lace" reproduces the events which end i n the c o l l a p s e of the house and the death of the i l l - f a t e d t w i n s . What haunts D e r r i d a ' s work i s the f i g u r e of the ( f i s s u r e d ) house, a t the h e a r t o f which i s a c r y p t , the i n h a b i t a n t of which i s the h a r b i n g e r of the uncanny. As Mark W i g l e y p o i n t s out , "[a] r h e t o r i c of the house can be found throughout D e r r i d a ' s t e x t s . . . " ( 1 0 8 ) . R e s o n a t i n g as a k i n d of "subtext," the rhetoric of the house demonstrates not only that "[t]he house's a b i l i t y to domesticate i s i t s capacity to define inside and outside" but also that the s t r u c t u r a l slippage from heimlich to unheimlich [comes about because] that which supposedly l i e s outside the f a m i l i a r comfort of the home turns out to be inhabiting i t a l l along, surfacing only [as i n the case of Madeline Usher] i n a return of the repressed as a foreign element that strangely seems to belong i n the very domain that renders i t strange. (10 8) Derrida's work i s indeed "rendered strange" and not only because i t resonates with his rereadings of Freud's essay "The Uncanny," but also because i t draws upon what has been inhabiting i t a l l along as a foreign element: the crypt e f f e c t of Poe's name, among others. To this end, the name "Poe" appears to have been "decomposed" i n Derrida's work into "peau," skin, hide, peel, also avoir dans la peau—to be head over heels i n love; faire peau neuve, to cast i t s skin, turn over a new leaf. What i s i t about Derrida and Peau? Here i s one place where hidden i n "Poe" i s Derrida's "hide"; i n other words, where he saves his own skin, so to speak: "If I write two texts at once, you will not be able to castrate me"(Speech and Phenomena 81 emphasis mine) In Glas there i s a judas and through i t Genet's tattoos and the parchment of the Torah have something i n common: Our-Lady-of-the-Flowers w i l l have prescribed the glas form: "The great nocturnal occupation, 121 admirably suited for enchanting the darkness, i s tattooing. Thousands and thousand of l i t t l e jabs [coups] with a fine needle prick the skin and draw blood, and figures that you would read as most extravagant are flaunted i n the most unexpected places. When the rabbi slowly unrolls the Torah, a mystery sends a shudder through the whole epidermis, as when one see a colonist undressing. The grimacing of a l l that blue on white skin .... (240rc) And might we say that the tissue i n question—as well as what remains of the proper name "Poe"—is also that which l i e s between "Derrida" and "Poe," a permeable membrane allowing contamination between an inside and an outside; i n Derrida's terms, a hymen. In Applied Grammatology, Gregory Ulmer says that Derrida finds Ponge's signature e s p e c i a l l y i n s t r u c t i v e , since Ponge takes the side of the proper i n order, l i k e Genet, to appropriate objects (116). Ulmer points out that, "[w]hat disgusts Ponge [according to Derrida] i s not 'the d i r t y ' but 'the s o i l e d , ' the proper which has been affected, which usually happens (in his poems) 'by l i q u e f i e d means' (the l i q u i d 'L' of Glas) which must be absorbed or sponged up with linen or tissue, termed a 'mass of ignoble tissues'"("Signeponge" qtd i n Applied Grammatology 115) Thus, Poe/peau: tissue from OF tissu, r i c h material: connective, muscular, nervous, adipose, mass of c e l l s , interwoven series, set, c o l l e c t i o n . Given that "the signature of the proper name can also play the r o l e of a 122 cache (sheath or f l e e c e ) to c o n c e a l ano ther s i g n a t u r e " • ("Crochets" q t d i n Applied Grammatology 132) i t i s , as Gregory Ulmer sugges ts , "never f i n a l l y p o s s i b l e to d e c i d e who or what s i g n s " ( 1 3 2 ) . Taken i n t h i s c o n t e x t , Peggy Kamuf's remark—"[t]he hymen i s between—them"(Introduction The Derrida Reader xxxvix)—suggests the u n d e c i d a b i l i t y t h a t e n f o l d s one i n the other—Derrida/Poe—in c e r t a i n q u a s i -a r c h i t e c t u r a l scenes as w e l l as the sense of how the images of a t e x t are p r e d i c a t e d upon the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of the p r o p e r name: The phrase r e t a i n s b o t h of the word' s most common senses , tha t i s the hymen as b o t h the v e i l - l i k e t i s s u e a c r o s s the v a g i n a t h a t remains i n t a c t as l o n g as v i r g i n i t y does , and, i n a somewhat a r c h a i c but s t i l l comprehens ib le sense ( i n E n g l i s h as w e l l as F r e n c h ) , hymen as the u n i o n o r m a r r i a g e which i s consummated by the a c t t h a t r u p t u r e s i t ( i . e . , the hymen i n the f i r s t s e n s e ) . In o t h e r words, i t i s between them, t h a t i s , i t d i v i d e s them, marks t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e as a s e x u a l d i f f e r e n c e of i n s i d e from o u t s i d e ; and i t i s between them, tha t i s , i t j o i n s them or u n i t e s them i n a s y m b o l i c u n i o n . . . . [T]he p a r t i t i o n of the hymen p a r t i t i o n s i t s e l f , d e p a r t s from i t s e l f and from any p r o p e r meaning. I t does so by a r t i c u l a t i n g the two senses of a r t i c u l a t i o n : d i v i d i n g - j o i n i n g , by e n f o l d i n g the one i n the o t h e r u n d e c i d a b l y . Is n o t , t h e r e f o r e , the hymen a more g e n e r a l name f o r a l l these j e a l o u s p a r t i t i o n i n g s ? (xxxvix) Here the word "hymen" draws a t t e n t i o n to i t s e l f as a p a r t i t i o n i n g d e v i c e t h a t , l i k e the c r y p t , i s a simulacrum p r o d u c i n g the e f f e c t of an i n t e r i o r — s a y t h a t o f a "text"— that i s a c c e s s i b l e o n l y through a c e r t a i n k i n d o f v i o l e n c e 123 t h a t has already produced the p o s s i b i l i t y of an " i n t e r i o r " i n the f i r s t p l a c e . I t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e a d i n g as w e l l as w r i t i n g are sugges ted by H e i d e g g e r ' s remarks when r e a d i n g Kant : " C e r t a i n l y , i n o r d e r to w r i n g from what the words say, what i t i s t h a t they want to say, e v e r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must n e c e s s a r i l y use v i o l e n c e " (Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics 138) . In a s i m i l a r v e i n , He idegger a l s o a s s e r t s i n An Introduction to Metaphysics, " [ t ]he a c t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must show what does not s t a n d i n the words and i s n e v e r t h e l e s s s a i d . To a c c o m p l i s h t h i s the exegete must use v i o l e n c e " ( 1 6 2 ) . D e r r i d a , l i k e H e i d e g g e r , unders tands the n o t i o n t h a t v i o l e n c e i s n e c e s s a r y i n terms of r e a d i n g (and w r i t i n g [the c r y p t ] ) . L e t ' s c a l l such r e a d i n g c r y p t - a n a l y s i s , s i n c e , as D e r r i d a says , i t r e q u i r e s procedures t h a t are f a r from those o f c l a s s i c a l p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , which r e l i e s on a form of hermeneut ic s vis a vis the metaphor of the "unconsc ious ." In c r y p t - a n a l y s i s , the "crypt" c o u l d not be r e a d e i t h e r l i t e r a l l y or as a metaphor because i t i s the c o n d i t i o n o f r e a d i n g , i t s e l f . In these terms, c r y p t - a n a l y s i s a v o i d s t u r n i n g a t e x t i n t o what Abraham r e f e r s to as a "cata logue of h i e r o g l y p h i c s " 3 4 i n which one system of symbols i s mere ly c o n v e r t e d to a n o t h e r . Rather than b e i n g r e s t o r a t i v e , c r y p t - a n a l y s i s i s p r o d u c t i v e , which i s why D e r r i d a i n s i s t s t h a t the c r y p t i s always a l r e a d y "built by v i o l e n c e " ( x v ) : 124 To t r a c k down the p a t h to the tomb, then to v i o l a t e a s e p u l c h e r : t h i s i s what the a n a l y s i s o f a c r y p t i c i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s l i k e . The i d e a o f v i o l a t i o n [viol] might imply some k i n d of t r a n s g r e s s i o n o f a r i g h t , the f o r c e d e n t r y o f a p e n e t r a t i n g , d i g g i n g , f o r c e , but the v i o l a t e d s e p u l c h e r itself was never ' l e g a l . ' I t i s the v e r y tombstone o f the i l l i c i t , and marks the spot of an extreme p l e a s u r e [jouissance], a p l e a s u r e e n t i r e l y real though w a l l e d up, b u r i e d a l i v e i n i t s own p r o h i b i t i o n . (Kamuf xxx iv ) The i d e a of v i o l a t i o n i s a t the h e a r t of the House of U s h e r . A l s o , a t the h e a r t of t h a t house l i e s a h o l l o w tomb t h a t i n s i l e n c e demonstrates what i s a t s take i n D e r r i d a ' s remarks . The c r y p t i n q u e s t i o n evokes the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n r a t h e r than i n t r o j e c t i o n f o r a number of r e a s o n s , not the l e a s t of which i s t h a t i t h o l d s a l i v i n g - d e a d . I t has a l s o been " b u i l t by v i o l e n c e . " We are t o l d t h a t i n "remote f e u d a l t imes" i t had been used " for the worst purposes o f a d o n j o n -keep, " (Poe 542) a j u d i c i a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t F o u c a u l t might w e l l d e s c r i b e as an " a r c h i t e c t u r a l a p p a r a t u s " ( " P a n o p t i c i s m " 201) tha t produces the p r i s o n e r (or " s u b j e c t , " f o r t h a t matter) as an e f f e c t of the mechanisms of d i s c i p l i n a r y power. Because the c r y p t was used p r e v i o u s l y as a dungeon, we are a l e r t e d to the f a c t t h a t those who were h e l d p r i s o n e r were thus s u b j e c t to c e r t a i n p u n i t i v e mechanisms e x e r t e d on the body. The n a r r a t o r ' s ment ion tha t the f a m i l y "vau l t" had a l s o been used as "a p l a c e of d e p o s i t f o r powder, or o t h e r 125 h i g h l y c o m b u s t i b l e s u b s t a n c e . . . " ( P o e 542), suggests how (the f a n t a s y of) the "crypt" f u n c t i o n s to house o r to lodge c e r t a i n volatile m a t e r i a l s t h a t , i n the r e a l m of d e s i r e might be m a i n t a i n e d w h i l e under i n t e r d i c t i o n . Thus , to r e c a l l D e r r i d a ' s remarks above, we can a p p r e c i a t e how the c r y p t f u n c t i o n s to keep sa fe "an extreme p l e a s u r e [jouissance], a p l e a s u r e e n t i r e l y real though w a l l e d up, b u r i e d a l i v e [ l i k e M a d e l i n e Usher] i n i t s own p r o h i b i t i o n . " Poe ' s s t o r y reminds us t h a t what i s " b u r i e d a l i v e " must indeed be " i l l i c i t " f o r even though R o d e r i c k Usher knows t h a t h i s s i s t e r has been entombed—he has h e a r d f o r "many minutes , many h o u r s , many days" her "feeb le movements i n the h o l l o w coffin"—he says , "I dared not speakl"(547) Presumably , U s h e r ' s r e t i c e n c e to a c t upon the knowledge of h i s s i s t e r ' s l i v e b u r i a l i s due to h i s h o r r o r a t a m i s t a k e . However, a c l o s e r l o o k a t the b a l l a d o f "The Haunted Palace" suggests t h a t there i s more at s take than a t e r r i b l e e r r o r i n judgment. And w h i l e we d i s c o v e r how the " i l l i c i t " f i n d s i t s way i n t o Poe's s t o r y , we u n d e r s t a n d i t s e n t r y i n t o D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g through s i m i l a r means of "entombment." Peristalsis: A Love Story I t i s important to r e c a l l t h a t the b a l l a d — d e s c r i b e d by the n a r r a t o r as a "rhymed v e r b a l improvisation"—was written 126 by R o d e r i c k Usher who r e c i t e s i t w h i l e p l a y i n g a g u i t a r . I f we r e c a l l t h a t the events i n "The Haunted Pa lace" reproduce and f o r e t e l l the events which end i n the c o l l a p s e of the house of Usher and the deaths of R o d e r i c k and M a d e l i n e , we r e a l i z e t h a t the b a l l a d g i v e s us access to a c o r r i d o r o f i n q u i r y not p r e v i o u s l y a c c e s s i b l e i n our c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the s p a t i a l de terminants of the r h e t o r i c o f the house . Namely, the rhythmic or s e m i o t i c components o f language , which are reduced to the f u n c t i o n o f " n a m i n g - p r e d i c a t i n g " i n the p r o s e , are r e - a c t i v a t e d i n the b a l l a d , thus b r i n g i n g us i n t o p r o x i m i t y w i t h the a f f e c t i v e f o r c e s t h a t a r e s u b o r d i n a t e d i n the s y m b o l i c . In a work p u b l i s h e d posthumously , N i c o l a s Abraham suggests t h a t the s tudy of rhythm g i v e s us to u n d e r s t a n d " c e r t a i n a spec t s o f the poem's g e n e r a l a f f e c t i v e movement . . ."(Rhythms 126). (This " a f f e c t i v e movement" appears analogous to what K r i s t e v a c a l l s s e m i o t i c a c t i v i t y i n p o e t i c language . ) In U s h e r ' s b a l l a d , r a t h e r than i n the s t o r y , we become aware of the d i f f e r e n c e between the n a r r a t e d event and the " a f f e c t i v e movements" o r r h y t h m i c i n s t a n c e s : In the greenes t of our v a l l e y s By good ange l s t enanted Once a f a i r and s t a t e l y palace— Snow-White Palace—reared i t s head . In the monarch T h o u g h t ' s d o m i n i o n -I t s tood t h e r e ! Never seraph s p r e a d h i s p i n i o n Over f a b r i c h a l f so f a i r ! (539) In t h i s f i r s t s t a n z a , f o r example, the beat i s thrown o f f s l i g h t l y i n the f o u r t h l i n e w i t h the phrase "Snow-White Pa lace" and, l i k e w i s e , by the r e p e t i t i o n of the word "palace" which seems, a t f i r s t , to f u n c t i o n as i n t e r n a l rhyme but i n s t e a d s e t s up a note of d i s c o r d . I t s immediate e f f e c t i s to j o l t us out o f a k i n d of r e v e r i e , such as the narrator has fallen into, i n which he f i n d s i t d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h waking from dreaming . But there i s more to i t than t h a t . In d e r a i l i n g or s u p p r e s s i n g the expec ted rhyme, the l i n e suggests t h a t w h i l e I was f o l l o w i n g the n a r r a t o r ' s l e a d , something might have s l i p p e d by me, j o l t i n g me awake f o r a moment. However, we are drawn back i n t o a f a m i l i a r rhythm i n the next l ine—"In the monarch Thought ' s dominion"—but are j o l t e d once again—only h a r d e r t h i s time—by the emphat ic , "It s tood t h e r e ! " L i k e Poe ' s poem, "The Raven ," the b a l l a d o f the haunted p a l a c e seems, a t f i r s t , to induce d r o w s i n e s s , and the rhythm to p r o m i s e , as Abraham notes of the o t h e r poem, "that t h i s g e n t l e r o c k i n g w i l l l a n d us sa f e and sound"(Rhythms 126). But t h i s i s not to be . The b a l l a d i n s t e a d dramat i ze s a double b i n d . I t encourages our a t tempts 128 to f a l l i n t o r e v e r i e and i t demands t h a t we awaken w i t h a s t a r t . What i s the t h i n g t h a t awakens? In t h e i r a n a l y s i s of the Wolf Man's n ightmare of the wolves , Abraham and T o r o k p o i n t out t h a t i t i s the Wolf Man's " c r y i n g out" i n f e a r o f b e i n g eaten t h a t awakens h im. They ask , "[h]ow can he s l e e p w i t h a ' c r y ' i n s i d e ? " ( 4 0 ) . Do they mean a c r y / p t ? These and Abraham's comments on "The Raven" suggest a c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n s h i p between the r h y t h m i c e f f e c t s of t h a t poem and the "The Haunted Pa lace" and draw a t t e n t i o n to the correspondence between Poe's s t o r y and the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n : [T]he d i s c o r d between meaning and rhythm i s ' p r e c i s e l y what i s so e m i n e n t l y exemplary . Of what? Of the f a c t t h a t the r e a l i t y b r e a k i n g i n upon the dream i s not an e x t e r n a l event but a h a r r o w i n g wish whose s p e c t e r reaches c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n the form of h a l l u c i n a t o r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . The exemplary c r e a t i o n . . . r e s i d e s i n the f a c t t h a t one and the same rhythm u n d e r l i e s b o t h the a b r u p t r i s e o f a n x i e t y and the i n c r e a s i n g l y tense r e f u s a l to submit to i t . In the s t o r y [of "The Raven"] an attempt i s made to r e a s s u r e o n e s e l f ; i n the rhythm, mounting a n x i e t y . A l l the rhythm says i s : a t r o u b l i n g o b s t a c l e i s u n s e t t l i n g s l e e p . {Rhythms 126) . I n t e r r u p t i o n s i n the rhythm of the b a l l a d s t r o n g l y suggest the presence of a " t r o u b l i n g o b s t a c l e " t h a t , l i k e the Wolf Man's c r y i n g out , i s " u n s e t t l i n g s l e e p . " Whi l e the b a l l a d draws a t t e n t i o n to the way t h a t t r o u b l i n g o b s t a c l e s m a n i f e s t themselves a r r h y t h m i c a l l y , i t a l s o suggests t h a t a t tempts to r e p r e s s the d i s c o r d come about i n the form of a "harrowing wish" to "reassure o n e s e l f . " T h i s a f f e c t i v e movement mimes the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n . By i d e n t i f y i n g t h i s movement as " p e r i s t a l s i s , " Abraham draws a t t e n t i o n to the d i g e s t i v e l i n k between i n c o r p o r a t i o n and the r e f u s a l to mourn. A c c o r d i n g to Abraham, the rhythm of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s analogous to p e r i s t a l t i c movement: "a maximum opening a t f i r s t , then i t s r e p e t i t i o n , and, once the p r e y i s i n g e s t e d , a g r a d u a l c o n t r a c t i o n to push i t f u r t h e r inward , then , f i n a l l y a d e f i n i t i v e c l o s u r e . . . " ( 1 2 8 ) . T h i s n o t i o n a l s o suggests what i s i m p l i e d i n D e r r i d a ' s c o n c e r n w i t h the "read ing e f f e c t " of h i s w r i t i n g which Mark W i g l e y has observed i s " i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the s p a c i n g of r h y t h m . . . " ( 1 7 5 ) . Whi l e Poe 's b a l l a d draws a t t e n t i o n to the " p e r i s t a l t i c a c t i o n " a t work i n the "house" of Usher , i t a l s o g i v e s us to u n d e r s t a n d how D e r r i d a ' s concern w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g and the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s l a i d out i n terms of indigestion and vomiting (to the i n s i d e ) . In Poe 's b a l l a d , d i s t u r b a n c e s i n rhythm enact the "entombment" of the " o l d - t i m e , " an i n c o r p o r a t i v e a c t which g i v e s r i s e to the s p e c t r a l r e t u r n of "Vast forms t h a t move f a n t a s t i c a l l y / T o a discordant melody" (540) . In D e r r i d a ' s case , "the d i s c o r d a n t melody" a l s o takes p e r i s t a l t i c form: When I say t h a t Glas i s a l s o work ing on the ' r e a d i n g e f f e c t , ' what I mean i n p a r t i c u l a r i s t h a t i t has as one of i t s p r i n c i p l e themes 130 r e c e p t i o n ( a s s i m i l a t i o n , d i g e s t i o n , a b s o r p t i o n , i n t r o j e c t i o n , incorporation) or n o n - r e c e p t i o n ( e x c l u s i o n , f o r e c l o s u r e , r e j e c t i o n and once a g a i n , but t h i s t ime as i n t e r n a l e x p u l s i o n , incorporation), thus the theme of i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l v o m i t i n g , o f mourning-work and e v e r y t h i n g t h a t ge ts around to or comes to throwing up. But Glas does not o n l y t r e a t these themes; i n a c e r t a i n way, i t o f f e r s i t s e l f up to a l l these o p e r a t i o n s . ("Ja, ou l e f a u x - f a u x bond" t r a n s . / q t d W i g l e y 174). So, a t e x t l i k e Glas not o n l y takes i n c o r p o r a t i o n as i t s "theme" but i t a l s o does what i t s a y s : i t per forms the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t Poe 's s t o r y a l s o a c c o m p l i s h e s . To a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , the i n t e r s e c t i o n of the two—"Poe" and "Derrida"—might be thought of as "The F a l l of the Glas House of U s h e r . " Such a t i t l e draws a t t e n t i o n to the s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t , p r o d u c i n g an architecture of mourning, s t r u c t u r e s not o n l y the "text" but a l s o the " s u b j e c t . " We can g l e a n t h i s n o t i o n from D e r r i d a ' s remark t h a t [The c r y p t ] can o n l y take on meaning i n r e l a t i o n to a place. By p l a c e , I mean j u s t as much the r e l a t i o n to a b o r d e r , c o u n t r y , house, or t h r e s h o l d , as any s i t e , any situation i n g e n e r a l from w i t h i n which , p r a c t i c a l l y , p r a g m a t i c a l l y , a l l i a n c e s are formed, c o n t r a c t s , codes and convent ions e s t a b l i s h e d which g i v e meaning to the i n s i g n i f i c a n t , i n s t i t u t e passwords , bend language to t h a t which exceeds i t , make o f i t a moment o f g e s t u r e and of s t ep , s e c o n d a r i z e o r ' r e j e c t ' i t i n o r d e r to f i n d i t a g a i n . ("Shibbo le th" 409) 131 The q u e s t i o n t h a t D e r r i d a poses i n "Fors" suggests what i s s i g n i f i c a n t about a w r i t i n g t h a t has an e s s e n t i a l " r e l a t i o n " to a c r y p t and i s , moreover , c r y p t i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d : [w]hat i s c a l l e d T h i n k i n g ? [ say ing that ] . . . the T h i n g i s to be thought out starting from the C r y p t , the T h i n g as a " c r y p t e f f e c t ; " a k i n d of " f a l s e u n c o n s c i o u s , " an " a r t i f i c i a l " unconsc ious lodged l i k e a p r o s t h e s i s , a g r a f t i n the h e a r t o f an organ , w i t h i n the divided self. A v e r y s p e c i f i c and p e c u l i a r p l a c e , h i g h l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d , to which access can n e v e r t h e l e s s o n l y be g a i n e d by f o l l o w i n g the r o u t e s o f a d i f f e r e n t topography . ("Fors" x i i i ) In t h i s passage we can see not o n l y D e r r i d a ' s debt to Abraham and Torok but a l s o to Poe i n t h a t cryptomimes i s mimes the u n d e c i d a b i l i t y o f the s t r u c t u r i n g p r o c e s s of the "The F a l l of the House o f U s h e r . " Poe, l i k e D e r r i d a , i s concerned w i t h " t r a c i n g " a c e r t a i n c r y p t i c " a r c h i t e c t u r e " of mourning . W i t h Poe 's t e x t , as w i t h D e r r i d a ' s , we f e e l t h a t what i s a t work i s a k i n d o f f raming d e v i c e , the net e f f e c t of which i s the p r o d u c t i o n o f an uncanny space , or what might be c a l l e d an ' a r t i f i c i a l ' u n c o n s c i o u s . Such an uncanny space evokes the f a n t a s y o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n which the c r y p t "always marks an e f f e c t o f i m p o s s i b l e or r e f u s e d mourning (melancholy o r morn ing )" ("Fors" x x i emphasis m i n e ) . F o r D e r r i d a , t h i s "marking" amounts to w r i t i n g on "The F a l l of the House of U s h e r . " In g e n e r a l , t h i s p r a c t i c e amounts to d i s r u p t i o n s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n and maintenance of i n t e r i o r space which take p l a c e t h rou gh the v i o l e n c e o f e x c l u s i o n and 132 r e p r e s s i o n . I t a l s o draws upon whatever t h r e a t e n s the b o r d e r s of t h a t space . In Poe's s t o r y , s h i f t i n g movements of f raming and r e f e r e n t i a l i t y — i n c l u d i n g the c o n / f u s i o n between the Usher family and the (proper name of the) f a m i l y m a n s i o n -c o n t r i b u t e to a k i n d of d i s t u r b a n c e of what D e r r i d a would c a l l "the ' n o r m a l ' system of r e f e r e n c e " ( " B e f o r e the Law" 213), t h a t i s , t r a d i t i o n a l mimesis w i t h i t s v a l u e s and assumptions of " r e a l i s m . " "The F a l l o f the House of Usher" f o l d s i n on i t s e l f a l l e g o r i z i n g i t s own p r o c e s s of e n c r y p t i o n / i n c o r p o r a t i o n and, as does D e r r i d a ' s work, o f f e r s i t s e l f as the uncanny model o f i t s own making . But i n Poe ' s t e x t , as i n D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g , a l l e g o r y i s not used i n the t r a d i t i o n a l sense o f a l l e g o r e s i s , which G r e g o r y Ulmer d e s c r i b e s as "adher ing to the model of the h i e r o g l y p h i n which the p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t o f n a t u r e o r d a i l y l i f e i s taken over as a c o n v e n t i o n a l s i g n f o r an idea"("The O b j e c t o f P o s t - C r i t i c i s m " 97) . R a t h e r , Poe 's t e x t models the a l l e g o r i c a l impetus of c r y p t o m i m e s i s : i t demonstrates t h a t a l l e g o r y i s "not an a r b i t r a r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the i d e a which i t [ p o r t r a y s ] . I t [ i s ] i n s t e a d the c o n c r e t e e x p r e s s i o n of tha t i d e a ' s m a t e r i a l f o u n d a t i o n " ( B u c k - M o r s s 56) . T h i s i s a n o t i o n which D e r r i d a has c l e a r l y taken to h e a r t when he remarks i n " F o r s , " "What i s a c r y p t ? What i f I were w r i t i n g on one now?"(x i ) . 133 The Quest ion of the Tomb As a l l e g o r y , Poe 's work p l a y s upon the d i v i s i o n s which make the text, l i k e the "House of Usher"—the name and the structure—"[a] v e r y s p e c i f i c and p e c u l i a r p l a c e , h i g h l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d " ( I am r e c a l l i n g D e r r i d a ' s remarks a b o v e ) . In a c e r t a i n sense, "The F a l l of the House o f U s h e r " — i n c l u d i n g the house, the c r y p t , the patronym and the story—acts as synecdoche f o r D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e , a n t i c i p a t i n g D e r r i d a ' s concern w i t h the i m p l i c i t v i o l e n c e o f a r c h i t e c t u r e . T h i s n o t i o n i s g i v e n by Mark W i g l e y who p o i n t s out t h a t , f o r D e r r i d a , the house i s the v e r y p r i n c i p l e of v i o l e n c e . To dominate i s always to house, to p l a c e i n the domus. Dominat ion i s d o m e s t i c a t i o n [of f emin ine s p a c i n g ] . Yet the house does not s i m p l y precede what i t d o m e s t i c a t e s . The house i s i t s e l f an e f f e c t o f s u p p r e s s i o n . The c l a s s i c a l f i g u r e of the f e m i n i n e i s t h a t which l a c k s i t s own secure b o u n d a r i e s , p r o d u c i n g i n s e c u r i t i e s by d i s r u p t i n g b o u n d a r i e s , and which t h e r e f o r e must be housed by m a s c u l i n e f o r c e t h a t i s no more than the a b i l i t y to m a i n t a i n r i g i d l i m i t s , the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a space , a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t i s not o n l y v i o l e n t l y e n f o r c e d by a range of d i s c i p l i n a r y s t r u c t u r e s ( l e g a l , p h i l o s o p h i c a l , economic, a e s t h e t i c , t e c h n i c a l , s o c i a l , and so on) , but i s i t s e l f a form of v i o l e n c e . M a s c u l i n i t y i s not o n l y e r e c t i o n but a l s o e n c l o s u r e , the l o g i c o f the house i s as p h a l l o c e n t r i c as t h a t of the tower. (137-138) . Here we r e a l i z e how Poe's t e x t i s i t s own example of domest ic v i o l e n c e . We a l s o r e a l i z e how a r e t u r n from the 134 crypt—as i m p l i e d by the f i g u r e of M a d e l i n e Usher—occasions a t h r e a t to the "secure b o u n d a r i e s " and " r i g i d l i m i t s " m a i n t a i n e d by the " l o g i c of the house ." I t i s i n t h i s sense t h a t Poe 's work, to use D e r r i d a p h r a s e , "can play the law" i n t h a t i t has a power to produce p e r f o r m a t i v e l y the s tatements of the law, of the law t h a t l i t e r a t u r e can be , and not j u s t of the law to which l i t e r a t u r e s u b m i t s . Thus l i t e r a t u r e i t s e l f makes law, emerging i n t h a t p l a c e where the law i s made. T h e r e f o r e , under c e r t a i n de termined c o n d i t i o n s , i t can e x e r c i s e the l e g i s l a t i v e power of l i n g u i s t i c p e r f o r m a t i v i t y to s i d e s t e p e x i s t i n g law from which , however, i t d e r i v e s p r o t e c t i o n and r e c e i v e s i t s c o n d i t i o n s o f emergence. ("Before the Law" 216) I t i s i n t h i s r e l a t i o n to the law t h a t c ryptomimes i s i s t a c i t l y i n d e b t e d to Poe who, as Joseph R i d d e l p o i n t s out , i s "evoked [throughout the " E n v o i s , " ] as a metonymic f i g u r e f o r a c e r t a i n n o t i o n of ' l i t e r a t u r e ' . . . " { P u r l o i n e d Letters 19 ) . R i d d e l l a l s o c l a i m s t h a t i t i s Poe 's work t h a t u n d e r s c o r e s D e r r i d a ' s concern f o r the r e l a t i o n of ' l i t e r a t u r e ' to p h i l o s o p h y : [ t ]hroughout The Post Card, [the] q u e s t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n of ' l i t e r a t u r e ' to p h i l o s o p h y , or the example/model to the g e n e r a l method or s c i e n c e , i s at s t a k e , and L a c a n ' s borrowing of Poe i s o n l y the l a t e s t case of a French thought that has returned to itself through America. In any case , as i f to r e s i s t F r e u d ' s c o n c l u s i o n to s e c t i o n f i v e of Civilization and its Discontents (Freud, 1961, 63), tha t he d i d not 'wish to g i v e the i m p r e s s i o n of want ing . . . to employ Amer ican methods," D e r r i d a e n t e r s what he seems to c o n s i d e r the a l r e a d y deformed d i a l o g u e between p s y c h o a n a l y s i s (or p h i l o s o p h y ) and l i t e r a t u r e , from the marg in o f an ' A m e r i c a ' and a k i n d o f ' l i t e r a t u r e ' t h a t i s 135 n e i t h e r p h i l o s o p h y nor l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s Poe, h i s t e x t s , h i s c r y p t , t h a t a t once r e s i s t and m o t i v a t e the a n a l y t i c a l per formance , r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g , because they w i l l not themselves be r e a d , mastered , by the methodology they seem to e x e m p l i f y . F o r as D e r r i d a says , what k i n d of s c i e n c e or r e f l e x i v e c l a r i t y i s o b t a i n e d when the l i t e r a r y example p r o v i d e s a c l e a r e r scene of a n a l y s i s , of r e a d i n g i t s e l f , than the s c i e n c e t h a t has to deform i t or m i s r e a d i t i n t o a p e r f e c t case of method, a method t h a t i s complete and t o t a l i n m a s t e r i n g what i t r e a d s , i t s own example. (19) A l t h o u g h R i d d e l goes on to "deform" Poe's s t o r y (as I myse l f en joy d o i n g ) , h i s remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to the double p l a y t h a t e x i s t s between "The F a l l o f the House of Usher" and c r y p t o m i m e s i s : [ t ]he 'House of Usher ' [says R i d d e l ] i s b u i l t out of o l d books, the fragments of l egends , romances, s u p e r s t i t i o n s , and q u a s i - s c i e n t i f i c metaphors , a l l e r e c t e d upon a "hol low c o f f i n " t h a t must be p r o t e c t e d even as i t i s u l t i m a t e l y opened and r e v e a l e d as the p l a c e o f j u s t another m i s s i n g body, another s imulacrum of a s imulacrum. (13 5) I t i s t e l l i n g t h a t R i d d e l r e f e r s to the "hollow c o f f i n " of Poe 's s t o r y and o n l y i n d i r e c t l y to M a d e l i n e Usher , whose r e t u r n from the c r y p t s i g n a l s the c o l l a p s e of h e r b r o t h e r R o d e r i c k , the man whom R i d d e l l d e s c r i b e s as "that f i c t i o n a l f i g u r e of the imminent a p o c a l y p s e w a i t i n g w i t h i n e v e r y g e n e a l o g i c a l f i c t i o n of a s c e n t o r descent"(116) . I t i s a l s o t e l l i n g t h a t i n h i s l e n g t h y remarks r e g a r d i n g Poe 's s t o r y , R i d d e l omits any d i s c u s s i o n of M a d e l i n e Usher except to ment ion t h a t R o d e r i c k ' s " d i s p a t c h i n g of h i s s i s t e r to the tomb i s a l a s t f u t i l e g e s t u r e to m a i n t a i n the s t r u c t u r e o f 'house' and ' f a m i l y , ' a 136 l a s t w i l l to s i g n i f i c a t i o n , a f i n a l at tempt to p r e s e r v e presence or l i f e by a r e i n s t a l l a t i o n of some s i g n o f presence there where the c e n t e r i s absented"(134) . A l t h o u g h R i d d e l concedes t h a t i n Poe, the dead woman i s the " f i g u r e of the t e x t , " h i s f a i l u r e to make any r e a l ment ion o f M a d e l i n e Usher (not even her name!) suggests t h a t an economy of e x c l u s i o n s i m i l a r to the one he a s c r i b e s to R o d e r i c k Usher i s a t s take and t h a t h i s o m i s s i o n r e c a p i t u l a t e s the p r i n c i p l e s o f v i o l e n c e of the house which I d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . One wonders what i t i s t h a t R i d d e l d e s i r e s to m a i n t a i n i f not the v i o l e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a c e r t a i n space t h a t exc ludes the f e m i n i n e , e s p e c i a l l y i f , as I ment ioned above, the "feminine" i s t h a t "which l a c k s i t s own secure b o u n d a r i e s , p r o d u c i n g i n s e c u r i t i e s by d i s r u p t i n g b o u n d a r i e s . " By f o c u s i n g h i s a t t e n t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y on R o d e r i c k Usher and the n a r r a t o r , R i d d e l a c c o m p l i s h e s the anxious d e f e r r a l t h a t he a s c r i b e s to them i n t h e i r r e a d i n g of "Mad T r i s t . " T h i s r e a d i n g , says R i d d e l , "is employed by the n a r r a t o r to d e f e r b o t h h i s and U s h e r ' s sense o f the torment , the q u e s t i o n , e n c r y p t e d a t the c e n t e r o f the house . Y e t , i t can o n l y a m p l i f y the q u e s t i o n of the tomb"(134). A t t h i s p o i n t , I s h o u l d note t h a t I am f o c u s i n g on R i d d e l ' s remarks because they "can o n l y a m p l i f y the q u e s t i o n of the tomb" i n D e r r i d a ' s work. R i d d e l ' s a s s e r t i o n s draw 137 a t t e n t i o n to D e r r i d a ' s n o t i o n tha t a c r y p t i s built by v i o l e n c e . I a l s o have i n mind Mark W i g l e y ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the c r y p t " d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n to the i m p l i c i t v i o l e n c e of a r c h i t e c t u r e by i d e n t i f y i n g the s u b t l e mechanism w i t h which a space can c o n c e a l the p r e c i s e but e l u s i v e geometry of concealment tha t produces the e f f e c t of space by o r c h e s t r a t i n g a s u s t a i n e d double v i o l e n c e " ( 1 4 7 ) . I t i s R i d d e l ' s e x c l u s i o n of M a d e l i n e Usher from h i s d i s c u s s i o n t h a t poses the q u e s t i o n of the tomb by r e c a p i t u l a t i n g R o d e r i c k U s h e r ' s entombment of h i s t w i n . In e i t h e r case , our a t t e n t i o n i s drawn to the v i o l e n c e o f the attempt to m a i n t a i n r i g i d l i m i t s o r b o u n d a r i e s through r a d i c a l e x c l u s i o n . S i m i l a r l y , each draws a t t e n t i o n to the t h r e a t i m p l i e d i n the p r o x i m i t y of what might be c a l l e d the " j e t t i s o n e d o b j e c t , " a term K r i s t e v a uses to d e s c r i b e whatever "draws [one] toward the p l a c e where meaning c o l l a p s e s " (Powers of Horror 2). Joseph R i d d e l ' s e x c l u s i o n o f M a d e l i n e Usher from h i s d i s c u s s i o n mimes R o d e r i c k U s h e r ' s emtombment of h i s s i s t e r , M a d e l i n e . In f a c t , R i d d e l ' s o m i s s i o n seems o v e r d e t e r m i n e d as i f i t bears t r a c e s of U s h e r ' s h y s t e r i a and h i s a n t i c i p a t i o n o f h i s s i s t e r ' s r e t u r n from the tomb. In these terms, R i d d e l ' s o m i s s i o n takes on g r e a t e r i m p o r t . I t draws a t t e n t i o n to an a e s t h e t i c s p r e d i c a t e d upon e x c l u s i o n , p r o h i b i t i o n , r e p u d i a t i o n and e l i m i n a t i o n . I t a l s o suggests tha t what i s e x c l u d e d i s 138 " d i s g u s t i n g , " a d e s i g n a t i o n g e n e r a l l y r e s e r v e d f o r the "feminine" or the " m a t e r n a l . " I t i s the s u b v e r s i o n o f t h i s a e s t h e t i c s which i s a r g u a b l y c e n t r a l to G o t h i c h o r r o r i n g e n e r a l and, more s p e c i f i c a l l y , to b o t h D e r r i d a and Poe whose t e x t s c o n s i s t e n t l y draw one towards the "place" evoked by K r i s t e v a . In Of Grammatology, f o r example, D e r r i d a examines the way i n which women's power i s the "paradigm of v i o l e n c e and p o l i t i c a l anomaly" hence the n e c e s s i t y of " c o n t a i n i n g them w i t h i n domest ic government" such t h a t "woman takes h e r p l a c e , remains i n her p l a c e " ( 1 7 6 - 1 7 8 ) . T h i s n o t i o n draws a t t e n t i o n not o n l y to what makes the "House of Usher"—text, mansion, patronym—"a form of v i o l e n c e " but a l s o to t h a t which s u b v e r t s those forms by e n c r o a c h i n g on c e r t a i n b o r d e r s : M a d e l i n e U s h e r ' s r e t u r n from the c r y p t , f o r example, seems analogous to the e f f e c t s produced by the workings of D e r r i d a ' s Glas. L i k e the "House of U s h e r , " Glas concerns i t s e l f w i t h the s t a g i n g o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n and d i s i n t e g r a t i o n and, thus , n e c e s s a r i l y , w i t h the " femin ine ." In these terms, the f emin ine poses a t h r e a t to a c e r t a i n o r d e r , but not because i t i s synonymous w i t h "woman"—Derrida c a u t i o n s a g a i n s t m i s t a k i n g the f emin ine f o r "a woman's f e m i n i n i t y , f o r female s e x u a l i t y " ( " C h o r e o g r a p h i e s " 168)—but because i t i s u n r e p r e s e n t a b l e . In o t h e r words, a warning i s i n e f f e c t not to e s s e n t i a l i z e the "feminine" but to 139 u n d e r s t a n d i t as t h a t "which w i l l not be p i n n e d down by t r u t h " ( 1 6 8 ) . Of c o u r s e , to some, t h i s n o t i o n i s monstrous . 140 Glas: Staging Contamination, A Tetrology a.k.a Parasite Lost Van Helsing: "Do you not see how, of late, this monster has been creeping into knowledge experimentally?" Count Dracula: "There is work to be done." According to Derrida, to stage contamination is to do "something altogether other than mixing literature and philosophy."35 To stage contamination is to risk something: "Theatricality must traverse and restore 'existence' and 'flesh'.... Thus whatever can be said of the body can be said of the theater."36 It is to open into the place where meaning, order, identity collapses. It is to invite the touch that disturbs the borderline. Nearness, proximity, contiguity are all watchwords when contamination—from contaminare (to defile) which finds its root in tangere (to touch)—is at stake. To stage contamination is to acknowledge kinship, to invite consanguinity, even to create a hybrid, an abomination, a monster, if you will. Glas is such a staging. It reads like a novel, a poem, a legend, the whole thing in plural translation, multiple, simultaneous and productive. As a rebus, it gives the story of haunting and encryption: ...to be read in a topography that, like the crypt in the Self, is "twice cleft." Each column written towards the unconscious of the other, the borderline that divides them always permeable, without any privileging of either: "Of The vampire: "a pair of spring-controlled doors cut into the scenery, which allowed the fiendish Ruthven to disappear through apparently solid walls."47 Staging the vampire: depending on its placement on the stage the trap "made the actor alternately AO body and spirit." The trap enabled the vampire to rise through the stage floor or "through invisible doors in the flats, allowing him to make imperceptible, phantomlike intrusions into or out of domestic space."49 When the emphasis is on the body as the ground, sacrilege has a social nature. When somebody dies, the presence of the corpse, with its threat of imminent decay, occasions fear at the power of corruption, says Bataille.50 The corpse is death and it shows me the borders of my condition. Kristeva: "as in true theatre, without makeup or masks."51 What does it mean to break this structure of belonging? An instrument of domestic disembodiment on the stage of the dream: "A new epiphany of the supernatural and the divine must occur C O within cruelty." But limits are always passed by fantasy. What inscribes limits is always a question of ontology and desire. As a 141 the remain(s), after all, there are, always, [says Derrida,] overlapping each other, two functions."37 A theatre of cruelty? This movement is not without violence. Rupture. Dislocation. Bring your tools to work. Two interpretations of interpretation: monstrous. To stage contamination is to de/monstrate the instability of the borders determining social identity, namely genealogy, filiation, sanguinity: the family line, if you will. Just ask Madeline Usher. Written from such a fault line, Glas undoes certain textual markers that determine identity. Of Glas, Peggy Kamuf says, "[t]here are no notes, no chapter headings, no table of contents. Each column begins in what appears to be the middle of a sentence and ends, 283 pages further on, without any final punctuation. "What is going 39 on here?"' The sentences with which Glas "ends" are conceivably the "beginnings" of the sentences with which the work opens. The sentence beginning with "What I had dreaded, naturally, already, republishes itself. Today, here now, the debris of [debris de]" on page 262 can be understood to circle back (round) to complete itself on page 1 with "'what remained of a Rembrandt torn into small, very regular squares and rammed down the shithole' is divided in two."40 "A writing that was not structurally legible—iterable—beyond the death of the addressee would not be writing."41 The same holds true for the left-hand column where the sentence, "But it runs to its ruin [perte], for it counted without [sans]," appears to end page 262 while page 1 begins, "what, after all of the remain(s), today, for us, here, now, of a rebus, it is a story of haunting and encryption, both cause and effect. A tomb(stone) always marks a plot: the remains of the proper name in stages of decomposition. In Derrida's Glas, as in Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" the body remanded to the tomb is still alive. When tampered with, the family tomb reveals its remains. Here, a crypt marks a passage: the desire to save from death. "What remains of a signature?": " This movement is not without violence. A caveat in the form of a note from Mina Harker addressed to Abraham Van Helsing: '"Look out for D. He has just now, 12:45 come from Carfax hurriedly and hastened toward the south. He seems to be going the round ,..."54 To Van Helsing: "What do you make of that mark on her throat?"55 From Dr. Seward's diary, recalling the words of Van Helsing: "T have studied, over and over again since they came into my hands, all the papers relating to this monster [D]; and the more I have studied, the greater seems the necessity to utterly stamp him out. ... [In life] [h]e had a mighty brain, a learning beyond compare, and a heart that knew no fear and no remorse. He dared even to attend the Scholomance, and there was no branch of knowledge of his time that he did not essay.... He is experimenting, and doing it well; and if it had not been that we have crossed his path he would be yet—he may be yet if we fail—the father or furtherer of a new order of beings, whose road must lead through Death, not Life." 5 6 "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,/Slouches towards 142 Hegel?" To read Glas one must move circuitously, but around two columns, each one swallowing its own "tail" in a peristaltic gesture of incorporation. How to "read" (read swallow) when one could "begin" anywhere presided over by the figure of eternal return. Similarly, writing in each of two columns, which form circles of their own in another axis, impinges on the other, negotiating between what might have been contradictory discourses, moving across passages, performing "autotranslations," performing "the borderless condition of texts, and their susceptibility to the most unexpected encounters."?42 Van Helsing: '"Do you not see how, of late, this monster has been creeping into knowledge experimentally? ... [A] 11 the time that so great child-brain of his was growing 4 3 Child's play? Derrida "with a glance towards childbearing": what is at stake in the "irreducible differences"44 rising from two interpretations of interpretation: "conception, formation, gestation, and labour .... I employ these words ... also with a glance toward those who, in a society from which I do not exclude myself, turn their eyes away when faced by the as yet unnamable, which is proclaiming itself and which-can do so, as is necessary whenever a birth is in the offing, only under the species of the nonspecies, in the formless, mute, infant, and terrifying form of monstrosity."45 "I begin with love."46 Bethlehem to be born?"3' Wayne Booth (seconded by M.H. Abrams): the "deconstructionist reading of a given work is plainly and simply parasitical on the obvious or univocal reading."58 One (column) negotiates the other in itself as an alien body. A crypt takes place. But where? "She can project herself into my body and take command of it. She has a parasite soul; yes, she is a parasite, a monstrous parasite. She creeps into my frame as the hermit crab does into the whelk's shell. I am powerless."59 The requirement of a center is, in itself a kind of myth. The function of a center is mythological, always designating presence, origin, subject. Absence of center is absence of both subject and author, says D. "Play," however, is "the disruption of presence."60 The play of interpretation of interpretation today is doubled: "one seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering a truth or an origin," while on the other hand, the other, "which is no longer turned toward the origin affirms play and tries to pass beyond man and humanism, the name of man being the name of that being, who throughout the history of metaphysics or of ontotheology—in other words, throughout his entire history—has dreamed of full presence, the reassuring foundation the origin and the end of play."61 "Yet I saw crypts when I looked at 143 The Exclusion of the Disgusting To speak of the d i s g u s t i n g i s to b r i n g forward what makes a e s t h e t i c s p o s s i b l e . Mark W i g l e y i s speak ing o f r e p u l s i o n i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of Kant and Rousseau, b o t h o f whom, says Wig l ey , m a i n t a i n t h a t woman i s the f i g u r e of the d i s p o s s e s s i o n of the a u t h o r i t y o f immediate e x p r e s s i o n by the m e d i a t i o n s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . She i s a double f i g u r e : the paradigm of n a t u r e when d o m e s t i c a t e d i n the house and the paradigm of the a l i e n a t i o n from n a t u r e when o u t s i d e the house, untamed. (135) W i g l e y draws a t t e n t i o n to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between aesthet ics—which he says , "is d e f i n e d by i t s e x c l u s i o n of the d i s g u s t i n g " (13 9)—and the t h r e a t o f woman as p o l l u t i n g o b j e c t . To l i n k a e s t h e t i c s w i t h d i s g u s t and r e p u l s i o n , W i g l e y draws upon F r e u d ' s n o t i o n of l a t e n c y , a r g u i n g t h a t d i s g u s t and shame are l e a r n e d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d by the c h i l d : the d e f e n s i v e mechanism of r e p u l s i o n i s e r e c t e d d u r i n g the " latency" p e r i o d i n which the c h i l d . . . i s t r a i n e d to s u b l i m a t e i t s o r i g i n a l p e r v e r s i o n s w i t h f e e l i n g s of " d i s g u s t , f e e l i n g s o f shame, and the c l a i m s of a e s t h e t i c s and mora l i d e a l s . " In these terms a e s t h e t i c s i s a defense mechanism of r e p r e s s i o n t h a t exc ludes whatever d i s g u s t s by f o r c i n g the ef facement of the d i s t i n c t i o n between p r e s e n t a t i o n [ r e a l i t y ] and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n [ i m a g i n a t i o n ] . (142) I f a e s t h e t i c s i s a "defense mechanism of r e p r e s s i o n , " what does i t defend a g a i n s t ? I t i s t e l l i n g t h a t i n a d i s c u s s i o n of such an a e s t h e t i c s , W i g l e y never d i r e c t l y mentions the m a t e r n a l , a l t h o u g h he a l l u d e s to i t i n h i s c l a i m f o r the f e e l i n g s of d i s g u s t and shame s u b l i m a t e d by the " c h i l d . " A g a i n s t what t h r e a t do nausea and d i s g u s t defend? These a r e q u e s t i o n s taken up by D e r r i d a c o n s i s t e n t l y i n a w r i t i n g t h a t r i g o r o u s l y p o i n t s up the l i m i t s as w e l l as the n e c e s s i t y o f b o r d e r s . A c c o r d i n g to Mark W i g l e y , the danger i s b o r d e r l e s s n e s s : " [ t ] h a t which i s t h r e a t e n i n g i s t h a t which cannot be l o c a l i z e d , t h a t which cannot be p l a c e d e i t h e r i n s i d e or o u t s i d e an e n c l o s u r e " ( 1 8 2 ) . Here W i g l e y appears to be i n h a b i t i n g a haunted "enc losure" s i m i l a r to the one o c c u p i e d by R o d e r i c k Usher i n h i s d e s i r e to ward o f f what i s " t h r e a t e n i n g . " W i g l e y ' s avo idance demonstrates K r i s t e v a ' s p o i n t t h a t what must be e x c l u d e d i s t h a t which "does not r e s p e c t b o r d e r s , p o s i t i o n s , r u l e s " ( K r i s t e v a , Powers of Horror 4 ) . What i s common to b o t h a e s t h e t i c s and the G o t h i c ( e s p e c i a l l y h o r r o r ) i s the concept of a b o r d e r , the f u n c t i o n of which i s p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t what i s "improper" or "unc lean ." As B a r b a r a C r e e d argues , t h i s p r o t e c t i v e b o r d e r "is c e n t r a l to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the monstrous i n h o r r o r f i l m ; t h a t which c r o s s e s or t h r e a t e n s to c r o s s the ' b o r d e r ' i s a b j e c t " ( 1 0 - 1 1 ) . Whi l e the e x c l u s i o n of the d i s g u s t i n g to 145 the "outs ide" i s the founding movement of a e s t h e t i c s , the same e x c l u s i o n a r y movement i n the G o t h i c as w e l l as i n cryptomimes i s becomes the o c c a s i o n f o r s t a g i n g t r a n s g r e s s i o n and c o n t a m i n a t i o n . In B a t a i l l e ' s v iew repugnance and h o r r o r are the "mainsprings of d e s i r e " and are l i n k e d to the opening o f the "vo id"(59) . K r i s t e v a l i n k s " r i t u a l s o f d e f i l e m e n t " to the mother. In K r i s t e v a ' s v iew, the e x c l u s i o n of the d i s g u s t i n g can be l i n k e d to materna l a b j e c t i o n and the c h i l d ' s s t r u g g l e to a c h i e v e a s e p a r a t e e x i s t e n c e as a "subjec t [who] w i l l always be marked by the u n c e r t a i n t y o f h i s b o r d e r . . . " ( P o w e r s of Horror 63) . K r i s t e v a ' s argument t h a t a whole a r e a of r e l i g i o n concerns i t s e l f w i t h the p e r i l s i m p l i c i t i n t h i s r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e s how f r a u g h t i t can be m a i n t a i n i n g the b o r d e r s o f an "I" whose " i d e n t i t y " i s i n danger o f b e i n g subsumed e i t h e r by the "void" o r , i n her l e x i c o n , by the "maternal": T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y where we encounter the r i t u a l s of d e f i l e m e n t and t h e i r d e r i v a t i v e s , which , based on the f e e l i n g of a b j e c t i o n and a l l c o n v e r g i n g on the m a t e r n a l , attempt to s y m b o l i z e the o t h e r t h r e a t to the s u b j e c t : t h a t o f b e i n g swamped by the d u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e r e b y r i s k i n g the l o s s not o f a p a r t ( c a s t r a t i o n ) but o f the t o t a l i t y of h i s l i v i n g b e i n g . The f u n c t i o n o f these r e l i g i o u s r i t u a l s i s to ward o f f the s u b j e c t ' s f e a r o f h i s v e r y own i d e n t i t y s i n k i n g i r r e t r i e v a b l y i n t o the mother . (64) 146 A l t h o u g h speak ing here of the l i n k between r e l i g i o u s r i t e s and the a b j e c t , K r i s t e v a ' s n o t i o n o f "being swamped" and the t h r e a t to the i d e n t i t y of the s u b j e c t can a l s o shed l i g h t upon the dynamic r e l a t i o n s h i p between G o t h i c h o r r o r and a e s t h e t i c s , an a s s o c i a t i o n t h a t i s r o u g h l y analogous to the correspondence between cryptomimes i s and a e s t h e t i c s . These " p a i r s " a l l concern themselves not o n l y w i t h the concept of the b o r d e r and not o n l y w i t h the t h r e a t o f "def i lement" t h a t b o r d e r - c r o s s i n g s imply but a l s o w i t h the " t h r e a t to the s u b j e c t . . . of b e i n g swamped." T h i s " threat" comes about through an encounter w i t h a c e r t a i n atopos t h a t we might t h i n k o f as the "materna l ," or the "vo id" but which , when speak ing of c r y p t o m i m e s i s , seems most a p p r o p r i a t e l y d e s c r i b e d by B a r b a r a Creed as "the monstrous f e m i n i n e . " In her d i s c u s s i o n of the h o r r o r genre , B a r b a r a C r e e d argues t h a t even though "the s p e c i f i c n a t u r e o f the b o r d e r changes . . . the f u n c t i o n of the monstrous [ feminine] remains the same—to b r i n g about an encounter between the s y m b o l i c o r d e r and t h a t which t h r e a t e n s i t s s t a b i l i t y " ( 1 1 ) . K r i s t e v a would be q u i c k to p o i n t out t h a t even though the h o r r o r genre o f t e n l i t e r a l i z e s the d i s g u s t i n g — B a r b a r a C r e e d l i s t s w a l k i n g corpses and b o d i l y d i s f i g u r e m e n t s and says t h a t "[i]mages of b l o o d , vomi t , pus , s h i t , e t c . are c e n t r a l to our c u l t u r a l l y / s o c i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d n o t i o n s of the h o r r i f i c " ( 1 3 ) — t h a t " [ i ] t i s not l a c k o f c l e a n l i n e s s or 147 h e a l t h tha t causes a b j e c t i o n , but what d i s t u r b s i d e n t i t y , system, order"(Powers of Horror 4 ) . In e f f e c t , an encounter w i t h a t e x t tha t t h r e a t e n s the symbol i c o r d e r t h r e a t e n s i d e n t i t y . T h i s t h r e a t i s what K r i s t e v a r e f e r s to when she asks , "[h]ow can I be w i t h o u t b o r d e r ? " ( 4 ) . The emphasis of K r i s t e v a ' s q u e s t i o n s h o u l d be p l a c e d on the "I" s i n c e i t i s a q u e s t i o n of i d e n t i t y which resonates f o r the " s u b j e c t . " To speak of a t h r e a t to the s u b j e c t i s to speak of a b j e c t i o n . To c o n s i d e r a b j e c t i o n i s to c o n s i d e r the t e r r o r t h a t the t h r e a t of b o r d e r l e s s n e s s i n s p i r e s . In Poe's s t o r y , the tw in f i g u r e s o f M a d e l i n e and R o d e r i c k Usher f u n c t i o n as synecdoche f o r the a b j e c t , i M a d e l i n e Usher , on the one hand, i n s p i r e s i n R o d e r i c k Usher what K r i s t e v a would c a l l "a t e r r o r t h a t d i s s emble s" (3 ) but she a l s o f i g u r e s as t h a t which he must "exclude"—that i s , keep without—in o r d e r to l i v e . Upon her c r o s s i n g the " t h r e s h o l d , " he f a l l s dead to the f l o o r , not because she has done him any p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e , but because he has f a l l e n " v i c t i m to the terrors he had dreaded." T h i s " t e r r o r " i s what K r i s t e v a r e f e r s to i n h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f the a b j e c t and i t s a f f e c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the presence of a corpse (or c a d a v e r : cadere , to f a l l ) t h a t which has i r r e m e d i a b l y come a c r o p p e r , i s c e s s p o o l , and death; i t opposes even more v i o l e n t l y the one who c o n f r o n t i t as f r a g i l e and f a l l a c i o u s chance . A wound w i t h b l o o d and pus , or the s i c k l y , a c r i d s m e l l of sweat, does not signify d e a t h . In the 148 presence of s i g n i f i e d death—a f l a t encepha lograph , f o r instance—I would u n d e r s t a n d , r e a c t , or a c c e p t . No, as i n t r u e t h e a t e r , w i t h o u t makeup or masks, r e f u s e and c o r p s e s show me what I permanent ly t h r u s t a s i d e i n o r d e r to l i v e . . . . T h e r e , I am a t the b o r d e r o f my c o n d i t i o n as a l i v i n g b e i n g . . . . I f dung s i g n i f i e s the o t h e r s i d e of the b o r d e r , the p l a c e where I am not and which p e r m i t s me to be, the c o r p s e , the most s i c k e n i n g of wastes , i s a b o r d e r t h a t has encroached upon e v e r y t h i n g . (Powers of Horror 3) But what i f the c o r p s e s h o u l d r e t u r n from the grave? In c r o s s i n g the t h r e s h o l d , M a d e l i n e Usher shows h e r tw in what he has t r i e d to " t h r u s t a s i d e i n o r d e r to l i v e . " H i s s i s t e r ' s r e t u r n from the c r y p t ushers him "toward the p l a c e where meaning c o l l a p s e s " ( 2 ) . In t h i s case , t h a t "place" i s the t h r e s h o l d , a word t h a t r e c a l l s what K r i s t e v a d e s c r i b e s as the "border of [one's] c o n d i t i o n as a l i v i n g be ing" s i g n i f y i n g , as K r i s t e v a says , "the p l a c e where I am not and which p e r m i t s me to b e " ( 3 - 4 ) . That U s h e r ' s "death" comes about through the c o l l a p s e o f c e r t a i n . b o r d e r s can be unders tood i n l i g h t o f B a r b a r a C r e e d ' s remarks about the a b j e c t ' s t h r e a t to l i f e . C i t i n g K r i s t e v a , C r e e d remarks: [ t ]he a b j e c t t h r e a t e n s l i f e ; i t must be ' r a d i c a l l y e x c l u d e d ' ( K r i s t e v a 2 ) from the p l a c e o f the l i v i n g s u b j e c t , p r o p e l l e d away from the body and d e p o s i t e d on the o t h e r s i d e o f an i m a g i n a r y b o r d e r which s epara te s the s e l f from t h a t which t h r e a t e n s the s e l f . A l t h o u g h the s u b j e c t must exc lude the a b j e c t , the a b j e c t must, n e v e r t h e l e s s , be t o l e r a t e d f o r t h a t which t h r e a t e n s to d e s t r o y l i f e a l s o h e l p s to d e f i n e l i f e . F u r t h e r , the a c t i v i t y of e x c l u s i o n i s n e c e s s a r y to guarantee t h a t the s u b j e c t take up h i s / h e r p r o p e r p l a c e i n r e l a t i o n to the s y m b o l i c . ( 9 ) 149 The " imaginary border" i s i n t e g r a l to the d i s t i n c t i o n s between " i n s i d e " and " o u t s i d e . " These d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t u r n determine "the p l a c e of the l i v i n g - s u b j e c t . " Cryptomimes i s demonstrates not o n l y how ambiguous the d i s t i n c t i o n s between i n s i d e and o u t s i d e can be but a l s o how the o n t o l o g i c a l s e c u r i t y of the s o - c a l l e d s u b j e c t i s t h r e a t e n e d w i t h m u l t i p l e and v e r t i g i n o u s d i s p l a c e m e n t s to those d i s t i n c t i o n s . B a r b a r a C r e e d demonstrates t h a t the b o r d e r , and the t h r e a t to i t s s t a b i l i t y by the encroachment o f the " d i s g u s t i n g , " i s fundamental to the concept o f a b j e c t and thereby to a e s t h e t i c s which r e l i e s on e x c l u s i o n o f the d i s g u s t i n g . In Aporias D e r r i d a draws a t t e n t i o n to the f u n c t i o n i n g of these d i v i s i o n s and a l s o to the c r o s s i n g o f c e r t a i n l i n e s or b o r d e r s which c o n s t i t u t e a t h r e a t to i d e n t i t y : An i n d i v i s i b l e l i n e . And one always assumes the i n s t i t u t i o n of such an i n d i v i s i b i l i t y . Customs, p o l i c e , v i s a or p a s s p o r t , passenger i d e n t i f i c a t i o n — a l l of t h a t i s e s t a b l i s h e d upon t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n of the i n d i v i s i b l e , the i n s t i t u t i o n t h e r e f o r e o f the s t ep t h a t i s r e l a t e d to i t , whether the s t ep c r o s s e s i t or n o t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , where the f i g u r e of the s t ep i s r e f u s e d to i n t u i t i o n , where the i d e n t i t y or i n d i v i s i b i l i t y o f a l i n e . . . i s compromised, the i d e n t i t y to o n e s e l f and t h e r e f o r e the p o s s i b l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an i n t a n g i b l e edge—the c r o s s i n g of the line—becomes a problem. There i s a problem as soon as the e d g e - l i n e i s t h r e a t e n e d . And i t i s t h r e a t e n e d by i t s f i r s t t r a c i n g . (Aporias 11). There i s a problem as soon as the e d g e - l i n e i s t h r e a t e n e d because , as D e r r i d a sugges t s , t h r e a t i s the n e c e s s a r y condition of any " f i r s t t r a c i n g . " I t i s the t h r e a t i t s e l f which p e r m i t s i d e n t i t y , system and o r d e r . In these terms, the c r o s s i n g of the l i n e becomes a prob lem because i t i s l i n e t h a t g i v e s r i s e to the n o t i o n of c r o s s i n g . 151 Writing on the Threshold of Undecidability In the p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n , what becomes apparent i s the way t h a t the words " t h r e s h o l d " and "door" come i n t o p l a y as markers to a l e r t us t h a t we are drawing near a "border" such as t h a t d e s c r i b e d by K r i s t e v a , o r to the "edge - l ine" as ment ioned by D e r r i d a . In Poe 's and D e r r i d a ' s work, do t h r e s h o l d s and doors serve as markers of d e s i r e ? Do they i n d i c a t e the s i t e of a c r y p t where something must be kept safe? C o n s i d e r f o r a moment the n a r r a t o r ' s comments i n Poe ' s s t o r y t h a t he and R o d e r i c k Usher , h a v i n g entombed M a d e l i n e Usher , "secured [behind them] the door of i r o n " which i s a l s o mentioned i n the above p a s s a g e ( 5 4 3 ) . Here , the word "secured ," r a t h e r than m e r e l y " c l o s e d , " suggests t h a t i t i s not enough to mere ly f a s t e n the d o o r . A s e c u r e d door a l s o c a r r i e s w i t h i t the n o t i o n of p r o t e c t i n g , g u a r d i n g , d e f e n d i n g . What i s b e h i n d the door had b e t t e r s t a y t h e r e . S i m i l a r l y , i n another moment of u n c a n n i n e s s , the n a r r a t o r g l impses the resemblance between the tw ins , R o d e r i c k and M a d e l i n e . He r e g a r d s the s i g h t of the l a t t e r , however, w i t h , "an u t t e r as ton i shment not unmingled w i t h dread" b e f o r e b e i n g "oppressed" by "a f e e l i n g o f s t u p o r . . . 152 [a]s a door , a t l e n g t h , c l o s e d upon h e r exit"(537). I t seems tha t u n t i l the door c l o s e s upon M a d e l i n e ' s e x i t , forming a s e p a r a t i o n between her and him, the n a r r a t o r i s h e l d i n t h r a l l to something d r e a d f u l and i n e x p l i c a b l e . He cannot be f r e e d from the t o r p o r t h a t overwhelms him u n t i l the door comes between them. S i m i l a r l y , w h i l e a w a i t i n g h i s s i s t e r ' s approach from the tomb, R o d e r i c k Usher s i t s "with h i s face to the d o o r , " w h i l e the n a r r a t o r reads to h im. H e a r i n g the opening of the c o f f i n , he s h r i e k s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of "the t e r r o r s he had dreaded": [ s ] a i d I not t h a t my senses were acute? I now t e l l you t h a t I h e a r d her f i r s t f e e b l e movements i n the h o l l o w c o f f i n . I h e a r d them—many, many, days ago— y e t I dared not speakl And now—tonight—Ethelred— ha! ha!—the b r e a k i n g of the h e r m i t ' s door , and the d e a t h - c r y o f the dragon, and the c l a n g o r o f the sh ie ld!—say , r a t h e r , the r e n d i n g o f the c o f f i n , and the g r a t i n g of the i r o n h inges and her s t r u g g l e s w i t h i n the coppered arch-way o f the v a u l t ! ...I tell you that she now stands without the door! (547) I t i s indeed t e l l i n g tha t s t a n d i n g w i t h o u t the double door i s R o d e r i c k ' s twin, Lady M a d e l i n e o f Usher , who completes and c o l l a p s e s the Doppelganger e f f e c t when the door b u r s t s open; t h a t i s when she s tands without the d o o r . In t h i s c o n t e x t , i t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g to c o n s i d e r t h a t the word usher not o n l y denotes one who i s " a c t i n g as a door -keeper" but a l s o t h a t w h i l e the p r e d i c a t e means "to p r e c e d e , " i t s b a c k - f o r m a t i o n —"ush"— means "to i s s u e , come out , gu ide or e s c o r t . " As r e a d e r s of Poe's s t o r y , we are g i v e n to 153 unders ta nd t h a t we are s i m u l t a n e o u s l y b e i n g drawn i n t o and b a r r e d from an uncanny space , the l i k e of which evokes a sense of what D e r r i d a c a l l s i n " F o r s , " "a v e r y s p e c i f i c and p e c u l i a r p l a c e , h i g h l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d , to which access can n e v e r t h e l e s s o n l y be g a i n e d by f o l l o w i n g the r o u t e s o f a d i f f e r e n t t o p o g r a p h y " ( x i i i ) . Indeed, U s h e r ' s f r i e n d , the n a r r a t o r seems v e r y a r t i c u l a t e on these D e r r i d e a n "routes of a d i f f e r e n t topography": I e n t e r e d the G o t h i c archway of the h a l l . A v a l e t , of s t e a l t h y s t ep , then conducted me, i n s i l e n c e , through many d a r k and i n t r i c a t e passages i n my p r o g r e s s to the s t u d i o of [Roder ick U s h e r ] . . . . Whi l e the o b j e c t s around me—while the c a r v i n g s o f the c e i l i n g s , the somber t a p e s t r i e s o f the w a l l s , the ebon b l a c k n e s s of the f l o o r s , and the phantasmagor ic a r m o r i a l t r o p h i e s which r a t t l e d as I s t r o d e , were but mat ter to which , o r to such as which , I had been accustomed from my infancy—while I h e s i t a t e d not to acknowledge how familiar was a l l this—I s t i l l wondered to f i n d how unfamiliar were the f a n c i e s which o r d i n a r y images were s t i r r i n g up . On one of the s t a i r c a s e s , I met the p h y s i c i a n of the f a m i l y . H i s countenance , I thought , wore a m i n g l e d e x p r e s s i o n o f low c u n n i n g and p e r p l e x i t y . He a c c o s t e d me w i t h t r e p i d a t i o n and p a s s e d on . The v a l e t now threw open a door and ushered me i n t o the presence o f [ R o d e r i c k U s h e r ] . (53 5 emphasis mine) As t h i s passage sugges t s , a l l of the d e s i g n a t i o n s o f "usher ," i n c l u d i n g i t s f u n c t i o n as a p r o p e r name which i n h e r i t s , suggest t h a t Poe 's t e x t produces the i d e a t h a t there i s an " i n t e r i o r " t h a t i s somehow a c c e s s i b l e through a d o o r . And a l t h o u g h he i s commenting on D e r r i d a ' s e s say , 154 "Before the Law," Mark W i g l e y ' s remarks can a l s o be used to i l l u m i n a t e j u s t such an open ing: [i]n [Kafka's] story, the law i s ... e x p l i c i t l y a space, l i t e r a l l y an i n t e r i o r accessible through a door, and the 'before' [devant] i s again both s p a t i a l and temporal, or, more precisely, i n Derrida's reading, i t i s the spacing that comes before the space of the law. The 'before' i s l i k e that of the t i t l e positioned before the text: neither inside nor outside i t (such that Kafka's [and, for my purposes, Poe's] t i t l e reproduces what i t describes). As Derrida points out, the space i n the story turns out to be 'empty.' The law cannot be found beyond the door. It i s not simply 'in' the space but i s encrypted by i t s markers. The essence of the law, which i s to say, of the space, turns out to be i t s v i o l a t i o n by spacing, a v i o l a t i o n that i s always hidden, 'always, c r y p t i c . ' The door i s therefore 'an internal boundary opening on nothing.' the space i t marks i s no more than the maintenance of thi s 'secret.' The o r i g i n of the law i s 'safeguarded' by the space, not by being hidden within i t but by being hidden by the space i t s e l f , which i s to say, by the representation of a space. It is the very-idea that there is an interior that encloses the secret. The most secure hiding place i s the representation of i n t e r i o r made possible by an ongoing repression. (132). What Poe's work anticipates and where i t intersects with Derrida's i s i n "the very idea that there i s an i n t e r i o r that encloses the secret." What they share i s a concern with "the representation of i n t e r i o r made possible by an ongoing repression." In Poe's case, the "door" i s a cry p t i c marker that produces the idea of i n t e r i o r i t y and e x t e r i o r i t y by drawing attention to the border that marks the d i v i s i o n s between the two: a "threshold" which i s a hymeneal as well as a cryptic d i v i s i o n . In Derrida's case, the crypt marks 155 t h i s d i v i s i o n : "[w]hat the c r y p t commemorates [says D e r r i d a ] , as the i n c o r p o r a t e d o b j e c t ' s 'monument' or ' t o m b , ' i s not the o b j e c t i t s e l f , but i t s e x c l u s i o n , the e x c l u s i o n of a s p e c i f i c d e s i r e from the i n t r o j e c t i o n p r o c e s s : A door is silently sealed off l i k e a condemned passageway i n s i d e the S e l f , becoming the o u t c a s t sa f e" ("Fors" x v i i ) . The n o t i o n of t h r e s h o l d i s impor tant s i n c e i t draws a t t e n t i o n to the f u n c t i o n of a b o r d e r . But i t i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t because i t g i v e s us i n s i g h t i n t o a w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e tha t produces what might be c a l l e d a " b o r d e r l i n e " s u b j e c t . By s t a g i n g a r a d i c a l r e s i s t a n c e to any r i g o r o u s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of b o r d e r s — i n c l u d i n g the q u e s t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n between texts—while c o n t i n u i n g to t r a c e a l o n g t h e i r edges, b o t h Poe and D e r r i d a can be c o n s i d e r e d to be writing on a threshold. F o r example, i n " L i v i n g - O n : B o r d e r L i n e s , " D e r r i d a w r i t e s : I w i sh to pose the q u e s t i o n o f the bord, the edge, the b o r d e r , and the bord de mer, the s h o r e . . . . The q u e s t i o n o f the b o r d e r l i n e p r e c e d e s , as i t were, the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a l l the d i v i d i n g l i n e s t h a t I have j u s t ment ioned: between a f a n t a s y and a ' r e a l i t y , ' an event and a nonevent , a f i c t i o n and a r e a l i t y , one corpus and a n o t h e r , and so f o r t h . . . . I s h a l l perhaps endeavor to c r e a t e an e f f e c t of superimposing, o f s u p e r i m p r i n t i n g one t e x t on the o t h e r . . . . What about t h i s ' o n , ' t h i s ' s u r , ' and i t s s u r f a c e ? An e f f e c t of super impos ing : one p r o c e s s i o n i s super imposed on the o t h e r , accompanying i t w i t h o u t accompanying i t . (A Derrida Reader 258) 156 To w r i t e on a t h r e s h o l d , t h e r e f o r e , i s to ask c o n t i n u o u s l y , as D e r r i d a does, "What are the b o r d e r l i n e s o f a t e x t ? How do they come about?"(258) . These q u e s t i o n s c a l l a t t e n t i o n to the way t h a t cryptomimes i s s tages what Peggy Kamuf r e f e r s to as "the q u e s t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e x t s once t h e i r l i m i t s or b o r d e r s can no l o n g e r be r i g o r o u s l y determined"(A Derrida Reader 255) . D e r r i d a ' s q u e s t i o n s a l s o draw a t t e n t i o n to the way t h a t such s t a g i n g produces a " b o r d e r l i n e " s u b j e c t as a s p e c t r a l e f f e c t of a c e r t a i n t r a c i n g . We might c a l l such a t r a c i n g a " s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n " of (the name) " D e r r i d a " upon (the name) "Poe," thus "accompanying i t w i t h o u t accompanying i t . " In b o r d e r l i n e w r i t i n g , the topos of the "I" a c h i e v e s i t s uncanny resonance through a k i n d of Doppleganger e f f e c t s i m i l a r to t h a t evoked i n / b y "The F a l l of the House o f U s h e r . " I t i s an e f f e c t produced by drawing upon what D e r r i d a r e f e r s to as ' [ t ] h e l i n e t h a t s e p a r a t e s the e n c l o s e d n a r r a t i v e from the o t h e r . . . " ( " L i v i n g On: B o r d e r L i n e s " 258) . In s h o r t , the b o r d e r l i n e s u b j e c t i s a t e x t u a l e f f e c t of " s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n " and suggests t h a t what i s a t s take i n "ghost w r i t i n g " i s a c a r e f u l and s u s t a i n e d t r a c i n g of the o t h e r . In Poe 's s t o r y , the n o t i o n of b o r d e r l e s s n e s s , i f not b o r d e r l i n e s u b j e c t s , p r e v a i l s . In h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the c o l l a p s e of the d i s t i n c t i o n between the f a m i l y and i t s r e s i d e n c e i n the minds o f the p e a s a n t r y , Joseph R i d d e l l 157 w r i t e s , "[a]11 d i f f e r e n c e s , n a t u r a l or c u l t u r a l , are i n a s t a t e of c o l l a p s e or d e g e n e r a t i o n . " He c o n t i n u e s (at f i r s t q u o t i n g Poe 's n a r r a t o r ) : "[ t ]he q u a i n t and e q u i v o c a l a p p e l l a t i o n of the 'House of U s h e r ' " s i g n i f i e s the i r r e v e r s i b l e d i r e c t i o n of e x h a u s t i o n and decay t h a t p r e d i c a t e s a f i n a l c o l l a p s e of the d i s t i n c t i o n s between n a t u r e and c u l t u r e , o r m a t e r i a l and s p i r i t u a l , i n the c o l l a p s e of p r o p e r s i g n i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f . I t i s the i d e a of the " d i r e c t " unbroken " l i n e " of a t e l e o l o g i c a l (and hence a n a r r a t i o n a l ) o r d e r t h a t i s broken i n the i n c o m p a t i b l e "house." The house of f i c t i o n r e f l e c t s the 'malady' i n the f i c t i o n o f the house . (130-131) The house o f f i c t i o n and the f i c t i o n of the house: how to get i n t o i t ? These terms draw a t t e n t i o n to a k i n d o f w r i t i n g t h a t i s concerned w i t h a r c h i t e c t u r e ; and i n p a r t i c u l a r , as I ment ion above, w i t h doors and t h r e s h o l d s . Where w r i t i n g on the t h r e s h o l d b r i n g s to mind the p l a n k or stone a t the bottom of a door t h a t marks the d i v i s i o n s , b o r d e r s or b o u n d a r i e s between " i n s i d e " and "outs ide" as w e l l as between rooms, i t a l s o i m p l i e s the sense of " c r o s s i n g " a l i n e . Here the a t t e n d a n t meanings of "cross" a l s o come i n t o p l a y . I t can denote a s take w i t h a t r a n s v e r s e b a r , a t r i a l o r a f f l i c t i o n and a h y b r i d form of i n t e r b r e e d i n g o r , i n the case o f p l a n t s , f e r t i l i z a t i o n . As a v e r b the word "cross" sugges t s misunderstandings—to be a t cross-purposes—as w e l l as t r a n s l a t i o n s and t r a n s f e r e n c e s . Used a d v e r b i a l l y , "cross" 158 means i n t e r s e c t i n g , p a s s i n g from s i d e to s i d e and c o n t r a r y or opposed. A w r i t i n g t h a t i s c r o s s - d e t e r m i n e d mounts a r e s i s t a n c e to what Peggy Kamuf r e f e r s to as the complementary b e l i e f s t h a t a t e x t . . . (1) has i d e n t i f i a b l e l i m i t s or b o r d e r s and (2) e x i s t s i n a s t a b l e system of r e f e r e n c e to o t h e r t e x t s o f ' i n f o r m a t i o n ' ( i t s ' c o n t e x t ' ) wh ich , i d e a l l y a t l e a s t , can be f u l l y r e p r e s e n t e d , f o r example through a s c h o l a r l y apparatus of n o t e s . " (A Derrida Reader 2 55) To a c e r t a i n ex ten t , then , Poe ' s and D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e poses what D e r r i d a r e f e r s to as "the q u e s t i o n o f the bord, the edge, the b o r d e r " ( " L i v i n g On: Border L i n e s " 256), which i s another way of a d d r e s s i n g the q u e s t i o n of the t e x t . To approach t h i s q u e s t i o n i s to e x p l o r e what Joseph R i d d e l l has c a l l e d , "the c o l l a p s e o f p r o p e r s i g n i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f " (130) . To pose the q u e s t i o n of the t e x t , one must always take the concept of b o r d e r s , d i v i s i o n s and b o u n d a r i e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l o n g w i t h the i d e a o f t h e i r c r o s s i n g . We can take our cue from D e r r i d a ' s s p e c u l a t i o n s on r e a d i n g F r e u d ' s " a p p a r e n t l y a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l p o i n t o f view" as b e i n g " i n s e p a r a b l e " from the d i s c u r s i v e p r o d u c t i o n s o f the so -c a l l e d a n a l y t i c movement ("Notices (Warnings)" 273) . To r e a d thus , says D e r r i d a , "we must b e g i n . . . by p o i n t i n g out i n the h a s t i l y named ' i n t e r n a l ' r e a d i n g [on the w r i t i n g s o f l i f e d e a t h ] , the p l a c e s t h a t are structurally open to 159 intersecting with other networks"(273 emphasis mine on the word "intersecting"). Derrida remind us that whatever intersects must necessarily cross. Given the various meanings of the word "cross," the notion of textual inter s e c t i o n becomes a complex issue that draws attention to i t s own indeterminacy, a point that Derrida takes up i n his thinking on the i t e r a b i l i t y or c i t a t i o n a l i t y of the sign, the place of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of meaning and the context as indeterminable, i n any case. 6 3 Referring to what he c a l l s "a law of undecidable contamination," Derrida argues for a re-thinking of the entire f i e l d of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n terms of the displacement of the d i s t i n c t i o n between meaning based on a theory of the pure speech act or event as intentional and the " p a r a s i t i c , " which the former excludes as being "non-serious." Following Derrida's contention that writing has long been considered " p a r a s i t i c a l " by the philosophical t r a d i t i o n , Mark Wigley asserts that "[t]he logic of incorporation turns out to be that of the parasite, the foreigner occupying the domestic i n t e r i o r and unable to be expelled from i t ... without ruining the space"(179). It i s thus that Derrida's argument for contamination as an "internal and p o s i t i v e condition of p o s s i b i l i t y " ( " S i g n a t u r e Event Context" 103) of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n any case, finds i t s way into cryptomimesis as the model and the method of writing predicated upon a "law of 160 undecidable contamination." Under such a law, textual intersections as well as translations and transferences can be understood i n terms of "crossings," a point which Derrida alludes to when he says, "I leave the word 'crossing' to a l l i t s genetic or genealogical chances. A certa i n writing w i l l make i t s bed i n them"("Notices (Warnings)" 273) . A certain writing w i l l take i t s chances, w i l l , i n effect, even be the subject of crossing, the manifestations of which appear i n the uncanny intersections between Derrida and Poe who are as uncannily bound to each other as the "Envois" suggests Freud and Heidegger are: They did not know each other, but according to me they form a couple... . They are bound to each other without reading each other and without corresponding. ... [They are]two thinkers whose glances never crossed and who, without ever receiving a word from one another, say the same. They are turned to the same side. (191) Perhaps, "without ever receiving a word from one another" i t i s the letters of Poe and Derrida—if not th e i r "glances"— that have crossed (a certa i n threshold) and "say the same." When, i n Poe's story Roderick Usher exclaims "'Have I not heard her footsteps on the stair?,"(5 4 7) we are given a sense of what Derrida means when, i n Aporias, he remarks "[t]he crossing of borders always announces i t s e l f according to the movement of a certa i n step [pas]—and of the step that crosses a line" ( A p o r i a s 11). To a ce r t a i n extent, the 161 a f f i n i t y between D e r r i d a and Poe and, f o r t h a t m a t t e r , between D e r r i d a and Stephen K i n g , can be thought through the n o t i o n of the c r o s s ( i n g ) , the b o r d e r and the t h r e s h o l d , a l l of which draw a t t e n t i o n to themselves as dynamic s i t e s o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n , as uncanny l o c i of (o f ten c o n t r a d i c t o r y ) t r a n s l a t i o n s and, most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , of l i v i n g - d e a t h i n the f i g u r e of r e t u r n . In e f f e c t , the "border c r o s s i n g s " evoked by D e r r i d a , Poe and K i n g "say the same"—they a l l a s s e r t t h a t dea th i s at the h e a r t of e x p e r i e n c e and t h a t c e r t a i n t h r e s h o l d s can not be c r o s s e d wi thout consequence . 162 A Cryptic Spacing: The Destruction of Representation In an essay e n t i t l e d , " H o l b e i n ' s Dead C h r i s t , " J u l i a K r i s t e v a examines H o l b e i n ' s p a i n t i n g i n which she p e r c e i v e s a s p i r i t u a l c r i s i s . K r i s t e v a c l a i m s t h i s c r i s i s ensues when H o l b e i n l eads us "to the u l t i m a t e edge of b e l i e f , to the t h r e s h o l d of nonmeaning" where, she a s s e r t s , "death l i e s at the c e n t r e of e x p e r i e n c e " ( " H o l b e i n ' s Dead C h r i s t " 262) . K r i s t e v a c l a i m s t h a t the p a i n t i n g i s so d i s t u r b i n g because the v i e w e r ' s death i s i m p l i c a t e d i n the d e a t h of God and "there i s n ' t the s l i g h t e s t s u g g e s t i o n o f t ranscendency"(241 ) . These ideas are e q u a l l y f r u i t f u l f o r an examinat ion of D e r r i d a , Poe or K i n g f o r whom "the s u g g e s t i o n of transcendence" i s a l s o l i n k e d to the prob lem of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n which becomes one of antisemantics, a c r y p t i c s p a c i n g t h a t i s the r e s u l t o f v i o l e n c e , c o n t r a d i c t i o n and p l e a s u r e . K r i s t e v a c o u l d j u s t as w e l l be s p e a k i n g of D e r r i d a , Poe or K i n g when she remarks t h a t " [ l ] i k e P a s c a l ' s i n v i s i b l e tomb, death cannot be r e p r e s e n t e d i n F r e u d ' s u n c o n s c i o u s . I t i s i m p r i n t e d t h e r e , however . . . by s p a c i n g s , b l a n k s , d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s o r the d e s t r u c t i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " ( 2 6 5 ) . S i m i l a r l y , her i n t e r e s t i n the way H o l b e i n seems to have "given up a l l a r c h i t e c t u r a l or 163 compositional fancy," suggests the painting achieves a l e v e l of mimesis that a r t i c u l a t e s , i n a "self-conscious" way, the conditions of i t s own making (241). The re s u l t i s both peculiar and disturbing, as Kristeva says: "The tombstone weighs down on the upper portion of the painting, which i s merely twelve inches high, and i n t e n s i f i e s the f e e l i n g of permanent death: this corpse will never rise again"(242-242). Kristeva's remarks suggest that i n terms of mimesis, "death" has c e r t a i n spatial problematics that can be thought through only i n terms of the architecture of the crypt i t s e l f and that which i t houses; usually a corpse that once buried, w i l l stay that way—unless, of course, one can return from the dead. 6 4 Like Holbein, Derrida also takes on the s p a t i a l problematics that death represents when he mimes i n discourse a v i s u a l work. In "Cartouches," for example, Derrida "draws" upon Gerard Titus-Carmel's work e n t i t l e d The Pocket-Size Tlingit Coffin (1975-1976) consisting of a "sculpture"—a mahogany box—and 127 drawings of t h i s "model" each from a d i f f e r e n t angle. When Derrida asks i n "Fors," "What i s a crypt? What i f I were writing on one now?"(xi) and adds "[n]ot a crypt in general, but this one, i n i t s singularity, the one I s h a l l keep coming back t o " ( x i i i ) , his comments suggest how cryptomimesis traces the surface of the 164 o b j e c t , be i t " l i t e r a l " or " f i g u r a t i v e . " In "Fors" D e r r i d a evokes a crypt—"this one"—and l i k e the v iewer i n H o l b e i n ' s p a i n t i n g , we s tand b o t h "wi th in" and "without" the f a n t a s y o f t h a t a r c h i t e c t u r e ' s t a k i n g p l a c e . In s h o r t , we are drawn i n . But we have c r o s s e d a l i n e . A w r i t i n g i n which "death l i e s a t the c e n t e r of exper i ence" i s a w r i t i n g t h a t p r o b l e m a t i z e s space . Because i t concerns i t s e l f w i t h "border c r o s s i n g s , " a w r i t i n g o f t h i s n a t u r e i s always marked by c o n t r a d i c t i o n . But to r e t u r n to the word " c r o s s . " A l t h o u g h the word draws a t t e n t i o n to i t s e l f i n terms of a promise and a s a c r i f i c e i t a l s o , p a r a d o x i c a l l y , g i v e s us the sense o f a "double cros s" through which we are l e d to the s i t e o f b e t r a y a l , t r e a c h e r y and c h e a t i n g , perhaps even the scene of a " c r i m e , " the c l u e s to which , i n the works of D e r r i d a , Poe and K i n g , are de termined by the anagrammatic a m b i g u i t y o f words g i v e n us as i n f i n i t e , m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n s a l "crossword" p u z z l e s comprised not o n l y of "words" but a l s o of words as " t h i n g s , " p a r t s of words and words t h a t translate the u n s p e a k a b i l i t y of o t h e r words or l e t t e r s . T h i s p r o c e s s mimes the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n which , a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , does not c o n s i s t " i n r e p r e s e n t i n g - h i d i n g one word by a n o t h e r , one t h i n g by a n o t h e r , a t h i n g by a word o r a word by a ' t h i n g , but i n p i c k i n g out from the extended s e r i e s o f 165 a l l o s e m e s , a term tha t then ( i n a second-degree d i s t a n c i n g ) i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a s y n o n y m " ( x i i i ) . Returning With A Differance T r a n s l a t e d i n t o synonyms, these "words" are as m u l t i p l y de termined as rebuses and, i n a sense, mark the " t h r e s h o l d " between i n t r o j e c t i o n and i n c o r p o r a t i o n , between mourning and me lancho ly , so to speak. W r i t t e n from a b o r d e r , these t e x t s produce the crypt effect which can a l s o be u n d e r s t o o d as the v e r t i g o t h a t comes about from the m u l t i p l e d i s p l a c e m e n t s i n language t h a t , i n terms of cryptomimes i s are l i k e H o l b e i n ' s p a i n t i n g : they g i v e the i m p r e s s i o n of s t a n d i n g not o n l y without "[a] door [ that has been] s i l e n t l y s e a l e d o f f l i k e a condemned passageway i n s i d e the S e l f , becoming the o u t c a s t safe" but also of b e i n g p o s i t i o n e d "wi th in" an "outcas t s a f e . " In s h o r t , the c r y p t e f f e c t i s one of con t inuous d i s p l a c e m e n t i n which the v a c i l l a t i n g u n d e c i d a b i l i t y of one 's " p o s i t i o n " c o n t r i b u t e s to a r e a d i n g and a w r i t i n g o f the t e x t of the other, a n o t i o n which i s suggested by D e r r i d a ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the c r y p t as a p a r a d o x i c a l "topography of i n s i d e o u t s i d e . " In D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g , we are always b e i n g ushered to a t h r e s h o l d of u n d e c i d a b i l i t y . In such w r i t i n g from the space 166 between d i s t i n c t i o n s , cryptomimes i s seeks to remember u n d e c i d a b i l i t y . I t i s thus anathema to " p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c o u r s e " which cannot master a word meaning two t h i n g s a t the same t ime and which t h e r e f o r e cannot be t r a n s l a t e d w i t h o u t an e s s e n t i a l l o s s . Whether one t r a n s l a t e s pharmakon as "poison" or "remedy," whether one comes down on the s i d e o f s i c k n e s s o r h e a l t h , l i f e or dea th , the u n d e c i d a b i l i t y i s g o i n g to be l o s t . ("Roundtable on T r a n s l a t i o n " 12 0) A l t h o u g h cryptomimes i s p l a y s upon the u n d e c i d a b i l i t y of p o s s i b l e p o s i t i o n s , s t a g i n g , as i t were, the s p e c u l a r p l a y of language , i t a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n to the f i g u r e o f r e t u r n (from the dead) i n terms of l e g a c y , t r a n s f e r e n c e and c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . Where a r e t u r n from the dead takes the form of i t e r a b i l i t y i t i m p l i e s i n r e a d i n g / w r i t i n g the t e x t of the o t h e r , a p a r t i c u l a r economy i s a t work: a system of correspondence—what D e r r i d a might c a l l a p o s t a l system— because the f i g u r e of r e t u r n a l s o i n d i c a t e s a c e r t a i n u n d e l i v e r a b i l i t y , say of a l e t t e r which never reaches i t s d e s t i n a t i o n ; a s t r u c t u r e which , i n e s sence , i n t e r r u p t s the -s e l f - r e f l e x i v i t y of the hermeneut ic c i r c l e . The w r i t e r of "Envois" r e c o g n i z e s the i m p l i c i t r i s k o f such an exchange: They a r e , i n e f f e c t , numerous, those who ask me to w r i t e to them, and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to r e f u s e them o p e n l y . My s e r i o u s l e t t e r s t h e r e f o r e b e g i n w i t h ' G o d , ' theos , and those t h a t are l e s s so w i t h ' the g o d s , ' t h e o i . ' . . . You can always r u n a f t e r the p r o o f : as i f I were s a y i n g to you , here i t i s , i t i s I who am speak ing , and I am s p e a k i n g to you , u n i q u e l y , each time t h a t I w r i t e ' y o u , ' i t i s t r u e 167 that I am addressing myself authentically to you, with f u l l and true speech, presently. When I say ' a l l of you' [vous], when I p l u r a l i z e , i t i s that I am addressing myself less seriously to you, that my l e t t e r i s not r e a l l y destined to you, that i t i s not destined to arrive at i t s destination, for you are, yourself, my unique, my only destination. (136). The writer of "Envois" plays upon a certa i n r a d i c a l otherness, the structure of which corresponds to/with the uncanny doubleness of the ear and i t s t i e s to crypt and the (living) dead. The l i n k to be made, therefore, i s not only between the ear and the crypt—in general and i n p a r t i c u l a r — but also between the crypt, as a "vault of desire," and the text of the other, a vertiginous structure that the writer of "Envois" evokes while staging those c r y p t i c l o v e - l e t t e r s : and when I c a l l you my love, my love, i s i t you I am c a l l i n g or my love? You, my love, i s i t you I thereby name, i s i t to you that I address myself? I don't know i f the question i s well put, i t frightens me. But I am sure that the answer, i f i t gets to me one day, w i l l have come to me from you. You alone, my love, you alone, w i l l have known i t. when I c a l l you my love, i s i t that I am c a l l i n g you, yourself, or i s i t that I am t e l l i n g my love? and when I t e l l you my love i s i t that I am declaring my love to you or indeed that I am t e l l i n g you, yourself, my love, and that you are my love. I want so much to t e l l you. (8) What i s t e l l i n g about this l e t t e r i s the undecidability of i t s pronominal play. In a certain way, i t tells the other. It t e l l s the other by c a l l i n g up ghosts, which i n turn 168 suggests what i s a t s take i n b o t h D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e and i n my own " r e a d i n g . " C o n s i d e r , b r i e f l y , D e r r i d a ' s remarks on M a r x ' s "obsess ion w i t h ghosts" and h i s (Marx's) h a r r y i n g of Max S t i r n e r : I have my own f e e l i n g on t h i s s u b j e c t (I i n s i s t t h a t i t i s a feeling, my f e e l i n g and I have no reason to deny t h a t i t p r o j e c t s i t s e l f n e c e s s a r i l y i n t o the scene I am i n t e r p r e t i n g : my ' t h e s i s , ' my h y p o t h e s i s , or my h y p o s t a s i s , p r e c i s e l y , i s t h a t i t i s never p o s s i b l e to a v o i d t h i s p r e c i p i t a t i o n , s i n c e everyone r e a d s , a c t s , w r i t e s w i t h his or her g h o s t s , even when one goes a f t e r the ghosts o f the o t h e r ) . (Spec ters of Marx 13 9) D e r r i d a ' s answer to h i s own q u e s t i o n , "Why t h i s hunt f o r g h o s t s ? , " h i s r e f l e c t i o n on the q u e s t i o n l e a d s me to c o n s i d e r the i d i o s y n c r a s i e s o f "my" r e a d i n g as w e l l as the uncanny s t r u c t u r e of t e x t u a l i t y i n g e n e r a l which , as I s a i d e a r l i e r , the G o t h i c has always a l l e g o r i z e d . Why t h i s hunt f o r ghosts? A g a i n , D e r r i d a ' s a s s e r t i o n s a r e t e l l i n g : He [Marx /Derr ida /me?] has r e c o g n i z e d someone who, l i k e him, appears obsessed by ghos t s and by the f i g u r e of the ghosts and by i t s names w i t h t h e i r t r o u b l i n g consonance and r e f e r e n c e . Someone who i s b e s i e g e d , l i k e him, by the same and by ano ther , by the same t h a t i s each t ime a n o t h e r , because the i d e n t i t y of the ghost i s p r e c i s e l y the 'prob lem' . . . . I am d e s c r i b i n g then t h i s f e e l i n g : t h a t o f a Marx obsessed , haunted , p o s s e s s e d like/as S t i r n e r , and perhaps more than him, which i s even h a r d e r to t a k e . (139-40) T h i s hunt f o r ghosts i s one reason why cryptomimes i s i s always memory work, but the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , work i n whose memory? In "To Speculate—On ' F r e u d , ' " D e r r i d a suggests what 169 i s a t s take i n t h i s g h o s t l y memory work not o n l y f o r "Freud" but a l s o f o r " D e r r i d a " : Which i s F r e u d ' s d e v i l ? The one t h a t he c o u n t e r f e i t s , or t h a t he r e p r e s e n t s as the d e v i l ' s "advocate ," d o u b t l e s s i n o r d e r to defend him j u d i c i o u s l y , t a k i n g up h i s cause , the cause i n the "something e l s e" ["autre chose"] . . . . Which i s the d e v i l t h a t impels F r e u d to w r i t e ? What the d e v i l by i m p e l l i n g him to w r i t e i n sum w r i t e s i n h i s p l a c e w i t h o u t ever w r i t i n g a n y t h i n g h i m s e l f ? Is t h i s to be a n a l y z e d beyond F r e u d ' s s e l f - a n a l y s i s ? And what are F r e u d ' s "unknown words" which are w r i t t e n w i t h another hand, a l s o h i s own, a t t h i s s t range f e a s t ? Which i s the revenant? To whom, to what, and from whence w i l l he come back [revenir]? I t i s i n the f u t u r e t h a t the q u e s t i o n w i l l be a sked . (271). In " D e r r i d a ' s " case , which i s the revenant? Is i t "my" read ing? What has he sent? What, i f a n y t h i n g , i s b e i n g e n c l o s e d , w a l l e d up l i k e the b l a c k c a t i n Poe ' s t a l e o f the same name; the c a t who was entombed w i t h a murdered woman and whose howls and s h r i e k s a l e r t e d the p o l i c e to the tomb's e x i s t e n c e and the g h a s t l y corpse w i t h i n ? What, i f a n y t h i n g , i s b e i n g e n c l o s e d , l i k e the corpse of the murdered man, c o n c e a l e d beneath the f l o o r b o a r d s whose " t e l l t a l e hear t" (bea t ) so haunted the murderer t h a t he gave h i m s e l f away to the p o l i c e ? L a s t l y , what, i f a n y t h i n g , i s b e i n g e n c l o s e d , b u r i e d a l i v e l i k e M a d e l i n e Usher , whose r e t u r n from the c o p p e r - l i n e d tomb b r i n g s down the house? I f " D e r r i d a " was the name of one of Poe's n a r r a t o r s , we might unders ta n d t h a t he i s a l r e a d y w r i t i n g w i t h "another hand" so 170 as to r e t u r n to himself in secret c e r t a i n "unknown words" that take the shape of a c e r t a i n a r c h i t e c t u r e of d e s i r e : Caulked or padded along i t s inner p a r t i t i o n , w i t h cement or concrete on the other .side, the c r y p t i c safe p r o t e c t s from the outside the very s e c r e t of i t s c l a n d e s t i n e i n c l u s i o n or i t s i n t e r n a l e x c l u s i o n . Is t h i s strange place hermetically sealed? The f a c t that one must always answer yes and no to t h i s question ... w i l l have al r e a d y been apparent from the topographical s t r u c t u r e of the crypt, on i t s highest l e v e l of g e n e r a l i t y : The crypt can c o n s t i t u t e i t s secret by means of i t s d i v i s i o n , i t s f r a c t u r e . " I " can save an inner safe only by p u t t i n g i t i n s i d e 'myself,' beside(s) myself, outside. ("Fors" x i v ) Although we have come the long way around, we can now r e c a l l Derrida's remark w i t h which I began t h i s d i s c u s s i o n on the economics of revenance: " i t was something very strange which returned u t t e r l y without me." Although, i n the above passage, De r r i d a r e f e r s to the s p a t i a l and temporal c o n d i t i o n of the fantasy of in c o r p o r a t i o n — " t h e s e c r e t of i t s c l a n d e s t i n e i n c l u s i o n or i t s i n t e r n a l e x c l u s i o n " — h i s remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to the uncanniess of a w r i t i n g that r e t u r n s , l i k e a revenant, without him, where the word "without" not only stages a r a d i c a l s p a t i a l indeterminacy but a l s o gives us to understand the uncanniness that comes about i n the wake of sending. This ambivalence i s what the w r i t e r of the "Envois" i m p l i e s when he says [t]he c o n d i t i o n f o r me to renounce nothing and that my love comes back to me, and from me be i t understood, i s that you are there, over there, 171 quite a l i v e outside of me. Out of reach. And that you send me back (29) In "Literature and the Right to Death," Blanchot uses the figure of a Lazarus to connect l i t e r a t u r e and p o l i t i c s , negation and language, to bring about a similar ambivalence. Blanchot describes this figure as the "Lazarus i n the tomb, and not Lazarus saved, the one who already smells bad, who i s E v i l , Lazarus l o s t and not Lazarus saved brought back to l i f e . ... Literature ... dispenses with the writer. ... That i s why i t cannot be confused with consciousness, which illuminates things and makes decisions; i t i s my consciousness without me..."{The Gaze of Orpheus 46-47) . Is what returns then, another I? Or i s i t you? To the extent that the other i s always bound to a determination of the " s e l f , " the emergence of such r a d i c a l Otherness occasions what Kristeva would c a l l "[a] massive and sudden emergence of uncanniness, which, f a m i l i a r as i t might have been i n an opaque and forgotten l i f e , now harries me as r a d i c a l l y separate, loathsome. Not me. Not that. But not nothing, either"(Powers of Horror 2). It i s clear from Kristeva's remarks that a return of the other has a profound emotional import. In Stephen King's novel, the return of the dead from the grave might be seen to materialize the affect i m p l i c i t i n both Blanchot's and Kristeva's remarks since the horror they evoke appears predicated not only upon our apprehension of what Blanchot would c a l l "beings deprived of being"(39) 172 but a l s o because , as c o r p s e s , they r e t u r n us to "what [we] permanent ly t h r u s t a s i d e i n o r d e r to l i v e " ( K r i s t e v a , Powers of Horror 3 ) . C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g passages from Stephen K i n g ' s Pet Sematary i n which L o u i s C r e e d exhumes the body of h i s son Gage, i n o r d e r to r e b u r y i t i n the same ground from which the f a m i l y c a t , Church , r e t u r n e d from the dead: [ t ]he s m e l l h i t him f i r s t , and L o u i s r e c o i l e d , g a g g i n g . He hung on the edge of the g r a v e , b r e a t h i n g h a r d , and j u s t when he thought he had h i s gorge under c o n t r o l , h i s e n t i r e , b i g , t a s t e l e s s meal came up i n a s p u r t . . . . A t l a s t the nausea p a s s e d . T e e t h clamped t o g e t h e r , he took the f l a s h l i g h t out of h i s a r m p i t and shone i t down i n t o the open c o f f i n . A deep horror that was very nearly awe stole over him.... The moss [ that was growing on Gage ' s s k i n ] was damp but no more than a scum. He s h o u l d have expected i t ; there had been r a i n , and a grave l i n e r was not w a t e r t i g h t . F l a s h i n g h i s l i g h t to e i t h e r s i d e , L o u i s saw t h a t the c o f f i n was l y i n g i n a t h i n p u d d l e . Beneath the l i g h t s l i m e of growth, he saw h i s son . . . . He worked h i s arms under Gage. The body l o l l e d b o n e l e s s l y from s i d e to s i d e , and a sudden, awful c e r t a i n t y came over [ L o u i s ] : when he l i f t e d Gage, Gage's body would b r e a k a p a r t and he would be l e f t w i t h the p i e c e s . He would be l e f t s t a n d i n g w i t h h i s f e e t on the s i d e s o f the grave l i n e r w i t h the p i e c e s , s creaming . And t h a t was how they would f i n d h im. He got Gage under the arms, aware o f the f e t i d dampness, and l i f t e d him t h a t way, as he had l i f t e d him so o f t e n from h i s e v e n i n g t u b . Gage's head l o l l e d a l l the way to the m i d d l e of h i s b a c k . (341-343) 173 T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the corpse i s c l a s s i c a b j e c t i o n m a t e r i a l . As K r i s t e v a says , the corpse s i g n i f i e s not one s i d e but always "the other s i d e of the b o r d e r , the p l a c e where I am not and which p e r m i t s me to be"(Powers of Horror 3 ) . In the c l a s s i c h o r r o r f i l m , as B a r b a r a C r e e d remarks , the f i g u r e of the animated corpse i s so f e a r f u l , so "loathsome" (to use K r i s t e v a ' s term) because i t comes to us from "the o t h e r s i d e of the b o r d e r , r e t u r n i n g us to what we are no t" (10 ) . The p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f t h i s f i g u r e i n .popular c u l t u r e demonstrates how p o w e r f u l the draw of the b o r d e r a c t u a l l y i s : one of the most b a s i c forms of p o l l u t i o n — t h e body w i t h o u t a s o u l . As a form of waste i t r e p r e s e n t s the o p p o s i t e of the s p i r i t u a l , the r e l i g i o u s s y m b o l i c . In r e l a t i o n to the h o r r o r f i l m , i t i s . r e l e v a n t to note that several of the most popular horrific figures are 'bodies without souls' (the vampire), the 'living corpse' (the zombie), corpse-eater (the ghoul) and the robot or android. (10) I mentioned e a r l i e r t h a t a c c o r d i n g to B a r b a r a C r e e d , the concept of the b o r d e r i s i n t e g r a l to "the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the monstrous i n the h o r r o r f i l m " ( 1 1 ) . The same h o l d s t r u e f o r the n o v e l , o f which Stephen K i n g ' s i s a case i n p o i n t . R e c a l l the warning g i v e n to L o u i s C r e e d by the s tudent who d i e s i n h i s arms: " ' D o n ' t go beyond, no mat ter how much you f e e l you need t o . The b a r r i e r was not meant to be b r o k e n . ' " A l t h o u g h the presence of corpses evokes a b j e c t i o n on the p a r t o f the p r o t a g o n i s t i n K i n g ' s n o v e l , i t i s the animated 174 corpse—the one so f a m i l i a r to the Gothic who returns from the grave as i f summoned by the refusal to mourn—that m a t e r i a l i z e s the c o l l a p s e of meaning to which K r i s t e v a r e f e r s . I f , as B a t a i l l e suggests, b u r i a l of the c o r p s e — " [ t ] h a t nauseous, rank and heaving matter, f r i g h t f u l to look upon, a ferment of l i f e , teeming w i t h worms, grubs and eggs [which] i s at the bottom of the d e c i s i v e r e a c t i o n s we c a l l nausea, dis g u s t or repugnance" (Erot ism 11)—keeps the living safe from the "contagion" of death, then the corpse's r e t u r n from the grave i n f i c t i o n and i n f i l m b r i n g s us to cryptomimesis— brings us edging towards the "void" that death occasions i n the midst of l i f e . What we have when the dead r e t u r n from the grave i n King's novel i s a staging of the dynamic r e l a t i o n s h i p that cryptomimesis evokes between d e s i r e and horror, between mourning and the r e f u s a l to mourn, a st a g i n g which—because i t goes against what Freud c a l l s the normal work of mourning—keeps the dead a l i v e , keeps them r e t u r n i n g , but w i t h a " d i f f e r a n c e . " 175 A n Art of Chicanery In Art of Darkness: A Poetics of the Gothic, Anne W i l l i a m s e x p l o r e s the problem of language and m u l t i p l e meaning i n the G o t h i c . W i l l i a m s contends t h a t " [ i ] n G o t h i c language i s m u l t i f a r i o u s , d u p l i c i t o u s , and p a r a d o x i c a l " ( 67 ) . 6 5 In terms of c r y p t o m i m e s i s , W i l l i a m s ' remarks suggest one of the convergences between the G o t h i c and D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e . They draw a t t e n t i o n to a c e r t a i n (poet i c ) encounter w i t h language which i s l a b y r i n t h i n e i n tha t i t admits the m u l t i p l e and the ambiguous. W i l l i a m s has something to say on t h i s s o r t of l a b y r i n t h i n e w r i t i n g t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s the G o t h i c : G o t h i c c o n v e n t i o n s . . . i m p l y a f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h the problem of language, w i t h p o s s i b l e f i s s u r e s i n the system of the Symbol ic as a whole . Most—perhaps all —Gothic convent ions express some a n x i e t y about "meaning." In G o t h i c , fragments o f language o f t e n serve ambiguous ly to f u r t h e r the p l o t — i n l e t t e r s ( l o s t , s t o l e n , b u r i e d ) ; i n m y s t e r i o u s warn ings , p r o p h e c i e s , oaths and c u r s e s ; i n l o s t w i l l s and l o s t m a r r i a g e l i n e s . Such fragments may be m i s i n t e r p r e t e d (o f ten because they a r e removed from the o r i g i n a l c o n t e x t ) , and f r e q u e n t l y d e c e i v e or b e t r a y the i n t e r p r e t e r . (67) F o r D e r r i d a , the " f a s c i n a t i o n " w i t h " p o s s i b l e f i s s u r e s i n the system of the Symbol ic" and the p r o d u c t i o n o f the m u l t i p l e c o n s i s t s o f 176 p l a y i n g w i t h the allosemes and t h e i r synonyms (always more numerous i n t h e i r open s e r i e s than i s i n d i c a t e d i n a d i c t i o n a r y ) , [such w r i t i n g ] swerves o f f at an angle i n order to throw the reader o f f the t r a c k and make i t s i t i n e r a r y unreadable. An a r t of chicanery: j u d i c i a l p e t t i f o g g i n g , s o p h i s t i c r a t i o c i n a t i o n , but a l s o [chicane - maze] a topographical s t r a t e g y m u l t i p l y i n g simulated b a r r i e r s , hidden doors, o b l i g a t o r y detours, abrupt changes of d i r e c t i o n [sens], a l l the t r i a l s and e r r o r s of a game of s o l i t a i r e meant both to seduce and to discourage, to f a s c i n a t e , and f a t i g u e . ("Fors" x i i i ) To "enter" Derrida's t e x t i s to encounter the seductive, discouraging, f a s c i n a t i n g and f a t i g u i n g l a b y r i n t h . I t i s to enter upon w r i t i n g that i s e s s e n t i a l l y p o e t i c , i t s " f o l d s " m u l t i p l e , productive of a s i m u l t a n e i t y of meanings that "make [an] i t i n e r a r y unreadable." The " i t i n e r a r y " of a cryptomimetic t e x t i s "unreadable" because of l a b y r i n t h i n e detours that p r o l i f e r a t e , r a t h e r than l i m i t meaning, thus evoking, as the w r i t e r of "Envois" suggests, a k i n d of d e l i r i u m i n the face of the m u l t i p l e : Suppose that at the end of reading something, one of the voices of the book murmurs to you something l i k e : every time I s a i d "arrive," I was t h i n k i n g of you. Not of what I expect from you, as i f your coming were s t i l l an accident of yours, but of you, uniquely, you who a r r i v e , who are what a r r i v e s , you who are f o r me what a r r i v e s , what comes to me from a s i n g l e venue. The t e x t then sees i t s e l f t r a n s f i g u r e d by t h i s , they would have to reread everything, and the other t e x t s from the beginning of time... . And i f another v o i c e i n the same book says: everything i s connoted i n do, there are only the dos that count, look back over the e n t i r e scansion (not the das as i n fort/da or d e r r i d a , but a l s o the most t r a i l i n g , d r awling dos, l i k e derriere les rideaux [behind the c u r t a i n s ] ) , 177 then i t would be n e c e s s a r y to go through e v e r y t h i n g once more, which i s one more book. (78) To go through e v e r y t h i n g once more i s to be drawn i n t o the i n f i n i t e g e n e r a t i o n of t e x t s . That i s anathema to i d e n t i t y . To be caught up i n the d e l i r i u m of cryptomimes i s i s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the ebbs, f lows , c u r r e n t s and undertows of i t s "sea-changes": the always a l r e a d y c o n d i t i o n o f differance i n language . O s c i l l a t i n g between p h i l o s o p h y and l i t e r a t u r e , cryptomimes i s undermines n o t i o n s of a u t h o r s h i p and' s t y l e to make a break w i t h o r i g i n a r y meanings. Comprised of c r a z i l y a n g l e d o r g a n i z i n g frames, c r y p t o m i m e t i c t e x t s , l i k e Glas o r the " E n v o i s , " appear s t r u c t u r e d l e s s on p r i n c i p l e s o f " n a r r a t i v e " t h a t engage us i n t o t a l i z i n g g e s t u r e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n than on the d i s j u n c t i o n s of space and t ime c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of e x p e r i m e n t a l v i d e o . To borrow a p h r a s e from F r e d r i c Jameson, D e r r i d a ' s t e x t s appear to be c o m p r i s e d of "fragments i n f l i g h t " and f u n c t i o n l i k e the v i d e o t e x t i n t h a t r e a d i n g becomes an immersion i n the " t o t a l f low of the t h i n g i t s e l f " ( 7 8 ) . I t i s not c o n t r a d i c t o r y , however, to c l a i m t h a t cryptomimes i s a c h i e v e s an unreadab le i t i n e r a r y because i t "swerves o f f a t an angle" from what C i x o u s r e f e r s to as " e x p l a n a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and a l l the a u t h o r i t i e s p i n p o i n t i n g l o c a l i z a t i o n " ( 9 6 ) . Cryptomimes i s does so, however, not because i t discourages e x p l a n a t i o n o r 1 7 8 interpretation but, on the contrary, s o l i c i t s i t . That i s , a cryptomimetic text does not r e s i s t the "incessant deciphering" of the w i l l to power/interpretation but invites i t by generating a power surge along the c i r c u i t r y of desire. The e f f e c t i s what Dennis Foster c a l l s , "a kind of counterhegemony, not an escape from the structure of discourse and ideology but a turning and multiplying of them"(522). If we consider the import of these remarks, we understand what i s at stake for the i n s t i t u t i o n s of reading when the borders of texts are no longer s t r i c t l y determinable. Seduced and discouraged, fascinated and fatigued, we are drawn into interminable (textual) analysis. Nicholas Rand's comments on Derrida's reading and writing practice confirm t h i s notion of production: Derrida uses the semantic d i v e r s i t y as well as the phonetic and anagrammatic ambiguity of words (that i s , age-old poetic devices) i n order to demonstrate that (philosophical) texts are at cross-purposes with themselves. His readings [and writings] often y i e l d one or more words whose transparent meanings i n the text are treated as indications of the need for i n t e g r i t y [which i s the aim of philosophy,] whereas t h e i r less obvious l e x i c a l , phonetic, syntactic, and typographical aspects are revealed as the text's own insidious hints of d i s i n t e g r a t i o n . ("Translator's Introduction" WMMW l x v i i emphasis mine). Derrida's "topographical strategies" r e c a l l the labyrinthine structure of language/being as proposed by G i l l e s Deleuze: "a labyrinth i s said, etymologically, to be multiple because i t contains many folds. The multiple i s not only what has 179 many parts but what i s folded i n many ways... . " 6 6 Indeed, one might well argue that, i n i t s resemblance to the labyrinthine design of a "Gothic" structure, there i s nothing so haunted as the multiple and nothing so susceptible to "disintegration," even i f i t ' s only the reader's sense (sens) of d i r e c t i o n . Hence, I want to suggest that an encounter with Derrida's "semantic d i v e r s i t y " draws us into the condition of what Paul de Man c a l l s "true poetic ambiguity ... [which proceeds] from the deep d i v i s i o n of Being itself..."("The.Dead End of Formalist C r i t i c i s m " 237). It i s not d i f f i c u l t to draw an analogy between a reader who, to r e c a l l Derrida's remarks i n the passage above, becomes thrown "off the track" and the heroine who becomes lo s t i n the labyrinthine structure of a Gothic castle i n a simi l a r encounter with "multiplying simulated b a r r i e r s , hidden doors, obligatory detours, abrupt changes of di r e c t i o n . " One i s led, i n both cases, to r e a l i z e that what i s at stake i s a thinking towards what Derrida, i n Specters of Marx, c a l l s "learning to l i v e . " This i s an uncanny task since, says Derrida, " i t would be necessary to learn s p i r i t s " ( x v i i i ) . 6 7 To learn s p i r i t s , however, a d i s t i n c t i o n must be made between s p i r i t and specter, however unstable, since wherever the specter appears, i t i s , says Derrida, a "phenomenal and carnal form of the [thing that i s called] s p i r i t " ( 6 ) . This remark draws attention to how the trope of 180 the l i v i n g - d e a d s tages i n b o t h p o p u l a r c u l t u r e and D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g , the m a n i f e s t a t i o n of a c e r t a i n s p i r i t , one f a c e t of which i s the p r o f o u n d mourning brought about by the so -c a l l e d death of God. A l t h o u g h such mourning might w e l l be u n d e r s t o o d as a form of c u l t u r a l n o s t a l g i a based upon the l o s s of "meaning" or "presence" c o n s i d e r e d i n humanist t e r m s , 6 8 i t a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n to what B l a n c h o t r e f e r s to as the "death of p h i l o s o p h y , " which , says B l a n c h o t "has [ for some years ] been a f f i r m i n g or r e a l i z i n g i t s own end"(qtd i n Specters of Marx 36) . 6 9 I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to imagine , f o r example, how the c u r r e n t r e s u r g e n c e of the t r o p e of the revenant i n the f i c t i o n and f i l m of p o p u l a r c u l t u r e draws a t t e n t i o n to the way t h a t the s o - c a l l e d death of p h i l o s o p h y i s a l s o an o c c a s i o n f o r i t s r e t u r n from the g r a v e , which i s what D e r r i d a suggests when he addresses what he c a l l s "a q u e s t i o n of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' s p i r i t ' . . . head ing the [ funerary] march at the moment of i t s ' d i s a p p e a r a n c e ' . . . " {Specters, 36) . In these terms, p h i l o s o p h y becomes, as D e r r i d a says , i t s own "revenant; i t i t s e l f haunts i t s own p l a c e s more than i t i n h a b i t s them"(36). I t can be argued , t h e r e f o r e , tha t the f i c t i o n and f i l m of p o p u l a r c u l t u r e , r e p e t i t i o u s l y concerned w i t h themes o f p s y c h i c phenomena, the s u p e r n a t u r a l , the f o r c e s o f " e v i l " , the r e t u r n of the dead from the grave , can be c o n s i d e r e d as a c u l t u r a l effect of what B l a n c h o t r e f e r s to as "ph i lo sophy . . . a f f i r m i n g or 181 r e a l i z i n g i t s own end...". In a certai n sense, philosophy can see r e f l e c t e d i n the return of the dead i n popular culture i t s own funeral procession. Blanchot appears to refer to thi s e f f e c t when he remarks on the sunset t h a t from now on accompanies every t h i n k e r , a s t r a n g e funeral moment which the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p i r i t c e l e b r a t e s i n an e x a l t a t i o n t h a t i s , moreover, o f t e n j o y f u l , l e a d i n g i t s s low f u n e r a l p r o c e s s i o n d u r i n g which i t expec t , i n one way or ano ther , to o b t a i n i t s resurrection. And of c o u r s e , such an e x p e c t a t i o n , c r i s i s and f e a s t o f n e g a t i v i t y , e x p e r i e n c e pushed as f a r as i t w i l l go to f i n d out what r e s i s t s , does not touch o n l y on p h i l o s o p h y . (q td . i n Specters of Marx 36) B l a n c h o t ' s remarks c o n f i r m t h a t h a u n t i n g be longs to the s t r u c t u r e o f thought . They a l s o draw a t t e n t i o n to how an e n t i r e g e n e r a t i o n i s haunted by what Timothy B a h t i and R i c h a r d K l e i n r e f e r to i n t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n to a s p e c i a l i s s u e of Diacritics as "the Ghost o f T h e o l o g y , " the remainder and reminder i n our thought of c a t e g o r i e s we can no l o n g e r b e l i e v e i n but cannot f a i l to r e p e a t , h o l l o w l y , m e c h a n i c a l l y , i n a g h o s t l y f a s h i o n . No new t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of these c a t e g o r i e s has o c c u r r e d which i s not another d i s g u i s e under which they may c o n t i n u e t h e i r f a m i l i a r o p p r e s s i o n . What makes the Ghost most i n t o l e r a b l e , p o l i t i c a l l y and e t h i c a l l y . . . i s t h a t i t i s so i n t i m a t e l y b o r i n g . (1) In The Ego and Its Own, Max S t i r n e r evokes the workings of j u s t such a ghost when he r e c o u n t s what he p e r c e i v e s as an o n t o l o g i c a l s h i f t from a n t i q u i t y to the moderns i n the "order of the world"—a k i n d of d i senchantment which put the s p i r i t over sense—from "the w o r l d d f t h i n g s " to the "world 182 of the s p i r i t " (27). S t i r n e r p o i n t s out t h a t the p r o d u c t i o n of the s p i r i t u a l demands t h a t to be i d e a l , s p i r i t must be o t h e r - w o r l d l y , and a human b e i n g must n e c e s s a r i l y be less than the pure s p i r i t which then, as S t i r n e r says , can "only be outside me"(33). T h i s remark d i r e c t s our a t t e n t i o n to the movement of a c e r t a i n s p a c i n g t h a t opens i t s e l f to h a u n t i n g i n terms of the f a n t a s y of i n c o r p o r a t i o n s i n c e , as S t i r n e r p o i n t s out , the " S p i r i t of G o d , " a t l e a s t a c c o r d i n g to the Western view, a l s o "dwells in us"(35 emphasis m i n e ) . 7 0 That such s p a c i n g i s a c c o m p l i s h e d , S t i r n e r sugges t s , i s shown i n the f a c t t h a t we make a d i s t i n c t i o n between "I" and " s p i r i t . " The hunger f o r the o t h e r w o r l d depends upon i t . S t i r n e r p o i n t s out t h a t even w i t h the doubts which have been r a i s e d i n the course of t ime a g a i n s t the t e n e t s of Western r e l i g i o n , t h i s s p a t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n remains i n t e g r a l : I f somebody t o l d you you were a l t o g e t h e r s p i r i t , you would take h o l d of your body and not b e l i e v e him, but answer: ' I have a s p i r i t , no doubt , but do not e x i s t o n l y as s p i r i t , but as a man w i t h a b o d y . ' You would s t i l l d i s t i n g u i s h yourself from 'your s p i r i t . ' ' B u t , ' r e p l i e s he, ' i t i s y o u r d e s t i n y , even though now you are y e t g o i n g about i n the f e t t e r s of the body, to be one day a ' b l e s s e d s p i r i t , ' and, however you may c o n c e i v e o f the f u t u r e a spec t of your s p i r i t , so much i s y e t c e r t a i n , t h a t i n death you w i l l put o f f t h i s body and y e t keep y o u r s e l f , your s p r i t , f o r a l l e t e r n i t y , a c c o r d i n g l y your s p i r i t i s the e t e r n a l and t r u e i n you , the body o n l y a d w e l l i n g here below, which you may l eave and perhaps exchange f o r a n o t h e r . ' (31) 183 Stirner argues that even i f one no longer has f a i t h i n Western r e l i g i o n and no longer believes i n the immortality of the s p i r i t , one tenet s t i l l survives undisturbed: "that the s p i r i t i s your better part, and that the s p i r i t u a l has greater claims on you than anything else"(32). Stirner points out that one s t i l l says " S p i r i t s e x i s t ! " even though reason claims otherwise, a notion that i s borne out by the re v i v a l of interest i n the Gothic. What continues to haunt us, says Stirner, i s "the mysterious spook that we c a l l highest essence,"(40) or the "Supreme Being," 7 1 even though the very b e l i e f i n God suffered by the laying aside of the b e l i e f i n s p i r i t s and ghosts, a c r i s i s of which as Stirner claims, the Romantics were conscious: 7 2 The Romantics f e l t the a t t a c k on the v e r y f a i t h i n God r e p r e s e n t e d by the abandonment of b e l i e f i n s p i r i t s and g h o s t s ; they, sought to remedy the f a t a l consequences of t h i s , not o n l y by r e s u s c i t a t i n g the w o r l d of f a b l e , but e s p e c i a l l y by 'opening the gates to a h i g h e r w o r l d ' w i t h t h e i r s l e e p - w a l k e r s , P r e v o r s t ' s c l a i r v o y a n t s , e t c . The f a i t h f u l and the Church F a t h e r s d i d not r e a l i z e t h a t by d e s t r o y i n g b e l i e f i n g h o s t s , they were a l s o t a k i n g away the b a s i s of r e l i g i o n , which l e f t i t f l o a t i n g , de tached from the ground t h a t n o u r i s h e d i t . Whoever no l o n g e r b e l i e v e s i n ghos t s has o n l y to pursue h i s u n b e l i e f to i t s c o n c l u s i o n to r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r e i s no b e i n g h i d d e n b e h i n d t h i n g s , no ghost of—what comes down to the same t h i n g i f one unders tands the word i n i t s n a i v e sense—no ' s p i r i t . ' ( q t d i n Specters of Marx 191) T h i s passage from S t i r n e r g i v e s us to u n d e r s t a n d why D e r r i d a makes the d i s t i n c t i o n between s p e c t e r and s p i r i t . As S t i r n e r ' s remarks suggest , we c o n t i n u e to l i v e in the spirit 1 8 4 of a haunted p a t r i a r c h y which , s i n c e the E n l i g h t e n m e n t , a t l e a s t , has been marked by a p r o f o u n d ( r e f u s a l ) of mourning i n the wake of the s o - c a l l e d dea th of God (to the l i s t of the d e p a r t e d , we c o u l d of course add the A u t h o r , H i s t o r y , Consc iousness and the S u b j e c t ) . The r e f u s a l to mourn t h i s demise takes the form of i n c o r p o r a t i o n and takes the shape of a n o s t a l g i c v e n e r a t i o n f o r the p a s t and f o r the c o n v e y i n g of "pastness ," which i s how F r e d r i c Jameson r e f e r s to the n o s t a l g i a which u n d e r l i e s the d e s p e r a t i o n of c u r r e n t c o l l e c t i v e and s o c i a l a t tempts i n f i c t i o n and f i l m "to a p p r o p r i a t e a m i s s i n g p a s t " ( 1 8 ) . In these works (and i n t h e i r c r i t i c a l r e c e p t i o n ) , the r e t u r n of the dead from the grave i s a case i n p o i n t , f o r these are not o n l y r e p r e s e n t e d as an o c c a s i o n of h o r r o r , a l t h o u g h t h i s a spec t necessarily remains i n t a c t , but a l s o o f r e g r e t , sadness and m e l a n c h o l y . S l a v o j Z i z e k has noted t h i s t r e n d m p o p u l a r c u l t u r e and p r o v i d e s an " a r c h e t y p a l " example o f the c u r r e n t t r e n d m the g e n r e . Z i z e k d e s c r i b e s George Romero's Night of the Living Dead as a f i l m where the 1 undead ' are not p o r t r a y e d as embodiments o f pure e v i l , o f a s imple d r i v e to k i l l or revenge , but as s u f f e r e r s , p u r s u i n g t h e i r v i c t i m s w i t h an awkward p e r s i s t e n c e , c o l o r e d by a k i n d of i n f i n i t e sadness (as i n Werner H e r z o g ' s Nosferatu, i n which the vampire i s not a s i m p l e machinery of e v i l w i t h a c y n i c a l s m i l e on h i s l i p s , but a m e l a n c h o l i c s u f f e r e r l o n g i n g f o r s a l v a t i o n ) . (22-23 ) 7 3 185 As Z i z e k ' s remarks suggest , even the s o - c a l l e d monsters of p o p u l a r c u l t u r e s u f f e r n o s t a l g i a f o r a t ime when " s a l v a t i o n " was an o p t i o n . To l i v e i n the s p i r i t o f a haunted p a t r i a r c h y i s to be spoken, which i s what D e r r i d a means when he says [ e ] v e r y t h i n g i s c o n c e n t r a t e d then i n the German e x p r e s s i o n es spukt, which t r a n s l a t i o n s a r e o b l i g e d to c i r c u m v e n t . One would have to say: i t haunts , i t g h o s t s , i t s p e c t e r s , t h e r e i s some phantom t h e r e , i t has the f e e l of the l i v i n g - d e a d — manor house, s p i r i t u a l i s m , o c c u l t s c i e n c e , g o t h i c n o v e l , o b s c u r a n t i s m , atmosphere o f anonymous t h r e a t or imminence. The s u b j e c t t h a t haunts i s not i d e n t i f i a b l e , one cannot see, l o c a l i z e , f i x any form, one cannot d e c i d e between h a l l u c i n a t i o n and p e r c e p t i o n , t h e r e are o n l y d i s p l a c e m e n t s ; one f e e l s o n e s e l f l o o k e d a t by what one cannot see . {Specters of Marx 13 6) Whereas N i c o l a s Abraham and M a r i a Torok would d e s c r i b e the phantom i n terms of "the r e f u s a l to r e c l a i m as our own the p a r t of o u r s e l v e s t h a t we p l a c e d i n what we l o s t " ( " M o u r n i n g or M e l a n c h o l i a " 127), D e r r i d a a s s e r t s t h a t "[h]umanity i s but a c o l l e c t i o n or s e r i e s of g h o s t s " ( Specte rs of Marx 136) . These comments b r i n g forward the n o t i o n t h a t we o u r s e l v e s are s p e c t e r s who, l i k e N o s f e r a t u , l o n g f o r " s a l v a t i o n " i n some f o r m . 7 4 On the one hand the s p e c t e r i s the " c a r n a l a p p a r i t i o n [ s ] of the s p i r i t , i t s phenomenal body, i t s f a l l e n and g u i l t y body, [the s p e c t e r ] i s a l s o the i m p a t i e n t and n o s t a l g i c w a i t i n g f o r a redempt ion , namely, once a g a i n , f o r a s p i r i t {auf Erlosung barrt, namlich ein Geist) . [On the o t h e r hand] [ t ]he ghost would be the d e f e r r e d s p i r i t , the promise or c a l c u l a t i o n o f an e x p i a t i o n " ( 1 3 6 ) . To a c e r t a i n 1 8 6 extent, the " s p i r i t " incarnates i n the "phenomenal body" of "writing" as well as that of a "subject" i n a way that r e c a l l s the fantasy of incorporation: In the f l e s h ! For there i s no ghost, there i s never any becoming-specter of the s p i r i t without at least an appearance of flesh, i n a space of i n v i s i b l e v i s i b i l i t y , l i k e the dis-appearing of an apparition. For there to be ghost, there must be a return to the body, but to a body that i s more abstract than ever. The spectrogenic process corresponds therefore to a paradoxical incorporation. Once ideas or thoughts are detached from th e i r substratum, one engenders some host by giving them a body. Not by returning to the l i v i n g body from which ideas and thoughts have been torn loose, but by incarnating the l a t t e r i n another artifactual body, a prosthetic body, a ghost of s p i r i t , one might say a ghost of the ghost of i t . . . . (126) It i s in t h i s s p i r i t that Derrida makes the assertion that "deconstruction"—roughly analogous to what I am c a l l i n g cryptomimesis—takes place " i n a cert a i n spirit of Marxism" and that deconstruction, as such, "would have been impossible and unthinkable i n a pre-Marxist space"(92). This notion suggests that deconstruction i s the ghost or the deferred promise of (a cert a i n s p i r i t of) Marxism that i s generationally s p e c i f i c : There has been, then, t h i s attempted r a d i c a l i z a t i o n of Marxism c a l l e d deconstruction (and i n which, as some have noted, a c e r t a i n economic concept of the d i f f e r a n t i a l economy and of exappropriation, or even of the g i f t , plays an organizing role, as does the concept of work t i e d to differance and to the work of mourning i n general). If this attempt has been prudent and sparing but r a r e l y negative i n the strategy of i t s 187 references to Marx, i t i s because the Marxist ontology, the appellation Marx, the legitimation by way of Marx had been i n a way too s o l i d l y taken over•[arraisonnees]. They appeared to be welded to an orthodoxy, to apparatuses and strategies, whose least f a u l t was not only that they were, as such, deprived of a future, deprived of the future i t s e l f . By 'welded' one may understand an a r t i f a c t u a l but s o l i d adherence whose very event constituted the whole h i s t o r y of the world for the l a s t century and a half, and thus the whole hist o r y of my generation. (92) It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that Derrida conceives of deconstruction and i t s relations to a c e r t a i n s p i r i t of Marxism i n terms of the question of the phantom and of inheritance. These not only c a l l attention to a writing practice that turns upon the fantasy of incorporation but they also draw attention to the moral and e t h i c a l implications surrounding Derrida's assertion (which I mention above) that the task of "learning to l i v e " i s d i f f i c u l t because " i t would be necessary to learn s p i r i t s " ( x v i i i ) . Learning to l i v e brings with i t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of an heir, says Derrida, and whether we l i k e i t or not, whatever consciousness we have of i t , we cannot not be [the heirs of Marx and Marxism]. There i s no inheritance without a c a l l to r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . An inheritance i s always the reaffirmation of a debt, but a c r i t i c a l , s elective, and f i l t e r i n g affirmation.... Even where i t i s not acknowledged, even where i t remains unconscious or disavowed, t h i s debt remains at work. . . . (92-93) That "this debt remains at work" even when i t remains unconscious or disavowed gives us to understand the workings of the phantom and i t s return as a deferred promise, an 188 uncanny pledge upon which Gothic complications have always been predicated. Derrida's assertion that we must learn "to make or to let a s p i r i t speak"(10) i s also a call to r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that requires a c e r t a i n thinking that we have yet to begin. It i s one that Heidegger might say requires a thinking of gathering i n the Old High German sense of the word "thing," which according to Heidegger means, s p e c i f i c a l l y , "a gathering to deliberate on a matter under discussion, a contested matter"("The Thing" 174). Heidegger also points out that the Romans c a l l e d a matter for discourse res: The Roman word res designates that which concerns somebody, an a f f a i r , a contested matter, a case at law. The Romans also use i t for the word causa. In i t s authentic and o r i g i n a l sense, th i s word i n no way s i g n i f i e s "cause"; causa means the case and hence also that which i s the case, i n the sense that something comes to pass and becomes due. ... In English "thing" has s t i l l preserved the f u l l semantic power of the Roman word: "He knows his things," he understands the matters that have a bearing on him; "He knows how to handle things," he knows how to go about dealing with a f f a i r s , that i s , with whatever matters from case to case. ("The Thing" 17 5) Why I mention Heidegger i n th i s context i s that i t seems that when speaking of the "thing" he i s implying a c e r t a i n relationship, a "kinship" between thingness and thinking, a thin(kin)g, i f you w i l l . This i s why Heidegger gives thought to "nearness" because i t implies a c e r t a i n relationship—a r e a l i t y — t h a t s c i e n t i f i c thought disavows or excludes. 189 What Heidegger evokes i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n i n "The T h i n g , " i s the n o t i o n t h a t " t h i n k i n g " as we know i t , i s a syntax t h a t determines the s p a t i a l and tempora l r e l a t i o n s h i p between "subject" and " o b j e c t . " In t h i s sense , p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y i s , as F r e d r i c Jameson sugges t s , "the e f f e c t of a c e r t a i n temporal u n i f i c a t i o n of p a s t and f u t u r e w i t h one ' s p r e s e n t ; and . . . t h a t such a c t i v e t empora l u n i f i c a t i o n i s i t s e l f a f u n c t i o n o f language, or b e t t e r s t i l l of the sentence , as i t moves a l o n g i t s hermeneut ic c i r c l e through t ime"(26-27) . H e i d e g g e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the t h i n g n e s s o f the jug—which he says "does not l i e a t a l l i n the m a t e r i a l of which i t c o n s i s t s , but i n the v o i d t h a t ho lds" ("The Thing" 169)—suggests t h a t he i s making an ana logy between t h i s k i n d o f t h i n k i n g and a c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to language and, thus , w r i t i n g t h a t , i n t u r n , draws a t t e n t i o n to the " impalpable v o i d " as the s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e o f what "stands f o r t h . " A l t h o u g h D e r r i d a seems o f t e n to take up where Heidegger l e f t o f f , D e r r i d a d i f f e r s from Heidegger i n tha t he i s concerned to b r i n g forward the uncanniness and the v i o l e n c e i m p l i c i t i n any k i n d o f " s t r u c t u r e " or i n s t i t u t i o n . In these terms, language, thought and the "subject" are a l l c r y p t i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d . T h i s i s why, i n Specters of Marx, D e r r i d a remarks t h a t i n terms of the S t i r n e r i a n ego, the living individual would i t s e l f be i n h a b i t e d and invaded by i t s own specter. I t would be c o n s t i t u t e d by s p e c t e r s o f which i t becomes the hos t and which i t assembles i n the haunted community of a s i n g l e body. Ego=ghost. T h e r e f o r e x I am' would mean V I am h a u n t e d ' : I am haunted by myse l f who am haunted by myse l f who am . . . and so f o r t h ) . Whenever t h e r e i s Ego, es spukt, ' i t s p o o k s . ' (13 3) 191 How to Speak to It In Specters of Marx, Derrida—who i s u s i n g the f i g u r e of the "scho lar" to demonstrate t h a t t h i n k i n g i s not l o g i c and not me taphys i c s— r e c a l l s H e i d e g g e r ' s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t a system emerges o n l y when t h i n k i n g comes to an end. As He idegger sees i t , " t h i n k i n g " i t s e l f i s "poet ic" and s i n c e we do not take the p o e t i c " s e r i o u s l y , " we have, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , y e t to "dwel l" i n i t . I n s t e a d , says He idegger , we "dwel l u n p o e t i c a l l y " i n a "cur ious measure o f f r a n t i c measur ing and c a l c u l a t i n g " ( " P o e t i c a l l y Man Dwel ls" 228) . Out of t h i s " f r a n t i c measuring" appear the demarcat ions o f b o t h s u b j e c t and o b j e c t and, i n t u r n , what D e r r i d a would c a l l " s c h o l a r s " or "spec ta tors" who, i n p o s i t i o n s of s i n g u l a r i t y , are i n c a p a b l e of a c e r t a i n t h i n k i n g t h a t would " l e t a s p i r i t speak." A c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , the t h i n g [to speak to the s p e c t e r ] seems even more d i f f i c u l t f o r a r e a d e r , an e x p e r t , a p r o f e s s o r , an i n t e r p r e t e r , i n s h o r t , f o r what M a r c e l l u s c a l l s a ' s c h o l a r . ' Perhaps f o r a s p e c t a t o r i n g e n e r a l . F i n a l l y , the l a s t one to whom a s p e c t e r can appear , address i t s e l f , or pay a t t e n t i o n i s a s p e c t a t o r as s u c h . A t the t h e a t e r or a t s c h o o l . The reasons f o r t h i s a r e e s s e n t i a l . As t h e o r e t i c i a n s or w i t n e s s e s , s p e c t a t o r s , o b s e r v e r s , and i n t e l l e c t u a l s , s c h o l a r s b e l i e v e t h a t l o o k i n g i s s u f f i c i e n t . (Specters of Marx 11) 192 That D e r r i d a concurs w i t h He idegger , a t l e a s t to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , i s apparent i n h i s remark t h a t " [ t ] h i n k i n g i s what we a l r e a d y know we have not y e t begun"(from Of Grammatology i n A Derrida Reader 5 3 ) . I n s t e a d , what we have are "scholars"—or s u b j e c t s i f you will—who i n s i s t on "the sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between the r e a l and the u n r e a l , the a c t u a l and the i n a c t u a l , the l i v i n g and the n o n - l i v i n g , b e i n g and non-b e i n g , i n the o p p o s i t i o n between what i s p r e s e n t and what i s n o t " ( Spec te rs of Marx l l ) a n d who, i n e f f e c t , are "not competent" to l e t the s p i r i t speak. T h i s i s because " look ing" demands a c e r t a i n p e r s p e c t i v e . But t h i s i s where the work of mourning—or cryptomimesis—comes i n : a c e r t a i n w r i t i n g t h a t draws us not o n l y i n t o the h i s t o r y o f the ghost but a l s o i n t o the p r o d u c t i o n o f the g h o s t . W r i t i n g , i n t h i s case , i s l e a r n i n g to l e t the ( p l u r i v o c a l ) s p i r i t speak, a ta sk which i s the G o t h i c e q u i v a l e n t o f p u r s u i n g a phantom through l a b y r i n t h i n e v a u l t s and b e i n g l e d onwards by the echoes of f o o t s t e p s seeming s i m u l t a n e o u s l y to r e t r e a t i n and advance from m y r i a d d i r e c t i o n s . W r i t i n g i n " F o r s , " about the Wolf Man's range o f a s s o c i a t i o n s and d i s s o c i a t i o n s , D e r r i d a ' s remarks a l s o d e s c r i b e what awai ts the r e a d e r who e n t e r s the l a b y r i n t h i n e s t r u c t u r e of his w r i t i n g : The Wolf Man's Magic Word shows how a s i g n , h a v i n g become a r b i t r a r y , can r e m o t i v a t e i t s e l f . And i n t o 193 what l a b y r i n t h , what m u l t i p l i c i t y of heterogeneous p l a c e s , one must e n t e r i n o r d e r to t r a c k down the c r y p t i c m o t i v a t i o n , f o r example i n the case o f TR, when i t i s marked by a proper-name e f f e c t (here Tieret), and when, c o n s e q u e n t l y , i t no l o n g e r be longs s i m p l y to the i n t e r n a l system of language . Such m o t i v a t i o n does n e v e r t h e l e s s f u n c t i o n w i t h i n the system and no l i n g u i s t i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s can deny i t . ( x l v i i ) L i k e the Verbarium, c ryptomimes i s p r e s e n t s a c h a l l e n g e to the r e a d e r because i t i s active. Through the l a b y r i n t h of the e a r , the s i g n i s s e t i n mot ion and r e m o t i v a t e d . How to t r a c k i t down? To r e c a l l D e r r i d a , " i t s i t i n e r a r y [ i s ] unreadable" but not because i t i s i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , o r " u n t r a n s l a t a b l e " but because i t m u l t i p l i e s , r a t h e r than attempts to reduce , meaning. I t does so by l e a d i n g the r e a d e r a s t r a y , e n c o u r a g i n g her to wrangle over s m a l l d e t a i l s . I t p l a y s w i t h the law of s i n g u l a r i t y , of i d e n t i t y , o f meaning. I t c a l l s i n t o q u e s t i o n Man and the S u b j e c t . Cryptomimes i s opens i n t o spaces t h a t have h i t h e r t o been disavowed: they are p r o f a n e , mad, u n c o n s c i o u s , f e m i n i n e . T h i s i s why we can use D e r r i d a ' s remarks about the Wolf Man's cryptonymy to d e s c r i b e h i s ( D e r r i d a ' s ) w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e : an "art of c h i c a n e r y : j u d i c i a l p e t t i f o g g i n g , s o p h i s t i c r a t i o c i n a t i o n " ("Fors" x i i i ) In t h a t i t stages, cryptomimes i s i s a l s o an "act". In t u r n , c ryptomimes i s i s an a c t i n t h a t , to use Derek A t t r i d g e ' s terms, i t i s "both a d o i n g and an i m i t a t i o n o f d o i n g , b o t h a performance and a r e c o r d , b o t h an event and a law"(19) . The r e a d e r who i s 194 seduced and f a s c i n a t e d can a l s o become d i s c o u r a g e d and f a t i g u e d through sheer u n d e c i d a b i l i t y : Which p a t h to f o l l o w ? What s teps to take when I d i v i d e s ? The a r c h i t e c t u r e of the c r y p t draws us i n t o a t h i n k i n g of what P a u l de Man r e f e r s to as the d i v i s i o n of B e i n g which opens and m u l t i p l i e s i n the wake of p o e t i c "ambigu i ty"(237) . The s h i f t i n g and m u l t i p l e p a r t i t i o n i n g s of the c r y p t b e a r w i tnes s to de Man's a s s e r t i o n t h a t "poetry does no more than s t a t e and r e p e a t [the] d i v i s i o n [of B e i n g ] " ( 2 3 7 ) . Because cryptomimes i s p l a y s upon the f o l d s these " d i v i s i o n s " occasion—that i s , upon the t h e t i c r e l a t i o n to meaning or r e f e r e n t — i t s e t s the s tage f o r such an assembly by " m u l t i p l y i n g s i m u l a t e d b a r r i e r s , h i d d e n d o o r s , o b l i g a t o r y d e t o u r s , abrupt changes of d i r e c t i o n [sens], a l l the t r i a l s and e r r o r s o f a game of s o l i t a i r e meant b o t h to seduce and to d i s c o u r a g e , to f a s c i n a t e , and f a t i g u e . " What Divides In This Place? The game of s o l i t a i r e , of c o u r s e , f a l l s to the r e a d e r who, i n t u r n , i s seduced, d i s c o u r a g e d , f a s c i n a t e d and f a t i g u e d each t ime the w r i t i n g swerves o f f a t an a n g l e . L i k e the l i t e r a r y t e x t , D e r r i d a ' s [ s ]cryptograms se t the s tage f o r such an assembly . A c r y p t , says D e r r i d a , 195 i s not a n a t u r a l p l a c e [lieu] but the s t r i k i n g h i s t o r y of an a r t i f i c e , an architecture, an a r t i f a c t : of a p l a c e comprehended w i t h i n another but r i g o r o u s l y s epara te from i t , i s o l a t e d from g e n e r a l space by p a r t i t i o n s , an e n c l o s u r e , an e n c l a v e . So as to p u r l o i n the thing from the r e s t . C o n s t r u c t i n g a system of p a r t i t i o n s w i t h t h e i r i n n e r and o u t e r s u r f a c e s , the c r y p t i c e n c l a v e produces a c l e f t i n space, i n the assembled system of v a r i o u s p l a c e s , i n the a r c h i t e c t o n i c s of the open square . ("Fors" x i v ) What does i t mean to say tha t the c r y p t produces a " c l e f t " i n space? D e r r i d a d e l i n e a t e s the s p a t i a l t ( r ) o p o g r a p h y of the c r y p t by d e p l o y i n g the s e m a n t i c a l l y p l u r a l word, for, which as N i c h o l a s Rand p o i n t s out p o t e n t i a l l y [means] (when m o d i f i e d w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e a d j e c t i v e s ) the ' innermost h e a r t ' o r ' c o n s c i e n c e ' (le for interieur) and the ' t e m p o r a l ' o r 'outward' j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c h u r c h (le for exterieur). D e r r i d a ' s use of the p l u r a l (fors) might i n d i c a t e an amalgamation, but a c t u a l l y r e f e r s to another , p r e p o s i t i o n a l meaning (namely, ' s a v e , ' ' except f o r , ' ' o u t s i d e o f ' ) . " ( " T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n " WMMW l x v i i i ) By e v o k i n g d e n o t a t i v e / c o n n o t a t i v e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , these semantic s h i f t s put u n d e c i d a b i l i t y i n t o p l a y i n terms of s l i p p a g e s between d i s t i n c t i o n s of " i n s i d e " and " o u t s i d e . " T h i s s l i p p a g e i s what B a r b a r a Johnson suggests i n a t r a n s l a t o r ' s note to " F o r s , " D e r r i d a ' s foreword to Abraham and T o r o k ' s a n a l y s i s of the Wolf Man: The word fors i n F r e n c h , d e r i v e d from the L a t i n foris ("outs ide , o u t d o o r s " ) , i s an a r c h a i c p r e p o s i t i o n meaning "except f o r , b a r r i n g , save ." In a d d i t i o n , fors i s the p l u r a l o f the word for, which , i n the F r e n c h e x p r e s s i o n l e for interieur, d e s i g n a t e s the i n n e r h e a r t , "the t r i b u n a l of 196 c o n s c i e n c e , " s u b j e c t i v e i n t e r i o r i t y . The word fors thus "means" b o t h i n f e r i o r i t y and e x t e r i o r i t y . . . . ( x i - x i i ) Such p l a y r e c a l l s Eve Kosofky Sedgwick's remarks i n The Coherence of Gothic Conventions r e g a r d i n g the c o n v e n t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l t o p o i of the G o t h i c which f u n c t i o n to c o d i f y how the f i c t i o n a l s e l f i s s p a t i a l i z e d ( 1 2 ) . Because the s p a t i a l convent ions a l s o determine the d i v i s i o n between " i n s i d e " and "outs ide" , they a l s o draw a t t e n t i o n to the d i v i d i n g l i n e i t s e l f as a b o r d e r or a space t h a t i s neither i n s i d e nor o u t s i d e . The G o t h i c formula which Sedgwick evokes—"'an X w i t h i n an X ' " o r , b e t t e r y e t , "a s t o r y - w i t h i n - a - s t o r y - w i t h i n - a -s t o r y - w i t h i n - a - s t o r y " ( 2 0 ) — c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to the i n f i n i t e performativity of t h a t s p a c i n g . But i t a l s o r e c a l l s the s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e o f c ryptomimes i s t h a t i s sugges ted by what D e r r i d a says w i t h regards to the c r y p t and which I mentioned above: What i s a c r y p t ? . . . [ I ] t i s . . . not a n a t u r a l p l a c e [ l i e u ] . . . but an architecture, an a r t i f a c t : of a p l a c e comprehended w i t h i n another but r i g o r o u s l y s epara te from i t , i s o l a t e d from g e n e r a l space by p a r t i t i o n s , an e n c l o s u r e , an e n c l a v e . . . . C o n s t r u c t i n g a system of p a r t i t i o n s , w i t h t h e i r i n n e r and o u t e r s u r f a c e s , the c r y p t i c e n c l a v e produces a c l e f t i n space . . . . [The c r y p t c o n s t r u c t s ] a safe: s e a l e d , and thus i n t e r n a l to i t s e l f , a s e c r e t i n t e r i o r w i t h i n the p u b l i c square [the forum], b u t , by the same token o u t s i d e i t , e x t e r n a l to the i n t e r i o r . ("Fors" x i v ) 197 R e c a l l i n g Abraham and Torok on the s u b j e c t of c r y p t i c topography or t o p o i , he draws a t t e n t i o n to the p e r f o r m a t i v i t y of ( c r y p t i c ) s p a c i n g : What we w i l l c a l l ( i n t r a p s y c h i c ) topos i s the c o n d i t i o n i n us t h a t enables us to speak of any place whatsoever; we w i l l c a l l ( i n t r a p s y c h i c ) f o r c e t h a t w i t h o u t which we would not u n d e r s t a n d any phenomenon of intensity. . . . These terms attempt the i m p o s s i b l e : to grasp through language the v e r y source from which language emanates. ( x x x i i ) D e r r i d a ' s remarks w i t h r e s p e c t to the passe-partout suggest what i s a t work i n " c o n s t r u c t i n g a system of p a r t i t i o n s " : One space remains to be broached i n o r d e r to g i v e p l a c e to the t r u t h i n p a i n t i n g . N e i t h e r i n s i d e nor o u t s i d e , i t spaces i t s e l f w i thout l e t t i n g i t s e l f be framed but i t does not s t a n d o u t s i d e the frame. I t works the frame, makes i t work, l e t s i t work, g i v e s i t work to do . . . . The t r a i t i s a t t r a c t e d and r e t r a c ( t ) e d t h e r e by i t s e l f , a t t r a c t s and d i spenses w i t h i t s e l f t h e r e . . . . I t i s s i t u a t e d . I t s i t u a t e s between the v i s i b l e edg ing and the phantom i n the c e n t e r , from which we fascinate [a word D e r r i d a proposes to use i n t r a n s i t i v e l y ] . . . . Between the o u t s i d e and the i n s i d e , between the e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l e d g e - l i n e , the framer and the framed, the f i g u r e and the ground, form and c o n t e n t , s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d , and so on f o r any two- faced o p p o s i t i o n . The t r a i t thus d i v i d e s i n ' t h i s p l a c e ' where i t takes p l a c e . ("Passe-p a r t o u t " 11-12) I would argue t h a t "what d i v i d e s i n ' t h i s p l a c e ' " i s , f o r D e r r i d a , (a) displacement, the type o f ( c r y p t i c ) d i v i s i o n tha t r e c a l l s Eve Sedgwick's remarks r e g a r d i n g the "formal energy" upon which the G o t h i c formula—an X w i t h i n an X—is p r e d i c a t e d : "the focus of f o r m a l energy must be the 198 [generat ion] of these s t r a n g e b a r r i e r s : how s p o n t a n e o u s l y they s p r i n g up and m u l t i p l y , and what extremes of magic o r v i o l e n c e are n e c e s s a r y to b r e a c h them"(20) . Sedgwick's remarks suggest the dynamic b e h i n d the s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e of what Abraham and Torok c a l l " ( i n t r a p s y c h i c ) force" and what, i n D e r r i d a ' s case , I am c a l l i n g "cryptomimes i s ." That w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the "formal energy" of what I argued c o u l d a l s o be c a l l e d phantomime—it f i n d s i t s model and i t s method i n the workings of the c r y p t : [ t ]he i n n e r s a f e . . . [ p l a c e s ] i t s e l f o u t s i d e . . . o r , i f one p r e f e r s , [ c o n s t i t u t e s ] " w i t h i n i t s e l f " the c r y p t as an o u t e r s a f e . One might [says D e r r i d a , ] go on i n d e f i n i t e l y s w i t c h i n g the p l a c e names around i n t h i s d i z z y i n g topography (the i n s i d e as the o u t s i d e o f the o u t s i d e , or of the i n s i d e ; the o u t s i d e as the i n s i d e o f the i n s i d e , or o f the o u t s i d e , e t c . ) . ("Fors" x i x ) These s p a t i a l d i s p l a c e m e n t s a r t i c u l a t e what i s a t s take as f a r as D e r r i d a ' s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e i s c o n c e r n e d . C e r t a i n l y "Fors" can be thought of as D e r r i d a ' s a r t i c u l a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s o f c ryptomimes i s i t s e l f . 7 5 The c r y p t (and f o r t h a t mat t er , the passe-partout) f u n c t i o n s as an a l l e g o r y o f " w r i t i n g " t h a t r e c a p i t u l a t e s what D e r r i d a appears to g l e a n from Abraham and T o r o k ' s i n s i g h t s on topography or t o p o i . Says D e r r i d a , "we can see t h a t these words [ topography and topo i ] must be taken n e i t h e r l i t e r a l l y nor f i g u r a t i v e l y but as an ' a l l u s i o n to t h a t w i t h o u t which no meaning—neither 199 l i t e r a l nor f i g u r a t i v e — c o u l d come i n t o b e i n g ' " ( " F o r s " x x x i i ) . 200 Strange Barriers In a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of s p a c i n g as a d i s c u r s i v e effect of l a n g u a g e / w r i t i n g , cryptomimes i s reminds us , by s t a g i n g i t , o f the law tha t b i n d s v i o l e n c e to the p r o d u c t i o n of an " i n s i d e , " be i t of a " text ," a "subject" or an i n s t i t u t i o n l i k e " l i t e r a t u r e . " The word " c l e f t , " t h a t D e r r i d a r e f e r s t o , f o r example, denotes a space or d i v i s i o n made by c leaving— t h a t i s , b r e a k i n g , s p l i t t i n g — a v i o l e n t movement r e s u l t i n g i n a f i s s u r e or a s p l i t . T h i s i s the law of the p r o d u c t i o n of an i n s i d e . In the f o r m a t i o n of the t h e t i c phase i n the development of the " s u b j e c t , " such a s p l i t t i n g produces the " s p a t i a l i n t u i t i o n " which , a c c o r d i n g to K r i s t e v a , i s "found at the h e a r t of the f u n c t i o n i n g of s i g n i f i c a t i o n " ("Revo lu t ion i n P o e t i c Language" 1 0 0 ) . In the f o r m a t i o n of the t h e t i c phase, the mother, as the addressee o f e v e r y demand, occup ie s the p l a c e o f a l t e r i t y . "She i s , i n o t h e r words, the p h a l l u s , " s a y s . K r i s t e v a . However, upon d i s c o v e r i n g her " c a s t r a t i o n , " the s u b j e c t s e p a r a t e s from f u s i o n w i t h the mother, thus end ing the t h e t i c phase which , a s s e r t s K r i s t e v a , "posits the gap between the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d as an opening up towards e v e r y d e s i r e but a l s o e v e r y a c t , i n c l u d i n g the v e r y jouissance t h a t exceeds 201 them"(101). K r i s t e v a a l s o makes the p o i n t t h a t the "gap" between the s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d i s p r e c i s e l y the break tha t e s t a b l i s h e s what Lacan c a l l s the p l a c e of the Other as the p l a c e of the " s i g n i f i e r " . The s u b j e c t i s h i d d e n by an even p u r e r s i g n i f i e r , t h i s w a n t - t o - b e c o n f e r s on an other the r o l e o f c o n t a i n i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y o f s i g n i f i c a t i o n ; and t h i s o t h e r , who i s no l o n g e r the mother . . . p r e s e n t s i t s e l f as the p l a c e of the s i g n i f i e r t h a t Lacan w i l l c a l l "the O t h e r . " (100) Where the Other r e f e r s to a h y p o t h e t i c a l p l a c e or space , the Other i s , t h e r e f o r e , the "place" i n which i s c o n s t i t u t e d the "I" who speaks "wi th in" s /he who h e a r s : a l s o a c r y p t i n the ear o f the o t h e r . T h i s s p a c i n g i s always a l r e a d y a m a t t e r o f s e n d i n g , o f the p o s t , which i s why the w r i t e r o f "Envois" says , " [ i ] n the b e g i n n i n g , i n p r i n c i p l e , was the p o s t and I w i l l never get over i t " ( 2 9 ) . In the b e g i n n i n g was not the word, but the p o s t , the s end ing f o r which t h e r e i s no address s i n c e the s p a c i n g , to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , precedes the sender . T h i s i s what D e r r i d a means by "the f i r s t coming of the other" ("Mnemosyne" 22) and t h i s i s why the "Envois" p r o c l a i m , "[y]ou know e v e r y t h i n g , b e f o r e me/you w i l l always precede me"(19). T h i s s p a c i n g i s i n e x t r i c a b l y bound by the d i a l e c t i c s of d e s i r e as i s sugges ted by Lacan who says , " [ i ] f I have s a i d t h a t the unconsc ious i s the d i s c o u r s e of the Other (with a c a p i t a l 0 ) , i t i s i n o r d e r to i n d i c a t e the beyond i n which the r e c o g n i t i o n of d e s i r e i s bound up w i t h 202 the d e s i r e f o r r e c o g n i t i o n " ( " A g e n c y of the L e t t e r i n the Unconsc ious" 172). T h i s n o t i o n i l l u m i n e s D e r r i d a ' s focus on a l t e r i t y and h i s i n s i s t e n c e on p l a y i n g w i t h t h e t i c r e f e r e n t i a l i t y so as to suspend the c e r t a i n t i e s of " s e l f - p r e s e n c e . " D e r r i d a ' s use of the word "enclosure" to d e s c r i b e the c r y p t draws a t t e n t i o n to i t s d e n o t a t i o n : a space surrounded by w a l l s o r a f ence . T h i s d e n o t a t i o n i n t i m a t e s the r o l e of the Other as "containing the p o s s i b i l i t y o f s i g n i f i c a t i o n . " In Glas the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e x t and space , between marg in and i n s e t and, f i n a l l y between columns of t e x t p r o b l e m a t i z e s the n o t i o n o f t h e t i c r e f e r e n t i a l i t y by r e n d e r i n g u n s t a b l e any d i s t i n c t i o n s between " i n s i d e " and " o u t s i d e . " Gregory U l m e r ' s r e a d i n g of Glas i l l u m i n a t e s such d i s t u r b a n c e s i n t h e t i c r e f e r e n t i a l i t y : ( E v e n t u a l l y I w i l l w r i t e , " D e r r i d a a sks : 'What am I d o i n g h e r e ? ' " But the ' I ' s ' o f Glas a re never e a s i l y . s e t t l e d : they are m u l t i p l e and mime the v e r y t e x t they are r e a d i n g . I w i l l o s c i l l a t e between them, a t t imes w r i t i n g D e r r i d a , a t t imes I . But I do so w i thout any a s surance t h a t t h i s shor thand f o r an ex treme ly complex network of n a r r a t i v e v o i c e s and a p o c a l y p t i c tones i s a c c u r a t e or t r u e , t h a t i t r e c a p t u r e s the i n t e n t i o n of the one s i g n e d D e r r i d a , even as a u t h o r . ("Sounding the Unconsc ious" 3 4 ) . The q u e s t i o n i s how to r e a d Glas, a n o n - l i n e a r t e x t whose d i s o r i e n t i n g e f f e c t s appear a ( e s ) t h e t i c a l l y p r e d i c a t e d upon the s p a t i a l l o g i c of columns, e v o k i n g not o n l y the v e r t i c a l 203 d i v i s i o n of a page or t a b l e as i n a newspaper column, but a l s o , s p e c i f i c a l l y , "the p h a l l i c ' c o l u m n s of I n d i a " [ G l a s 2). In Glas, D e r r i d a p l a y s the r o l e of " c o l u m n i s t , " not o n l y i n the sense of the j o u r n a l i s t who p r o v i d e s m i s c e l l a n e o u s commentary on p e o p l e and event s , but a l s o through the p r o d u c t i o n of a t e x t t h a t demonstrates the s p a t i a l e f f e c t of columns: v e r t i c a l , t a p e r i n g , c y l i n d r i c a l ; i n o t h e r words, an "object" t h a t o f t e n s e r ve s as a monument. Glas, f o r example, i s p e r f o r m a t i v e : i t does what i t says , a p r a c t i c e a l s o i l l u s t r a t e d by "Cartouches" i n which the t a s k f o r D e r r i d a i s , as Gregory Ulmer p o i n t s ou t , "to mime i n d i s c o u r s e a visual work"("The O b j e c t of Post C r i t i c i s m " 93). In Glas the r e f e r e n t s to be mimed are "[a] t the b e g i n n i n g , the p h a l l i c columns of I n d i a , enormous f o r m a t i o n s , p i l l a r s , towers , l a r g e r a t the base than at the t o p " (G las 3). In e f f e c t , w h i l e Glas mimes the s t r u c t u r i n g p r o p e r t i e s of those columns i t a l s o evokes the "notches , e x c a v a t i o n s and openings" made i n the columns drawing a t t e n t i o n to those marks as w r i t i n g t h a t produces over t ime what might be c a l l e d a "collage effect"(Ulmer "The O b j e c t o f P o s t -C r i t i c i s m " 88; Applied Grammatology 59-60): Now at the outset—but as a s e t t i n g out t h a t a l r e a d y d e p a r t e d from i t s e l f—these columns were i n t a c t , unbreached [ inentamees], smooth. And o n l y l a t e r ( e r s t spater) are n o t c h e s , e x c a v a t i o n s , openings (Offnungen und Aushohlungen) made i n the columns, i n the f l a n k , i f such can be s a i d . These 204 h o l l o w i n g s , h o l e s , these l a t e r a l marks i n depth would be l i k e a c c i d e n t s coming over the p h a l l i c columns at f i r s t u n p e r f o r a t e d or a p p a r e n t l y u n p e r f o r a t a b l e . Images of gods (Gottbilder) were s e t , n i c h e d , i n s e r t e d , embedded, d r i v e n i n , t a t t o o e d on the columns. J u s t as these s m a l l caverns or l a t e r a l pockets on the f l a n k of the p h a l l u s announced the s m a l l p o r t a b l e and h e r m e t i c Greek temples , so they b r o a c h e d / b r e a c h e d the model of the pagoda, not y e t a l t o g e t h e r a h a b i t a t i o n and s t i l l d i s t i n g u i s h e d by the s e p a r a t i o n between s h e l l and k e r n e l (Schale und Kern). A m i d d l e ground h a r d to determine between the column and the house, s c u l p t u r e and a r c h i t e c t u r e . (Glas 3 ) A w r i t i n g t h a t produces "ho l lowings , h o l e s [and] l a t e r a l marks i n depth" i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the l o g i c o f a c e r t a i n s p a c i n g t h a t exceeds t h e t i c r e f e r e n t i a l i t y . A w r i t i n g i n which "[i]mages of gods [are] s e t , n i c h e d , embedded, d r i v e n i n , t a t t o o e d on the columns" escapes t r a d i t i o n a l mimesis because i t f o l l o w s the l o g i c o f e n c r y p t i o n , a w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e t h a t mimes the psychic process of cryptic incorporation. As w r i t i n g , i t produces what can b e s t be c a l l e d the correspondence of the uncanny. To whom does the uncanny address i t s e l f ? D e r r i d a ' s use of the word "enclave" e a r l i e r on ( d e r i v e d from clavare, f . clavis, k e y ) , i s r e l e v a n t here f o r i t denotes "a f o r e i g n t e r r i t o r y surrounded by one's own t e r r i t o r y . " T h i s n o t i o n draws a t t e n t i o n to the f a c t t h a t the c r y p t marks a f o r e i g n p l a c e , p r o h i b i t e d , e x c l u d e d w i t h i n the "Sel f" where i t i m p l i e s the topography of an other. In Glas, t h i s t ( r ) o p o g r a p h y (of the other) p a r a d o x i c a l l y , i s an athetic 205 space: "[a] middle ground [says D e r r i d a , ] h a r d to determine between the column and the house, s c u l p t u r e and a r c h i t e c t u r e " ( G l a s 3 ) . The "middle ground" i s "hard to determine" i n p a r t because of the c r y p t and a l l i t i m p l i e s . In f a c t , D e r r i d a says o f the c r y p t t h a t i t r e q u i r e s us to t h i n k about "a no p l a c e [non-lieu] w i t h i n space"("Fors" x x i ) . But the midd le ground i s a l s o h a r d to determine because , as w i t h the f a n t a s y of c r y p t i c i n c o r p o r a t i o n , such a w r i t i n g , w r i t t e n on the b o r d e r l i n e between the o u t s i d e and the i n s i d e , n e c e s s a r i l y marks the p l a c e o f (an uncanny) b u r i a l , which i s what D e r r i d a a l l u d e s to i n " F o r s " : we have r e c o g n i z e d the c r y p t as (1) a c e r t a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p l a c e s [lieux] d e s i g n e d to lead astray and (2) a t o p o g r a p h i c a l arrangement made to keep (conserve -h idden) the living dead. (xxxvi) Thus, where i t d i s t u r b s t h e t i c r e f e r e n t i a l i t y , c ryptomimes i s a l s o marks the p l a c e where D e r r i d a d i v e r g e s from the commonly a c c e p t e d n o t i o n o f o t h e r n e s s . 206 The Law of Another Generation I have s a i d t h a t cryptomimes i s produces a k i n d o f "poet ic" language by p l a y i n g w i t h t h e t i c r e f e r e n t i a l i t y . Such "play" not o n l y d i s t u r b s what K r i s t e v a r e f e r s to as "the s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e t i c f u n c t i o n of positing the s u b j e c t " ("Breaching the T h e t i c : Mimesis" 109); i t a l s o s u b v e r t s the d e n o t a t i v e function—which K r i s t e v a d e f i n e s as " p o s i t i n g the o b j e c t . " I would argue t h a t such d i s t u r b a n c e undermines "the a u t h o r i t y and the p e r t i n e n c e of the q u e s t i o n 'What i s . . . ? ' " ( " A n I n t e r v i e w w i t h Jacques D e r r i d a " 48) . In s h o r t , to suspend the t h e t i c r e l a t i o n i s to confound ( c l a s s i c a l ) d i s t i n c t i o n s between s u b j e c t and o b j e c t o r between "se l f" and "other ." But cryptomimes i s a l s o d i s t u r b s the n o t i o n of s e l f - p r e s e n c e by b r i n g i n g i n t o the arena the n o t i o n of "the f o r e i g n e r i n the S e l f " which i s how D e r r i d a d e s c r i b e s "not so much the commonly a c c e p t e d o therness o f the U n c o n s c i o u s , " as put forward i n K r i s t e v a ' s argument, but a more " r a d i c a l " . otherness—that o f "the h e t e r o c r y p t i c ghost t h a t returns from the Unconsc ious of the o t h e r , a c c o r d i n g to what might be c a l l e d the law of another generation. The phenomenology o f the ego or o f the t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a l t e r ego, governed by the 207 p r i n c i p l e of p r i n c i p l e s (the i n t u i t i o n of p r e s e n c e i n s e l f -presence) , c o u l d o n l y b l o c k the way"("Fors" x x x i ) Cryptomimes i s always concerns the o t h e r to whom D e r r i d a e n t r u s t s h i s s i g n a t u r e and whose "ear" w i l l d e c i d e who s i g n s , even to the ex tent of d e t e r m i n i n g whether "the sex of the addresser" i s male or female ("Roundtable on Autob iography" 52) . When D e r r i d a says of N i e t z s c h e t h a t he "wri tes for [h is mother]" he p o i n t s out t h a t the f i g u r e of the mother i s "the u l t i m a t e addressee i n the phantasm." T h i s remark draws a t t e n t i o n not o n l y to the f i g u r e o f the one who makes u t t e r a n c e a p o s s i b i l i t y — a s K r i s t e v a sugges ts i n her d i s c u s s i o n of the t h e t i c phase—but a l s o to the word " f o r " ; f o r the uncanny aspec t i m p l i c i t i n the "ear of the o ther" i s a r e s u l t of d o u b l i n g . Here , i n t h i s work, the ear o f the o t h e r who s i g n s f o r D e r r i d a i s , s h a l l we say "mine." And "my" e a r , i f i t i s "keen" enough, i s the ear t h a t D e r r i d a says "says me to me and c o n s t i t u t e s the autos o f my a u t o b i o g r a p h y " ( 5 3 ) . However, the ear t h a t "says me to me" i s a l s o d o u b l e d , f o r , i f D e r r i d a , l i k e N i e t z s c h e , "wri tes for" h i s m o t h e r -t h a t i s , i n the p l a c e o f the other—the ear b r i n g s p l u r a l i t y i n t o p l a y i n a way t h a t the n o t i o n of "the commonly a c c e p t e d o t h e r n e s s of the Unconsc ious" does n o t . I ment ion t h i s here because i t c a l l s up another uncanny a spec t of c ryptomimes i s 208 which also, i n a cert a i n way, "says me to me." This "saying" i n my engagement with Derrida's work involves the ear (whose? mine? Derrida's? yours?) and the r e c i p r o c a l play between auto and oto. [W]e must pass by way of the ear [says Derrida]— the ear involved i n any autobiographical discourse that i s s t i l l at the stage of hearing oneself speak. (That i s : I am t e l l i n g myself a story, as Nietzsche said, here i s the story that I am t e l l i n g myself; and that means I hear myself speak). I speak myself to myself i n a cert a i n manner, and my ear i s thus immediately plugged into my discourse and my writing. But the necessity of passing onto and by way of the ear is not just this. ("Roundtable on Autobiography" 50 emphasis mine) It i s "not just t h i s " because of the many ears involved. The ear to whom I entrust my signature belongs not only to you (dear reader) even posthumously. To pass beyond the stage of merely "hearing myself"—to make possible the coming of the other—I have to undo a cert a i n "closed structure" by admitting an uncanny doubleness, which i s what Derrida suggests when, i n "Otobiographies", he says, "your ear ... i s also the ear of the other"(35). What comes undone i n this admission i s a certain model of presence which i s founded on the experience of hearing oneself speak. Where the l o g i c of s e l f presence posits a cert a i n i n t e r i o r i t y — t h e self-same (subject), s h a l l we say—cryptomimesis undoes the hermeneutic c i r c l e by drawing upon the "foreigner i n the Self"("Fors" xxxi). By this I refer to what Derrida c a l l s "the 209 i n c o r p o r a t e d dead, [meaning t h a t which one has not managed to a s s i m i l a t e through i n t r o j e c t i o n and which] c o n t i n u e s to lodge there like something other and to v e n t r i l o c a t e through the ' l i v i n g ' " ("Roundtable on Autob iography" 59 emphasis m i n e ) . Whi l e the space t h a t c ryptomimes i s p o s i t s i s c r y p t i c , i t becomes so o n l y through the r e t u r n of (the ghost of) the o t h e r which " v e n t r i l o c a t e s " the " I . " 2 1 0 Inscribing the Wholly Other: No Fixed A d d r e s s This is the end. —Jim Morrison, The Doors While the analysis of the crypt has consequences for c l a s s i c a l psychoanalysis, e s p e c i a l l y for the process of transference, the concept has equally far-reaching implications i n terms of textual production. Recall what Derrida has said regarding the theory of the crypt and the ghost: When i t ' s a text that one i s trying to decipher or decrypt using these concepts and these motifs, or when one i s looking for a ghost or a crypt i n a text, then things get s t i l l more d i f f i c u l t [says Derrida], or l e t us say more novel. I say a ghost and a crypt: actually the theory of the "ghost" i s not exactly the theory of the "crypt." It's even more complicated. Although i t ' s also connected to the crypt, the ghost i s more p r e c i s e l y the e f f e c t of another's crypt i n my unconscious. ("Roundtable on Autobiography" 59) The "complications" e n t a i l what Derrida c a l l s elsewhere "inventions of the same and of the other, of oneself as (of) the other"("Psyche" Acts of Literature 320). In short, cryptomimesis i s not reducible to mere duplication. It involves the production of an uncanny imaginary space: of writing and reading the other writing and reading (the other). Derrida's remarks a l e r t us to the p o s s i b i l i t y of a writing predicated upon the return of the (name of the) dead signing i n the ear of the other. This i s why Derrida says "I think one 211 w r i t e s a l s o for the dead" ("Roundtable on Autob iography" 53 emphasis m i n e ) . T h i s s t r u c t u r e i s not l i m i t e d to a c t u a l death but always to i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . The q u e s t i o n of w r i t i n g f o r the dead i s a lways , as A l a n Bass sugges t s , " t i e d to the p r o b l e m a t i c o f s e n d i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y of sending oneself a l e t t e r , of c r e a t i n g an i n h e r i t a n c e , a l e g a c y . . . " ( x x v i i i ) . T h i s i s one way of u n d e r s t a n d i n g what D e r r i d a means when he says tha t "every name i s the name of someone dead, or o f a living someone who it can do without"("Roundtable on A u t o b i o g r a p h y 53). What l i v e s on i s the s i g n a t u r e . Thus , when D e r r i d a speaks of the revenant—the ghost t h a t comes back from the crypt—we are drawn i n t o a t h i n k i n g of w r i t i n g t h a t i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the r e t u r n of the l i v i n g - d e a d . S i m i l a r l y , when D e r r i d a remarks t h a t the c r y p t i s "the v e r y c o n d i t i o n o f the whole e n t e r p r i s e , i t s element and i t s method,"("Fors" x i i i ) we hear D e r r i d a ' s engagement w i t h H e i d e g g e r . We a l s o hear a g e n e r a l s tatement of cryptomimes i s c o n c e r n i n g i t s condition, i t s element and i t s method.76 In s h o r t , the c r y p t i s not to be r e a d i n terms of t r a d i t i o n a l a l l e g o r e s i s . R a t h e r , i t i s to be c o n s i d e r e d , a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , i n terms of a p a r t i c u l a r "engagement" which , through D e r r i d a ' s use of the word i n " F o r s , " we can u n d e r s t a n d as a c o n t r a c t w i t h the dead. T h i s p r a c t i c e l i n k s the " f i r s t t ime" of i n v e n t i o n to the a n t i c i p a t i o n of the f u t u r e (other) coming as a ghost e f f e c t o f the t e x t . One can see t h i s s t r a t e g y i n o p e r a t i o n when D e r r i d a , 212 e l a b o r a t i n g a model of L e v i n a s ' s wri t ing—a w r i t i n g which Peggy Kamuf d e s c r i b e s as "one t h a t manages to i n s c r i b e or l e t be i n s c r i b e d . . . the a l t o g e t h e r o t h e r " ( A Derrida Reader 403)—asks "How, then, does he w r i t e ? " ( " A t T h i s V e r y Moment" 412) . Wi th the use of an i n d e t e r m i n a t e pronoun "he," the q u e s t i o n swings u n c a n n i l y i n the d i r e c t i o n o f both L e v i n a s and D e r r i d a . The need le a l s o p o i n t s i n "my" d i r e c t i o n and i n v i t e s "me" to ask the q u e s t i o n of "him"—"Derrida," the name t h a t doubles f o r what haunts t h i s work. " D e r r i d a ' s " response to the q u e s t i o n i s e q u a l l y uncanny because we can hear i n i t not o n l y the p r o v o c a t i o n of L e v i n a s ' s t e x t s i g n i n g i n D e r r i d a ' s ear but a l s o a s p e c t r a l "voice" t h a t amounts to the s a y i n g of the o t h e r which s i m u l t a n e o u s l y c o u n t e r s i g n s " D e r r i d a " as he w r i t e s . T h i s c o n s i s t s i n i n s c r i b i n g the w h o l l y o t h e r w i t h i n the empire of the same, a l t e r the same enough to a b s o l v e i t s e l f from i t s e l f . A c c o r d i n g to me [who?] t h a t i s h i s [Whose? L e v i n a s ' s ? D e r r i d a ' s ? ] answer, and t h a t de facto answer, i f one may say so, t h a t response i n deed, a t work r a t h e r i n the s e r i e s o f s t r a t e g i c n e g o t i a t i o n s , t h a t response does not respond to a prob lem or a q u e s t i o n ; i t responds to the Other—for- the-Other—. I t i s by s t a r t i n g from the Other t h a t w r i t i n g thus g i v e s a p l a c e and forms an e v e n t . . . . (412) Responding " f o r - t h e - O t h e r " i s t i e d to the p r o b l e m a t i c o f s e n d i n g . The " s t r a t e g i c n e g o t i a t i o n " of pronouns—"me," " h i s , " "one," "it"—provokes the movement of a s p e c u l a r s t r u c t u r e t h a t D e r r i d a might c a l l revenance, which i m p l i e s the g h o s t l y r e t u r n of the revenant, and thus a coming back (to o n e s e l f ) . 7 7 As A l a n 213 Bass p o i n t s out , revenance a l s o c a r r i e s the sense of revenir a—"to amount to" and "to f a l l t o , " as i n an i n h e r i t a n c e f a l l i n g to someone—and la venue, which i s the ' coming ," the " a r r i v a l " of something ("Glossary" x x x i x ) . Bass goes on to p o i n t out tha t revenu a l s o has the cognate E n g l i s h sense of revenue , or p r o f i t . In the g e n e r a l , o r perhaps the e x a p p r o p r i a t i v e economy, one might say t h a t ' revenue ' c o n s i s t s of the attempt to b r i n g back one ' s g h o s t l y i n h e r i t a n c e , which r e t u r n s o n l y to l eave a g a i n , p r e c i s e l y because of the s t r i n g s t h a t are t i e d to i t ( E r n s t ' s s p o o l ) . (xxxix) When, i n Specters of Marx, D e r r i d a remarks , "[ t ]he revenant i s g o i n g to come,"(4) we can see not o n l y how D e r r i d a ' s response to M a r x ' s Communist Manifesto c o n s t i t u t e s a s i n g u l a r s p e c t r a l e f f e c t of that text—what D e r r i d a would c a l l " s i g n i n g but w i t h a s i g n a t u r e t h a t c o u n t e r s i g n s " ( " A n I n t e r v i e w w i t h Jacques D e r r i d a " 66) . We a l s o see how D e r r i d a ' s a s s e r t i o n can be s a i d to d e s c r i b e the c o n d i t i o n s o f t e x t u a l i t y i n g e n e r a l . In Specters of Marx, D e r r i d a remarks t h a t "the dead can o f t e n be more p o w e r f u l than the l i v i n g " ( 4 8 ) . I f the dead shape the l i v e s we are a b l e to l i v e then , even when t h e r e i s no l i m i t to the i n j u n c t i o n , they not o n l y compel what we are a b l e to r e a d and to w r i t e but they make i t p o s s i b l e . G i v e n t h a t a revenant i s b o t h a l e g a c y and a p r o m i s e , t h i s t h i n k i n g of h a u n t i n g always p o i n t s towards a p a s t and a f u t u r e . T h i n k i n g o f the phantom i n these terms i s , a c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , 214 " c o n t r a r y to what good sense l eads us to b e l i e v e . . . . I t i s a t h i n k i n g of the p a s t , a l e g a c y t h a t can come o n l y from t h a t which has not y e t arr ived—from the arrivant i t s e l f " ( 1 9 6 ) . In these terms, a t e x t promises the arrivant i t s e l f , e s p e c i a l l y when i t i s unconsc ious or d isavowed. T h i s , too , d e s c r i b e s the c o n d i t i o n o f t e x t u a l i t y i n g e n e r a l . I t a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n to the mat ter of r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g f o r the dead. Even i f we acknowledge the workings of the phantom i n terms of t e x t s and " s u b j e c t s , " how does one address o n e s e l f to a s p e c t e r ? I t i s t h i s s t r u c t u r e , i n g e n e r a l , t h a t poses c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s f o r "autob iography ," but not o n l y f o r reasons t h a t have a l r e a d y been deve loped h e r e . A c c o r d i n g to D e r r i d a , the q u e s t i o n deserves to be put another way: [ c ] o u l d one address oneself in general i f a l r e a d y some ghost d i d not come back? I f he [ s i c ] l o v e s j u s t i c e a t l e a s t , the ' s c h o l a r ' of the f u t u r e , the ' i n t e l l e c t u a l ' o f tomorrow s h o u l d l e a r n i t and from the ghos t . He s h o u l d l e a r n to l i v e by l e a r n i n g not how to make c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the ghost but how to t a l k w i t h him, w i t h h e r , how to l e t them speak o r how to g i v e them back speech, even i f i t i s i n o n e s e l f , i n the o t h e r , i n the o t h e r i n o n e s e l f : they are always there, s p e c t e r s , even i f they do not e x i s t , even i f they are no l o n g e r , even i f they a r e not y e t . They g i v e us to r e - t h i n k the ' t h e r e ' as soon as we open our m o u t h s . . . . (176) A r g u a b l y , D e r r i d a has always concerned h i m s e l f w i t h the c o m p l i c a t i o n s of what i t takes to " l e a r n to l i v e . " T h i s r e f r a i n echoes throughout Specters of Marx and d i r e c t s our a t t e n t i o n to the urgency b e h i n d D e r r i d a ' s i n c e s s a n t q u e s t i o n i n g of t e x t u a l i t y , s u b j e c t i v i t y , t r u t h and f i c t i o n . To 215 l e a r n to l i v e , we must l e a r n how to t a l k "with" g h o s t s . Of c o u r s e , i t i s the word "with" t h a t i l l u m i n a t e s the workings of what I have been c a l l i n g c r y p t o m i m e s i s , which can be l o o s e l y d e f i n e d as ghost writing i n t h a t , by drawing upon the t h e o r y of the phantom and the c r y p t , such w r i t i n g p r o b l e m a t i z e s n o t i o n s of the "subject" "autobiography" and " t r a n s f e r e n c e " and, t h e r e f o r e , of t e x t u a l i t y , i n g e n e r a l . In t h i s i n s t a n c e , the word "with" produces a sense of s i m u l t a n e i t y and d o u b l e n e s s . In c r y p t o m i m e s i s , t a l k i n g w i t h ghos t s does not o n l y mean b e i n g i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h them. I t a l s o means to use them i n s t r u m e n t a l l y and, i n t u r n , whether one knows i t or not, to be used by them. In terms of t e x t u a l p r o d u c t i o n , cryptomimes i s w r i t e s the o t h e r "even i f they do not e x i s t , even i f they are no l o n g e r , even i f they are not yet"(176) And what makes p o s s i b l e the coming of the o t h e r i n a "work" i s , as cryptomimes i s demonstrates , always a q u e s t i o n of haunting, which i s b o t h a l e g a c y and a promise to come. 216 """Despite the r e v i v a l of the G o t h i c , t r a c e s of the d i s t i n c t i o n made between "high" c u l t u r e and p o p u l a r c u l t u r e remain e n t r e n c h e d i n c r i t i c a l a n a l y s e s of the genre . As Anne W i l l i a m s p o i n t s out i n her d i s c u s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Romantic poets and the G o t h i c , "[b]y mid c e n t u r y , R o m a n t i c i s t s were busy d e f e n d i n g t h e i r f a v o r e d poet s a g a i n s t the M o d e r n i s t a s s a u l t s of the 1920s." She goes on to say, "[a]s Sandra G i l b e r t and Susan Gubar have observed , the M o d e r n i s t a t t i t u d e s toward the n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Romantic t r a d i t i o n b a r e l y c o n c e a l e d t h e i r h o s t i l e r e c o g n i t i o n of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e as a c u l t u r a l l y ' f e m i n i n e ' phenomenon—a c e l e b r a t i o n o f emot ion, i n t u i t i o n and the c h i l d . " ( W i l l i a m s , 5 ) . And Stephen K i n g i s q u i c k to p o i n t out t h a t " i n the more e x a l t e d c i r c l e s of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , " the l a b e l " h o r r o r n o v e l " i s " l i k e the l a b e l ' p a r i a h dog'"[Danse Macabre 166] . A more s u b t l e , b,ut s i m i l a r ambiva lence o c c u r s i n the remarks made by S l a v o j Z i z e k who, i n h i s r e c e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f the t h e o r e t i c a l m o t i f s of Jacques L a c a n , proposes to r e a d Lacan "with and through exemplary cases of contemporary mass c u l t u r e , " namely the works o f Stephen K i n g and o t h e r s . I t becomes c l e a r tha t Z i z e k i s aware o f the bad p r e s s t h a t Stephen K i n g ' s work has r e c e i v e d and takes p a i n s to l e g i t i m i z e h i s a t t e n t i o n s to K i n g by p l a c i n g him a l o n g s i d e A l f r e d H i t c h c o c k , "about whom," says Z i z e k , r e a s s u r i n g l y , "there i s now g e n e r a l agreement t h a t he was, a f t e r a l l , a "serious artist'"(Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture v i i ) (emphasis m i n e ) . Z i z e k a l s o a s s u r e s us t h a t "the r e a d e r need not be uneasy" i f "the book a l s o mentions ' g r e a t ' names l i k e Shakespeare and K a f k a , " s i n c e , Z i z e k c l a i m s , they are to be r e a d " s t r i c t l y as k i t s c h a u t h o r s , on the same level as . . . K i n g . " ( v i i emphasis m i n e ) . A l t h o u g h z ' i zek ' s use of s c a r e quotes draws our a t t e n t i o n to the f a c t t h a t the d i s t i n c t i o n between "great" w r i t e r s and " k i t s c h authors" i s , i n f a c t , an a r b i t r a r y one based on mechanisms of e x c l u s i o n , h i s ment ion of h i s r e a d e r ' s "unease" i s t e l l i n g , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e i t i s f o l l o w e d by the a s surance t h a t Shakespeare and Kafka w i l l be r e a d "on the same l e v e l " as King—that i s , " s t r i c t l y as k i t s c h authors"—an a p p e l l a t i o n t h a t i s double -edged s i n c e i t i m p l i e s t h a t r e a d i n g "on the same l e v e l " c o l l a p s e s the p r e v i o u s a e s t h e t i c h i e r a r c h i e s when, i n f a c t , i t s u b t l y r e c a p i t u l a t e s them by r e c a l l i n g the o p p o s i t i o n between "high" and "low" c u l t u r e . 2 F o r example, see Gregory A . W a l l e r ' s The Living and the Undead: From Stoker's Dracula to Romero's Dawn of the Dead i n which W a l l e r examines a group of t e x t s — p r i m a r i l y n o v e l s and f e a t u r e - l e n g t h films—to f o r m u l a t e h i s ( r a t h e r ambiguous) t h e s i s t h a t s t o r i e s of the l i v i n g - d e a d are " s t o r i e s o f the 217 s t r u g g l e f o r s u r v i v a l " of "the f i t t e s t of the l i v i n g " (321). A l t h o u g h W a l l e r never q u e s t i o n s the term " l i v i n g - d e a d , " h i s s tudy serves as an example of the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of works f o c u s i n g on G o t h i c h o r r o r which , c u r i o u s l y , has been done by those of a g e n e r a t i o n known as the "baby-boomers." N i n a A u e r b a c h ' s Our Vampires, Ourselves (Chicago: U of C h i c a g o P, 1995) i s another example of r e c e n t i n - d e p t h s t u d i e s of h o r r o r i n which Auerbach reads A n g l o - A m e r i c a n c u l t u r a l h i s tory—the a s s a s s i n a t i o n s of the Kennedys, the V i e t Nam War, Watergate , e tc .—through changing p e r c e p t i o n s o f the l i v i n g - d e a d i n Amer ican p o p u l a r c u l t u r e , i n p a r t i c u l a r , the v a m p i r e . In The Monstrous-Feminine, B a r b a r a C r e e d examines the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of women i n the r o l e of the female vampire s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the female vampire i s "abjec t because she d i s r u p t s i d e n t i t y and o r d e r " ( 6 1 ) . S l a v o j Z i z e k m Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture. A l b e i t a d r a m a t i c s tatement , Z i z e k ' s a s s e r t i o n tha t the r e t u r n of the l i v i n g - d e a d i s a f a n t a s y o f contemporary mass c u l t u r e i s not e n t i r e l y on the mark, a l t h o u g h the t r ope has become more p r e v a l e n t , I t h i n k , because o f f i l m . The f a n t a s y o f the " l i v i n g - d e a d " has been w i t h us f o r much l o n g e r . A c c o r d i n g to N i c o l a s Abraham, the b e l i e f t h a t the s p i r i t s of the dead can r e t u r n to haunt the l i v i n g i s c u l t u r a l l y i n t e g r a l and, he says , " e x i s t s e i t h e r as an a c c e p t e d t ene t or as a m a r g i n a l c o n v i c t i o n i n a l l c i v i l i z a t i o n s , a n c i e n t o r modern." ("Notes on the Phantom: A Complement to F r e u d ' s Metapsychology" 171) . P h i l i p p e A r i e s a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t a f t e r the b o u n d a r i e s between l i f e and death became eroded i n the a r t , l i t e r a t u r e and m e d i c i n e of the seventeenth and e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s , "the l i v i n g c o r p s e became a c o n s t a n t theme, from baroque t h e a t e r to the G o t h i c n o v e l . But t h i s s t range theme d i d not remain c o n f i n e d to the w o r l d of the i m a g i n a t i o n . I t i n v a d e d everyday l i f e , and we meet i t a g a i n i n the form of the apparent d e a t h . In 1876 a d o c t o r wrote t h a t a ' u n i v e r s a l p a n i c ' had taken h o l d of p e o p l e ' s minds a t the i d e a o f b e i n g b u r i e d a l i v e , o f waking up i n the bottom of a grave" (397). U n l e s s zfizek i n t e n d s t h a t the phrase "contemporary mass c u l t u r e " be extended to i n c l u d e the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , h i s remarks i n s t e a d draw our a t t e n t i o n to the continuity of the "fantasy" of the r e t u r n of the l i v i n g -dead as w e l l as i t s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s throughout t ime o r , b e t t e r y e t , i t s tendency towards r e p e t i t i o n . V , • Z i z e k ' s use o f the term "fantasy" i s i m p o r t a n t . A l t h o u g h Z i z e k does p r o v i d e a c o n c e p t u a l a n a l y s i s o f h i s use of the term, I w i sh to make c l e a r t h a t I am u s i n g i t i n the way d e s c r i b e d by M a r i a Torok i n her 1959 essay , "Fantasy: An Attempt to D e f i n e I t s S t r u c t u r e and O p e r a t i o n , " i n The Shell and The Kernel. In t h i s e ssay Torok suggests t h a t " i f we c l a i m t h a t t h e r e i s an 218 u n d e r l y i n g u n c o n s c i o u s f a n t a s y b e h i n d e v e r y human a c t , we s t r i p f a n t a s y of i t s . s p e c i f i c i t y and o p e r a t i o n a l v a l u e " ( 3 1 ) . On the s u b j e c t of f a n t a s y , I agree w i t h Torok who sugges ts t h a t "even though the ego does p a r t i c i p a t e i n . . . representat ion—which i s why i t can say, ' t h i s i s my fantasy'— i t does not r e c o g n i z e i t s e l f d i r e c t l y as the a c t i v e source of the f a n t a s y . The ego has the i m p r e s s i o n r a t h e r of b e i n g the mere s i t e o f a s t r a n g e and i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e phenomenon. S i n c e i t s r eason f o r b e i n g as w e l l as i t s aims are q u i t e unknown, the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n g i v e s r i s e to an i m p r e s s i o n of s u r p r i s e , even g r a t u i t o u s n e s s . Something has happened o u t s i d e the purv iew of the ego ' s concerns and sudden ly intruded upon them i n the form of a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " ( 3 0 ) . 4 M i c h e l F o u c a u l t , w r i t i n g i n Power/Knowledge, unders tands the G o t h i c n o v e l i n terms of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t ' s "fear o f darkened spaces , o f the p a l l o f gloom which p r e v e n t s the f u l l v i s i b i l i t y of t h i n g s , men and t r u t h s " ("The Eye of Power" 153). S t r u c t u r a l l y , F o u c a u l t saw the G o t h i c n o v e l as an " imaginary space" which was a n t i t h e t i c a l to the p o l i t i c a l o v e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the R e v o l u t i o n which wanted to " e l i m i n a t e the shadowy areas o f s o c i e t y , d e m o l i s h the u n l i t chambers where a r b i t r a r y p o l i t i c a l a c t s , m o n a r c h i c a l c a p r i c e , r e l i g i o u s s u p e r s t i t i o n s , t y r a n n i c a l and p r i e s t l y p l o t s , ep idemics and the i l l u s i o n s of i g n o r a n c e were fomented"(153) . F o u c a u l t ' s remarks a l s o suggest t h a t G o t h i c n o v e l s coming out of the R e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r i o d can be r e a d i n p s y c h o a n a l y t i c terms s i n c e , he says , they "develop a whole f a n t a s y - w o r l d o f s tone w a l l s , d a r k n e s s , h i d e o u t s and dungeons which h a r b o u r , i n s i g n i f i c a n t c o m p l i c i t y , b r i g a n d s and a r i s t o c r a t s , monks and t r a i t o r s " ( 1 5 3 ) . W h i l e F o u c a u l t and Jameson focus a t t e n t i o n upon G o t h i c f i c t i o n i n g e n e r a l terms of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , p o l i t i c s and c l a s s , c r i t i c s such as M i c h e l l e A . Masse and Anne W i l l i a m s argue s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r f e m i n i s t r e a d i n g s o f G o t h i c f i c t i o n . Masse c l a i m s t h a t works such as Anne R a d c l i f f e ' s The Mysteries of Udolpho and C h a r l o t t e P e r k i n s G i l m a n ' s The Yellow Wallpaper c o n c e r n themselves w i t h "the p r o h i b i t i o n o f female autonomy" ( M i c h e l l e A . Masse, "Gothic R e p e t i t i o n : Husbands, H o r r o r s , and Th ings That Go Bump i n the N i g h t , " Signs, Summer 1990, V o l . 15. N o . 4 , p.681) and can thus be r e a d i n p s y c h o a n a l y t i c terms of " t r a n s g r e s s i o n , r e g r e s s i o n , r e p e t i t i o n , " which she c a l l s "the s t u f f of a n a l y s i s and of the G o t h i c . . . "(683). L i k e Masse, W i l l i a m s argues f o r a "Female G o t h i c , " which she c l a i m s "expresses the t e r r o r and rage t h a t women e x p e r i e n c e w i t h i n p a t r i a r c h a l s o c i a l arrangements , e s p e c i a l l y marr iage"(The Art of Darkness: A Poetics of Gothic 136) . 219 5 I am r e f e r r i n g to the works of N i c o l a s Abraham and M a r i a T o r o k , s p e c i f i c a l l y The Wolf Man's Magic Word and The Shell and the Kernel. 6 I t i s impor tant to ment ion t h a t t h i s i n c l i n a t i o n has not been t o t a l l y i g n o r e d a l t h o u g h where the G o t h i c is ment ioned, i t s name i s used i n the p e j o r a t i v e . G e o f f r e y Hartman broaches the s i g n i f i c a n c e of h a u n t i n g i n D e r r i d a ' s work when he remarks t h a t D e r r i d a "turns even p s y c h o a n a l y s i s i n t o a modern G o t h i c a f f a i r " ( x v i ) . Hartman draws back , however, from f u r t h e r development o f t h i s thought s i n c e he wants "to a v o i d the charge of m y s t i f i c a t i o n , " a s s e r t i n g t h a t the i s s u e s o f "nonbeing and death need not be l e f t to r e l i g i o u s m y s t i c i s m or the modern G o t h i c or s c i e n c e f i c t i o n " ( x v i i ) . Hartman's remarks suggest t h a t not o n l y are r e l i g i o u s m y s t i c i s m , the modern G o t h i c and s c i e n c e f i c t i o n v a g u e l y analogous but they a l s o share some fundamenta l l y improper p e c u l i a r i t y t h a t renders them i n a p p r o p r i a t e to a d i s c u s s i o n of D e r r i d a ' s work. Hartman's r e c o g n i t i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of h a u n t i n g i n D e r r i d a ' s work, however, i s i m p l i c i t i n h i s r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g the n a t u r e of D e r r i d a ' s engagement w i t h p s y c h o a n a l y s i s : "Does [ p s y c h o a n a l y s i s ] not r e p e o p l e the mind w i t h dead persons and d r e a d v o i c e s . . . ? " ( x v i i ) . L i k e w i s e , i n drawing an ana logy between the d e s i r e on the p a r t of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , which takes the form of "a ques t f o r t o t a l i t y , " and p h i l o s o p h y ' s "wish f o r t o t a l i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y " ( x v i i ) , Hartman i m p l i e s t h a t D e r r i d a not o n l y sees p s y c h o a n a l y s i s as a d i s c o u r s e taken up w i t h h a u n t i n g s and the r e t u r n of the dead but t h a t he a l s o c o n s i d e r s Western metaphys ics to be a haunted s t r u c t u r e where in w r i t i n g appears , as D e r r i d a says e l sewhere , as a " g h o s t - e f f e c t . " 7 " L i v e b u r i a l " i s a l s o an a p p r o p r i a t e term to d e s c r i b e Abraham and T o r o k ' s concept of the c r y p t which i s c o n s t i t u t e d d u r i n g u n s u c c e s s f u l mourning and which then h o l d s or houses the i n c o r p o r a t e d dead who c o n t i n u e s to lodge t h e r e as an "other"—a l iv ing -dead—and to v e n t r i l o q u a t e the l i v i n g . 8 See a l s o E r n e s t B a k e r ' s d i s c u s s i o n of Byron who, he s a i d , had r e a d H a r r i e t L e e ' s Kruitzner and whose p l a y was modeled on the s t o r y i n which the c o u n t ' s f a t h e r had c u r s e d h i s degenerate son who, i n t u r n f e e l s h i m s e l f i n v o l v e d i n a maze where he "can o n l y f l u t t e r / L i k e the f l y , but b r e a k i t n o t . " Baker goes on to say t h a t " [ i ] t i s the G o t h i c i d e a of i n e l u c t a b l e f a t e i m p e l l i n g to c r i m e , f o r which the wrongdoer f e e l s shame and remorse , y e t knows t h a t i t i s u s e l e s s to s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t the decree : h i s i s p r e d e s t i n e d to e v i l " (184) T h i s i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e of W a l p o l e ' s The Castle of Otranto. 9 Maud Mannoni ' s Le Premier rendez-vouz avec le psychoanalyste, t r a n s l a t e d / q u o t e d i n D a n i e l Gunn 77. 220 1 0 Although some of the texts to which I w i l l refer are transcripts from both interviews and lectures, I do not intend to discriminate between text and t r a n s c r i p t since my concern i s with developing the notion of cryptomimesis. 1 1 .Jacques Derrida, "Des Tours des Babel," trans. Joseph F. Graham i n Joseph F. Graham, ed. Difference in Translation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). 1 2 See Jacques Derrida, The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago, 1987), 148-52. Riddel i s r e f e r r i n g to the "scene" referred to i n the post card dated June 20, 197 8 which Riddel says " i s an address, i n one or more of i t s senses, of an 'I' to a 'you' and recounts the 'return' to Zurich of the sender who has been met at the a i r p o r t by someone named ' H i l l i s [ M i l l e r ] , ' an otherwise anonymous fri e n d who transports the writer to a nearby cemetery where the two pass some time walking about i n conversation, happening upon Joyce's tomb and speaking, to quote the card, 'I believe, about Poe and Yale, a l l that'"(Derrida 148; Riddel 17-18)) 1 3 Esther Rashkin's study of narrative, l i k e Derrida's analysis of Marx, draws upon the c l i n i c a l writings of Nicolas Abraham and Maria Torok—in p a r t i c u l a r t h e i r discussion of secrets, theories of the phantom, the crypt, anasemia, incorporation and cryptonymy. Whereas Rashkin's study of narrative takes up "the haunting effects of family secrets ... " [Fami ly Secrets and the Psychoanalysis of Narrative. 3], Derrida's work invokes the figure of the specter/phantom as an e f f e c t of transgenerational and c u l t u r a l haunting i n terms of writing. Although Rashkin's study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between haunting and narrative i s predicated upon the issue of interpersonal f a m i l i a l haunting and thus d i f f e r s from Derrida's sense that haunting i s a phenomenon a f f e c t i n g entire generations, both focus t h e i r discussion of phantoms and haunting i n texts and writing. For example, Esther Rashkin claims that Joseph Conrad's The Secret Sharer functions as an "allegory of the phantom structure,"(9) a remark which i s based upon her sense that the "first-person account [of the captain]... emerges as a narrative driven by the phantom [an unspeakable secret] lodged within him, and [thus] as an i m p l i c i t commentary on the pot e n t i a l l i n k between phantomatic secret, the generative force of narrative, and the formation of allegory i n l i t e r a t u r e " ( 9 ) . 1 4 See, for example, "Berenice: A Tale;" "Morella;" "The F a l l of the House of Usher;" "The Black Cat" and "The T e l l - T a l e Heart," to name but a few of Poe's s t o r i e s that deal with the theme of b u r i a l and return from the dead. 221 1 5 T h i s n o t i o n i s m a i n t a i n e d throughout Abraham and T o r o k ' s work, e s p e c i a l l y i n The Shell and the Kernel i n which they argue t h a t r e p r e s s i o n a l s o a c t s upon words, themse lves . See a l s o N i c h o l a s T . Rand's i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h i s work e n t i t l e d , "Renewals of P s y c h o a n a l y s i s . " 1 6 See D e r r i d a ' s e ssay "At T h i s V e r y Moment i n T h i s Work Here I Am," which poses c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s of the w r i t i n g s o f Emmanuel L e v i n a s . A Derrida Reader Between the Blinds, ed . Peggy Kamuf. T r a n s . Reuben B e r e z d i v i n , 405-439. 1 7 A l t h o u g h I have been r e f e r r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to D e r r i d a ' s use of c e r t a i n t r o p e s and t o p o i , I have, of c o u r s e , been concerned to draw a t t e n t i o n to the a f f i n i t y between D e r r i d a ' s concerns w i t h , l a n g u a g e / w r i t i n g and t h a t of the G o t h i c . See Eve K o s o f s k y Sedgwick's The Coherence of Gothic Conventions i n which she d i s c u s s e s l a n g u a g e / w r i t i n g i n terms of the g e n r e ' s s t r u c t u r a l and themat ic p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the l i n k between w r i t i n g and dream, w i t h the "unspeakable" and w i t h " i r r e v o c a b l e doub le sness" . Sedgwick c l a i m s , f o r example, t h a t " w r i t t e n language ' i s ' G o t h i c " (63), e s p e c i a l l y i n terms of "correspondence" which , says Sedgwick, i s " d i s t i n g u i s h e d from d i r e c t communicat ion, which i s . . . i m p o s s i b l e ; i n s t e a d i t moves by a r e l a t i o n o f c o u n t e r p a r t s and d o u b l e s , and i s s u b j e c t to dangerous d i s t o r t i o n s and i n t e r f e r e n c e s " ( 4 0 ) . In Art of Darkness: A Poetics of Gothic, Anne W i l l i a m s draws a t t e n t i o n to s i m i l a r concerns w i t h language and w r i t i n g when she argues tha t "Gothic c o n v e n t i o n s . . . i m p l y a f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h the problem of language , w i t h p o s s i b l e f i s s u r e s i n the system of the Symbol ic . . . Most—perhaps all— G o t h i c convent ions express some a n x i e t y about ' m e a n i n g . ' In G o t h i c , fragments of language o f t e n serve ambiguous ly to f u r t h e r the p lo t—in l e t t e r s ( l o s t , s t o l e n , b u r i e d ) ; i n m y s t e r i o u s warn ing , p r o p h e c i e s , oaths , and c u r s e s ; i n l o s t w i l l and l o s t m a r r i a g e l i n e s . Such fragments may be m i s i n t e r e p r e t e d (o f t en because they are removed from the o r i g i n a l c o n t e x t ) , and f r e q u e n t l y d e c e i v e or b e t r a y the i n t e r p r e t e r " (67). W i l l i a m s goes on to say t h a t " [ i ] n G o t h i c , language i s m u l t i f a r i o u s , d u p l i c i t o u s , and p a r a d o x i c a l " ( 6 7 ) . I t seems to me t h a t D e r r i d a ' s c o n c e r n w i t h language i s r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r to those put forward by Sedgwick and W i l l i a m s . 1 8 See f o r example N i n a A u e r b a c h ' s Our Vampires, Ourselves i n which she examines f i v e f i l m a d a p t a t i o n s of Dracula (between 1931 and 1992) i n r e l a t i o n to changing i d e o l o g i e s of power. Auerbach q u e s t i o n s , f o r example, the l i n k s between the a n x i e t i e s of the P e r s i a n G u l f War and those o f Anne R i c e ' s L e s t a t and h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . Auerbach a l s o c l a i m s t h a t " h i s t o r y and h o r r o r are i n s e p a r a b l e " and demonstrates her p o i n t i n her d i s c u s s i o n of the l i n k s between George Romero's 222 Night of the Living Dead (1968) and the war i n V i e t n a m : "In many movies , f o l k l o r e vampires were r e p l a c i n g g l a m o r i z e d Hammer c o r p s e s ; Romero's Night of the Living Dead i s o v e r r u n w i t h these awkward, f e s t e r i n g , f e a s t i n g r e v e n a n t s . G r a p h i c footage of the war i n V i e t n a m , the a s s a s s i n a t i o n and r u m b l i n g of c i v i l war a t home, had made corpses r e v e r t to the r o t and dread they had embodied b e f o r e the s o - c a l l e d en l ightenment of the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , when they g a i n e d the p o t e n t i a l to become u p l i f t i n g i c o n s " ( 2 1 4 ) . See a l s o Bare Bones: Conversations on Terror with Stephen King, ed . Tim Underwood and Chuck M i l l e r i n which K i n g l i n k s Watergate w i t h 'Salem's Lot: "I know t h a t , f o r i n s t a n c e , i n my n o v e l 'Salem's Lot, the t h i n g tha t r e a l l y s c a r e d me was not vampires , but the town i n the dayt ime, the town t h a t was empty, knowing t h a t t h e r e were t h i n g s i n c l o s e t s , t h a t t h e r e were peop le t u c k e d under beds , under the c o n c r e t e p i l i n g s o f a l l those t r a i l e r s . And a l l the time I was w r i t i n g t h a t , the Watergate h e a r i n g were p o u r i n g out of the TV. There were p e o p l e s a y i n g 'a t t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e . ' They were s a y i n g , ' I c a n ' t r e c a l l . " t h e r e was money showing up i n bags . Howard Baker kept a s k i n g , 'What I want to know i s , what d i d you know and when d i d you know i t ? ' That l i n e haunts me, i t s t a y s i n my mind. I t may be the c l a s s i c l i n e of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y " ( 5 ) . 1 9 In The Wolf Man's Magic Word: A Cryptonymy, N i c o l a s Abraham and M a r i a Torok d i s c u s s the a n a l y s i s of F r e u d ' s most w e l l -known analysand—the Wolf Man—in terms of i n c o r p o r a t i o n v e r s u s i n t r o j e c t i o n , d e v e l o p i n g the n o t i o n o f the crypt and cryptonymy to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the n o t i o n of f a n t a s y i n which the S e l f i s "haunted" by the "ghost" of the " l i v i n g - d e a d " t h a t "comes h a u n t i n g out o f the Unconsc ious o f the other" y e t which r e s i d e s as an " i n h a b i t a n t o f the c r y p t w i t h i n the S e l f . " I t i s important to make a d i s t i n c t i o n here between Jacques L a c a n ' s c o n c e p t i o n of the s i g n i f y i n g c h a i n and the concept of cryptonymy ( s ince the work of Abraham and Torok—because i t concerns i t s e l f w i t h e l a b o r a t i n g language as a system of e x p r e s s i v e traces—seems to have i n f l u e n c e d D e r r i d a ' s d e c o n s t r u c t i v e methods and a l s o h i s w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e ) . L a c a n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the i n d i v i d u a l as s u b j e c t to an i n d e l i b l e l a c k o f b e i n g i s , a c c o r d i n g to N i c h o l a s Rand, " formulated i n l i n g u i s t i c terms as the i r r e d u c i b l e s e p a r a t i o n or b a r r i e r between a p r o g r e s s i v e c h a i n of i n t e r l o c k i n g s i g n i f i e r s and s t a b l e meanings ( i . e . s i g n i f i e d s ) " ( T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n , The Wolf Man's Magic Word l x ) . Rand p o i n t s out t h a t the d i s t i n c t i o n between L a c a n ' s concept and t h a t o f Abraham and Torok i s a c r u c i a l one: "While c r y p t o n y m i c a n a l y s i s acknowledges the m o b i l i t y of the s i g n i f y i n g c h a i n , i t 223 operates studying the nature of the barrier that serves to separate the chain of s i g n i f i e r s from a p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i e d " (lx, emphasis mine). Thus i t i s the bar or the b a r r i e r i t s e l f that becomes the subject of inquiry. 2 0 Although I agree with Rashkin's contention that the theory of the phantom and haunting lends i t s e l f to textual analysis, I f i n d her assertion that "[n]ot a l l texts have phantoms," (10) to be problematic, however. F i r s t l y because her assertion marks a d i v i s i o n between texts which reveal "secrets" and those that do not (presumably those that do not harbour an unspeakable secret are transparent). Secondly, because her concept of "text" seems confined to the book and to so-called f i c t i o n (in the same way that writing i s reduced to the empirical), her remarks have the e f f e c t of repressing the notion that t e x t u a l i t y extends to culture, ideology, the family and even the so-called subject, a l l of which might be understood i n terms of transgenerational haunting and spectral e f f e c t s . 2 1 The dream, as Freud described i t , provides a model with which to think through the crosscurrents flowing through Derrida's writing since, according to Freud, "[a] dream i s a picture puzzle," but one which i s multiply-determined through condensation and displacement. As Derrida suggests, dream writing, l i k e the rebus, requires a d i f f e r e n t kind of reading since i t i s "not an inscribed image but a f i g u r a t i v e script"("Freud and the Scene of Writing" 218). That the rebus requires a d i f f e r e n t kind of reading can be heard i n Freud's assertion that " [ i ] f we attempted to read these characters according to their p i c t o r i a l value instead of according to t h e i r symbolic r e l a t i o n , we should c l e a r l y be led into error" since, according to Freud, "dream-thoughts and the dream-content [the latent and the manifest] are presented to us l i k e two versions of the same subject-matter i n two d i f f e r e n t languages Or, more properly, the dream-content seems l i k e a tr a n s c r i p t of the dream-thought into another mode of expression, whose characters and syntactic laws i t i s our business to discover by comparing the o r i g i n a l and the translation"( I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Dreams 381-382). Freud's insistence that the rebus demands another kind of reading functions not only as a rebuttal to what he describes as his "predecessors i n the f i e l d of dream interpretation who have made the mistake of treating the rebus as a p i c t o r i a l composition" and, reading i t thus, assert that i t i s "non-sensical and worthless"(382). Freud's remarks can also be understood to be a statement of aesthetics or, better yet, a poetics. As Freud says, "[o]bviously we can only form a proper judgment of the rebus i f we put aside c r i t i c i s m s such as these of the whole composition and i t s parts and i f , instead, we try 224 to r e p l a c e each s e p a r a t e element by a s y l l a b l e or word t h a t can be p r e s e n t e d by t h a t element i n some way or a n o t h e r . The words which are put t o g e t h e r i n t h i s way are no l o n g e r n o n s e n s i c a l but may form a poetical phrase of the greatest beauty and significance"(382 emphasis m i n e ) . 2 2 See a l s o A l a n B a s s ' s t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s passage o f " S i g n a t u r e Event Context" i n A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds ed . Peggy Kamuf p.97. 2 3 See Gregory U l m e r ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f d e c o m p o s i t i o n i n terms of the mouth and o r a l i t y i n Applied Grammatology, p p . 56-63. 2 4 T h i s n o t i o n of the ego as the mask of the phantom (other) o f f e r s a r e v e r s a l o f F r e u d ' s m e t a p s y c h o l o g i c a l formula i n "Mourning and M e l a n c h o l i a , " which c o n c e i v e s the ego i n the g u i s e of the o b j e c t . What ensues through i n c o r p o r a t i o n , however, i s a " c r y p t o f a n t a s y " de termined by an " e n d o c r y p t i c " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a t i s b o t h i m a g i n a r y and s e c r e t . 2 5 Quoted by G a y a t r i Sp ivak i n the T r a n s l a t o r ' s P r e f a c e to Of Grammatology x x i i i . 2 6 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t D e r r i d a , who can be counted upon to employ s e m a n t i c a l l y doub le -edged words, uses the term hos t s i n c e i t r e f e r s not o n l y to a " l arge number" but i t a l s o c a r r i e s w i t h i t the n o t i o n of " p a r a s i t e . " 2 7 R i g h t now I am tempted to l e a v e i n p l a c e a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r which I have j u s t made i n e n t e r i n g the above q u o t a t i o n i n o r d e r to " m u l t i p l y the example" t h a t I have j u s t g i v e n . I n s t e a d of t y p i n g "I am s i n g i n g a d e a t h , " as i s w r i t t e n i n " E n v o i s , " I (?) w r i t e "I am signing a d e a t h . " Then, i n r e a d i n g what I have p l a c e d i n p a r e n t h e s i s , I n o t i c e t h a t I have w r i t t e n , i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , "I am s i n g i n g a dead!" 2 8 I am i n d e b t e d to L o r r a i n e Weir f o r t h i s thought . 2 9 A c c o r d i n g to B a k h t i n , h e t e r o g l o s s i a i s the base c o n d i t i o n of language i n t h a t " a l l u t t e r a n c e s are heteroglot"(428) . S i m i l a r l y , h y b r i d i z a t i o n r e f e r s to the p o t e n t i a l of language to b e l o n g " s i m u l t a n e o u s l y to two or more systems" w i t h i n "a s i n g l e c o n c r e t e utterance"(429). 3 0 See Jane G a l l o p ' s d i s c u s s i o n of imagoes i n Reading Lacan, 60-65 i n which she says , 1 [ t ] h e i m a g i n a r y [Lacan' s ] i s made up of imagoes." 3 1 Thanks to M i c h a e l Z e i t l a n d who a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t "pet" i n d i c a t e s " f a v o u r i t e " i n the j o c u l a r sense o f a t h i n g or p e r s o n p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s l i k e d ("pet peeve" or "pet a v e r s i o n " ) . 3 2 In Jack the Ripper: " L i g h t - h e a r t e d F r i e n d , " R i c h a r d W a l l a c e demonstrates i n d e t a i l how anagrammatic r e a d i n g s o f t e x t s 225 suggest the encoding of i n c o r p o r a t e d m a t e r i a l . Through a r e a d i n g of the works of C h a r l e s Dodgson, b e t t e r known as Lewis C a r r o l l , au thor of Alice in Wonderland, W a l l a c e contends t h a t C a r r o l l , a don at O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , appears not o n l y to s u f f e r a p s y c h o t i c break but a l s o to move "from p e r f o r m i n g r a t h e r b e n i g n a n t i s o c i a l a c t s i n s e c r e t to b e i n g a f u l l - b l o w n p s y c h o p a t h i c k i l l e r [o therwise known as J a c k the R i p p e r ] " [ H a r p e r ' s Magazine November 1996). W a l l a c e suggests t h a t "[ t ]he means f o r Dodgson's encod ing was a word game i n which he i s known to have excelled—anagrams" (37) . A l t h o u g h W a l l a c e ' s a n a l y s i s of C h a r l e s Dodgson's works i s e x h a u s t i v e , a b r i e f e x c e r p t w i l l demonstrate the ex tent to which t h i s r e a d e r was compe l l ed to re spond: [Dodgson's] f i r s t anagrams were s i m p l e . F o r example, i n Sylvie and Bruno, Dodgson toys w i t h h i s r e a d e r s when he has the f a i r y Bruno made the word evil out o f live j u s t by " t w i d d l i n g " h i s eyes . In l a t e r works, more complex anagrams emerge w i t h much a n g r i e r and s e x u a l l y e x p l i c i t themes, such as the "Marchioness of Mock T u r t l e s , " which can become "0 fuck m o t h e r ' s i n c e s t m o r a l s . " Or c o n s i d e r the opening v e r s e to "Jabberwocky," thought to be the g r e a t e s t p i e c e of nonsense l i t e r a t u r e i n the E n g l i s h language: Twas b r i l l i g , and the s l i t h y toves D i d gyre and g imble i n the wabe: A l l mimsy were the borogoves . And the mome r a t h s outgabe. I f , based on p u n c t u a t i o n [Wal lace c o n t i n u e s , ] we t r e a t the v e r s e as t h r e e anagrams—the f i r s t two l i n e s t o g e t h e r and the l a s t two separately—we have a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t poem, which r e f l e c t s Dodgson's s t r u g g l e s and p r e d i c t s the n a t u r e o f the murders: But I beat my g lands t i l , With hand-sword I s l a y the e v i l gender . A s l i m e y theme; b o r r o r g l o v e s , And masturbate the hog more! 3 3 T h i s term i s used by D e r r i d a i n Glas when speak ing of • Genet , who "has o f t e n f e i g n e d to d e f i n e the ' m a g n i f y i n g ' o p e r a t i o n o f h i s w r i t i n g by the a c t of n o m i n a t i o n . The a l l e g a t i o n seems f requent enough t h a t c o u l d suspec t i t o f a c e r t a i n r e f r a i n - e f f e c t . " Y e t , D e r r i d a a s k s , "what i s a r e f r a i n ? , " t h i s q u e s t i o n draws a t t e n t i o n not o n l y to the burden of a song, but i t a l s o g i v e s us to u n d e r s t a n d the n o t i o n o f r e p r e s s i o n , r e s t r a i n t and c u r b i n g (5) . 3 4 N i c o l a s Abraham quoted i n "Fors" ( x x i v ) . 3 5 Jacques D e r r i d a , " A 'Madness' Must Watch Over T h i n k i n g " 349 226 3 6 Jacques Derrida, "The Theatre of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation," 232. 3 7 Jacques Derrida, Glas, p.l(L) 3 8 Jacques Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play," 292. 3 9 Peggy Kamuf 315. She i s speaking of the Editions G a l i l e e edition of Glas when she mentions that the work i s comprised of 283 pages. 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 Jacques Derrida, Glas, 1 and 262. Jacques Derrida, "Signature Event Context", 90. Peggy Kamuf i n A Derrida Reader 315. Bram Stoker, Dracula 303. Jacques Derrida "Structure, Sign and Play" 293. Ibid., 293. Jacques Derrida Glas 6. Quoted i n Auerbach 23. 4 8 Auerbach 23 4 9 Ibid., 23. 5 0 58 5 1 5 2 5 3 See Georges B a t a i l l e i n Erotism: Death and Sensuality 55-J u l i a Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 3. Jacques Derrida, "The Theatre of Cruelty" 243. Jacques Derrida, Glas 4. 5 4 Bram Stoker Dracula 3 03 5 5 Ibid., 123. 5 6 5 7 Ibid,, 302. William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming" i n Selected Poems and Two Plays of William Butler Yeats ed. M.L. Rosenthal (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1962) p.91 5 8 Quoted i n Gregory Ulmer "The Object of Post-Criticism" 101. 5 9 Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Parasite" (1894) . 6 0 Jacques Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play" Writing and Difference 292. 6 1 Ibid., 292. 6 2 Anne Rice, The Vampire Lestat: Book Two of the Vampire Chronicles 275. 227 6 3 See Jacques D e r r i d a , "S ignature Event Context" i n A Derrida Reader i n which D e r r i d a demonstrates "why a c o n t e x t i s never a b s o l u t e l y de terminab le" or " i n what way i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s never c e r t a i n or s a t u r a t e d " ( 6 4 ) . 6 4 K r i s t e v a ' s remarks draw a t t e n t i o n to the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of c o n t e x t s , namely myth, f o l k t a l e , r e l i g i o n , p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and now d e c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n which the r e t u r n of the l i v i n g - d e a d i s a c e n t r a l c o n c e r n . Why do the dead r e t u r n from the grave? Z i z e k p o i n t s out t h a t "the answer o f f e r e d by Lacan i s the same as t h a t found i n p o p u l a r c u l t u r e : because they were not properly buried" (23). Montague Summers has assembled an e x h a u s t i v e c o l l e c t i o n o f l i t e r a r y and a n e c d o t a l m a t e r i a l t r a c i n g the r e t u r n of the dead from the g r a v e , i n c l u d i n g the vampire and the r e v e n a n t , as they appear throughout a n c i e n t Greece and Rome, E n g l a n d , I r e l a n d , Hungary, C z e c h o s l o v a k i a and Modern Greece , R u s s i a , Romania and B u l g a r i a . From V e r g i l -onwards, t h e r e seems to be a consensus t h a t "a p e r s o n who has not r e c e i v e d decent r i t e s of b u r i a l and f i t t i n g exsequies" (The Vampire in Europe 81) would r e t u r n to demand some form of recompense from the l i v i n g . T h i s i s , of c o u r s e , pr ime m a t e r i a l f o r the G o t h i c . 6 5 I do not c o n f i n e my u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f "Goth ic" to e i t h e r the "novel" o r to " f i c t i o n " (even though I use these d i s t i n c t i o n s a t c e r t a i n t imes) but take as a p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e an o b s e r v a t i o n made by Anne W i l l i a m s t h a t the s o - c a l l e d G o t h i c emerges out of a poetic t r a d i t i o n . See Anne W i l l i a m s ' s Art of Darkness: A Poeti cs of Gothic. W i l l i a m s goes on to say t h a t "[t ]he l i n e a g e o f G o t h i c , t h i s l i t e r a t u r e i t s e l f so concerned w i t h genea logy , i s f a r from easy to d e t e r m i n e . Some works were born Gothic—as when The Castle of Otranto sprang f u l l y armed from Horace W a l p o l e ' s dreaming brow i n 17 64. In c a l l i n g h i s 'progeny 'A G o t h i c S t o r y , ' he gave l a t e r c r i t i c s grounds f o r r e g a r d i n g him as p r o g e n i t o r of v t h e G o t h i c t r a d i t i o n , ' and f o r l a t e r g e n e r a t i n g widespread c r i t i c a l a n x i e t i e s about the d i f f e r e n c e s between modes of f i c t i o n . But o t h e r works seem to have a c h i e v e d G o t h i c , to b e l o n g p r e s e n t l y to the f a m i l y a l t h o u g h not b o r n i n the d i r e c t l ine—or b o r n ' B . W . ' ( ' B e f o r e W a l p o l e ' ) . The r e a d e r s e a r c h i n g f o r ' G o t h i c ' i n a n o v e l (as w e l l as ' the n o v e l ' i n G o t h i c ) r e a l i z e s t h a t W a l p o l e ' s i n s p i r a t i o n d e r i v e s not o n l y from a few scenes i n S m o l l e t t and R i c h a r d s o n , but a l s o from a f a r r a g o o f p o e t r y , drama, a r c h i t e c t u r e , p a i n t i n g , landscape g a r d e n i n g , and a n t i q u a r i a n enthus iasm f o r the med ieva l (or r a t h e r f o r e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y f a n t a s i e s of those 'Dark A g e s ' ) . Whoever reads E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e w i t h a concept of ' G o t h i c ' i n mind may con c lu d e t h a t d e s p i t e G o t h i c p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r the f l a g r a n t l y e x o t i c , t h i s i s a most E n g l i s h , a most i n d i g e n o u s , phenomenon. A l t h o u g h e a r l i e r c r i t i c s i n s i s t e d on the importance of 228 f o r e i g n — e s p e c i a l l y German—imports, many scenes and ep i sodes i n c a n o n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e b e l o n g to a k i n d of q u a s i - ' G o t h i c ' t r a d i t i o n t h a t may be t r a c e d from Beowulf (the l andscape o f G r e n d e l ' s mere) through s e v e r a l ep i sodes o f The Faerie Queene, c e r t a i n scenes from Shakespeare , much of Jacobean drama, to M i l t o n ' s " I l Penseroso ," v e r s e by Anne F i n c h , and Pope's Eloisa to Abelard. By the 1740s, the works o f the ' G r a v e y a r d S c h o o l ' suggest t h a t what we now c a l l e d ' G o t h i c ' appeared to be q u i n t e s s e n t i a l l y ' p o e t i c ' " (13) S i m i l a r l y , the d i s t i n c t i o n made between the G o t h i c "romance" and the r e a l i s t n o v e l , and even between branches of the G o t h i c , f o r example, enact the ( a e s t h e t i c ) d i v i s i o n t h a t p h i l o s o p h y makes to p a r t i t i o n one k i n d o f w r i t i n g from another , a g e s t u r e which a l s o f u n c t i o n s to d e t a c h (and e x a l t ) " l i t e r a t u r e " from c r i t i c i s m . Anne W i l l i a m s makes the p o i n t t h a t even though the word "Gothic" today "seems most a p p r o p r i a t e l y f o l l o w e d by the word 'novel"(2)—an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t we have been encouraged , says W i l l i a m s , to c o n f l a t e "prose f i c t i o n " and "novel"—there has been "no easy way to d i s t i n g u i s h between e a r l y G o t h i c and s e v e r a l t e x t s we count among the m a s t e r p i e c e s o f Romantic poe try" (3) . W i l l i a m s a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n to the f a c t t h a t c r i t i c i s m has not o n l y been l o a t h to admit any c o n n e c t i o n between G o t h i c p r o s e and Romantic p o e t r y — c i t i n g as examples of the h i g h Romant ics ' a f f i n i t y f o r G o t h i c , W i l l i a m s i n c l u d e s C o l e r i d g e ' s "Mystery Poems," K e a t s ' s " B e l l e Dame sans M e r c i , " " L a m i a , " and "The Eve o f S t . Agnes ," S h e l l e y ' s A l a s t o r , Wordsworth's "Lucy" l y r i c s and the e a r l y " S a l i s b u r y P l a i n " — a l l these , she suggests are " r e p l e t e w i t h G o t h i c p a r a p h e r n a l i a : f a t a l women, haunted c a s t l e s , b l e e d i n g c o r p s e s , and m y s t e r i o u s warnings"(3-4)—but has , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f a few a p o l o g i s t s a c t i v e l y disavowed any ( f a m i l i a l ? ) t i e s . C i t i n g as an example of t h i s a e s t h e t i c d i v i s i o n Robert D. Hume's i n f l u e n t i a l e s say "Gothic v e r s u s Romant ic : A R e - e v a l u a t i o n o f the G o t h i c Novel" (1969), W i l l i a m s quotes Hume as s a y i n g , " [ t ]he G o t h i c l i t e r a r y endeavor i s not t h a t o f the t r a n s c e n d e n t r o m a n t i c i m a g i n a t i o n ; r a t h e r , i n C o l e r i d g e ' s terms, G o t h i c w r i t e r s a r e work ing w i t h f a n c y , which i s bound to the ' f i x i t i e s and d e f i n i t e s ' of