UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cortazar, Derrida and Rayuela as a parable-parody of writing Jaeck, Lois Marie 1980

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 J34.pdf [ 6.15MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094859.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094859-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094859-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094859-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094859-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094859-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094859-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094859-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094859.ris

Full Text

CORTAZAR, DERRIDA AND RAYUELA AS A PARABLE-PARODY OF WRITING by LOIS MARIE JAECK B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n The Department of Comparative Literature i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required'standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1 9 8 0 . Q) Lois Marie Jaeck, I98O In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be gr a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f C O M P A R A T I V E L I T E R A T U R E The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date F E B R U A R Y 1 $ , 1 9 8 0 ABSTRACT Cortazar, Derrida and Rayuela as a Parable-Parody of Writing in t e r p r e t s the novel Rayuela as a metaphorical representation of the forces which engender the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n w r i t i n g . As J u l i o Cortazar i s not a philosopher hut a n o v e l i s t , I have u t i l i z e d some of Jacques Derrida's theories concerning the o r i g i n , force and movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of w r i t i n g (as outlined i n De l a Grammatologie, L' E c r i t u r e  et l a Differance and "La Differance") i n order to c l a r i f y the thesis that Rayuela i s a metaphorical d e l i n e a t i o n of a philosophy of writing." The Introduction to the th e s i s explains how the hopscotch chart, whose graphic design serves as a pattern f o r Rayuela's structure, movement and p l o t , embraces the same counterpository tension between the outside and the i n s i d e , the p h y s i c a l and the metaphysical which w r i t i n g e n t a i l s . Chapter one analyzes changes i n Rayuela's structure, character r e l a t i o n s h i p s and milieus as pa r a l l e l i s m s of the changing perception of the sign of w r i t i n g , as w r i t i n g progressed from being understood within the logocentricism of the metaphysics of presence, to being comprehended as a non-centered t o t a l i t y whose movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i s one of i n f i n i t e r e f l e c t i o n on i t s e l f . Chapter two int e r p r e t s Rayuela as a parable-parody of the rupture of w r i t i n g with the concept of a center and the consequent opening of the freeplay of the te x t , which assumes the form of a movement of supplemen-t a r i t y as a r e s u l t of the need to supplant the lack of a center. Chapter three examines the p o s s i b i l i t y of the e x i t of sense from w r i t i n g , comparing Derrida's postulates on the above subject with those of Cortazar expressed d i r e c t l y through M o r e i l l i , or i n f e r r e d by the ultimate i i outcome of O l i v e i r a ' s f u t i l e attempt to reach a metaphysical center beyond language. The Conclusion of the t h e s i s synthesizes the concepts explained i n chapters one, two and three by i n t e r p r e t i n g the s t r i n g l a b y r i n t h which O l i v e i r a constructs i n the mental asylum as a symbolic model of the accomplistic-antagonistic r e l a t i o n s h i p of w r i t i n g to speech or a f u l l presence, which i s responsible f o r engendering the l a b y r i n t h of s i g n i f i -cations whichi.the book or w r i t i n g sketches as the novel unfolds i t s e l f . The Conclusion p o s i t s Rayuela as the incarnation of differences within which sense r e a l i z e s i t s e l f as an inexpressible d i f f e r i n g from i t s e l f . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to thank Dr. Carlo Chiarenza and Dr. Isaac Rubio-Delgado for having introduced me to^the works of Jacques Derrida and J u l i o Cortazar, r e s p e c t i v e l y . i v . TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction: Rayuela as a Parable-Parody of Writing , 1 I I . Chapter one: Rayuela, the Sign and Writing. 10 I I I . Chapter two: Cortazar, Derrida and the Engendering of the Movement of S i g n i f i c a t i o n of Writing , ,. . . 50 IV. Chapter three: Cortazar, Derrida and the E x i t from the Text....85 V. Conclusion 101 VI. Bibliography 109 v INTRODUCTION RAYUELA AS A PARABLE-PARODY OF WRITING M o r e i l l i , Cortazar's double i n Rayuela, likens w r i t i n g to sketching his mandala at the same time that he goes through i t , lowering himself into the volcano, approaching the mothers, connecting with the center: Asi por l a escritura bajo a l volcan, me acerco a las Madres, me conecto con e l Centro - sea l o que sea. E s c r i b i r es dibujar mi mandala y a l a vez recorrerlo, inventar l a p u r i f i c a c i o n purificandose.... 1 In a similar vein, Jacques Derrida describes writing as the outlet of the descent of meaning outside of i t s e l f within i t s e l f . . . . the moment of the o r i g i n a l valley of the other within being: L'ecriture est 1'issue comme descente hors de soi en soi du sens.... L'ecriture est l e moment de cette Vallee o r i g i n a i r e de 1'autre dans l ' e t r e . Moment de l a profondeur aussi comme decheance. Instance et insistance du grave. 2 Both of the above de f i n i t i o n s of wri t i n g imply the f r i c a t i o n of subject and object, outside and inside, existence and essence, other and being inherent i n w r i t i n g , which i s responsible for the movement of s i g n i f i c a -t i o n of the text. The hopscotch chart, whose graphic design serves as a pattern for Rayuela's construction, movement and p l o t , embraces the same counterpository tension between the outside and the inside, the physical and the metaphysical which writing e n t a i l s . Cortazar u t i l i z e s the rulesf.and movement of the game of hopscotch as a metaphor for the play of wri t i n g . In "Linguistique et Grammatologie", Derrida comments that certain American l i n g u i s t s , who refuse to bind l i n -g u istics to semantics and expell the problem of meaning outside of th e i r 1 2 researches, refer constantly to the model of a game when describing w r i t i n g . Derrida c l a s s i f i e s play (or the game of writing) as the absence of a transcendental s i g n i f i e d giving r i s e to the limitlessness of the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , which constitutes the destruction of onto-theology and the metaphysics of presence. In view of the undermining of metaphysics, Derrida explains that i t i s necessary to think of wr i t i n g as a game within language: On pourrait appeler jeu 1'absence du s i g n i f i e transcendental comme i l l i m i t a t i o n du jeu, c'est-a-dire, comme ebranlement de l'onto-theologie et de l a metaphysique de l a presence.... expulsant l e probleme du meaning hors de leurs recherches, certains l i n g u i s t e s americains se referent sans cesse au modele du jeu. I I faudra i c i penser que l ' e c r i t u r e est l e jeu dans l e langage. (Le Phedre (277e) condamnait precisement l ' e c r i t u r e comme jeu - paidia -et opposait cet enfantillage a. l a gravite serieuse et adulte (spoude) de l a parole.) 3 In the above quotation, Derrida comments that Plato i n the Phaedrus opposes the c h i l d i s h play of writing to the adult gravity of speech. The game of writ i n g i s the c h i l d of, or a f a l l from, the seriousness of a speech that was immediately related to the logos of a creator or central presence. In l i k e manner, the game of hopscotch i s the c h i l d of a former mystic ceremony whose object was to effect a joi n i n g with a transcendental presence. In-an interview, Cortazar explains that the hopscotch chart was o r i g i n a l l y regarded as the graphic representation of a s p i r i t u a l process: A mandala...is a sort of mystic labyrinth -"a design, l i k e a hopscotch chart, divided into sections of compartments, on which the Buddhists concentrate t h e i r attention and i n the course of which they perform a series of s p i r i t u a l exercises. I t ' s the graphic projection of a s p i r i t u a l process. Hopscotch, as almost a l l children's games, i s a ceremony with a mystic and r e l i g i o u s o r i g i n . I t s sacred value has been l o s t . But not en t i r e l y . Unconsciously 3 some of i t remains. For instance, the hop-scotch played i n Argentina - and i n France -has compartments f o r Heaven and Earth at opposite ends of the c h a r t . " 4 Hopscotch became-a game at the moment that i t ceased to he the representation of a s e r i e s of s p i r i t u a l steps toward a transcendental presence, and became instead the i n d i c a t o r of a progression of p h y s i c a l jumps toward a heaven which has no r e a l i t y other than i t s name sketched at the top of a chart drawn on the ground. In l i k e manner, w r i t i n g was born as a language or a pure functionning when i t ceased being a sign s i g n a l i n d i c a t i n g a presence outside of i t s e l f . Derrida comments: C'est quand l ' e c r i t est defunt comme signe-s i g n a l q u ' i l n a i t comme langage; alors i l d i t ce qui est, par l a meme ne renvoyant qu'a s o i , signe sans s i g n i f i c a t i o n , jeu ou pure fonctionnement, car i l cesse d'etre u t i l i s e comme information n a t u r e l l e , biologique ou technique, comme passage d'un etant a l'autre ou d'un s i g n i f i a n t a un s i g n i f i e . 5 Derrida explains that i n order to think play r a d i c a l l y , the onto-l o g i c a l and transcendental problematics must f i r s t be s e r i o u s l y exhausted: the c r i t i c a l movements of the Husserlian and Heideggerean question must be followed to the end, conserving t h e i r e f f i c a c i t y and l e g i b i l i t y . Even under the erasure of the above movements, however, Derrida postulates that the concepts of play and w r i t i n g w i l l remain within r e g i o n a l l i m i t s , and within an empiric, p o s i t i v i s t i c or metaphysical discourse. From the very beginning of the game, w r i t i n g i s understood as the becoming-unmotivated of the symbol : Pour penser radicalement l e jeu, i l faut done d'abord epuiser serieusement l a problematique ontologique et transcendentale, traverser patiemment et rigoureusement l a question du sens de l ' e t r e , de l ' e t r e de 1'etant et de l ' o r i g i n e transcendentale du monde - de l a mondanite du monde - suivre effectivement et k jusqu'au bout l e mouvement c r i t i q u e des questions husserlienne et heideggerienne, l e u r conserver leur efficace. et l e u r l i s i b i l i t e . Fut -ce sous rature, et faute de quoi l e s con-cepts du jeu et de l ' e c r i t u r e auxquels on aura recours resteront p r i s dans des l i m i t e s regionales et dans un discours empiriste, p o s i -t i v i s t e ou metaphysique.... Nous sommes done d'entree du jeu dans l e devenir-immotive du symbole. 6 In Rayuela, Cortazar explores the exhaustion of the transcendental problematic, the becoming-unmotivated of the symbol and the establishment of w r i t i n g as i n f i n i t e freeplay within f i n i t e boundaries designated by i t s former association with a metaphysical discourse. He accomplishes the . -l a t t e r by way of the Club de l a Serpiente's intra-novel analysis of M o r e i l l i ' s attempted reduction of matter into s p i r i t - an i n v e s t i g a t i o n which has some a f f i n i t i e s with Heidegger's deconstruction of metaphysics; by means of h i s p o r t r a y a l of O l i v e i r a ' s f u t i l e attempt to r e j o i n with a metaphysical center, which r e s u l t s i n his irrevocable separation from that center and h i s consequent suspension i n a state of i n f i n i t e s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n engendered from the contradictory physical-metaphysical forces which meet i n him; and through h i s repeated u t i l i z a t i o n of the symbol of the hopscotch chart, which O l i v e i r a attempts to restore to i t s former function as a diagramatic s i g n i f i e r of a transcendental presence, but which remains being a pure game. Writing, for both Cortazar and Derrida, i s a game or pure functionning which drags along with i t i t s metaphysical roots, i n the same manner that hopscotch i s a game which manifests evidence of i t s o r i g i n a l metaphysical s i g n i f i c a n c e . Cortazar and Derrida conclude that w r i t i n g i s born at the cross-roads of the way of logos (writing understood as the graphic i n d i c a t o r of a c e n t r a l presence) and the way of the l a b y r i n t h (writing comprehended as 5 a f i n i t e ensemble of i n f i n i t e r e f l e c t i o n on i t s e l f whose movement of s i g -n i f i c a t i o n obscures irrevocably the way out of i t s e l f ) , Rayuela may be regarded as an expansion or sequel to Los reyes, a short play published by Cortazar i n 1 9 5 1 , which depicts the confrontation of Theseus and the Minotaur i n the l a b y r i n t h . Roberto Gonzalez Echevarrla suggests that Los reyes i s an allegory of the b i r t h of w r i t i n g : This confrontation of the monster and the hero constitutes the primal scene i n Cortazar's myth-ology of w r i t i n g : a hegemonic struggle for the center that resolves i t s e l f i n a mutual cancel- .. l a t i o n and i n the superimposition of beginnings and ends. .::The very image of man unborn, the Minotaur i s the possessor of the immediate but naive knowledge of. man before the F a l l . His . speech i s the incoherent, symbolic language of a savage god. Theseus, on the other hand, i s not only a dealer i n death, but i s the very image of death. His l i n e a r cogent language i s tem-po r a l , d i s c u r s i v e - i t i s discourse....If i n other versions of the myth the b i r t h of reason, morals or p o l i t i c s i s at stake, what we have i n Los reyes i s the v i o l e n t b i r t h of w r i t i n g . The catalogue of herbs that the Minotaur "tastes" i s a series of disconnected words, without syntac-t i c a l and therefore temporal structure, l i n k e d to t t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l o r i g i n through".their "stems". By k i l l i n g the Minotaur, Theseus attempts to r e -place the perishable sounds of ind i v i d u a l , words with the l i n e a r , durable cogency of discourse, a cogency predicated not on the stems of words but on t h e i r declensions, on the p a r t i c l e s that l i n k them i n a structure whose mode of representation would not be sonorous but s p a t i a l - w r i t i n g . The irony, of course, i s that once w r i t i n g i s i n s t i -tuted, Theseus does not gain c o n t r o l of the l a b y r i n t h but becomes superfluous and f l e e s . Be-cause w r i t i n g cannot be dimmed l i k e the stars with each dawn, because i t i s not a memory whose traces can be erased, Theseus i s not needed to reinvent i t , as the Minotaur re-invented h i s nomenclatures • .. . every day. Writing i s the empty l a b y r i n t h from which both the Minotaur and Theseus have been banished. 7 In Los reyes, Cortazar a l l e g o r i z e s the death of a center to which discourse r e f e r r e d and the consequent emergence of the empty l a b y r i n t h of w r i t i n g . In Rayuela, Cortazar continues h i s analysis of the confrontation between an i n t u i t i v e and a reasoned discourse which i s responsible f o r engendering the l a b y r i n t h of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of w r i t i n g , and simultaneously writes the l a b y r i n t h i t s e l f , brought about by the absence of a metaphysical center. In my t h e s i s , Rayuela as a Parable-Parody of Writing, I w i l l i n t e r -pret Cortazar's a l l e g o r i c a l analysis of the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of wr i t i n g as described i n Rayuela, and compare i t with Jacques Derrida's theories about the o r i g i n , force and movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n w r i t i n g as o u t l i n e d i n De l a Grammatologie, L' E c r i t u r e et l a Difference, and "La Difference". The movement of Rayuela p a r a l l e l s metaphorically Derrida's method of deconstuction. David B. A l l i s o n , the t r a n s l a t o r of La Voix et  l e Phenomene (Speech and Phenomena) defines the term deconstruction as "a project of c r i t i c a l thought whose task i s to locate and take apart those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules f o r a period of thought, these concepts which command the unfolding of an e n t i r e epoch of metaphysics." 8 Cortazar conducts his deconstuction of the forces which constitute w r i t i n g through his po r t r a y a l of O l i v e i r a ' s metaphysical-physical search f o r the center or o r i g i n of thought. Cortazar verbalizes h i s theories of decon-st r u c t i o n through h i s character-double M o r e i l l i , a writer within the novel. Cortazar establishes M o r e i l l i as h i s double by a t t r i b u t i n g to him a sentence taken from the short story A x o l o t l (a work published by Cortazar i n 1956): O l i v e i r a comments, "Pero l a r v a tambien quiere decir mascara, M o r e i l l i l o ha e s c r i t o en alguna p a r t e . " 9 Through his surrogate M o r e i l l i , Cortazar declares that h i s purpose i n w r i t i n g Rayuela i s to deconstruct w r i t i n g i t s e l f . O l i v e i r a comments that M o r e i l l i destroys l i t e r a t u r e and thereby shows them a way out of i t : "por l a p r a c t i c a e l v i e j o se muestra y nos muestra l a s a l i d a . iPara que s i r v e un e s c r i t o r s i no para d e s t r u i r l a 7 l i t e r a t u r a ? " 1 0 O l i v e i r a also mentions that a part of M o r e i l l i ' s work i s a r e f l e c t i o n on'the problem of w r i t i n g i t : Su problema previo era siempre e l resecamiento, un horror mallarmeano frente a l a pagina en bianco....Inevitable que una parte de su obra fuese una r e f l e x i o n sobre e l problema de e s c r i b i r l a . 1 1 In t h i s t h e s i s , changes • i n Rayuela's structure, character r e l a t i o n -ships and milieus w i l l be analyzed as pa r a l l e l i s m s of the changing percep-t i o n of the sign, as w r i t i n g progressed from being understood wi t h i n the logocentricism of the metaphysics of presence, to being comprehended as a non-centered t o t a l i t y whose movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i s one of i n f i n i t e r e f l e c t i o n on i t s e l f . The changing perception of the sign i s i n t e g r a l l y r e l a t e d to the rupture of w r i t i n g with the concept of a center. Rayuela a l l e g o r i z e s the above concept, and also demonstrates the consequent open-ing of the freeplay of the tex t , which assumes the form of a movement of supplementarity brought about by the need to supplant the lack of a center. The p o s s i b i l i t y of the e x i t of sense from w r i t i n g i s also examined i n Rayuela. Derrida's postulates on the above subject w i l l be compared with those of Cortazar expressed d i r e c t l y through M o r e i l l i , or i n f e r r e d by the ultimate outcome of O l i v e i r a ' s f u t i l e attempt to reach a metaphysical center beyond language. Why i s Rayuela both a parable and a parody of writing? I t i s a parable of wr i t i n g f o r the reasons mentioned above: i t s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , milieus and t e c h n i c a l construction function as an a l l e g o r i c a l ' m i r r o r for Cortazar's theories of w r i t i n g expounded d i r e c t l y through M o r e i l l i . Rayuela i s also a parody of w r i t i n g , however, as Cortazar constantly r i d i c u l e s O l i v e i r a ' s and M o r e i l l i ' s attempts to r e a l i z e an authentic expression while describing t h e i r movement toward i t . Irony, or the "joke", 8. r e s u l t s from the lack of r e a l coincidence between O l i v e i r a ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l , metaphysical objectives, and the p h y s i c a l r e a l i t y of the s i t u a t i o n which he envisions as incarnations of these objectives. In Chapter f o r t y - t h r e e , for example, reaching the metaphysical center i s l u d i c r o u s l y compared to reaching the center of a bridge of boards strung between two h o t e l windows. Although the event i s very s i g n i f i c a n t • f r o m the point of view of e s t a b l i s h -ing Rayuela: as a parable of w r i t i n g , Cortazar reduces the parable to the l e v e l of parody by contrasting a c h i l d ' s observations about the event with those of O l i v e i r a . The c h i l d ' s remarks underline the lack of correspon-dence between O l i v e i r a ' s metaphysical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of T a l i t a ' s approach to the center of the bridge, and the p h y s i c a l r e a l i t y of the occurence. One witness comments: "Las c r i a t u r a s dicen l o que ven, pobres i n o c e n t e s . " 1 2 O l i v e i r a , by contrast, sees what he wants to see by p r o j e c t i n g his i n t e l -l e c t u a l v i s i o n onto the i n c i d e n t , thereby causing i t to become more than what i t r e a l l y i s . Reducing the parable to the l e v e l of parody does not constitute a lo s s of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the parabolic l e v e l , however, as the parody i s an e s s e n t i a l part of Cortazar's parable of w r i t i n g . Rayuela has an a f f i n i t y with Derrida's Glas, which Geoffry Hartman describes as "a j e s t i n earnest": Every pun i n Derrida i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y accoun-t a b l e , every s o t t i e or s o r t i e must contribute further to the denaisement of the European mind. 1 3 Cortazar's Rayuela i s also "a j e s t i n earnest" i n so f a r as that he per-ceives the joke and irony as the only means of escape from the unsurmoun-table tension between the p h y s i c a l and the metaphysical, the outside and the inside which w r i t i n g e n t a i l s . J 9 FOOTNOTES 1 J u l i o Cortgzar, Rayuela, E d i t o r i a l Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1 9 6 3 , p.^58. 2Jacques Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , L'Ecriture et l a  Difference, Editions du S e u i l , P a r i s , I 9 6 7 , p. ^ 9 . 3Jacques Derrida, "Linguistique et Grammatologie", De.. l a Grammatologie, Editions de Minuit, P a r i s , 1 967 , p.73. ^Luis Harss and Barbara Donmann, Into the Mainstream, Earper and Row Publishers, New York, Evanston and London, 1966,'p. 2 1 8 . 5Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , L'Ecriture et l a Difference, pp.23-2l+. 5Derrida, "Linguistique et Grammatologie", De l a Grammatologie, pp.73-7^. 7Roberto Gonzalez Echevarria, "LPs reyes: Cortazar's Mythology of Writing", Books Abroad, 50, 1976 , p.551. This a r t i c l e i s also included i n The F i n a l Island, Ed. Jaime Alazraki and Ivar Ivask, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1978. 8David B. A l l i s o n , "Translator's Introduction to Speech and Phenomena", Speech and Phenomena by Jacques Derrida, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1 973 , p . x x x i i . 9Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 5^+1. 1 0 I b i d , p. 503. 1 1 I b i d , p.501. . 1 2 I b i d , p.5Ul 1 3Geoffry Hartman, "Monsieur Texte: On Jacques Derrida and his Glas" The Georgia Review, 2 9 , 1975 , p . 7 8 l . 10 CHAPTER I RAYUELA, THE SIGN, AND WRITING Jacques Derrida, i n "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i -ture" (De l a Grammatologie) explains that the idea of the hook, as the idea of the t o t a l i t y of the s i g n i f i e d which pre-exists i t , i s profoundly a l i e n to the d i s r u p t i v e energy of w r i t i n g whose sense i s derived from the play of d i f f e r e n c e s . L'idee du l i v r e , c'est l ' i d e e d'une t o t a l i t e , f i n i e ou i n f i n i e , du s i g n i f i a n t ; cette t o t a l i t e du s i g n i f i a n t ne peut etre ce qu'elle est, une t o t a l i t e , que s i une t o t a l i t e constitute du s i g n i f i e l u i preexiste, s u r v e i l l e son i n s c r i p -t i o n et ses signes, en est independante dans son i d e a l i t e . L'idee du l i v r e , qui renvoie toujours a une t o t a l i t e n a t u r e l l e , est pro-fondement etrangere au sens de l ' e c r i t u r e . E l l e est l a protection encyclopedique de l a theologie et du logocentrisme contre l a disrup-t i o n de l ' e c r i t u r e , contre son energie aphor-i s t i q u e et, nous l e preciserons - plus." l o i n , contre l a d i f f e r e n c e en general.. S i nous d i s -tinguons l e texte du l i v r e , noiis dirons.' que l a destruction du l i v r e , t e l l e qu'elle s'annonce aujourd'hui dans tous l e s domaines, denude l a surface du t e x t e . 1 M o r e i l l i , . C o r t a z a r ' s writer-double within Rayuela, expresses thoughts about his book which p a r a l l e l many of Derrida's opinions. M o r e i l l i de-nounces the novel as a closed order, and desires to provoke or assume a text that i s "untied", which would allow for an opening. He aspires to a narrative that w i l l not be the pretext f o r the transmission of a message, but w i l l instead be the messenger. Provocar, asumir un texto desalinado, desanudado, incongruente, minuciosamente a n t i n o v e l i s t i c o (aunque no antinovelesco)....Como todas la s c r i a t u r a s de eleccion d e l Occidente, l a novela se contenta con un orden cerrado. Resueltamente en contra, busCar tambien aqui l a apertura.... Una t e n t a t i v a de este orden parte de una repulsa de l a l i t e r a t u r a ; repulsa p a r c i a l puesto que se apoya en l a palabra....Asi, usar l a novela como se usa un revolver para defender l a paz, cambiando su signo. Tomar de l a l i t e r a t u r a eso que es puehte vivo de hombre a hombre....Una n a r r a t i v a que no sea pre-texto para l a transmision de un mensaje, (no hay mensaje, hay mensajeros y eso es e l mensaje, a s i como e l amor es e l que ama). 2 Derrida's and C o r t a z a r - M o r e i l l i ' s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the t o t a l i t y of the book as i t r e l a t e s to w r i t i n g springs, from,:the' book's dependency upon the t o t a l i t y of a s i g n i f i e d which preceeded i t . Derrida the philosopher and Cortazar the w r i t e r both perceive the necessity of the book "changing i t s sign" i f i t i s to be an authentic w r i t i n g . Derrida's philosophy of w r i t i n g i s i n t e g r a l l y r e l a t e d to h i s per-ception of the sign and how i t r e l a t e s to w r i t i n g . Therefore, before we can compare Cortazar's philosophy of w r i t i n g , as depicted i n Rayuela, with Derrida's philosophy of w r i t i n g as expressed i n L'Ecriture et l a Difference, De l a Grammatologie, and "La Difference", i t i s necessary to examine the novel as an allegory of a changing perception toward the sign. Derrida describes the changing r e l a t i o n s h i p of s i g n i f i e r to s i g n i -f i e d which the sign e n t a i l s , as the sign evolves from i t s function as a deferred presence comprehended within logocentricism, as defined by Plato and A r i s t o t l e ; to a s e l f - r e f e r r i n g e n t i t y which questions the authority of presence, replacing presence with differences i n a non-centered system. For c l a s s i c a l semiology, the s u b s t i t u t i o n of the sign f o r the thing i t s e l f i s both secondary and p r o v i s i o n a l , being second i n order from an o r i g i n a l or l o s t presence from which the sign would be derived. 3 Saussure questions the secondary and p r o v i s i o n a l character of the sign, and on the basis of Saussure's concept of the sign, Derrida questions the metaphysics 12 of presence. Derrida, i n "La Differance" explains that the a r b i t r a r y and d i f f e r -e n t i a l are inseparable f o r Saussure; a r b i t r a r i n e s s occurring because the system of signs i s constituted by 'the differences between the terms s i g -n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d , and not by t h e i r f u l l n e s s . The elements of s i g n i f i -cation function not by v i r t u e of the compact forc e of t h e i r cores, but by the network of oppostions that d i s t i n g u i s h and r e l a t e them to one another. Saussure postulates that there are only differences i n language without p o s i t i v e terms: ...dans larlangue i l n'y a que des d i f f e r e n c e s . Bien plus, une diffe r e n c e suppose en general des termes p o s i t i f s entre lesquels e l l e s ' e t a b l i t : mais dans l a langue i l n'y a que des differences sans termes p o s i t i f s . Qu'on prenne l e s i g n i f i e ou l e s i g n i f i a n t , l a langue ne comporte n i des idees n i des sons qui preexistaient au systeme l i n g u i s t i q u e , mais seulement des differences phoniques issues de ce systeme. 1 4 The f i r s t consequence that Derrida draws from the above premise i s that the s i g n i f i e d concept i s never present i n i t s e l f , i n an adequate presence that would only r e f e r to i t s e l f . -Every concept i s ne c e s s a r i l y a chain or system of differences within which i t r e f e r s to other concepts. For Saussure, language (con s i s t i n g only of differences) i s not a function of the speaking subject. This implies, f o r Derrida, that the subject i s i n -scribed i n the language as a function of the language. The subject function becomes a speaking subject only by conforming i t s speech to the system of di f f e r e n c e s ; by conforming to the law of language which Saussure c a l l s "language without speech". 5 Derrida suggests that a possible objection to Saussure's postulation of a language without speech would be the existence of an i n t u i t i v e con-sciousness before speech or signs to which language would r e f e r : 13 On pourra etre tente par une objection: certes, l e sujet ne devient parlant qu'en com-mergant avec l e systeme des differences l i n g u i -stiques; ou encore l e sujet ne devient s i g n i f i a n t (en general, par parole ou autre signe) qu'en s'inscrivant dans l e systeme des d i f f e r e n c e s . En ce sens, certes, l e sujet parlant ou s i g n i -f i a n t ne s e r a i t pas present a s o i , en tant que parlant ou s i g n i f i a n t , sans l e jeu de l a difference l i n g u i s t i q u e ou semiologique. Mais ne peut-oh concevoir une presence ou une presence a s o i du sujet dans une conscience silencieuse et i n t u i t i v e ? Une t e l l e question suppose done qu'avant l e signe et hors de l u i , a 1 ' e x c l u s i o n de toute trace et de toute d i f f e r e n c e , quelque chose de t e l que l a conscience est p o s s i b l e . 6 The s i l e n t , i n t u i t i v e consciousness which Derrida proposes as a possible objection to Saussure's object without subject i s a presence which preceeds the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the sign. It p a r a l l e l s , therefore, the "conciencia analogica" which O l i v e i r a and M o r e i l l i attempt to reach behind binary reasoning. Derrida t e l l s us that the p r i v i l e g e of consciousness as a s e l f -presence, i s the other of metaphysics, the very element of our thought i n so far as i t i s caught up i n the language of metaphysics. 7 In most of his work, however, Derrida deconstructs the metaphysics of presence i n order to leave the texts bare, unburdened by the need to represent a sub-j e c t which preceeded them. In "Ce Dangereux Supplement" (De l a Gramma- to l o g i e ), he t e l l s us that there i s no text outside of the t e x t : Et pourtant, s i l a l e c t u r e ne doit pas se contenter de redoubler l e texte, e l l e ne peut legitimement transgresser l e texte vers autre chose que l u i , vers un referent ( r e a l i t e metaphysique, h i s t o r i q u e , psycho-biographique, etc.) ou vers un s i g n i f i e hors texte dont l e contenu pourrait avoir l i e u , aurait pu avoir l i e u hors de l a langue, e'est-a-dire, au sens que nous donnons i c i a ce mot, hors de l ' e c r i t u r e en general. C'est pourquoi l e s con-siderations methodologiques que nous risquons i c i sur un exemple sont etroitement dependantes des 11+ propositions generales que nous avons elaborees plus haut, quant a 1'absence du referent ou du s i g n i f i e transcendental. I I n'y a pas de hors-t e x t e . 8 In l i k e manner, O l i v e i r a and M o r e i l l i become d i s i l l u s i o n e d with the con-cept of an analagous consciousness beyond or preceeding language, and be-come reco n c i l e d with the play of differences within the text as an expansion of consciousness. Derrida e f f e c t s the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the p r i v i l e d g e d presence of metaphysics with the apparently paradoxical proposition of the text r e f e r -r i n g to nothing outside of i t s e l f by proving that one cannot r e t a i n the diff e r e n c e between s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d (which i s the very idea of the sign) without bringing with i t i t s metaphysical roots. To these roots adhere not only the d i f f e r e n c e between the sensible and the i n t e l l i g i b l e , but also the reference to a s i g n i f i e d which exists before i t s f a l l , before i t s expulsion into the e x t e r i o r i t y of the sensible below: La "science" semiologique ou, plus etroitement, l i n g u i s t i q u e , ne peut done r e t e n i r l a difference entre s i g n i f i a n t et s i g n i f i e - l ' i d e e meme du signe - sans l a difference entre l e sensible et 1 ' i n t e l l i g i b l e , certes, mais sans r e t e n i r aussi du meme coup, plus profondement et plus i m p l i c i t e -ment l a reference a, un s i g n i f i e pouvant "avoir l i e u " dans son i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , avant sa "chute", avant toute expulsion dans 1 ' e x t e r i o r i t e de l ' i c i -bas s e n s i b l e . 9 The paradoxical r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the presence of metaphysics, or a trans-cendental s i g n i f i e d as the primacy of meaning i n language, with the non-r e f e r r i n g text occurs through the concept of difference. ;. Derrida regards the transcendental s i g n i f i e d as a past of language that has never been present which exists within language as a trace. In "La Differanee", Derrida defines the trace as a simulacrum of a presence that d i s l o c a t e s , displaces and re f e r s beyond i t s e l f . The trace has no place, for effacement 15 i s the essence of the t r a c e . 1 0 Trace i s the absolute o r i g i n of sense, the other, the enigma of absolute a l t e r i t y , which i s present i n di f f e r a n c e : La trace est en e f f e t l ' o r i g i n e absolue du sens en general. Ce qui revient a d i r e , encore une f o i s , q u ' i l n'y a pas. d'origine absolue du sens en general. La trace est l a differance qui ouvre l'apparaitre et l a s i g n i f i c a t i o n . A r t i c u l a n t l e vivant sur l e non-vivant.en general, o r i g i n e de toute r e p e t i t i o n , o r i g i n e de l ' i d e a l i t e , e l l e n'est pas plus ideale que r e e l e , pas plus i n t e l -l i g i b l e que sensible, pas plus une s i g n i f i c a t i o n transparante qu'une energie opaque et aucun con-cepte de l a metaphysique ne peut l a d e c r i r e . 1 1 Differance i s the movement that r e s i s t s the opposition between the sensible and the i n t e l l i g i b l e (the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d ) ; r e s i s t s i t while i t sustains i t , taking place between speech-.and w r i t i n g . 1 2 Differance i s a trace that no longer belongs to the horizon of being, but whose play c a r r i e s and borders the sense of b e i n g . 1 3 Derrida's concepts of trace and d i f f e r a n c e t a l l o w him to get out of the closure of an object without a subject (which would give r i s e to no object) without r e s o r t i n g to the subject as o r i g i n , as understood i n the logocentric system. Moreil l i - C o r t c i z a r , l i k e Derrida, acknowledges the metaphysical roots of w r i t i n g , yet comprehends w r i t i n g as a primary process which creates i t s e l f within a rhythm which preceeds or bypasses thought, and therefore, has no d e f i n i t i v e subject. The force M o r e i l l i describes as "rhythm" has an a f f i n i t y with the force Derrida c a l l s " d i f f e r a n c e " : iPor que escribo esto? No tengo ideas c l a r a s , n i s i q u i e r a tengo ideas. Hay j i r o n e s , impulsos, bloques, y todo busca una forma, entonces entra en juego e l ritmo y yo escribo dentro de ese ritmo, escribo por e l , movido por e l . " y no por eso. que llaman e l pensamiento y que hace l a prosa, l i t e r a t u r a u o t r a . 1 4 M o r e i l l i - C o r t S z a r - O l i v e i r a ' s quest f o r aut h e n t i c i t y i n language and expression follows the progression of w r i t i n g from Platonian logocentricism, 16 comprehending a present presence, to Derrida's non-centered system ordered by di f f e r a n c e . v M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r - O l i v e i r a begins h i s search f o r "una vida sentida, c r e i d a " u t i l i z i n g "being" or the "other" as the authen-t i c point of perspective f o r the d i s t o r t e d p h y s i c a l foreground governed by the laws of binary reason. M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r condemns language and thought as an incomplete o p t i c , incapable of expressing the i n t e r n a l existence of things: " E l lenguaje, a l i g u a l que e l pensamiento, procede d e l funcionamiento aritmetico b i n a r i o de nuestro cerebro. Clasificamos en s i y no, en p o s i t i v o y n e g a t i v e ...JPero que decir de l a ' i n s u -f i c i e n c i a de l a i n t e l i g e n c i a b i n a r i a en s i misma? l a e x i s t e n c i a interna, l a esencia de l a s cosas se l e escapa.... Para conseguirlo, deberia cambiar de estado, s e r i a necesario que otras maquinas que l a s usuales se pusieran a funcionar en e l cerebro, que e l razonamiento b i n a r i o fuese s u s t i t u i d o por una conciencia analogica que asumiera l a s formas y asimil a r a los ritmos inconcebibles de esas estructuras profundas..." (Le matin des m a g i c i e n s ) 1 5 Even while he i s e x t o l l i n g the au t h e n t i c i t y of essence, the other, being, or an analagous consciousness as the o r i g i n of sense, however, M o r e i l l i i s experiencing-doubts about the "other" which f i n d expression i n his crossed out phrase at the end of the passage: Ese cuerpo que soy yo tiene l a presencia de un estado en que a l negarse a s i mismo como t a i , y a l negar simultaneamente e l corr e l a t o objectivo como t a i , su conciencia accederia a un estado fuera d e l cuerpo y fuera d e l mundo que s e r i a e l verdadero acceso a l ser....mi cuerpo sera porque detras de l a puerta de l u z . . . , e l ser sera otra cosa que cuerpos y, que cuerpos y almas y, que yo y l o otro, que ayer y mafiana. Todo depende de...(una frase t a c h a d a ) . 1 6 M o r e i l l i ' s crossed out phrase at the end of h i s r e f l e c t i o n on the "other" r e c a l l s Heidegger's habit of w r i t i n g the word "being" crossed out, as an i n d i c a t i o n of a move toward the transformation of language and a trans-'. formed r e l a t i o n s h i p of being to the-essence of language. In order to give language back i t s r i g h t s ("devolverle a l lenguaje sus d e r e c h a s " ) 1 7 M o r e i l l i wishes to replace the binary reasoning machines which produce language i n the b r a i n with other machines governed by an analagous consciousness which would be capable of expressing the i n t e r n a l existence or essence of things which escape expression i n a language governed by binary reasoning. M o r e i l l i i s attempting the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the Platonian w r i t i n g of t r u t h i n the soul to bad w r i t i n g (writing i n the l i t e r a l and ordinary s e n s e ) . 1 8 I have previously postulated that the state of analagous consciousness which M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r - O l i v e i r a wish to regain i n language has many a f f i n i t i e s with the s i l e n t , i n t u i t i v e conscious-ness or s e l f presence which Derrida suggests as a possible presence which preceeds the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of language. 1 9 Derrida questions the absolute p r i v i l e g e of presence or consciousness as meaning, however, and repositions presence -no longer the absolutely m a t r i c a l form of being - as an e f f e c t which i s no longer that of presence but that of d i f f e r a n c e ; 2 0 leaving the text unburdened by the need to represent a t r u t h which preceeded i t . In l i k e manner, M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r - O l i v e i r a ' s quest for an analagous con-sciousness leads him to the conclusion that an analagous consciousness functions within the system of differences i n language. M o r e i l l i argues the necessity of digging one's own tunnel i n the earth, instead of ob-s t i n a t e l y connecting with a non-existant tunnel, "como es e l caso de tantos poetas asomados con mas de medio cuerpo a l a ventana de l a s a l a de estar, a altas horas de l a noche" 2 1 (obviously a l l u d i n g to O l i v e i r a leaning out of the window i n the mental asylum, and to the incongruity of w r i t i n g attempting to derive i t s sense from i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to a metaphysical being outside of i t s e l f ) . 18 M o r e i l l i , l i k e Derrida, ackowledges that w r i t i n g has an i n s i d e , or an essence, but an essence that i s created, generated by the outside which co-exists and i s inseparable from the i n s i d e , i n the manner i n which water exists i n hydrogen; that i s , the insi d e i s the outside i n so f a r as that i t i s the synthesis of the component parts which are the outside which ' come together to create the i n s i d e . Puede ser que haya otro mundo dentro de este, pero no l o encontraremos recortando su s i l u e t a en e l tumulto fabuloso de l o s dias y las vidas, no l o encontraremos n i en l a a t r o f i a n i en l a h i p e r t r o f i a . Este mundo no ex i s t e , hay que crearlo como e l fenix. Este mundo existe en este, pero como e l agua existe. en e l oxigeno y e l hidrogeno....Digamos que e l mundo es una f i g u r a , hay que l e e r l a . Por l e e r l a entendemos g e n e r a r l a . 2 2 Derrida deconstructs the metaphysics of presence which i s the key-stone f o r language as previously thought within a logocentricism, yet escapes Saussure's double bind of an object without a subject by proposing the trace - as a past that has never been present - as the o r i g i n of wr i t i n g . S i m i l a r l y , M o r e i l l i allows himself the pleasure of undermining and r i d i c u l i n g a l i t e r a t u r e at i t s very base, yet acknowledges a thread coming out of the book that would always be stretched out to a beyond, causing any p e t r i f i e d v i s i o n of the work to be l e f t i n suspense, and, con-sequently, allowing the text to open up. M o r e i l l i se daba e l gusto de seguir fingiendo una l i t e r a t u r a que en e l fuero interno miraba, contraminaba y escarnecia....al f i n a l habia siempre un h i l o tendido mas a l i a , saliendose d e l volumen, apuntando a un t a i vez, a un a l o mejor, a un quien sabe, que dejaba en suspenso toda v i s i o n p e t r i f i c a n t e de l a o b r a . 2 3 In the preceeding pages, some of the p a r a l l e l s between Jacques Derrida's theory of signs i n r e l a t i o n to w r i t i n g and those of Cortazar voiced by M o r e i l l i i n Rayuela have been examined. We s h a l l now examine 19 the complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the structure of the novel, i t s m i l i e u s , characters and language as a l l e g o r i c a l studies of the systems of opposi-tions on which the concept of the sign i s based. The changing structure, imagery, milieus and character r e l a t i o n s h i p s within Rayuela r e f l e c t the evolution of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the sign to w r i t i n g from i t s p o s i t i o n within a c l a s s i c a l logocentricism i n which the sign represents a presence i n i t s absence or a t r u t h deferred outside of i t s e l f , to i t s present status as a s e l f - r e f e r r i n g e n t i t y based on oppositions whose point of o r i g i n i s no longer definable, the o r i g i n of the speculation being a difference. The novel's binary construction, binary m i l i e u s , binary language and binary character r e l a t i o n s h i p s are an analogue of the b i - p a r t i t e construction of the sign, and of the ins i d e and outside of w r i t i n g , which incorporates the in t e r a c t i o n s of logos and the l a b y r i n t h , reason and non-reason (madness), the other and being, meaning and non-meaning which s h a l l be examined i n chapter two i n re l a t i o n , to the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s i n w r i t i n g . R. Jakobsen, whom Derrida quotes i n "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commence-ment de l ' e c r i t u r e " (De l a Grammatologie), t e l l s us that the c o n s t i t u t i v e mark of any sign i s i t s two-fold character i n v o l v i n g two aspects - one sensible and the other i n t e l l i g i b l e - which n e c e s s a r i l y suppose and require each other: La pensee s t r u c t u r a l i s t e moderne l ' a c l a i r e -ment e t a b l i : l e langage est un systeme de signes, l a l i n g u i s t i q u e est p a r t i e integrante de l a science des signes, l a semiotique (ou dans l e s termes de Saussure, 'la- semiologie).. La::defihitioh medievale -a l i q u i d stat pro aliquo - que notre epoque a ressuscitee, s'est montree toujours valable et feconde. C'est a i n s i que l a marque c o n s t i t u t i v e de tout signe en general, du signe l i n g u i s t i q u e en p a r t i c u l i e r , reside dans son caractere double: chaque unite l i n g u i s t i q u e est b i p a r t i t e et com-porte deux aspects; l'un sensible et 1'autre i n -t e l l i g i b l e - d'une part le-signans ( l e s i g n i f i a n t de Saussure), d'autre part l e signatum ( l e s i g n i f i e ) . Ces deux elements c o n s t i t u t i f s du signe l i n g u i s t i q u e (et du signe en general) se supposent et s'appelent necessairement l'un l ' a u t r e . 2 4 Rayuela's binary structure parodies the b i - p a r t i t e construction of the sign. The novel i s constructed (or deconstructed) i n u n i t s of two. There are two suggested books contained within one book, evocative of the e x t e r i o r i t y and the i n t e r i o r i t y of w r i t i n g , or of the sensible and the i n t e l l i g i b l e . The f i r s t book a l l e g o r i z e s the c l a s s i c a l view of w r i t i n g governed by the laws of logocentricism, i n which the t o t a l i t y of the book i s h o s t i l e to the d i s r u p t i o n of w r i t i n g i t s e l f . The f i r s t reading, being a l i n e a r representation of r e a l i t y and a passive experience for the reader, evokes the e x t e r i o r i t y of the s i g n i f i e r . The second book a l l e g o r i z e s w r i t i n g as a system of s p a t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s , and i n v i t e s the reader t o par-t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y . i n the temporal-spatial past-present, logos-labyrinth c r i s i s which the s i g n and w r i t i n g e n t a i l s , thus evoking the s i g n i f i e d ' s more immediate r e l a t i o n s h i p with essence. The f i r s t reading of the book i s i n turn d i v i s i b l e into two u n i t s -Del Lado de A l i a and Del Lado de Aca -• which r e f l e c t the movement of w r i t i n g away from a metaphysics of presence towards a phenomenology of d i f f e r e n c e s . Buenos Aires (Del Lado de Aca) has often been c a l l e d the Paris of the new world. Thus, Paris (Del Lado de Alia.) may be regarded as the " o r i g i n a l " c i t y , and Buenos Aires as i t s "copy" or "representation". The " o r i g i n a l " c i t y appears to be a gathering place f o r metaphysical thinkers who are so l o s t i n abstract searches for essence that they are rendered incapable of perceiving essence by v i r t u e of the blinds t h e i r reasoning constructs i n front of i t , whereas the "representation", Buenos A i r e s , appears to be a 21 haven f or e x i s t e n t i a l i s t s who enjoy l i v i n g more than thinking. Del Lado de Aca i s the more p h y s i c a l , pragmatic world - i n sp i t e of i t s close a f f i n i t y with circuses and mental asylums - and thus p a r a l l e l s some of Saussure's and Derrida's conclusions about the essence of w r i t i n g as the text i t s e l f , rather than a deferred t r u t h which pre-existed the text. O l i v e i r a ' s move from Paris to Buenos Aires p a r a l l e l s the displacement of the sign from a logocentic system i n which the s i g n i f i e r r e f e r s to a deferred presence; to a non-centric system i n which the point of reference of the s i g n i f i e r i s a dif f e r e n c e . At f i r s t glance, i t appears possible to equate Del Lado de A l i a (Paris) with the e x t e r i o r i t y of w r i t i n g - the s i g n i f i e r - i n so f a r as that P a r i s , as an i n t e l l e c t u a l center, i s the place of abstraction and removal from t r u t h , whereas Del Lado de Aca (Buenos Aires) evokes the i n -t e r i o r i t y of w r i t i n g r e f e r r e d to by the s i g n i f i e d , being the place of a more authentic existence. The complexities of the analogy become evident, however, when one takes i n t o account the subsequent d i v i s i o n of the Paris and Buenos Aires sections into two parts each, each side incorporating within i t s e l f the analogy of the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d , or the ex-t e r i o r i t y and the i n t e r i o r i t y of w r i t i n g ; e f f e c t i n g that _"En P a r i s , todo l e era Buenos Aires y v i s e v e r s a . " 2 5 Del Lado de A l i a i s d i v i s i b l e into O l i v e i r a ' s experiences with l a Maga, and O l i v e i r a ' s experiences apart from l a Maga. La Maga and M o r e i l l i are the i n s i d e or s i g n i f i e d of Del Lado de A l i a who indic a t e an analagous consciousness which O l i v e i r a and the other members of the Club de l a Ser-piente - the s i g n i f i e r s - aspire t o . O l i v e i r a ' s attempts to reach a stage of analagous consciousness through the in t e r c e s s i o n of l a Maga a l l e g o r i z e s the s i g n i f i e r r e f e r r i n g to the s i g n i f i e d as a t r u t h present. O l i v e i r a ' s movement away from l a Maga and her implied death symbolize the movement of wr i t i n g away from a c e n t r a l s i g n i f i e d toward the re-establishment of the o r i g i n of sense i n w r i t i n g as a dif f e r e n c e . Del Lado de Aca i s divided into two sections also: O l i v e i r a ' s experiences i n the cir c u s and his exploits i n the mental asylum. The circ u s parodies the e x t e r i o r i t y of the s i g n i f i e r which acts as a bridge to the i n t e r i o r i t y of the s i g n i f i e d , symbolized by the mental asylum. The c i r c u s evokes the e x t e r i o r i t y of the s i g n i f i e r and w r i t i n g , which alludes to the p o s s i b i l i t y of a meeting with the s i g n i f i e d or i n s i d e , although i t e x i s t s , by v i r t u e of i t s i m i t a t i v e nature, i n opposition to i t . O l i v e i r a describes the circus as a spangled fraud where everything was perfect - an im i t a t i o n based on t r i c k s and deception. He reveals the secret of the c a l c u l a t i n g cat who responds to cardboard cards treated previously with v a l e r i a n . The cat i s a ludicrous parody of the emptiness of the s i g n i f i e r . The symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e of the cat deepens i f one takes into account that cats have the h i s t o r i c a l - m y t h o l o g i c a l import of animals who are i n touch with the mysteries of l i f e . Like w r i t i n g , there-fore, the contrived deception of the c a l c u l a t i n g cat brings along with i t i t s metaphysical roots. The cir c u s and the cat are not only symbolic of the empty e x t e r i o r i t y of the s i g n i f i e r , but also of the s i g n i f i e r ' s function as a bridge to the i n t e r i o r i t y of the s i g n i f i e d . O l i v e i r a describes the c e n t r a l hole at the top of the circus tent as the escape hatch to a maybe contact, a bridge between the eye and l i b e r a t e d space: "ese escape hacia un quiza, contacto, ese centro, ese ojo como un puente del suelo a l espacio liberado...." 2 6 The mental asylum evokes the i n t e r i o r i t y of the s i g n i f i e d as the haven of non-reason (madness) which preceeds and transcends reasoned discourse. The slogan of the asylum, "matar al.perro", appears to s i g n i f y death to e x t e r i o r laws and conventions (such as those imposed hy logocen-t r i c i s m on w r i t i n g ) , i n favour of " a b r i r puertas y ventanas a l e s p i r i t u " 2 7 , (evocative of the open movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s of w r i t i n g i n a non-ce n t r i c system). The f i r s t reading of Rayuela, whose b i - p a r t i t e structure i s a dual mirror r e f l e c t i o n of a series of s e l f - b i s e c t i n g u n i t i e s which f i n a l l y t e r -minate i n death - "paf se acabo" 2 8 - parodies Heidegger's premise that i n the l a s t instance, the diffe r e n c e between the s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d i s n o t h i n g . 2 9 The second reading of the book, i n so f a r as that i t s t i l l follows the l i n e a r progression of chapters one to f i f t y - s i x , intersperced by ex-cursions into the "Capitulos p r e s c i n d i b l e s " , embraces the above structure, but allows for an opening at the end of chapter f i f t y - s i x , rather than ending i n nothing or death through the t o t a l reduction of the s i g n i f i e r into the s i g n i f i e d . The l a b y r i n t h i n e structure which distinguishes the second book from the f i r s t book of Rayuela, and the a l l e g o r i c a l s i g n i f i -cance of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e w i l l be examined i n chapters two and three. There i s one remarkable diffe r e n c e between the structures of the f i r s t and second books which support the hypothesis that the f i r s t reading of the novel parodies w r i t i n g as a logocentric t o t a l i t y , i n which the object r e f e r s d i r e c t l y to a subject; whereas the second reading of the book a l l e g o r i z e s w r i t i n g as a non-centered t o t a l i t y i n which subject and object are r e f l e c t e d doubles whose o r i g i n i s l o s t i n the play of d i f f e r -ences. In chapter f i f t y - f i v e of the f i r s t book, T a l i t a and Traveler discuss the event of O l i v e i r a ' s k i s s with T a l i t a i n the mortuarium of the asylum. In the second book, chapter f i f t y - f i v e i s omitted, and instead 2h appears "verbatim as the second h a l f of chapter one hundred and t h i r t y -three; the f i r s t h a l f of the chapter co n s i s t i n g of Traveler's r e f l e c t i o n s on "La Luz de l a Paz d e l Mundo" by Cerefino Paz - a t r e a t i s e which can only be interpreted as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the madness of pure reason. In the f i r s t book, chapter f i f t y - f i v e r e f e r s d i r e c t l y back to i t s " o r i g i n " -the actual event of the ki s s as described i n chapter f i f t y - f o u r . In the second book, however, T a l i t a ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the k i s s i s separated from the actual "event" i n chapter f i f t y - f o u r by the i n t e r c a l a t i o n of three "Capitulos p r e s c i n d i b l e s " which parody the play of differences i n which the o r i g i n a r y s i g n i f i e d i s obscured or l o s t . Cerefino Paz's t r e a t i s e of reasonable madness has many a f f i n i t i e s with O l i v e i r a , who i s approaching a state of madness through reason. The " o r i g i n " of chapter one hundred and t h i r t y - t h r e e becomes l o s t i n the play of dif f e r e n c e , therefore, as the t o t a l l y unrelated t r e a t i s e of Cerefino Paz appears to have as much input into Traveler's and the reader's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of O l i v e i r a ' s action i n the mortuarium as the de s c r i p t i o n of the o r i g i n a l event d i d. The analogy of the second reading of the book with the d i f f e r e n t i a l and a r b i t r a r y character of signs i s mirrored i n M o r e i l l i ' s concept of " l a f i g u r a " . M o r e i l l i defines the condition of " f i g u r a " as that i n which everything has value as a sign and not as a theme of d e s c r i p t i o n ; a sign, that i s , that r e f e r s to i n t e r s p a c i a l differences rather than to an absolute h i s t o r i c a l time or event. M o r e i l l i aflade: "Acostumbrarse a emplear l a expresion f i g u r a en vez de imagen, para e v i t a r confusiones. S i , todo coincide. Pero no se t r a t a de una vuelt a a l a Edad Media n i cosa parecida. Error de postular un tiempo h i s -t o r i c o absoluto: Hay tiempos diferentes aunque par a l e l o s . En ese sentido, uno de l o s tiempos de l a llamada Edad Media puede c o i n c i d i r con 25 uno de los tiempos de l a llamada Edad Moderna. Y ese tiempo es e l percibido y habitado por pintores y e s c r i t o r e s que rehusan apoyarse en l a ci r c u n s t a n c i a , ser 'modernos' en e l sentido en que l o entienden los contemporaneos, l o que no s i g n i f i c a que opten por ser ana-cronicos; sencillamente estan a l margen del tiempo s u p e r f i c i a l de su epoca, y desde ese otro tiempo donde todo accede, a l a condicion de f i g u r a , donde todo vale como signo y no como tema de descripcion, intentan una obra que puede parecer ajena o antagonica a su tiempo y a su h i s t o r i a circundantes, y que s i n embargo los incluye, l o s ex p l i c a , y en ultimo termino los orien t a hacia una transcendencia en cuyo termino esta esperando e l hombre." 3 0 Robert Brody c i t e s the above passage as an excellent s t a r t i n g point i n a discussion of the expansion of consciousness: We see here a denial o f . l i n e a r , chronological time. M o r e i l l i proposes a p a r a l l e l i s m of d i f f e r e n t times that may be perceived by those a r t i s t s and writers who are capable of seeing beyond the s u p e r f i c i a l (eg., h i s t o r i c a l time), those who can see the f i g u r a to be formed by the fusion of analagous concepts, persons, and acts e x i s t i n g i n h i s t o r i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t categories (Middle Ages, Modern A g e ) . 3 1 Cortazar, i n the second book, attempts to incarnate i n t e r s p a c i a l d i f f e r -ences which give r i s e to the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s or an expansion of consciousness of the text by superimposing thematically r e l a t e d extracts from poetry, novels, documentaries, philosophy, or just other viewpoints on the event already r e l a t e d , on the event i t s e l f . The s p a t i a l - p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s that unite the four p r i n c i p l e characters of Rayuela - La Maga, O l i v e i r a , T a l i t a and Traveler - parody the changing r e l a t i o n s h i p of s i g n i f i e r to s i g n i f i e d when w r i t i n g evolves from being comprehended within a c l a s s i c a l logocentricism, to being i n -terpreted within a non-centric system founded on d i f f e r e n c e s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of La Maga and O l i v e i r a i n Del Lado de A l i a (Paris) i s the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the binary-opposition r e l a t i o n s h i p of the written sign r e f e r r i n g to a deferred presence or t r u t h as c l a s s i c a l l y determined. The evolution of the concept of the sign from i t s function as a deferred presence r e f e r r i n g to an o r i g i n a l presence; to i t s d i f f e r e n t i a l character in.which the point of i t s o r i g i n i s l o s t i n the di f f e r e n c e s , and presence i s present only i n erasure, i s parodied i n the l a b y r i n t h of s p a t i a l and temporal bonds which unite l a Maga, O l i v e i r a , T a l i t a and Traveler. The f i r s t book of Rayuela commences with the ha l f - d o u b t f u l question, " i E n c o n t r a r i a a l a Maga?" - l a Maga symbolizing an essence of l i f e or an i n t u i t i v e consciousness that O l i v e i r a i s incapable of perceiving, d e s c r i -bing or reaching on his own terms. The second reading of the book, by contrast, commences with the phrase, "pero quien nos curara d e l fuego s o r d o " 3 3 - "fuego" or f i r e sym-b o l i z i n g the inner l i f e or essence that O l i v e i r a , at the beginning of the f i r s t reading aspired to through the in t e r c e s s i o n of l a Maga. The t o t a l i t y of the book, therefore, i n c l u d i n g both the f i r s t and second readings, embraces a paradoxical search f o r essence which i s at the same time a moving away or cure from the l i m i t a t i o n of essence; a move from t r u t h as the center, to t r u t h as wr i t i n g : "Todo es escritura....Nuestra verdad posible tiene que ser invencion, es d e c i r , e s c r i t u r a . . . ," 3 t t The f i r s t reading of the novel describes O l i v e i r a ' s hopeful-hopeless search fo r a t r u t h present (analagous consciousness) indicated by l a Maga. The second reading of the book, however, commences with the proposi t i o n that o r i g i n a r y t r u t h i s not obtainable through a d i a l e c t i c , as the d i a l e c t i c i t s e l f transforms t r u t h into something else than what i t o r i g i n a l l y was: Que s i , que no, que en esta esta...Pareceria que una ele c c i o n no puede ser d i a l e c t i c a , que su planteo l a empobrece, es dec i r l a f a l s e a , es de c i r l a transforma en otra c o s a . 3 5 27 The ending of the f i r s t hook indicates that there was some meeting "between l a Maga and O l i v e i r a i f only f o r that one t e r r i b l e , sweet instant before death: " a l f i n y a l cabo algun encuentro habia, aunque no podia durar mas que ese instante terriblemente dulce...paf se acabo." 3 6 The ending of the second book, by contrast, reveals that the meeting did not take place, and O l i v e i r a survives, continuing h i s search f o r a t r u t h attainable here on earth whose o r i g i n i s w r i t i n g ; as indicated by h i s desire to become a monk of " l a corporacion nacional de los monjes de l a oracion del s a n t i -guamiento" - an order whose o r i g i n i s the t r e a t i s e of Cerefino Paz -dedicated to praying f o r and s a n c t i f y i n g "lugares de parajes" ( s i t e s of plac e s ) . The expression "lugares de parajes" evokes the sameness-yet-difference of the double, and also appears to be a mirror-play on the expression "lugares de parejas" ( s i t e s of couples), i n f e r r i n g doubles-as-a-joining. At the end of the second book, therefore, O l i v e i r a ' s search for l a Maga, or the o r i g i n a r y essence, of .being, i s abandoned i n favour of his newfound dedication to the san c t i t y of differences. Before beginning to forge the analogy between the opposition-unity of O l i v e i r a and l a Maga, and the antagonistic-double r e l a t i o n s h i p of the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d which the notion of the sign implies, i t i s necessary to c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r u t h , logos, mind, voice, w r i t i n g , s i g n i f i e r , s i g n i f i e d and sign as determined by A r i s t o t l e , and as understood within the heritage of logocentricism. Jacques Derrida, i n "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " (De l a Grammatologie) explains that a l l metaphysical determinations of t r u t h are inseparable from logos, or reason. Within logos, the o r i g i n a l l i n k to the voice has an immediate r e l a t i o n s h i p to the mind. Spoken words are the symbols or s i g -n i f i e r s of mental experience, and written words are the symbols or s i g n i -f i e r s of spoken words. A l l s i g n i f i e r s , therefore are d e r i v a t i v e . Because of i t s proximity to the mind, the voice as a s i g n i f i e r i s d e r i v a t i v e , yet at the same time has a d i r e c t rapport with meaning. The written s i g n i f i e r , "by contrast, has no c o n s t i t u t i v e meaning and i s always t e c h n i c a l and r e -presentative. Logocentricism, i n f e r r i n g a system i n which the written s i g n i f i e r r e f e r s to the voice, which i n turn i s the s i g n i f i e r of the mind, i s thus a phonocentricism. Phonocentricism merges with the h i s t o r i c a l determination of the meaning of being as presence (presence as substance, essence, existence). Logocentricism thus supports the determination of the.being of the e n t i t y as presence, and debases w r i t i n g - considered as a mediation of a mediation - as a f a l l i nto the e x t e r i o r i t y of meaning. The dif f e r e n c e between s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d - or the separation of t h e i r p a r a l l e l i s m - belongs, therefore,- to the epoch of logos; an epoch covered by the h i s t o r y of metaphysics. Saussure has reminded us that language i s a system of signs, and the c o n s t i t u t i v e mark of any sign i s i t s b i - p a r t i t e character - one part sensible and the other part i n t e l l i g i b l e - the s i g n i -f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d . Derrida reminds us that one cannot r e t a i n the opposition between the s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d without bringing with i t i t s metaphysical roots. To these roots adhere not only the d i f f e r e n c e between the sensible and the i n t e l l i g i b l e , but also the reference to a s i g n i f i e d which exists before i t s expulsion into the e x t e r i o r i t y of the sensible. As the face of pure i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , the transcendental s i g n i f i e d r e f e r s to an absolute logos to which i t i s immediately u n i t e d . 3 7 Derrida does not r e j e c t the above notions of the sign, - as nothing i s conceivable i n the h i s t o r y of metaphysics without these notions- but he does question the h i s t o r i c a l closure of the philosophy of presence that governs the sign. R e c a l l i n g M o r e i l l i ' s a l l u s i o n . t o w r i t i n g as a w a l l of 29 words with a missing b r i c k , Derrida says that a philosophy of w r i t i n g must designate the crevice through which the yet unnameable glimmer beyond the closure can be glimpsed. Through his deconstruction of the metaphys-i c s of presence, Derrida t r i e s to show that there i s no l i n g u i s t i c sign before w r i t i n g . . . . . i l faut entourer l e s concepts c r i t i q u e s d'un discours prudent et minutieux, marquer l e s con-d i t i o n s , l e m i l i e u et l e s l i m i t e s de l e u r e f f i c a c i t e , designer rigoureusement l e u r appartenance a la-machine q u ' i l s permettent de deconstituer; et du meme coup l a f a i l l e par l a q u e l l e se l a i s s e entre-v o i r , encore innommable, l a lueur de l ' o u t r e -c l o t u r e . Le concept de signe est i c i exemplaire.... En suspectant, comme nous venons de l e f a i r e , l a differe n c e entre s i g n i f i e ou s i g n i f i a n t ou l ' i d e e de signe en general, nous devons pre c i s e r aussitot q u ' i l ne s'agit pas de l e f a i r e depuis une instance de l a v e r i t e presente, anterieure, exterieure ou superieure au signe, depuis l e l i e u de l a difference effacee. Bien au c o n t r a i r e . Nous nous inquietons de ce qui, dans l e concept de signe — qui n'a jamais existe n i fonctionne hors de l ' h i s t o i r e de l a philosophie (de l a presence) - reste systematique-ment et genealogiquement determine par cette h i s t o i r e . • • • • L ' e x t e r i o r i t e du s i g n i f i a n t est 1 ' e x t e r i o r i t e de l ' e c r i t u r e en general et nous tenterons de montrer q u ' i l n'y a pas de signe linguistique.avant l ' e c r i t u r e . 3 8 The o r i g i n a l , p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of l a Maga and O l i v e i r a , as described i n Del Lado de A l i a ( P a r i s ) , i s an alle g o r y of the A r i s t o t e l i a n r e l a t i o n s h i p of w r i t i n g to voice to mind. La Maga, the being who l i v e s i n t u i t i v e l y , i s comparable to the voice, s i g n i f i e r of the soul which bears the closest r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s i g n i f i e d , as fe e l i n g s of the soul, which constitutes a sort of u n i v e r s a l language which effaces i t s e l f through speech. La Maga, as the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of voice, i s also the s i g n i f i e d of written discourse. O l i v e i r a , the man of reason who i s s p i r i t u a l l y barren, barred by reason and discourse from i n t e r p r e t i n g essence i n t u i -t i v e l y , i s the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the written s i g n i f i e r , the dead l e t t e r , 30 the e x t e r i o r i t y of w r i t i n g ; which, according to the c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of w r i t i n g , c a r r i e s no c o n s t i t u t i v e meaning i t s e l f , hut only indicates a t r u t h constituted hy and within the element of logos. O l i v e i r a r e a l i z e s that l a Maga has a personal l i f e , whereas he i s empty, an enormous l i b e r t y : En e l fondo l a Maga tiene una vida personal.... En cambio yo estoy vacio, una l i b e r t a d enorme, para sonar y andar por a h i , todos l o s juguetes rotos, ningun problema. Dame f u e g o . 3 9 With the phrase " a l l the toys broken", O l i v e i r a admits his t o t a l separa-^:. t i o n from childhood and innocence, comparable to the f a l l of language 'from voice to w r i t i n g . His request f o r a l i g h t or f i r e has promethean over-tones : Prometheus brought f i r e from the gods to man to make him more god-l i k e and thus free him from his subjugation to the gods. In h i s desire for f i r e or a l i g h t , O l i v e i r a - l i k e w r i t i n g comprehended i n a logocentic t o t a l i t y - desires the p o s s i b i l i t y f or evolution which he presently l a c k s . Plato perceives the voice as having a natural r e l a t i o n s h i p to the.feelings of the soul that preceed language. In l i k e manner, O l i v e i r a describes l a Maga as pointing toward the ray capable of shattering the mirror of l a n -guage and reason: "La Maga no sabra nunca como su dedo apuntaba hacia l a f i n a raya que t r i z a e l e s p e j o . " 4 0 O l i v e i r a r e a l i z e s that he i s not capable of seeing through the mirror, or of even having f e e l i n g s : "Buscar a traves de", penso confusamente. " S i , es una de l a s cosas que no se hacer, eso y l l o r a r y compadecerme.1,1+1 Whereas O l i v e i r a has f a i t h i n d e f i n i t i o n s , i n t e l l i g e n c e , seeing with hi s eyes open - the way of d i s - • course; l a Maga believes i n touch, i n s t i n c t , seeing b l i n d : the magic route of the soul: "iTan ciego me crees?" ( O l i v e i r a ) "A l c o n t r ario, te h a r i a tanto bien quedarte un poco ciego." ( l a Maga) "Ah,si; e l tacto que reemplaza las. d e f i n i c i o n e s , e l i n s t i n t o que va mas a l i a de l a i n t e l i g e n c i a . La v i a magica, l a noche oscura del alma." ( O l i v e i r a ) 4 2 La Maga and O l i v e i r a ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p , . l i k e the co-existence of the s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d within'the concept of the sign, i s determined by-opposition: "...nos queriamos en una d i a l e c t i c a de iman y limadura, de ataque y defensa, de pelota y p a r e d . " 4 3 The s e n s i b l e - i n t e l l i g i b l e opposition of O l i v e i r a to l a Maga i s r e f l e c t e d i n the imagery of oppo-s i t i o n O l i v e i r a frequently u t i l i z e s i n P a r i s . O l i v e i r a attempts to erase the d i f f e r e n c e between the s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d i n language by putting i n t o question the opposition between the sensible and the i n t e l l i g i b l e . He attempts the destruction of d u a l i s t i c categories or reduction of dif f e r e n c e by frequently combining words whose meanings are d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed; - h i s object being to express the essence or analagous conscious-ness which preceeded the opposition of binary reasoning on which language i s based. O l i v e i r a describes h i s l i f e with l a Maga as a disorder which was a d i s c i p l i n e : " E l desorden en que viviamos...me parecia una d i s c i p l i n a n e c e s a r i a ' i " 4 4 He li k e n s M o r e i l l i to "un vidente ciego, paradoja estimu-l a n t e . " 4 5 He describes l a Maga's l i f e experience as a l i e that was true: "...aquello que parecia tan mentira era verdadero." 4 8 Through his close a s s o c i a t i o n with l a Maga, O l i v e i r a begins to understand that "....para verte como yo queria, era necesario empezar por cerrar los o j o s . " 4 7 O l i v e i r a i d e n t i f i e s the hat e f u l tenderness he f e e l s while watching l a Maga as something so contradictory that i t must be t r u t h ; " S i n t i o una especie de ternura rencorosa, algo tan con t r a d i c t o r i o que debia ser l a verdad misma." 4 8 O l i v e i r a r e a l i z e s , however, that the ultimate synthesis between 32 opposites - which he equates with t r u t h - i s inexpressible i n t h i s world, because "the great Logos i s watching": "Pero en este mundo l a s s i n t e s i s ultimas estan por descubrirse. Perico tiene razon, e l gran Logos v e l a . " 4 9 O l i v e i r a ' s i n a b i l i t y to abrogate the difference between opposites and perceive being i s comparable to the i n a b i l i t y of philosophers to transcend the opposition between the sensible and the i n t e l l i g i b l e because the concept of the sign, on which the h i s t o r y of metaphysics r e s t s , i s determined by t h i s opposition. Jacques Derrida, i n "La Structure, l e Signe, et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines" explains that western philosophy cannot do without the concept of the sign - t h i s meta-physi c a l complicity - without the r i s k of erasing difference i n the process of a s i g n i f i e d reducing i t s e l f into i t s s i g n i f i e r . O l i v e i r a ' s hopeful-hopeless quest to reduce difference by means of the imagery of opposites parodies Heidegger's attempt to get out of the t r a d i t i o n of metaphysics and emerge in t o a c l e a r i n g l i g h t e d by being. O l i v e i r a also parodies Derrida's attempt to get out of Heidegger's double bind through word games. We can see O l i v e i r a doubly r e f l e c t e d i n Richard Rorty's descrip-t i o n of Heidegger's dilemma and Derrida's way out of the dilemma: The idea i s that any attempt to do what Heidegger wanted to do - to get out from under the t r a d i t i o n , to emerge into a c l e a r i n g l i g h t e d by being - w i l l f a i l , because every statement of the attempt can only be i n terms which the t r a -d i t i o n created f or us. So, Derrida thinks, maybe a l l that w i l l help are verbal t r i c k s , fake ety-mologies, typographical gimmicks, puns, a l l u s i o n s , d i r t y jokes, what Kierkegaard c a l l e d "a c e r t a i n nimble dancing i n the service of thought." 5 0 O l i v e i r a ' s d r i f t i n g away from l a Maga i s a temporal, p h y s i c a l d i s -placement which p a r a l l e l s h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l progression from an attempt to deconstruct binary reasoning and reach the o r i g i n of meaning i n being, 33 over "there" (Del Lado de A l i a ) , towards an attempt to l i v e (rather than think) a more authentic, p h y s i c a l existence "here" (.Del Lado de Aca) through his acceptance of the mirror of di f f e r e n c e s . These p a r a l l e l movements a l l e g o r i z e the evolution of the philosophy of w r i t i n g from Heidegger's hopeful-hopeless attempt to get out from under the thumb of presence and into the c l e a r i n g of being - which, we have seen, would con-s t i t u t e a collapse of meaning, rather than i t s l i b e r a t i o n - to Derrida's consequent deconstruction of presence which displaces the o r i g i n of w r i t i n g from the A r i s t o t e l i a n presence as voice - a presence governing a logocen--: •". t r i e t o t a l i t y h o s t i l e to the di s r u p t i v e movement of w r i t i n g i t s e l f - to i t s re-establishment as an o r i g i n l o s t i n the play of d i f f e r e n c e s , or a function i n a system whose o r i g i n i s a di f f e r e n c e , which allows f o r an i n -f i n i t e expansion of consciousness a r i s i n g from the text i t s e l f , rather than a closure of t e x t u a l meaning through i t s r e f e r r a l to an ex t e r i o r presence. The evolution of a philosophy of w r i t i n g from the confinement of a logocentricism to the openness of a non-centric system n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t i -tutes a changing perception of the roles of the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d i n r e l a t i o n to presence. E a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, we noted that Saussure re-defines the determination of signs from the point of view of t h e i r a r b i t r a r i n e s s and d i f f e r e n t i a l character, rather than t h e i r f u l l n e s s ( t h e i r previous f u l l n e s s r e s i d i n g i n t h e i r reference to the deferred presence of v o i c e ) . Writing i n i t s " f u l l " sense r e f e r s to differ e n c e rather than presence. The movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s of wr i t i n g i s engendered from diff e r e n c e s . Difference, which re s t s i n the a r b i t r a r i n e s s between the s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d , i s comparable to a r e f l e c t i o n or double. Derrida, i n "Linguistique et Grammatologie" describes w r i t i n g as a 3h dangerous promiscuity and nefarious complicity of the r e f l e c t i o n and the r e f l e c t e d : the r e f l e c t i o n of the o r i g i n - the double - redoubling i t s e l f u n t i l the o r i g i n of the speculation becomes a difference: Promiscuite dangereuse, nefaste complicite entre l e r e f l e t et l e r e f l e t e qui se l a i s s e narcissique-ment seduire. Dans ce jeu de l a representation, l e point d'origine devient i n s a i s i s s i b l e . II y a des choses, des eaux et des images, un renvoi i n f i n i des unes aux autres, mais plus de source. II n'y a plus d'origine simple. Car ce qui est r e f l e t e se dedouble en soi-meme, et non seulement comme addition a soi de son image. Le r e f l e t , 1'image, l e double dedouble ce q u ' i l redouble. L'origine de l a spe-cu l a t i o n devient une dif f e r e n c e . 5 O l i v e i r a ' s p h y s i c a l separation from l a Maga, and h i s s p a t i a l super-imposition of her image on T a l i t a , e f f e c t i n g the phenomena that two women are now l a Maga instead of one, a l l e g o r i z e s the.separation of w r i t i n g from the logocentricism of voice-presence, and the consequent redoubling of the o r i g i n through w r i t i n g . The o r i g i n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of O l i v e i r a to l a Maga i n Del Lado de A l i a i s r e f l e c t e d i n four s p a t i a l - p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n Del Lado de Aca: T a l i t a ( l a Maga) / Traveler ( O l i v e i r a ) ; O l i v e i r a / T a l i t a ( l a Maga),/ Traveler; O l i v e i r a / T a l i t a ( l a Maga); O l i v e i r a / Traveler ( l a Maga). We have previously compared l a Maga to the s i g n i f i e d , and O l i v e i r a to the s i g n i f i e r . Therefore, the o r i g i n a l d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p of s i g n i f i e r to s i g n i f i e d i s l o s t i n the play of r e f l e c t e d doubles, which constitutes a difference. In order to examine the l a Maga - O l i v e i r a - T a l i t a - v. Traveler r e l a t i o n s h i p as a p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the changing r e l a t i o n s h i p of the s i g n i f i e r to s i g n i f i e d as the concept of the sign evolves from i t s p o s i t i o n within a logocentric t o t a l i t y , to i t s r e p o s i t i o n i n g i n a non-centered t o t a l i t y where the center i s a function within a chain of d i f f e r -ences; i t i s necessary to examine the a l l e g o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the four r e l a t i o n s h i p s l i s t e d above. In Del Lado de Aca, the reader of Bayuela i s introduced to T a l i t a and Traveler who appear, at f i r s t glance, to be a mirror r e f l e c t i o n of O l i v e i r a and l a Maga. O l i v e i r a , however, by h i s own d e f i n i t i o n , i s empty, incapable of f e e l i n g , an observer rather than a p a r t i c i p a n t . T a l i t a and Traveler, by contrast, both resemble l a Maga i n so f a r as that they are i n t u i t i v e l y i n touch with l i f e and each other. The symbolic value of Traveler and T a l i t a i n r e l a t i o n to the alle g o r y of the sign and w r i t i n g which we are t r y i n g to c l a r i f y i s derived not only from how they r e l a t e to each other, but more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , how they r e l a t e s p a t i a l l y or p h y s i c a l -l y to O l i v e i r a , the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n i f i e r . T a l i t a and Traveler -as paired facets of l a Maga's i n t u i t i v e consciousness - constitute a double r e f l e c t i o n over "here" of l a Maga over "there". T a l i t a becomes l a Maga's s p a t i a l double when O l i v e i r a superimposes l a Maga's p h y s i c a l image on her, and recognizes i n her the same i n t u i t i v e sense that l a Maga possessed. Like l a Maga, T a l i t a i s capable of l i g h t i n g other's paths: "da l a impresion de andar llevando una v e l a encendida en l a mano, mostrando un camino." 5 2 Like l a Maga, T a l i t a i s capable of expres-sing contradictory concepts that preceed the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of thought: Soy yo, soy e l , l o habia dicho s i n pensarlo,es decir que estaba mas que pensando, venia de un t e r r i t o r i o donde l a s palabras eran como los locos en l a c l i n i c a , entes amenazadores o absurdos, viviendo una vida propia y a i s l a d a . 5 3 The diffe r e n c e between l a Maga and T a l i t a , and the consequent symbolic value of T a l i t a as an evolution from l a Maga, i s i n t e g r a l l y r e -l a t e d to T a l i t a ' s a b i l i t y to cope with a p h y s i c a l existence. Though l a Maga possesses an i n t u i t i v e consciousness, she proves h e r s e l f incompetent i n the game of ph y s i c a l l i f e down here. There are many a l l u s i o n s i n the novel to the p o s s i b i l t y of her death by suicide a f t e r her baby dies through 36 her own negligence, and O l i v e i r a leaves her. T a l i t a , hy contrast, i s a well-educated woman who has managed, i n s p i t e of her education and reason-ing a b i l i t y , -to maintain an i n t u i t i v e sense of l i f e , and s t i l l l i v e a competent, p h y s i c a l existence. Writing, as c l a s s i c a l l y defined, i s a descent into the e x t e r i o r i t y of meaning from voice, which s i g n i f i e s the f e e l i n g s of the mind or soul. The c l a s s i c a l l y determined o r i g i n of sense i n w r i t i n g i s an i d e a l , rather than a p h y s i c a l r e a l i t y . Derrida's p h i l o -sophy of w r i t i n g , however, proposes that there i s nothing outside of the t e x t . The consequence we draw from Derrida's premise i s that the s i g n i f i e d , as the i d e a l sense or the concept r e f e r r e d to by the s i g n i f i e r , co-exists with the s i g n i f i e r within the p h y s i c a l t e x t . A philosophy of w r i t i n g which displaces w r i t i n g from i t s comprehension within a logocentric t o t a l -i t y r e f e r r i n g to a voice-presence outside of w r i t i n g , to i t s r e - e s t a b l i s h -ment within a non-centered t o t a l i t y i n which presence i s present only as a function i n a chain of differences - n e c e s s a r i l y designates the movement of the s i g n i f i e d from the i d e a l realm of the mind to the p h y s i c a l realm of the t e x t . T a l i t a , who i s more p h y s i c a l l y competent and " e x t e r i o r " than l a Maga - even though possessing the same i n t u i t i v e sense - i s Cortazar's p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n i f i e d of a w r i t i n g comprehended as a non-centered t o t a l i t y . O l i v e i r a and T a l i t a - l a Maga's embrace i n the mortuarium of the mental asylum i s a parody of the s i g n i f i e r meeting with the s p a t i a l image of the c e n t r a l s i g n i f i e d through the medium of the s i g n i f i e d of the written sign. T a l i t a r e a l i z e s that the k i s s was not for her, but for l a Maga. For the f i r s t time, however, she sees O l i v e i r a smiling openly - without the usual irony - accepting something that must have come to him from the center of l i f e . T a l i t a describes t h e i r embrace as a coming together from somewhere 37 e l s e ; as i f she and O l i v e i r a were the golems of an impossible meeting between t h e i r masters. During the k i s s the s p a t i a l presence of l a Maga i a acceptable f o r O l i v e i r a , but not f o r T a l i t a . T a l i t a r e a l i z e s that the s p a t i a l presence of l a Maga deprives her of l i f e , rendering her a golem or an automaton. T a l i t a refuses to be anybody's zombie: "...me empezo a mirar y era' a l a otra que, mir aba. Yo no soy e l zombie de nadie, Manu, no quiero ser e l zombie de nadie." 5 t f The p o l a r i c tension engendered from the contradictory images of T a l i t a as the zombie of l a Maga, and T a l i t a r e f u s i n g to be the zombie of l a Maga i s compatible with the contradictory o r i g i n of sense i n w r i t i n g : w r i t i n g as the "dead l e t t e r " which i s the zombie of l i f e , yet which paradoxically engenders a l i f e within i t s e l f i n -dependant of any l i f e outside of i t s e l f . T a l i t a , as "nobody's zombie", evokes Derrida's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of wr i t i n g as a surrogate which does not substitute i t s e l f f o r anything which pre-existed i t , 5 5 a concept which p a r a l l e l s the e x i s t e n t i a l paradox of existence preceeding essence, existence g i v i n g r i s e to i t s own essence. In the previous pages, I have attempted to i l l u s t r a t e that the sym-b o l i c s i g n i f i c a n c e of l a Maga's r e l a t i o n s h i p to O l i v e i r a (the s i g n i f i e r ) evolves from her r o l e as the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n i f i e d as a voice-presence that i s present, to her s p a t i a l r o l e as the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the formal essence of the s i g n i f i e d as a presence that i s effaced and no longer present. I have also previously established the p a r a l l e l between l a Maga and Traveler as they r e l a t e to O l i v e i r a : both have a d i r e c t l i n k with an essence of l i f e which O l i v e i r a lacks. The symbolic import of Traveler'a and l a Maga's r e l a t i o n s h i p to O l i v e i r a i s explainable i n terms of t h e i r symbolic r e l a t i o n s h i p to metaphysics. La Maga, personifying a presence i n d i c a t i n g being, symbolizes that part of the sign and wr i t i n g that i s de-fined by and bound up with the h i s t o r y of metaphysics. Traveler .per-sonifies, the h i s t o r y of metaphysics as i t adheres to the s i g n i f i e r or the e x t e r i o r i t y of w r i t i n g . Robert Brody suggests that Traveler i s a char a c t e r i z a t i o n based on O l i v e i r a ' s past: Traveler i s what O l i v e i r a would have been had he not gone t r a v e l l i n g . 5 6 A f t e r h i s ph y s i c a l separ-ati o n from l a Maga, O l i v e i r a p e r s o n i f i e s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i g -n i f i e r or the e x t e r i o r i t y of w r i t i n g which r e f e r s to a previous presence ( l a Maga) only as a function i n a chain of dif f e r e n c e s ; the non-center permitting the freeplay of the t e x t , and the consequent movement of s i g -n i f i c a t i o n s . Traveler, by contrast, p e r s o n i f i e s the s i g n i f i e r as compre-hended within a logocentricism whose movement i s l i m i t e d , defined by a center. O l i v e i r a compares Traveler and himself to two twins playing on a see-saw, or a mirror r e f l e c t i o n : - Pero siempre en posiciones simetricas, - d i j o O l i v e i r a . - Como dos mellizos que juegan un sube y baja, o simplemente como cualquiera delante del espejo. iNo te llama l a atencion, doppelganger? 5 7 O l i v e i r a and Traveler are p h y s i c a l doubles , i n so f a r as that they have the same colouring and b u i l d . They are not psychological doubles, however, as Traveler, being more i n t u i t i v e l y i n touch with l i f e than O l i v e i r a , has a " f u l l n e s s " which O l i v e i r a lacks. Even Traveler's lack of t r a v e l l i n g i s likened to a substance: "Pero de todas maneras no habia viajado, y era como una piedra negra en e l medio de su alma." 5 8 Traveler's "black stone" which i s a " f u l l n e s s " that i s r e a l l y a "lack" i s comparable to the center as the metaphysics of presence, which gives the sign ( s i g n i f i e r to s i g -n i f ied) ' i t s . f u l l n e s s , yet at the same time l i m i t s i t s movement of s i g n i f i -cation. Although Traveler senses that the black stone i n h i s soul i s the 39 weight of his i n e f f e c t u a l l y , i t i s also the weight which, l i n k s him to an essence of l i f e . O l i v e i r a denounces Traveler f o r being c o r r a l l e d , whereas Traveler denounces O l i v e i r a f or being something disembodied, a w i l l i n the form of a weather-vane who wants everything without making any commitment; just because he mixes up memories and r e a l i t i e s "to such a non-euclidean extent": -Yo no te odio - d i j o Traveler - Solamente que me has acorralado a un punto en que ya no se que hacer. ...Yo tampoco te odio, hermano, pero te denuncio, y eso es l o que vos llameis a c o r r a l a r . -Yo estoy vivo - d i j o Traveler mirandolo en los ojos -. Estar vivo parece siempre e l precio de algo. Y vos no queres pagar nada. Nunca l o q u i s i s t e . Una especie de cataro e x i s t e n c i a l , . un puro E l verdadero doppelganger sos vos, porque estas como desencarnado, sos una voluntad en forma de v e l e t a , ahi a r r i b a . Quiero esto, quiero aquello, quiero e l norte, y e l sur. Y todo a l mismo tiempo, quiero a l a Maga, quiero a T a l i t a . . -.<.. Todo porque se l e mezclan l a s realidades y los recuerdos de una manera sumamente no-e u c l i d i a n a . 5 9 The d i f f e r e n c e between O l i v e i r a and Traveler i s the d i f f e r e n c e between the fu l l n e s s of the sign as c l a s s i c a l l y defined and the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of the sign as defined by Saussure. O l i v e i r a compares Traveler to a f i v e thousand year o l d man with whom he- no longer f e e l s i n harmony, but from whom he can never completely escape; - who causes him to v a s c i l l a t e between h i s past and his present, preventing him from reaching being at the very moment that he approaches i t : Hablando de sustituciones, nada me extranaria que vos y yo fueramos e l mismo, uno de cada lado... Una s o l a cosa se y es que de t u lado ya no puedo estar, todo se me rompe entre l a s manos, hago cada barbaridad que es para volverse loco suponiendo que fuera tan f a c i l . Pero vos que estas en armonla con e l t e r r i t o r i o no queres entender este i r y v e n i r , doy un empujon y me pasa algo, entonces cinco m i l afios de genes echados a perder me t i r a n para atras y recaigo en e l t e r r i t o r i o . . . . En f i n , cinco m i l afios me t i r a n otra vez para atras y hay que volver a empezar. Por eso siento que sos mi doppelganger, porque todo e l tiempo estoy yendo y viniendo de tu t e r r i t o r i o a l mio, y en esos pasajes lastimosos me parece que vos sos mi forma que se queda ahi mirandome con lastima,. sos los cinco m i l afios de hombre amontonados en un metro setenta, mirando a ese payaso que quiere s a l i r s e de su c a s i l l o . 6 0 In the above passage, Traveler p e r s o n i f i e s the f i v e thousand year o l d h i s -tory of metaphysics from which w r i t i n g , p e r s o n i f i e d by O l i v e i r a , t r i e s to escape but can't. The dilemma of w r i t i n g which Cortazar expresses meta-p h o r i c a l l y through the r e l a t i o n s h i p of Traveler to O l i v e i r a i s explained by Derrida i n "La Structure, l e Signe, et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines". Derrida stresses that a t o t a l rupture between language and metaphysics i s impossible, because philosophers cannot u t t e r a single destructive proposition which does not s l i p i nto the form and language of exactly what i t seeks to contest: Or tous ces discours destructeurs et tous leurs analogues sont p r i s dans une sorte de c e r c l e . Ce ce r c l e est unique et i l d e c r i t l a forme du rapport entre l ' h i s t o i r e de l a metaphysique et l a destruc-t i o n de l ' h i s t o i r e de l a metaphysique: i l n'y a aucun sens a se passer des concepts de l a meta-physique pour ebranler l a metaphysique; nous ne disposons d'aucun langage - d'aucune syntaxe et d'aucun lexique - qui s o i t etranger a cette h i s t o i r e ; nous ne pouvons enoncer aucune pro-p o s i t i o n d e s t r u c t r i c e qui n ' a i t deja du se g l i s s e r dans l a forme, dans l a logique et l e s postulations i m p l i c i t e s de c e l a meme qu'elle voudrait c o n t e s t e r . 6 1 The i n a b i l i t y of w r i t i n g to separate i t s e l f completely from i t s metaphysical roots i s parodied i n Traveler's and O l i v e i r a ' s confrontation i n the s t r i n g l a b y r i n t h O l i v e i r a constructed, evocative of the l a b y r i n t h w r i t i n g constructs. Traveler reminds O l i v e i r a of the impossibility of escaping from hi s past, even i f i t i s on the other side of his "damned threads": iHablabas de un doppelganger, no? Ya ves que alguien t e sigue, que alguien es como vos aunque este del otro lado de tus condenados p i o l i n e s . 6 2 Seconds before his death or accident, O l i v e i r a and Traveler meet i n recon-c i l i a t i o n . Traveler's and O l i v e i r a ' s meeting i n space parodies the abolishment-r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of speech and w r i t i n g i n each other, which constitutes "di f f e r a n c e " . The f i r s t reading of the novel commences with O l i v e i r a ' s doubtful question, " i E n c o n t r a r i a a l a Maga?" - l a Maga personifying the s i g n i f i e d as voice-presence to which the s i g n i f i e r as w r i t i n g d i r e c t l y r e f e r r e d . O l i v e i r a r e a l i z e s at the end of the f i r s t book that some meeting with l a Maga was p o s s i b l e , but only with l a Maga present within a chain of r e f l e c t e d doubles: T a l i t a - Traveler - l a Maga - Manu (Traveler) T a l i t a estaba parada s i n darse cuenta-en-la c a s i l l a t r e s , y Traveler t e n i a un pie metido en l a s e i s , de manera que l o unico que e l podia hacer era mover un poco l a mano derecha en un saludo timido y quedarse mirando a l a Maga,a Manu, diciendose que a l f i n y a l cabo algun encuentro h a b i a . . . . 5 3 The second reading of the novel commenced with O l i v e i r a ' s open question, " S i , pero quien nos curara del fuego sordo, del fuego s i n color....? -f i r e t r a d i t i o n a l l y having the symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e of the fundamental substance, the agent of transmutation which a l l things are derived from and return to; - a mediator between forms which vanish and forms i n creation - a symbol of transformation and r e g e n e r a t i o n . 6 4 Cortazar answers his second question i n the sentence which follows i t , and also i n the "open" ending of the second book: there i s no cure for the deaf, colourless f i r e , but only a burning without surcease: Ardiendo a s i s i m t r e g u a , soportando l a quemadura c e n t r a l que avanza como l a madurez. paulatina en e l f r u t o , ser e l pulso de una hoguera en esta maraha de piedra interminable, caminar por l a s noches de nuestra vida con l a obedencia de l a sangre en su c i r c u i t o c i e g o . 6 5 O l i v e i r a l i k e n s the burning without surcease to w r i t i n g : "iCuantas veces me pregunto s i esto no es mas que e s c r i t u r a ? " 6 6 The p a r a l l e l between Cortazar's philosophy of w r i t i n g and signs, as expressed metaphorically i n Rayuela, and that of Derrida as expressed i n L ' E c r i t t i f e et l a  Difference,. De l a Grammatologie and "La Differance" becomes very c l e a r i f one substitutes Cortazar's image of the "fuego sordo, d e l fuego s i n c o l o r " for Derrida's comcept of " d i f f e r a n c e " . In "La Differance", Derrida explains that i n a language, there are only differences which on the one hand, play a r o l e i n language and speech, and on the other hand are them-selves e f f e c t s . Derrida defines " d i f f e r a n c e " as the movement of play, that produces differences as e f f e c t s , but e f f e c t s produced that do not have as t h e i r cause a subject, substance or a being present that escapes the play of d i f f e r e n c e . Derrida explains that the concept of differences as effects-without-a-cause resides i n the interchangeable h i s t o r i c i t y of language and speech. Derrida extends what Saussure writes about signs to language i n general: Comme i l n'y a pas de presence avant l a d i f f e r e n c e semiologique et hors d ' e l l e , on peut etendre au signe en general ce que Saussure e c r i t de l a langue: "La langue est necessaire pour que l a parole s o i t i n t e l l i g i b l e , et produise tous ses e f f e t s ; mais c e l l e - c i est necessaire pour que l a langue s ' e t a b l i s s e ; historiquement, l e f a i t de parole precede toujours." Retenant au moins l e schema sinon l e contenu de 1'exigence formulee par Saussure, nous designerons par differance l e mouvement selon lequel l a langue, ou tout code, tout systeme de renvois en general se constitue "historiquement" comme t i s s u de d i f f e r e n c e s . 6 7 Derrida explains that " d i f f e r a n c e " i s the order that r e s i s t s philosophy's founding opposition between the sensible and the i n t e l l i g i b l e because i t sustains i t ; r e s i s t i n g and sustaining i t because di f f e r a n c e takes place between speech and w r i t i n g . 6 8 Cortazar's "deaf, colourless f i r e " i s the fundamental substance oi* o r i g i n , but an o r i g i n as transformation and regeneration. S i m i l a r l y , Derrida's "dif f e r a n c e " i s the o r i g i n of di f f e r e n c e , but an o r i g i n as the difference between differences that allows them t o be di f f e r e n c e s : "L'un n'est que l'a u t r e d i f f e r e , l'un d i f f e r a n t de l ' a u t r e . L'un est l'autre en di f f e r a n c e , l'un est l a differance de l ' a u t r e . " 6 9 Differance - as the o r i g i n of differ e n c e which makes possible the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s of the text - i s equatable to " e l fuego sordo, d e l fuego s i n co l o r " as the o r i g i n or fundamental substance which i s also the agent of transformation and r e -generation. O l i v e i r a proposes the incarnation of "diffe r a n c e " when he advocates the necessity of he and Traveler - as antagonistic doubles -remaining abolished i n themselves i n each other: "Digamos dos maneras, necesitades• deque l a una quede abolida en l a otra y v i s e v e r s a . " 7 0 The analogy assumes i t s f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e when i t i s interpreted i n r e l a t i o n to the previously established analogy that Traveler i s the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n i f i e r r e f e r r i n g to the full'presence of speech, whereas O l i v e i r a i s the s i g n i f i e r as w r i t i n g r e f e r r i n g to the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of diff e r e n c e . The sustained abolishment of O l i v e i r a and Traveler i n each other p e r s o n i f i e s the sustaining and abolishment of the differe n c e between speech and w r i t i n g i n "differance": ...en e l s i l e n c i o extraordinario que siguio a su admonicion, e l encuentro de las miradas de Traveler y O l i v e i r a fue como s i dos. pajaros chocaron en pleno vuelo y cayeron enredados en l a c a s i l l a nueve, o por l o menos a s i l o di s f r u t a r o n los- i n t e r e s a d o s . 7 1 The metaphorical meeting-abolishment of the antagonistic doubles of speech and w r i t i n g i n each other occurs at the moment that T a l i t a -the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n i f i e d of w r i t i n g - refuses to allow O l i v e i r a ' s search f o r s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n the l a b y r i n t h of h i s own creation to be terminated and reduced to the l e v e l of coffee and croissants - the l a t t e r being symbolic of a center as "substance",which closes and l i m i t s the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s o r i g i n a t i n g i n "dif f e r a n c e " . The establishment of differance - as p e r s o n i f i e d by the sustained abolishment/meeting of Traveler and O l i v e i r a - allows w r i t i n g to function as a system of differences which makes the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the text p o s s i b l e , without incorporating p o s i t i v e terms or a center which would l i m i t play; yet allowing f o r the condition of p o s s i b i l i t y of the sign. O l i v e i r a ' s meeting with the s i g n i f i e d ( l a Maga) i s not a meeting with a single e n t i t y , but a meeting with a chain of differences ( l a Maga -- T a l i t a - Traveler - l a Maga - Manu) who a l l r e f e r to each other and to other concepts, with the r e s u l t that the o r i g i n a r y s i g n i f i e d of presence ( l a Maga) i s no longer present i n i t s e l f , but only as a function i n a chain of di f f e r e n c e s . Cortazar's p o r t r a y a l of the changes that occur within the s p a t i a l and p h y s i c a l doubles r e l a t i o n s h i p that connect l a Maga, O l i v e i r a , T a l i t a and Traveler i s an al l e g o r y of the changes that occur ••within--'the concept of the sign as i t evolves from i t s function as a mediator r e f e r r i n g to presence as speech, to i t s function as an i n d i c a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e , i n which the s i g n i f i e d concept i s not present i n i t s e l f , u 5 but only i n a system of di f f e r e n c e s . A f t e r the f a i l u r e of T a l i t a ' s attempt to bridge the gap between O l i v e i r a and Traveler by means of two boards across the open space be-tween t h e i r windows, Traveler remarked that the boards were no longer there; there was no way across. The boards, however, are symbolic of the d i r e c t bridge which existed between speech and w r i t i n g , when w r i t i n g was comprehended as a sign s i g n i f y i n g the s i g n i f i e r of voice. Writing, as interpreted by Derrida and Cortazar, no longer needs the p h y s i c a l bridge between object and subject, and i n f a c t , i s a l i e n to i t . During O l i v e i r a ' s and Traveler's confrontation across the a l l e y , T a l i t a notices that Traveler and O l i v e i r a have another bridge between them - a s p a t i a l bridge that renders extraneous a bridge of two boards t i e d together by a rope. O l i v e i r a and Traveler meet i n "diffe r a n c e " rather than through the mediation of a s i g n i f i e d ( T a l i t a ) r e f e r r i n g to voice. The concept of differance allows the sign of w r i t i n g to function as a system of oppositions that are accomplices to each other, rather than as an i n d i c a t o r of a presence outside of i t s e l f . FOOTNOTES 1Jacques Derrida, "La f i n du. l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " , De l a Grammatologie, Les Editions de Minuit, P a r i s , I 9 6 7 , pp.30-31. 2 J u l i o Cortazar, Rayuela, E d i t o r i a l Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1973 , PP.U52-1+53. 3Jacques Derrida, "La Differance", Marges de l a PhilOsophie, Les Editions de Minuit, P a r i s , 1972 , C.'F."p.9,10. 4 I b i d . , p. 1 1 . The quotation of Saussure i s o r i g i n a l l y from his book Cours de li n g u i s t i q u e generale. 5 I b i d . , C.'F. p. 1 2 . 6 I b i d . , pp. 16 -17• 7 I b i d . , C F. p. 1 7 . 8Derrida, "Ce Dangereux Supplement", De l a Grammatologie, p.227. 9Derrida, "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " , De l a Grammatologie, p. 25. 1 0 D e r r i d a , "La Differance", p.25. 1 1 D e r r i d a , "Linguistique et Grammatologie", De l a Grammatologie, p. 9 5 . 1 2 D e r r i d a , "La Differance", p. 5. 1 3 X b i d . , p. 2 3 . ^Cortazar, Rayuela, p. U58. 1 5 I b i d . , pp. U66-U67. 1 6 I b i d . , pp. U13-U1L. 1 7 I b i d . , p. 500 1 8 D e r r i d a , "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " , De l a Grammatologie, p. 2 7 . 19 Derrida, "La Differance", C F. p. 1 7 . 2 0 I b i d . , p. 1 7 . 2 1 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. h3h. ^7 2 2 I b i d . , pp. k3h-k35. 2 3 I b i d . , pp. 6 02 -603 . 2 i +Derrida, "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " , pp. 2^-25. The quotation, of Jakobsen i s o r i g i n a l l y from his book Essais de linguistique generale. 2 5Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 32. 2 6 I b i d . , p. 310. 2 7 I b i d . , P. 352. 2 8 I b i d . , p. kOh. 2 9 D e r r i d a , "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " , CF. p. 36. 3 0Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 5^5. 3 1Robert Brody, J u l i o Cortazar:Rayuela C C r i t i c a l Guides to Spanish Texts),rGrant and Cutler Ltd., London, 1976 , p.53. on ^ Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 1 5 . 3 3 I b i d . , p. U38. 3 4 I b i d . , p. U39. 3 5 I b i d : , pp. U 38-1+39 3 6 I b i d . . p. kOh. 3 7 D e r r i d a , "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " De l a Grammatologie, CF. pp. 21 -25 3 8 I b i d . , pp. 25 -26 3 9Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 635 . 4 0 T b i d . , p. 1+99. 4 1 I b i d . , p. 105 4 2 I b i d . , p. 106 . 4 3 I b i d . , p. 26 4 4 I b i d . , p. 2 5 . 4 5 I b i d . , p. 1 9 . ^ I h i d . , p. 1 8 , 1 + 7 r b i d . , p. 18 , ^ I b i d . , p. 52. 1 + 9 I b i d . , p. 52. 5 0Richar& Rorty, "Derrida on Language, Being and Abnormal' Philosophy". , The Journal of Philosophy, th, 1 977 , p. 677. 5 d e r r i d a , "Linguistique et Grammatologie", De l a Grammatologie, p. 55-5 2 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. LUg, 5 3 I b i d . , p. 33h. 5 t + I b i d . , p. 377. 5 5 D e r r i d a , "La structure, l e Signe. et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines", L'E c r i t u r e et l a Difference, Editions du S e u i l , P a r i s , 1967 , p. hll. 5 6R. Brody, J u l i o Cortazar:Rayuela, p. 39-5 7 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. 393. 5 8 I b i d ., p. 258. 5 9 I b i d . , p. 39^ . 6 0 I b i d . , p. hOO. 6 d e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines", p. hl2. 6 2 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, pp. 398 -399 -6 3 I b i d . , p. hok. 6 l + J . E . C i r l o t , A Dictionary of Symbols, trans. Jack Sage, Ph-losophical L i b r a r y , New York, 1 962 , p. 100 . 6 5 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. U38. 6 6 I b i d . , p. U38. 6 7 D e r r i d a , "La Differance", p. 1 2 . 6 8 Ibid. , C F . p. 5-6 9 I b i d . , pp. 1 9 - 2 0 . °Cortazar, Rayuela, p , 3 9 3 . 7 1 r b i d . , p . k03. CHAPTER II CORTAZAR, DERRIDA, AND THE ENGENDERING OF THE MOVEMENT OF SIGNIFICATION IN WRITING In one of the chapters of Rayuela e n t i t l e d M o r e i l l i a n i , Cortazar alludes to the new v i s i o n towards which science seems to he heading — that of renouncing m o r t a l i t y : Basta mirar un momento con los ojos de todos los dias e l comportamiento de un gato o de una mosca para s e n t i r que esa nueva v i s i o n a que, tiende l a ciencia...no es otra cosa que l a remota, a i s l a d a , i n s i s t e n t e voz con que c i e r t a s l i n e a s del budismo, del vedanta, del sufismo, de l a m i s t i c a o c c i d e n t a l , nos instan a renunciar de una vez por todas a l a mortalidad. 1 M o r e i l l i - Cortazar's double i n Rayuela - i s dedicated to searching f o r an opening i n the closed order of the novel;''an opening that would permit the immortality of the text through the i n f i n i t e freeplay of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s of the text: "Un a j e d r e z ^ i n f i n i t o , tan f a c i l p o s t u l a r l o , " 2 Jacques Derrida, i n "La.Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines" explains that the concept of t o t a l i z a t i o n of a text no longer has any meaning because the nature of language excludes t o t a l i z a t i o n . The f i e l d of language i s that of freeplay, or a f i e l d of i n f i n i t e substitutions i n the closure of a f i n i t e ensemble. Derrida postulates that the f i e l d of language permits these substitutions only because i t i s f i n i t e : instead of being too large as i s the case i n the c l a s s i c a l hypothesis, there i s a center missing from i t - a center which c l a s s i c a l l y arrests and founds the freeplay of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s : S i l a t o t a l i s a t i o n alors n'a plus de sens, ce n'est pas parce que 1 ' i n f i n i t e d'un champ ne peut etre 50 51 couverte par un regard ou un discours f i n i s , mais parce que l a nature du champ - a savoir l e langage et un langage f i n i - exclut l a t o t a l i s a t i o n : ce champ est en e f f e t c e l u i d'un jeu, c'est-a-dire de substitutions i n f i n i e s dans l a cloture d'un ensemble f i n i . Ce champ ne permet ces substitutions i n f i n i e s que parce q u ' i l est f i n i , c'est-a-dire parce qu'au l i e u d'etre un champ inepuisable, comme dans l'hypothese classique, au l i e u d'etre trop grand, i l l u i manque quelque chose, a savoir un centre qui arrete et fonde l e jeu des s u b s t i t u t i o n s . 3 Derrida describes a changing perception of structure and w r i t i n g a f t e r an event or moment i n the h i s t o r y of structure which he c l a s s i f i e s as a rupture or redoubling. Cortazar, i n Rayuela, expounds many ideas about the structure and movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n w r i t i n g which p a r a l l e l those of Derrida. Cortazar expresses h i s philosophy of w r i t i n g d i r e c t l y through M o r e i l l i -his spokesman within the novel, and also metaphorically through the structure, c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n and movement of the book i t s e l f . For both Cortazar and Derrida, the rupture of w r i t i n g with the concept of a center i s d i r e c t l y responsible f o r the opening of the move-ment of s i g n i f i c a t i o n or freeplay of the t e x t , which assumes the form of a movement of supplementarity. The movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n occurs as a res u l t of the tension of freeplay with h i s t o r y and with presence - freeplay being a play of absence and presence. Derrida and Cortazar both conclude that there are two i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : one turning toward a l o s t , impossible o r i g i n , and the other affirming the freeplay of a world of signs without t r u t h or an o r i g i n present. Derrida commences h i s a r t i c l e "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines" with the postulate that there was an event i n the h i s t o r y of the concept of structure that took the e x t e r i o r 52 form of a rupture and redoubling: rupture being a break with a center or present presence as the o r i g i n of w r i t i n g , and redoubling being the r e s u l t of the s t r u c t u r a l i t y of structure being thought or repeated, causing the o r i g i n of speculation to become a difference rather than a: presence. • In the absence of a center or o r i g i n , everything became discourse.^ In l i k e manner, Cortazar commences the f i r s t book of Rayuela with the c o n d i t i o n a l question, "iEncontr.ar.Ca a la. Maga?"5 - l a Maga s i g n i f y i n g a presence or center that may or may not be present, and begins the second book with the postulate that the d i a l e c t i c a l method u t i l i z e d to e s t a b l i s h a t r u t h present f a l s i f i e s and transforms that t r u t h at the very moment that i t attempts to determine i t , with the r e s u l t that there i s no o r i g i n a r y truth". In the absence of t r u t h , everything i s w r i t i n g : E l solo hecho de interrogarse sobre l a posible e l e c c i o n v i c i a y enturbia l o e l i g i b l e . . . . P a r e c e r i a que una eleccion no puede ser d i a l e c t i c a , que su planteo l a empobrece, es decir l a f a l s e a , es d e c i r l a transforma en o t r a cosa....Todo es e c r i t u r a . 6 In chapter one of t h i s t h e s i s , O l i v e i r a was compared to the s i g n i f i e r as w r i t i n g , and l a Maga was likened to the s i g n i f i e d , voice-presence or center to which O l i v e i r a r e f e r r e d . O l i v e i r a ' s separation from l a Maga a f t e r the death of Rocamadour parodies the rupture of w r i t i n g and structure with the concept of a center. The binary structure of the novel parodies the event as redoubling: Del Lado de Aca being a redoubling of Del Lado de A l i a . Derrida explains that structure always found i t s e l f n e u t r a l i z e d , reduced and l i m i t e d by i t s reference to a f i x e d o r i g i n or point of presence, u n t i l the moment of the "event". The center closes the play that i t o r i g i n a l l y opens and makes possible: 53 Ce centre avait pour fonction non seulement d'orienter et d ' e q u i l i b r e r , d'organiser l a structure...mais de f a i r e surtout que l e pr i n c i p e d'organisation de l a structure l i m i t e ce que nous pourrions appeler l e jeu de l a structure. .Sans doute l e centre d'une structure, en orientant et en organisant l a coherence du systeme, permet-il l e jeu des elements a l ' i n t e r i e u r de l a forme t o t a l e . . . . Pourtant l e centre ferme aussi l e jeu q u ' i l ouvre et rend p o s s i b l e . 7 O l i v e i r a , i n Del Lado de A l i a , p e r s o n i f i e s a s i g n i f i e r which has i t s movements defined and governed by i t s reference to a center. O l i v e i r a ' s e n t i r e existence i n Paris i s ordered around a desire to connect with a metaphysical center, which he likens to the heaven of the'•hopscotch! chart, the center of the Yin-Yang symbol, the center of a chess board, Yonder, the Kibbutz of desire. O l i v e i r a r e l a t e s to l a Maga as a being capable of reaching the center i n t u i t i v e l y . " C i e r r a los ojos y da en e l bianco," pensaba O l i v e i r a . "Exactamente e l sistema Zen de t i r a r a l arco. Pero da en e l bianco simplemente porque no sabe que ese es e l sistema. Yo en cambio..." 8 O l i v e i r a attempts t o reach center by making love with l a Maga and by attempting a more i n t u i t i v e existence governed by chance, rather than l o g i c , which mirrors l a Maga's way of l i f e . La Maga, as O l i v e i r a ' s center, i n s p i r e s h i s movement toward h e r s e l f and a more authentic existence. Like the center of a c l a s s i c a l structure, however, l a Maga i s also responsible for c l o s i n g o f f O l i v e i r a ' s movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n - her memory i n c i t i n g him to jump to h i s death i n order to meet with her: ...mirandolo a l a Maga, a Manu, diciendose que a l f i n y a l cabo algun encuentro habla, aunque no pudiera durar mas que ese instante terriblemente dulce en e l que l o mejor s i n lugar a dudas hubiera sido i n c l i n a r s e apenas hacia afuera y dejarse i r , paf se acabo. 9 Derrida explains that the center, f o r c l a s s i c a l thought about s t r u c -ture, i s paradoxically both within the structure and outside of i t . The center, therefore, i s not the center: On a done toujours pense que l e centre, qui par d e f i n i t i o n est unique, c o n s t i t u a i t , dans une structure, c e l a meme qui, commandant l a structure, echappe a l a s t r u c t u r a l i t e . C'est pourquoi, pour une pensee classique de l a structure, l e centre peut etre d i t , paradoxalement, dans l a structure et hors de l a s t r u c t u r e . 1 0 Like the c l a s s i c a l concept of a center, l a Maga i s both in s i d e and outside her s o c i a l c i r c l e . Although l a Maga f e e l s that she i s an outsider i n the Club de l a Serpiente, and would l i k e to enter into the chalk c i r c l e that surrounds O l i v e i r a and Etienne, O l i v e i r a r e a l i z e s that l a Maga i s the only member of the club who i s insi d e the c i r c l e : " O l i v e i r a se daba cuenta de que l a Maga se asomaba a cada rato a esas grandes terrazas s i n tiempo que todos e l l o s buscaban d i a l e c t i c a m e n t e . " 1 1 Derrida interprets the ent i r e h i s t o r y of the concept of structure, before the rupture he r e f e r s t o , as a series of substitutions of center f o r c e n t e r . 1 2 The above concept i s a l l e g o r i z e d i n Rayuela when O l i v e i r a substitutes M o r e i l l i , Pola, Emmanuel and T a l i t a for l a Maga. Derrida explains that the event of rupture takes place at the moment that the s t r u c t u r a l i t y of structure begins to be thought: at t h i s moment, the surrogate of the center does not substitute i t s e l f for any-thing which pre-existed i t . Henceforth, there i s no center; the center cannot be thought of as a being present or a f i x e d locus, but as a function - a non-locus i n which an i n f i n i t e number of sign substitutions come into p l a y . 1 3 The events of Rayuela metaphorize the above premise. Just before commencing h i s eonstruction of the bridge of boards across the a l l e y , O l i v e i r a begins to r e a l i z e that there i s no center, but just a continuous ondulation of material: Wo hay centro, hay una especie de confluencia continua, de ondulacion de l a m a t e r i a . 1 4 O l i v e i r a p e r s i s t i n h i s hopeless search for a center, however, and attempts to make T a l i t a h i s new i n d i c a t o r of the center by superimposing l a Maga's image upon her. T a l i t a , l i k e w r i t i n g a f t e r the deconstruction of metaphysics, refuses to be a surrogate for l a Maga: "...me empezo a mirar y era a l a otra que miraba. Yo no soy e l zombie de nadie, Manu, no quiero ser e l zombie de n a d i e . " 1 5 T a l i t a ' s r e f u s a l to be a substitut for l a Maga marks the establishment of Cortazar's parable,of w r i t i n g as non-centered system. Derrida establishes the h i s t o r i c a l causes of the event of rupture redoubling and decentering as the Wietschean c r i t i q u e of metaphysics, i n which the concepts of play, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and sign (without t r u t h present) were substituted for being and t r u t h ; the Freudian c r i t i q u e of self-presence, consciousness, the subject and s e l f - i d e n t i t y ; \ a n d the Heideggerean destruction of metaphysics. 1 5 Derrida elucidates the c i r c u l a r paradox i n which the above destructive discourses are caught: philosophers cannot utter a single destructive proposition that does not have i t s roots i n exactly what i t seeks to contest. He provides the paradoxical example of the metaphysic of presence being attacked with the help of the concept of the sign: as soon as one t o t a l l y negates the p o s s i b i l i t y of a transcendental or p r i v i l e g e d s i g n i f i e d , one also refuses the concept of the sign: the metaphysical reduction of the sign needs the opposition i t i s reducing, The opposition i s part of the system along with the r e d u c t i o n . 1 7 Cortazar, l i k e Derrida, implies that deconstructive discourses 56 need the opposition they are reducing. The c i r c u l a r paradox of decon-s t r u c t i v e discourse i s explained by Cortazar through M o r e i l l i . M o r e i l l i attempts to escape the confines of a transcendental ethic and discover an a x i a l or threshold which would allow a d i r e c t contact with r e a l i t y without the i n t e r p o s i t i o n of myths, r e l i g i o n s , systems or r e t i c u l a . In place of the former dualism, M o r e i l l i advocates a common reduction of matter and s p i r i t to notions of energy. Consequently, the characters of h i s novel retr e a t more and more into themselves; n u l l i f y i n g on one hand the f a b r i c a t i o n s of a c o n t r o l l e d r e a l i t y , but also n u l l i f y i n g t h e i r own.mytho-poetic force to the point that they are reduced to nothing; a s i t u a t i o n which constitutes a t o t a l loss of meaning and s i g n i f i c a t i o n . M o r e i l l i ' s w r i t i n g cannot divorce i t s e l f t o t a l l y from dualism, as i t needs the opposition i n order to s i g n i f y . Era curiosa que M o r e i l l i abrazaba con entusiasmo las h i p o t e s i s de trabajo mas recientes de l a c i e n c i a f i s i c a y l a b i o l o g i a , se mostraba convencido de que e l v i e j o dualismo se habia agrietado ante l a evidencia de una comun reduccion de l a materia y e l e s p i r i t u a nociones de energia. En consecuencia, sus monos sabios parecian querer retroceder cada vez mas hacia s i mismos, anulando por una parte l a s quimeras de una r e a l i d a d mediatizada y t r a i c i o n a d a por los supuestos instrumentos cognoscitivos, y anulando a l a vez su propia fuerza mitopoetica, su "alma" para acabar en una especie de encuentro ab ovo, de encogimiento a l maximo, a ese punto en que va a perderse l a ultima chispa de (fa l s a ) humanidad. Parecia proponer - aunque no llegaba a formularlo nunca - un camino que empezaba a p a r t i r de esa l i -quidacion externa e interna. Pero habia quedado cas i s i n palabras, s i n gente, s i n cosas, y potencialmente, c l a r o , s i n l e c t o r e s . 1 8 In "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines" Derrida i n t e r p r e t s Levi-Strauss' search f o r a new status of discourse - an i n q u i r y which rests on the abandonment of a l l reference to a center, subject, p r i v i l e d g e d reference, o r i g i n or absolute a r c h e . 1 9 57 Levi-Strauss postulates that there i s no absolute source of the myth, but only shadows or v i r t u a l i t i e s which are e l u s i v e , unactualizable and non-existent : Les themes se<dedoublent a l ' i n f i n i . Quand on c r o i t l e s avoir demeles l e s uns des autres et l e s t e n i r separes, c'est seulement pour oonstater q u ' i l s se ressoudent, en reponse aux s o l l i c i t a t i o n s d ' a f f i n i t e s imprevues....Mais, a l a difference de l a r e f l e x i o n philosophique, qui pretend remonter jusqu'a sa source, l e r e f l e x i o n s dont i l s'agit i c i s'interessent des rayons prives de tout autre foyer que v i r t u e l . . . 2 0 Cortazar also envisions the o r i g i n of wr i t i n g as a v i r t u a l focus. Some members of the Club de l a Serpiente imagine M o r e i l l i facing Charon -a s i t u a t i o n comparable to two myths facing each other: " M o r e i l l i mirara a Caronte. Un mito frente a l o t r o . " 2 1 Two myths facing each other resemble two mirrors facing each other, each mirror r e f l e c t i n g the other mirror image, r e s u l t i n g i n no focus f o r either image other than a v i r t u a l focus. The binary d i v i s i o n of the f i r s t book of Rayuela into Del Lado de A l i a and Del Lado de Aca parodies the o r i g i n of w r i t i n g as two myths or mirrors facing each other. O l i v e i r a ' s r e a l point of o r i g i n becomes un-graspable - Paris being Buenos Aires and Buenos Aires being P a r i s : "En Pa r i s , todo l e era Buenos Aires y v i s e v e r s a . " 2 2 O l i v e i r a ' s i n a b i l i t y to r e l a t e to either Paris or Buenos Aires as an authentic point of reference parodies the lack of a r e a l focus or o r i g i n for discourse. Derrida explains t h a t due to the lack.of an o r i g i n or center f o r wr i t i n g , the concept of t o t a l i z a t i o n as c l a s s i c a l l y defined has no meaning when applied to discourse. Instead, the f i e l d of w r i t i n g i s that of freeplay, or a f i e l d of i n f i n i t e substitutions i n the closure of a f i n i t e ensemble: S i l a t o t a l i s a t i o n n'a plus de sens, ce n'est pas parce que 1 ' i n f i n i t e d'un champ ne peut etre couverte . par un regard ou un discours f i n i , mais parce que l a nature du champ - a savoir l e langage et un langage f i n i - exclut l a t o t a l i s a t i o n : ce champ est en e f f e t c e l u i d'un jeu, c'est-a-dire, de substitutions i n f i n i e s dans l a cloture d'un ensemble f i n i . Ce champ ne permet ces substitutions i n f i n i e s que parce q u ' i l est f i n i , c'est-a-dire parce. qu'au l i e u d'etre un champ inepuisable, comme dans l'hypothese classique, au l i e u d'etre trop grand, i l l u i manque quelque chose, a savoir un centre qui arrete et fonde l e jeu des s u b s t i t u t i o n s . 2 3 Derrida defines the movement of freeplay permitted by the absence of a center or o r i g i n as supplementarity. He explains that one cannot de-termine the center or the sign which supplements i t , or takes i t s place i n i t s absence because t h i s sign adds i t s e l f , occurs as a supplement. The movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n adds something, which r e s u l t s i n the fact that there i s always one more, but t h i s addition i s a f l o a t i n g one because i t adds something, supplements a lack on the part of the s i g n i f i e d . 2 4 The superabundant nature of the s i g n i f i e r occurs as a r e s u l t of a lack (the absence of a center) which must be supplemented. 2 5 The dispute which occurs between O l i v e i r a and Traveler during T a l i t a ' s attempted crossing of the bridge of boards marks the e s t a b l i s h -ment of discourse as a f i e l d of freeplay rather than a centered t o t a l i t y . Traveler, whom O l i v e i r a accuses of coming r i g h t up to the edge of things and r e t r e a t i n g , p e r s o n i f i e s the s i g n i f i e r of w r i t i n g as previously thought within a logocentricism, whose movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n or freeplay was l i m i t e d by i t s r e f e r r a l to a present presence or center. Traveler t e l l s O l i v e i r a that he does not f e e l obligated to play h i s game. In f a c t , Traveler -'.being more committed to l i f e than O l i v e i r a - i s incapable of playing O l i v e i r a ' s game. O l i v e i r a r e p l i e s that games play themselves, a statement which evokes the freeplay of w r i t i n g . O l i v e i r a accuses Traveler of throwing a s t i c k i n the spokes of hi s wheel, to slow down the movement 59 of the game. In the same manner, a center or presence closes or l i m i t s the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of discourse. Just as the game i s of O l i v e i r a ' s making and.must he played clean (without interference from an external r e f e r e n t ) , the play of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i s engendered from w r i t i n g i t s e l f , instead of a r i s i n g from the r e l a t i o n s h i p of w r i t i n g to an e x t e r i o r t r u t h . T a l i t a remarks that no matter what O l i v e i r a and Traveler discuss, they only t a l k about her. In chapter one of t h i s t h e s i s , T a l i t a was com-pared to the s i g n i f i e d . The fundamental question of a philosophy of w r i t i n g i s i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to a presence or t r u t h s i g n i f i e d ; whether the l a t t e r pre-exists w r i t i n g , or i s i n s c r i b e d by i t . In discussing T a l i t a ' s future r e l a t i o n s h i p to themselves - whether she should complete the crossing and hand the package (.symbolizing the sense of writing) to O l i v e i r a , or whether she should throw i t and return to Traveler - O l i v e i r a and Traveler debate the difference between w r i t i n g as a photocentricism r e f e r r i n g to a f u l l presence, and w r i t i n g as thought a f t e r the' rupture with the concept of a center, whereby the s i g n i f i e d i s no longer a f u l l presence, but only a function i n a chain of d i f f e r e n c e s ; a lack which the superabundant nature of the s i g n i f i e r must supplement. T a l i t a does not manage to cross the bridge and d e l i v e r the package to O l i v e i r a i n t a c t . Instead, she throws i t , causing i t to break apart, s c a t t e r , and become mingled with d i r t . T a l i t a ' s i n a b i l i t y to bridge the gap between O l i v e i r a and Traveler i s comparable to a lack of f u l l n e s s on the part of the s i g n i f i e d . O l i v e i r a ' s and Traveler's confrontation - which T a l i t a compares to a t r i a l or ceremony -evokes the tension which engenders the r e p e t i t i v e , r i t u a l i s t i c movement of supplementarity of the t e x t . - Ahi esta - d i j o O l i v e i r a -. Tenia que suceder a vos no te cambia nadie. Llegas a l borde de l a s cosas y uno piensa que por f i n vas a entender, pero es i n u t i l , che, empezas a darles l a vuelta 6o a 'leerles l a s etiquetas. Te quedas en e l ;pr©specto, pibe. -£Y que? - d i j o Traveler. - iPor que te tengo que hacer e l juego, hermano? - Los juegos se hacen solos, sos vos e l que mete un p a l i t o para frenar l a rueda. - La rueda que vos f a b r i c a s t e , s i vamos a eso. - No creo - d i j o O l i v e i r a -. Yo no hice mas que su s c i t a r l a s circunstancias, como dicen los entendidos. E l juego,habia que jugarlo limpio. T a l i t a sabia que de alguna manera-estaban hablando de ella...."Hablen l o que hablen, en e l fondo es siempre de mi, pero tampoco es eso, aunque es c a s i eso"...."Es como un j u i c i o , " penso T a l i t a . "Como una ceremon'ia. " 2 6 : O l i v e i r a ' s unresolved, unending search for a u t h e n t i c i t y within the book parodies the supplementary, superabundant nature of the s i g n i f i e r , whose movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t s from i t s lack of a center as a point of reference - a lack which must be supplemented. O l i v e i r a i s i n constant movement; from Buenos Aires to P a r i s , from Paris to Buenos A i r e s , from l a Maga to Pola to Emmanuel to T a l i t a , from one hotel to another h o t e l , from one diversion - i n t e l l e c t u a l debate, musical concerts, making love, word games, b u i l d i n g board bridges and labyrinths - to the next, from one job - working as a salesman, circus labourer, mental asylum attendant - to the next. O l i v e i r a r e a l i z e s that behind every one of his actions, there i s a protest, an admission of a lack that he f e e l s he must supplant: Pero detras de toda accion habia una protesta, porque todo hacer s i g n i f i c a b a s a l i r de para l l e g a r a, o mover algo para que estuviera aqui o no a l i i , o entrar en esa casa en vez de no entrar o entrar en l a de a l lado, es decir que en todo acto habia l a admision de una carencia, de algo no hecho todavia y que era posible hacer, l a protesta t a c i t a frente a l a continua evedencia de l a f a l t a , de l a merma, de l a parvedad del presente. O l i v e i r a i s condemned to an i n f i n i t e search for s i g n i f i c a t i o n because the sum of a l l h i s acts can never add up to a whole l i f e : Creer que l a accion podia colmar, o que l a suma de l a s acciones podia realmente equivaler a una vida digna de este nombre, era una i l u s i o n de m o r a l i s t a . 2 8 O l i v e i r a ' s incessant movements through the labyrinths of P a r i s i a n s t r e e t s , the c i r c u s and the corridors of the mental asylum trace a temporal laby-r i n t h which p a r a l l e l s the s p a t i a l l a b y r i n t h traced by the reader of Rayuela as he jumps from one chapter to the next. I f numbers one to one hundred and f i f t y - f i v e were evenly placed i n order on the circumference of a c i r c l e , and i f the points were joined together i n the order of the chapter sequence of Book two of RayUela, the r e s u l t would be a graphic l a b y r i n t h which would mimic the l a b y r i n t h of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s engendered by the movement of supplementarity of the book. Two of the "Capitulos p r e s c i n d i b l e s " mirror the l a b y r i n t h of s i g -n i f i c a t i o n s engendered by the text. M o r e i l l i ' s unfinished book i s described as the " r e p e t i c i o n obsesiva de una e s p i r a l temblorosa". 2 9 Chapter one hundred and ten consists on an excerpt from Anais Bin's Winter of A r t i f i c e i n which she describes the movement of a"-dream as a tower of i n f i n i t e layers which s p i r a l endlessly upon themselves. The movement of the dream p a r a l l e l s the movement of w r i t i n g : E l sueno estaba compuesto como una t o r r e formada por capas s i n f i n que se alzaran y se perdieran en e l i n f i n i t o , o bajaran en c i r c u l o s perdiendose en l a s entraflas de l a t i e r r a . Cuando me arrastro en sus ondas, l a e s p i r a l comenzo y esa e s p i r a l era un l a b e r i n t o . No habia n i techo, n i fondo, n i paredes, n i regreso. Pero habia temas que se repetian con e x a c t i t u d . 3 0 The graphic design of the hopscotch chart - which manifests i t s e l f i n the book's construction, imagery and character r e l a t i o n s h i p s - parodies the movement of supplementarity of the text. The hopscotch progression of one to two u n i t s , which together form a group of three, which gives r i s e to another r e p e t i t i o n of the previous pattern p a r a l l e l s the pattern traced by the redoubling of the o r i g i n through w r i t i n g , and the consequent movement of supplementarity of the text engendered from the loss of an o r i g i n through r e p e t i t i o n . Derrida explains that at the moment that the center or o r i g i n repeats i t s e l f , the double does not simply add i t s e l f to the simple o r i g i n , but i t divides and supplements i t , creating a double o r i g i n , plus i t s r e p e t i t i o n ; three thus becoming the f i r s t number of representation, but also the l a s t ; the abyss of representation remain-ing dominated by i t s rhythm, to i n f i n i t y : Des l o r s que l e centre ou 1'origine ont commence par se repeter, par se redoubler, l e double ne s'ajoutait pas seulement au simple. I I l e d i v i s a i t et l e suppleait. I I y avait aussitot une double origi n e plus sa r e p e t i t i o n . Trois est l e premier c h i f f r e de l a representation. Le dernier aussi car.1'abime de l a representation reste toujours domine par son rythme, a 1 ' i n f i n i . 3 1 The character r e l a t i o n s h i p s of Rayuela mirror the supplementary hop-scotch-like pattern described above. The s o l i t a r y O l i v e i r a i s joined by l a Maga. The couple i s joined by Gregorovius, e f f e e t i n g ' a unity of three. The same pattern repeats i t s e l f i n the following r e l a t i o n s h i p s : O l i v e i r a -l a Maga-Pola-, T r a v e l e r - T a l i t a - O l i v e i r a , O l i v e i r a - T a l i t a — l a Maga, and O l i v e i r a - M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r . The descending movement of the character groupings from a group of three p h y s i c a l e n t i t i e s , to a p h y s i c a l t r i a d containing a p h y s i c a l double ( O l i v e i r a and T r a v e l e r ) , to a t r i a d con-t a i n i n g a s p a t i a l double ( T a l i t a and l a Maga) with only two ph y s i c a l e n t i t i e s present, to a t r i a d containing two s p a t i a l doubles ( O l i v e i r a -M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r ) with only one ph y s i c a l e n t i t y present parodies the t r i a d as the f i r s t and l a s t number of r e p e t i t i o n - the abyss of r e p e t i -t i o n remaining dominated by i t s rhythm. Robert Brody notes that the 63 t r i p l e patterns of the character relationships contribute a c y c l i c rhythm to the novel. He also equates the ubiquitous patterns of two's which become three's to an expansion of consciousness which transcends the d u a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n of western philosophy. 3 2 Just as the movement of supplementarity results from a lack on the part of the s i g n i f i e d , the originary binary relationships i n the novel evolve to triads because of a lack f e l t by one of the partners i n the binary group. In the l a Maga-Oliveira-Gregorovius t r i a d , Gregorovius has a human understanding which O l i v e i r a lacks. In the l a Maga-Oliveira-Pola t r i a d , Pola has the education and reasoning a b i l i t y which l a Maga lacks. In the Talita-Traveler-Oliveira t r i a d , T a l i t a and Traveler have a f u l l -ness or attachment to l i f e which O l i v e i r a lacks. O l i v e i r a , by contrast, has a freedom of movement which they lack. In the O l i v e i r a - T a l i t a - l a Maga t r i a d , O l i v e i r a attempts to supplant l a Maga's absence by superimposing her image on T a l i t a . In the f i r s t chapter of the second book of Rayuela, Cortazar allegorizes the movement of supplementarity of the text: O l i v e i r a relates the story of a neopolitain who spent years looking at a screw. M o r e i l l i thought that the screw was possibly a god. O l i v e i r a rejects t h i s solution, and suggests that possibly the error was i n accepting that the object was a screw just because i t looked l i k e one. Instead, O l i v e i r a perceives the screw as a symbol of transformation, i n the manner that Picasso could take a toy car and turn i t into the chin of a baboon: M o r e i l l i pensaba que e l t o r n i l l o debia ser otra cosa, un dios o algo a s i . Solucion demasiado f a c i l . Quiza e l error estuviera en aceptar que ese objeto era un t o r n i l l o por e l hecho de que tenia l a forma de un t o r n i l l o . Picaaso toma un auto de juguete y 16 convierte en e l menton de un cinocefalo. A l o mejor e l neopolitano era un i d i o t a pero tambien pudo ser e l inventor de un mundo. Del t o r n i l l o a un ojo, de un ojo a una e s t r e l l a . . . O l i v e i r a compares the screw to an invented f i r e , a phoenix that burns without surcease within the work. The f i r e symbolizes the i n f i n i t e , free' play of the text which assumes the form and movement of the great screw or supplementarity: succeeding levels of s i g n i f i c a t i o n which b u i l d upon and are derived from each other. There are many examples of enumerative description i n the text which parody the movement of supplementarity. The multiple layers of clothing which camoflage the o r i g i n a l bodily shape of the clocharde Emmanuelle parody the accumulative movements of supplementarity which obscure the o r i g i n of writi n g : Sobre un fondo indescifrable donde se acumularian camisones pegados a l a piel-.,; blusas regaladas y algun corpifio capaz de contener unos senos ominosos, se iban sumando, dos, t r e s , qui'za cuatro vestidos, e l guardarropas completo, y por encima un saco de hombre con una manga casi arrancada, una bufanda sostenida por un broche de laton con una piedra verde y otra r o j a , y en e l pelo increiblemente tefiido de rubio una especie de vincha verde de gasa, colgando de un l a d o . 3 4 The contradictory enumerative opinions about the cause of M o r e i l l i ' s accident parody both the tension which engenders the movement of supplementarity, and the consequent movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f : Las opiniones eran que e l vie j o se habia resbalado, que e l auto habia "quemado" l a luz r o j a , que e l viejo habia querido suicidarse, que todo estaba cada vez peor en P a r i s , que e l t r a f i c o era monstruoso, que e l vie j o tenia l a culpa, que los frenos del auto no andaban bien, que e l viejo' era de una imprudencia temeraria, que l a vida estaba cada vez mas cara, que en Paris habia demasiados extranjeros que no- entendian las leyes del t r a f i c o y les quitaban e l trabajo a los franceses. 3 5 Oliveira's i n a b i l i t y to communicate with Traveler i s compared to p u l l i n g at a b a l l of yarn, with the result that one gets a long thread of wool, 65 but never the b a l l of yarn. The interminable thread i s s u i n g from the b a l l of yarn parodies the movement of supplementarity r e s u l t i n g from the tension of freeplay ( O l i v e i r a ) with h i s t o r y and presence (Traveler): Porque en r e a l i d a d e l no l e podia contar nada a Traveler. Se empezaba a t i r a r d el o v i l l o i b a a s a l i r una hebra de lana, metros de lana, lanagnorosis, lanaturner, lannapurna, lanatomia, lanata, l a n a t a l i d a d , lanacionalidad, l a n a t u r a l i d a d , l a lana hasta lanausea pero nunca e l o v i l l o . 3 6 Derrida, i n t e r p r e t i n g Levi-Strauss, explains that any reference to the freeplay of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n discourse i s always caught up i n tension: the tension of freeplay with h i s t o r y , and the tension of freeplay with presence. 3 7 The tension of freeplay originates i n a rupture or catas-trophe. Levi-Strauss, l i k e Rousseau, always conceives of the o r i g i n of a new structure on the basis of catastrophe - an overturning of nature i n nature - which r e s u l t s i n the n e u t r a l i z a t i o n of time and h i s t o r y . 3 8 lbr Derrida, the event of rupture occurs as an inversion. In an interview with D i a c r i t i c s , Derrida explains that a strategy of deconstruction should avoid simply n e u t r a l i z i n g the binary opposition of metaphysics, and simply r e s i d i n g i n the closed sphere of these., oppositions. Instead, i t i s necessary to put forward a double gesture: to pass through a phase of inversion which brings down the superior p o s i t i o n of one of the terms of an opposition, and then to mark the gap between the inversion and the emergence of a new system which no longer allows i t s e l f to be understood i n the previous regime. 3 9 O l i v e i r a explains'the process and e f f e c t s of inversion metaphori-c a l l y , when he compares the opening of the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n to turning around a kaleidoscope and looking out from the other side; a move which brings down the previously superior p o s i t i o n of a transcendental s i g n i f i e d , and allows the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n to open up i n a world 66 where "earth i s on the same l e v e l as heaven", evoking Saussure's concept of the s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d functioning as a network of oppositions or system of differences within w r i t i n g , rather than the s i g n i f i e r as wr i t i n g deriving i t s sense from i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to a s i g n i f i e d outside of i t s e l f . . . . . t a i vez e l unico camino a l kibbutz, eso no podia ser e l mundo, l a gente agarraba e l c a l i d o -scopio por e l mai lado, entonces habia que darlo vuelta....y desde ahi empezar a mirar desde l a montana de bosta, mirar e l mundo a traves d e l ojo del : ' • culo, and y o u ' l l see patterns pretty as can be, l a p i e d r i t a t e n i a que pasar por e l ojo del culo, metido a patadas por l a punta del zapato, y de l a T i e r r a a l Cielo l a s c a s i l l a s estarian a b i e r t a s , e l lab e r i n t o se desplegaria como una cuerda de r e l o j r o t a haciendo s a l t a r e l m i l pedazos e l tiempo de los empleados, y por los mocos y e l semen y e l olor de Emmanuele, y l a bosta del oscuro se e n t r a r i a a l camino que llevaba a l kibbutz del deseo, no ya subir a l Cielo (subir, palabra h i p o c r i t a , C i e l o , f l a t u s v o c i s ) , sino caminar con pasos de hombre por una t i e r r a de hombres hacia e l kibbutz a l i a l e j o s pero en e l mismo piano, como e l Cielo estaba en e l mismo piano que l a T i e r r a . . . 4 0 The event of rupture and the consequent movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n Rayuela i s frequently metaphorized as a phoenix-like r e s u r r e c t i o n from death. The paradoxical complicity of death and the opening of s i g -n i f i c a t i o n i s explained by Lerrida i n "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " C Ie l a Grammatologie) : the death of the book i s a death of speech, and therefore a new mutation i n the h i s t o r y of w r i t i n g : Malgre l e s apparences, cette mort du l i v r e n'annonce sans'.'doute ,.(et d'une certaine maniere depuis toujours) qu'une mort de l a parole (d'une parole soi-disant pleine) et une nouvelle mutation dans l ' h i s t o i r e de l ' e c r i t u r e , d a n s ' l ' h i s t o i r e comme e c r i t u r e . 4 1 The death of speech and the death of the book as c l a s s i c a l l y defined i s metaphorized i n Rayuela through the death or disappearance of l a Maga at the end of Del Lado de A l i a , and the death of O l i v e i r a at the end of Del ' 67 Lado de Aca; - O l i v e i r a ' s death r e s u l t i n g from h i s f i n a l attempt to r e -connect himself with h i s l o s t center or point of reference, l a Maga. Derrida explains, however, that the death of the l i v i n g presence i s the dawn of w r i t i n g "because everything begins with r e p e t i t i o n : "La mort est a l'aube parce que tout a commence par l a r e p e t i t i o n . " 1 + 2 As explained e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, the s i g n i f y i n g p o t e n t i a l of discourse was pre-v i o u s l y l i m i t e d by i t s d i r e c t r e f e r r a l to the f u l l presence of voice. At the moment that the s t r u c t u r a l i t y of structure began to be thought, the ce n t r a l s i g n i f i e d was transmitted outside of i t s e l f i n i t s surrogate -which ef f e c t e d the metaphorical death or absence of a center. The lack of a c e n t r a l s i g n i f i e d permits the superabundant, supplementary nature of the s i g n i f i e r whose i n f i n i t e movement of freeplay i s the r e s u l t of a need to supplant the lack of a center. Cortazar's a l l u s i o n s to the phoenix mirror Derrida's concept of death as the dawn of r e p e t i t i o n ; and therefore, w r i t i n g . La Maga desires a phoenix-like death from O l i v e i r a when he makes : love to her: Se l l e g o a s i a saber que l a Maga esperaba verdadera-mente que Horacio l a matara, y que esa muerte debia ser de fenix, e l ingreso a l c o n c i l i o de los f i l o s o f o s . 4 3 A f t e r her disappearance or death by drowning, l a Maga experiences a s p a t i a l phoenix-like r e s u r r e c t i o n at the moment that O l i v e i r a superimposes her image on T a l i t a . The s p a t i a l r e s u r r e c t i o n of l a Maga, however, i s also the termination of the o r i g i n a r y r e a l experience of l a Maga: there are now two l a Maga's, e f f e c t i n g that the o r i g i n a l l a Maga no longer e x i s t s as such, but i s only a function i n a chain of dif f e r e n c e s . Cortazar, l i k e Derrida, recognizes the complicity of death and wri t i n g . M o r e i l l i ' s writings are described as "una frase hueca...pequeno at audi'.11 ^  M o r e i l l i i s pictured as looking at Charon, the c a r r i e r of dead souls: t h e i r confrontation resembling two. myths facing each other. We have previously noted that the occurence of two myths face to face con-s t i t u t e s the doubling of a v i r t u a l focus, which amounts to saying that there i s no r e a l o r i g i n . Writing i s Charon or the c a r r i e r of death i n so f a r as that w r i t i n g begins with the death of, or rupture with a c e n t r a l presence,. Writing i s a phoenix death, however, as the movement of s i g n i - . f i c a t i o n of discourse arises from the death of a center. The metaphorical superimposition of the hole i n the cir c u s tent onto the hole of the elevator shaft i n the asylum i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i o n -ship between inversion, death (or the debasement of the superior p o s i t i o n of one term of an opposition) and the consequent freeplay of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n the absence of a referent. O l i v e i r a compares the hole at the top of the circus tent to a center or opening: "ese escape hacia un quiza, con-tacto, ese centro, ese ojo como un puente d e l suelo a l espacio l i b e r a d o . 1 , 1 + 5 He perceives the elevator shaft going down to the mortuarium i n the asylum as the inversion or reverse image of the hole at the top of the tent: "En e l c i r c o habia sido a l reves, un agujero en l o a l t o , l a apertura comunicando con e l espacio abierto, f i g u r a de consumacion, ahora estaba a l borde del pozo, agujero de E l e u s i s . 1 , 1 + 6 O l i v e i r a ' s inversed superim-p o s i t i o n of the image of the metaphysical center (the hole at the top of the tent) onto the metaphor of the hole of Ele u s i s (the elevator shaft terminating i n the basement next to the mortuarium) s i g n i f i e s a n e u t r a l -i z a t i o n or death of the metaphysical center. Cortazar explains a l l e g o r -i c a l l y , however, that the absence of a center i s not the ending of d i s -course. Just as the hole of Ele u s i s s i g n i f i e s both death and res u r r e c t i o n E l e u s i s being the s i t e where the ancient Greeks celebrated the phoenix-l i k e death and re s u r r e c t i o n of vegetation - O l i v e i r a discovers that the death of a referent does not terminate the s i g n i f y i n g power of discourse when he descends the elevator and discovers the man with the dove t a l k i n g to h i s dead f r i e n d i n the freezer. O l i v e i r a comments that i n such pseudo-dialogues, i t does not matter what i s opposite to the speaker: i t may he feet s t i c k i n g out of the i c e . 4 7 In l i k e manner, w r i t i n g does not have to r e f e r to a f u l l presence i n order to s i g n i f y . A l i n e a r reading of chapters f i f t y - s i x to f i f t y - e i g h t i l l u s t r a t e s the paradox of death as a phoenix or an opening onto an i n f i n i t e movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and elucidates a l l e g o r i c a l l y the reason f o r the i n f i n i t e freeplay of the text i n the absence of a c e n t r a l presence. At the end of chapter f i f t y - s i x , O l i v e i r a f a l l s out of the window and dies because of a f i n a l desperate attempt to reunite himself with h i s previous center, l a Maga. Two chapters l a t e r , however, the reader discovers O l i v e i r a mira-culously resurrected, with c o l d compresses on h i s head. Chapter f i f t y -seven - c o n s i s t i n g of O l i v e i r a ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s one-line poem, "Yo entresuefio, buzo de l a v a b o s " 4 8 - explains metaphorically the reason for his s u r v i v a l , which i s also the cause of the i n f i n i t e movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n discourse. O l i v e i r a describes the sensations he exper-iences while i n a t r a n s i t o r y state between sleep and wakefulness: he l e t s himself go, hoping to return to the other thing - to what he was before he woke up. He f a l l s inward for a moment u n t i l the defenses of wakefulness - words, language - stop him: ...te vas dejando i r con l a esperanza de quiza volver a l o otro, a eso que eras antes de despertar y que todavia f l o t a , todavia esta en vos, es vos mismo, pero empieza a i r s e . . . S i , te caes por un momento hacia adentro, hasta que l a s defensas de l a v i g i l i a , oh l a bonita expresion, oh lenguaje, se encargan de detener. 4 9-O l i v i e r a , suspended i n a state of tension between sleep and wakefulness, p e r s o n i f i e s the sense of w r i t i n g held i n the cross tension of absence ' and presence. O l i v e i r a ' s asleep state s i g n i f i e s the subconscious or o r i g i n a r y experience which preceeds w r i t i n g . O l i v e i r a ' s awake state represents discourse. O l i v e i r a cannot f a l l inward' and regain f u l l presence or h i s o r i g i n a r y experience because the primary experience i s no longer present as such. Language has duplicated and obscured the o r i g i n a r y , subconscious experience at the moment that i t was thought, causing i t to become ungraspabl'ev". In ••like manner ,= O l i v e i r a ' can :never reunite himself with l a Maga by f a l l i n g out of the window because l a Maga i s no longer there. Her death was the "dawn of r e p e t i t i o n " - a redoubling brought about when O l i v e i r a attempted to resurrect her or r e l i v e t h e i r r e a l experience together by superimposing her image on T a l i t a - a r e p e t i t i o n which only served to obscure the o r i g i n a l l a Maga, causing her to be irrevocably l o s t i n a chain of differences. The absence of l a Maga launches O l i v e i r a into a never-ending search f o r s i g n i f i c a t i o n , as "indicated by the non-ending of the second reading of the book: Cortazar does not i n d i c a t e that the book i s f i n i s h e d at the end of chapter one hundred and thirty-one. /Instead, the reader i s r e f e r r e d back to chapter f i f t y - e i g h t , which r e f e r s the reader back to chapter one hundred and thirty-one, ad i n f i n i t u m . We may say that O l i v e i r a f a l l s out of the win-dow but never h i t s the ground. The r e a l i t y of the book becomes invention, or a t r u t h engendered by w r i t i n g i t s e l f , rather than an external presence. O l i v e i r a becomes a phoenix^like consciousness who evolves incessantly within the work. O l i v e i r a and the book el e c t the "great screw" or the movement of supplementarity as t h e i r possible t r u t h : "Ardemos en nuestra obra.. .alto desafio d e l fenix....elegimos por t u r a e l Gran T o r n i l l o . " 5 0 The tension of freeplay of the text within h i s t o r y and with pre-71 sence i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r engendering the i n f i n i t e movement o f s i g n i f i -c a t i o n o f the b o o k . 5 1 The l a s t two chapters o f the second book o f Rayuela a l l u d e m e t a p h o r i c a l l y t o these two c o u n t e r p o s i t o r y t e n s i o n s . Chapter f i f t y - e i g h t terminates w i t h the slogan o f the mental asylum, "muera e l p e r r o " - an expression which evokes the t e n s i o n o f the f r e e p l a y o f w r i t i n g w i t h : . i t s h i s t o r y , the metaphysics o f presence, i n so f a r as that i t s i g -n i f i e s a defiance o f imposed systems and conventions. Chapter one hundred and t h i r t y - o n e ends w i t h O l i v e i r a ' s r e s o l u t i o n to become a monk o f an order whose o r i g i n i s the t r e a t i s e o f C e r e f i n o Paz and whose purpose i s to e t e r n a l l y combat s p i r i t u a l i l l s on e a r t h - a v o c a t i o n which evokes the t e n s i o n o f f r e e p l a y w i t h presence i n so f a r as t h a t i t s p r i n g s from reasoned madness and i t s d u t i e s suggest the a r b i t r a r i n e s s or d i f f e r e n c e between matter and s p i r i t c o - e x i s t i n g on the same l e v e l . The tension- o f the f r e e p l a y of :the: text with h i s t o r y i s the i r r e -d u c i b l e d i f f e r e n c e between w r i t i n g as a l o g o c e n t r i c i s m comprehended w i t h i n the h i s t o r y of metaphysics, and w r i t i n g as a non-centered system where the c e n t r a l s i g n i f i e d i s never present o u t s i d e o f a chain o f d i f f e r -ences. Tension a r i s e s from the p a r a d o x i c a l fact that the second i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n o f w r i t i n g i s never able to e n t i r e l y d i v o r c e i t s e l f from the f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , as w r i t i n g i s i r r e v o c a b l y bound up with the h i s t o r y o f metaphysics: D e r r i d a e x p l a i n s that there i s no language, no syntax, no l e x i c o n which does not have i t s r o o t s i n t h i s h i s t o r y . 5 2 The d i s r u p t i o n o f w r i t i n g i s a l i e n t o the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by the metaphysics o f presence, yet i t s roots s p r i n g from a f u l l presence. In Rayuela, the c o u n t e r p o s i t o r y t e n s i o n engendered from O l i v e i r a ' s w i l l f u l r e j e c t i o n o f T r a v e l e r (symbolizing the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f the movement and sense o f w r i t i n g from i t s p a s t , the h i s t o r y o f m e t a p h y s i c s ) , and h i s p a r a d o x i c a l i n a b i l i t y to escape from him (symbolizing the inescapable c o m p l i c i t y o f 72 w r i t i n g with the metaphysics of presence) parodies the tension of freeplay with h i s t o r y i n w r i t i n g . 5 3 Derrida explains that the tension of freeplay with presence i s the disruption of presence: presence being a s i g n i f y i n g and s u b s t i t u t i v e r e -ference i n s c r i b e d i n a system of differences and the movement of a chain. Freeplay i s an i n t e r p l a y of absence and presence. 5 1* Presence implies the meaning of being i n general, the o r i g i n a r y t r u t h i n representation, a transcendental s i g n i f i e d which i s effaced while making v i s i b l e the very idea of the s i g n . 5 5 Absence i s the non-presence of a transcendental s i g n i f i e d , f u l l presence or referen t , which allows the f i e l d of w r i t i n g to function as a f i e l d of i n f i n i t e f r e e p l a y . 5 6 Derrida, i n t e r p r e t i n g Edmond Jabes, explains that absence i s that which gives l e t t e r s per-mission to s i g n i f y as signs, but i t i s also that which allows l e t t e r s t h e i r own l i f e independent of any referent - a l i f e of movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n engendered from the turning of w r i t i n g on i t s e l f . Absence, as the giver of l i f e to the l e t t e r , i s the breath of the l e t t e r : L'absence est l a permission donnee aux l e t t r e s de s'epeler et de s i g n i f i e r , mais c'est a u s s i , dans l a t o r s i o n sur s o i de langage, ce que disent l e s l e t t r e s : e l l e s disent l a l i b e r t e et l a vancance accordee, ce qu'elles "formeht" en l'enfermant dans l e u r f i l e t . Absence enfin comme s o u f f l e de l a l e t t r e , car l a l e t t r e v i t . . . . S i g n i f i a n t l'absence et l a separation, l a l e t t r e v i t comme aphorisme. 5 7 Michel Foucault, whom Derrida i n t e r p r e t s i n "Cogito et H i s t o i r e de l a F o l i e " l i k e n s the absence of work, or what cannot be sa i d , t o madness: "Or l a f o l i e , c'est par essence ce qui ne se d i t pas; c'est "l'absence de l'oeuvre" d i t profondement F o u c a u l t . " 5 8 The play of absence and presence i n Rayuela i s i n t e g r a l l y l i n k e d to the play of reason and madness - presence being the point of perspective for reason and the h i s t o r y of metaphysics, and absence being synonymous with madness. The freeplay of absence and presence, reason and madness i n Rayuela i s engendered from O l i v e i r a ' s desire to reach a center or l i b e r a t e d space free from the d i s t o r t i o n and incompleteness of binary reasoning. O l i v e i r a ' s quest for a u t h e n t i c i t y evokes the ph i l o s o p h i c a l objectives of Michel Foucault and Antonin Artaud. Foucault wishes to reach the point of Decision, or the point at which reason and madness became d i f f e r e n t i a t e d : II s'agit done d'acceder au point ou l e dialogue a ete rompu, s'est partage en deux s o l i l o q u e s : a ce que Foucault appelle d'un mot tres f o r t l a Decision. La Decision l i e et separe du m§me coup raison et folie';- e l l e doit, s' entendre i c i a l a fo i s comme l'acte o r i g i n a i r e d'un ordre, d'un f i a t , d'un decret, et comme une dechirure, une cesure, une separation, une d i s c e s s i o n . 5 9 Antonin Artaud, whom Derrida elucidates i n "La Parole S o u f f l e e " attempts to r e a l i z e through t h e a t r i c a l heiroglyphics a w r i t i n g of the body i t s e l f , which would constitute a system of signs no longer c o n t r o l l e d by the i n s t i t u t i o n of voice. Artaud wishes a w r i t i n g which would prevent hi s breath being s p i r i t e d from, his body i n the act of r e f e r r i n g to something outside of i t s e l f . 6 0 Artaud'sproject i s an attempt t c p r e v e n t absence, and thereby a n n i h i l a t e the double and the play of dif f e r e n c e s , Derrida describes Artaud's project as the very essence of madness, 6 1 Having previously mentioned Foucault's premise that madness i s absence, we may extend Derrida's argument and say that Artaud's project i s the essence of absence, i n so fa r as that i t i s the a n n i h i l a t i o n of absence, Artaud desires full-presence, or non-difference, which i s madness. M o r e i l l i and O l i v e i r a , l i k e Foucault, wish to reach the point of Decision which, preceeded the s p l i t of reason and madness - the point of Decision being analogous with O l i v e i r a ' s concept of a center, and M o r e i l l i ' s concept of an analogous consciousness capable of embracing both binary reasoning and the i n t e r n a l essence of things (non-reason) which escapes reason. Like Artaud, M o r e i l l i and O l i v e i r a wish to prevent di f f e r e n c e , the double, or the play of absence and presence by creating a language that does not r e f e r to anything outside of i t s e l f . Derrida explains, however, that Artaud's project of deconstruction -i n which he closes himself i n presence and annuls difference - i s caught up i n the metaphysical structure he hopes to abolish: Artaud destroys metaphysics at the same time that he constructs and preserves i t within the movement of d e c o n s t r u c t i o n . 5 2 S i m i l a r l y , Foucault t e l l s us that there are c r i s e s of reason i n strange complicity with, what the world c a l l s c r i s e s of madness. 5 3 Madness i s inseparable from reason, i n the same manner that absence i s i n t e g r a l l y l i n k e d to presence. Like Artaud and Foucault, M o r e i l l i and O l i v e i r a f a i l to r e a l i z e madness, and instead, are caught up i n the cross tension of absence and presence, reason and non-reason. Cortazar's philosophy of w r i t i n g , as expressed metaphorically i n Rayuela, founds the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the text on the p o l a r i c tension between absence and presence, reason and madness; rather than a displacement of wr i t i n g to either one pole or the other which would ef f e c t a loss of a l l s i g n i f i c a t i o n through the t o t a l reduction of absence into presence, or reason into madness, . The play of absence and presence, reason and'madness i n Rayuela i s a movement of inversion or reverse p o l a r i z a t i o n which, brings down the previously superior p o s i t i o n of one of the terms of opposition, O l i v e i r a ' s search f o r a center i s ulti m a t e l y a movement away from the center, rather 75 than toward i t . A f t e r his separation from l a Maga (symbolic of the separation of w r i t i n g from a f u l l presence), O l i v e i r a attempts to r e d i s -cover l a Maga (his previous center) by superimposing her image on T a l i t a and Traveler. O l i v e i r a ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s with the multiple r e f l e c t i o n s of l a Maga do not a f f e c t h i s reunion with her, but only serve to remove him farther from her, her r e a l presence becoming l o s t i n the play of r e f l e c t e d doubles. O l i v e i r a ' s paradoxical movement toward a center which i s r e a l l y a movement away from a center i s mirrored i n h i s i n a b i l i t y to re-integrate himself i n h i s place of o r i g i n - Buenos Aires - a f t e r v i s i t i n g P a r i s : "Se dio cuenta de que l a vuelta era realmente l a i d a en mas de un s e n t i d o . " 6 4 O l i v e i r a ' s movement away from presence ( l a Maga) and reason (the i n t e l l e c t u a l center of P a r i s , the Club de l a Serpiente) i s also the establishment of h i s overt complicity with absence (the absence of l a Maga) and madness (the mental asylum and ci r c u s of Buenos A i r e s ) . The inversion of reason and madness, presence and absence i n Rayuela i s not a simple displacement from the pole of presence and reason to the pole of absence and madness, however, as the play of absence and presence, reason and madness manifests i t s e l f on both sides of the book. The side of reason and O l i v i e r a ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a f u l l presence (Del Lado de A l i a ) shelters the essence of madness and absence i n the form of l a Maga, who functions as the presence to which O l i v e i r a r e f e r s , but who i s also the epitomy of madness, absence or what cannot be said; being the one who l i v e s i n t u i t i v e l y and doesn't believe i n names. The presence to which O l i v e i r a (writing) r e f e r s i s the essence of absence. Conversely, the side of madness and absence (Del Lado de Ac&) - although manifestly the i r r a t i o n a l world of the circus and the mental asylum - i s governed by a natural l o g i c which transcends the e x t e r i o r , l o g i c a l con-ventions of Del Lado de A l i a : reason i s the essence of madness. The con-s t r u c t i o n of the second reading of the book mirrors the cross-counter-balancing of reason and madness, absence and presence, i n so f a r as that a chapter describing Traveler and Buenos Aires (chapter lk3] i s i n t e r -calated i n t o Del Lado de A l i a , and a chapter dealing with l a Maga and Paris (chapter 138) i s inserted into Del Lado de Aca. Madness and absence are within reason and presence, and conversely, reason and presence are within madness and absence. The,, couhterpository- i n t e r i o r - e x t e r i o r r e l a t i o n s h i p of reason and madness, absence and presence i n Rayuela r e c a l l s Foucault's observation that madness i s confined to the i n t e r i o r of the e x t e r i o r , and the exterior of the i n t e r i o r . 6 5 The c r i s i s of the book and w r i t i n g i s mirrored i n M o r e i l l i ' s desire to reach a threshold or a x i a l by turning inside out l i k e a glove: "Se deducia una i n c i t a c i o n a algo comodarse vuelta a l modo de un guante." 6 6 For Cortazar, Foucault or "Derrida, however, the threshold or point of Decision which marks the separation between reason and madness i s never r e a l i z a b l e , as the two e x i s t i n each other. The closest one comes to r e a l i z i n g the point of Decision i s through w r i t i n g : Derrida explains that language, being the break with'madness, adhers more c l o s e l y to i t s essence. The more i t i s separated from madness, the closer i t approaches i t , u n t i l i t i s only separated from madness by the transparent sheet alluded to by Joyce, which i s language and sense i t s e l f . 6 7 O l i v e i r a ' s progression from a state of reason to a condition of madness metaphorizes the break of language with madness, which, paradox-i c a l l y becomes a movement toward madness, O l i v e i r a , l i k e w r i t i n g , exists i n a sustained state of tension between reason and madness. On the side of reason (.Paris), O l i v e i r a i s caught between the p u l l of his formal education i n methods of reason, and his present desire to throw o f f the imposed conventions of l o g i c and l i v e i n t u i t i v e l y . On the side of madness (Buenos A i r e s ) , the l a b y r i n t h which O l i v e i r a constructs while one degree away from madness embodies his own state of tension and that of language; being an i r r a t i o n a l structure born of a r a t i o n a l method, produced by a r a t i o n a l l y mad person who has reached a state of i r r a t i o n a l i t y through reason. The movement of O l i v e i r a and w r i t i n g toward the point of Decision i s i n f i n i t e and the a x i a l i s unreachable because'reason and madness ex i s t back to back convoluting on each other. O l i v e i r a ' s movement from reason to madness - which i s also the displacement of his point of reference from a present presence to an absence or l o s t presence - i s marked by h i s increasing tendency to enact or render into a p h y s i c a l symbol his desire to reach a metaphysical center a project that r e c a l l s Artaud's attempt to' create a language that would not decline into a sign through the medium of t h e a t r i c a l heiroglyphics. O l i v e i r a d i r e c t s T a l i t a to the "center" by having her straddle a bridge of boards suspended across an a l l e y between two ho t e l windows. O l i v e i r a imagines the hole at the top of the circus tent to be an opening onto the l i b e r a t e d space of a metaphysical center, and contemplates climbing up the c e n t r a l pole to reach i t . He attempts to reach the center by playing hopscotch i n the tiled'hallways of the mental asylum. O l i v e i r a ' s attempts to encarnate. the metaphysical center, however, only serve to render ludicrous his search for a u t h e n t i c i t y , e f f e c t i n g a loss of s i g n i f i c a t i o n rather than a gain. Like Artaud, O l i v e i r a i s never capable of a n n i h i l -ating absence and achieving f u l l presence through t h e a t r i c a l heiroglyphics as the r e s t o r a t i o n of breath, to the body i s the a n n i h i l a t i o n of breath from the body; the absence of presence being the breath of the l e t t e r or that which allows i t to s i g n i f y . In an interview with D i a c r i t i c s , Derrida explains that the gramme i s neither a s i g n i f i e r nor a s i g n i f i e d , neither a sign nor a t h i n g , neither a p o s i t i o n nor a negation; escaping i n c l u s i o n i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l opposition at the same time that i t inhabits i t , without ever c o n s t i t u t i n g a t h i r d term or s o l u t i o n . 6 8 The gramme, the supplement, w r i t i n g exists as tension. In Rayuela, Cortazar i l l u s t r a t e s that w r i t i n g , p e r s o n i f i e d by O l i v e i r a , resides i n the counterpository tension of presence and ab-sence, reason and madness y the p h y s i c a l and the metaphysical. A f t e r h i s irrevocable separation from l a Maga and his consequent acceptance of his interminable search for a u t h e n t i c i t y without l a Maga present, O l i v e i r a experiences a sort of e l e c t r i c i t y - a l l sorts of phosphorescences, 6 9 The phenomena seen by O l i v e i r a can be explained by means of Nietsche's and Derrida's d e f i n i t i o n of a force as the difference between f o r c e s , 7 0 O l i v e i r a ' s energy f i e l d parodies the force f i e l d of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s of w r iting which exists as the difference between the forces of absence and presence, reason and madness. Derrida explains that there are two' possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of structure, sign and freeplay: the f i r s t turning toward a t r u t h or o r i g i n which i s free from freeplay, and the s e c o n d - being:no longer turned toward the o r i g i n - affirming freeplay: Tournee vers l a presence, perdue ou impossible, de 1'origine absente, cette thematique s t r u c t u r a l i s t e de 1'immediatete rompue est done l a face t r i s t e , negative, nostalgique, coupahle, rousseauiste, de l a pensee du jeu dont 1'affirmation nietzcheanne, 1 ' a f f i r m a t i o n joyeuse du jeu du monde et de l'innocence du devenir, 1'affirmation d'un monde de signes sans faute, sans v e r i t e , sans o r i g i n e , o f f e r t a une i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a c t i v e , s e r a i t l'autre f a c e . 7 1 , Rayuela as a parable of w r i t i n g a l l e g o r i z e s both of the above i n t e r p r e -79 t a t i o n s . The f i r s t book of Rayuela parodies the Rousseauist d e f i n i t i o n of freeplay, a l l u d i n g constantly to the p o s s i b i l i t y of a meeting with a l o s t presence, as indicated by the c o n d i t i o n a l tense of the f i r s t sentence: "iEncontraria a l a Maga?" 7 2 The second book of Rayuela commences with the proposition that t r u t h i s an invention, engendered and i n s c r i b e d i n w r i t i n g rather than preceeding i t : "Todo es e s c r i t u r a , es decir fabula. iPero de que nos s i r v e l a verdad que t r a n q u i l i z a a l p r o p i e t a r i o honesto? Nuestra verdad posible tiene que ser invencion, es decir e s c r i t u r a . . . " 7 3 The second book, therefore, a l l e g o r i z e s the Nietschean a f f i r m a t i o n of freeplay without t r u t h present. Derrida emphasizes that i t i s not a question of choosing one i n t e r -pretation of sign or freeplay over the other, but of conceiving of the common ground and the i r r e d u c i b l e difference between the two i n t e r p r e -tations : Je ne c r o i s pas pour ma part, bien que ces deux interpretations doivent accuser leur difference et a i g u i s e r l e u r i r r e d u c t i b i l i t e , q u ' i l y a i t aujourd'hui a choisir....parce q u ' i l faut essayer d'abord de penser l e s o l commun, et l a differance de. cette difference i r r e d u c t i b l e . 7 4 Cortazar's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of w r i t i n g , l i k e Derrida's, comprehends two d i f f e r e n t , i r r e c o n c i l i a b l e worlds entering into discourse. Unlike •• Derrida, however, Cortazar does not attempt to mark the common ground between the two worlds, hut simply l i k e n s t h e i r i r r e c o n c i l i a b i l i t y to a joke: Dos mundos distantes, ajenos, c a g i siempre i n c o n c i l i a b l e s , entran en nuestras palabras, y como de comun acuerdo, nace l a b u r l a . 7 5 Cortazar envisions the two worlds i n t e r a c t i n g with each other i n a manner comparable to the shadow of a dove (evoking the joyous, Nietschean a f f i r m a t i o n of f r e e p l a y without t r u t h present) rubbing up against dog's excrement ( s i g n i f y i n g w r i t i n g as a debasement or f a l l from an absolute t r u t h . ) -Un ajedrez i n f i n i t o , tan f & c i l p o s t u l a r l o , Pero e l f r i o entra por una sue l a r o t a , en l a ventana de ese h o t e l una cara como de payaso hace muecas detras d e l v i d r i o . La sombra de una paloma r o z a un excremento de p e r r o . 7 6 81 FOOTNOTES 1 J u l i o Cortazar, Rayuela, E d i t o r i a l Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1973 , p. 620. 2 I b i d . , p. 5^0. 3Jacques Derrida, "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines", L'Ecriture et l a Difference, Editions du S e u i l , P a r i s , 1 967 , p. U23. 4 I b i d . , C. F. p. k09. 5Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 15. 6 I b i d . , p. U38. 7Derrida, "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", p. U09. 8Cortazar, Rayuela, p. Lo. 9 I b i d . , p. koh. 1 0 D e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", p. L 10 . ^Cortazar, Rayuela, p. l a . 1 2 D e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", C F . p. hlO. 1 3 I b i d . , CF. p.1*11. 1 1 +Cortazar, Rayuela, p .28U. 1 5 I b i d . , p. 377. 1 6 D e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", C F . pp. U l 2 - l i l 3 . 1 7 I b i d . , C F. pp. L12-U13. 1 8Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 558. 1 9 D e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", C. F. pp. U12-I113. 2 0 I b i d . , p. h20. 2 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. 5^0. 2 2 I b i d . , p. 32 . 2 3 D e r r i d a , "La Structure l e Signe et l e Jeu", p. lj-23. 2 i + I b i d . , CF. p. h23. 2 5 I b i d . , CF. p. 1+25. 2 6 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, pp. 2 91 - 292 . 2 7 I b i d . , p. 31. 2 8 I b i d . , p. 31. 2 9 I b i d . , p. U25. 3 0 I b i d . , p. 53^ . 3 1Jacques Derrida, " E l l i p s e " , L'Ecriture et l a Difference, p. U35• 3 2Robert Brody, J u l i o Cortazar:Rayuela ( C r i t i c a l Guide to Spanish Texts), Grant and Cutler Limited, i n ass'n with Tamesis Books Ltd., London, 1976, C F. pp. 53-5^. 3 3Cortazar, Rayuela, p. U39. 3 t t I b i d . , p. 528. 3 5 I b i d . , p. 118 . 3 6 I b i d . , p. 358. 3 7 D e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", C F. p. U25. 3 8 I b i d . , C. F. p. U26. 3 9-Interview. with Jacques Derrida, "Positions", D i a c r i t i c s , 2 , no. h, (Winter 1972), pp. 35-36. ^ C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. 253 . ^ D e r r i d a , "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " De l a Grammatologie, p. l 8 . ^ D e r r i d a , " E l l i p s e " , p. U35 -^Cortazar, Rayuela, p. U5. ^ r b i d . , p. 5U0. t t 5 I b i d . , p. 310. t + 6 I b i d . , p. 367. " i b i d . , C F . p. 371. 4 8 I b i d . , p. kOJ. 8 3 4 9 I b i d . , p. 1+08. 5 0 I b i d . • , p. 1+1+0 5 d e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", C. F. p. 1+26. 5 2 I b i d . , p.. 1+12 I have already mentioned the paradoxical r e j e c t i o n - c o m p l i c i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p of w r i t i n g with the h i s t o r y of metaphysics i n chapter one pp. 1+0-1+1. of t h i s t h e s i s . Please check the above reference I f you wish a more complete development of the above argument. 5 1 + D e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", p. 1+26. 55 . . . These d e f i n i t i o n s of presence are derived from Jacques Derrida's De l a Grammatologie and L'Ecriture et l a Difference. 5 6 T h i s d e f i n i t i o n of absence i s derived from Jacques Derrida's "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines". 57 v Jacques Derrida, "Edmond Jabes et l a Question du L i v r e " , L'Ecriture et l a Difference, p. 1 0 8 . 5 8 Jacques Derrida, "Cogito et H i s t o i r e de l a F o l i e " , L ' E c r i t u r e et  l a Difference, p. 6 8 . 5 9Ibid,.,, p. 6 2 6 0 Jacques Derrida, "La Parole Soufflee", L ' E c r i t u r e et l a Difference, C F . p. 2 6 l . 6 1 I b i d . , C F . p. 2 9 0 . 6 2 I b i d . , p. 2 9 1 . 6 3 D e r r i d a , "Cogito et H i s t o i r e de l a F o l i e " , p. 9 7 . 6 4 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p . 2 6 8 . 6 5 D e r r i d a , "Cogito et H i s t o i r e de l a F o l i e " , C. F. p. 8 0 . 6 6 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. 5 5 8 . 6 7 D e r r i d a , "Cogito et H i s t o i r e de l a F o l i e " , C F . p. 8 5 . 5 8 J . L . Houbedine and Guy Scarpetta, "Positions:Interview with Derrida',' D i a c r i t i c s , 2 , No. h. (Winter 1 9 7 2 ) , p . 3 6 . 6 9Cortazar,Rayuela, C F . p. 1+19• 7 0 Jacques Derrida, "La Differance", Marges de l a Philosophie, Les Editions de Minuit, P a r i s , 1 9 7 2 , p . l 8 . 7 d e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", p. 1+27. 7 2 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. 15. 7 3 I b i d ., p. 1+39.. 7 4 D e r r i d a , "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu", pp. 1+27 7 5 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. 596. 7 6 I b i d . , p. 5^0. 85 CHAPTER III CORTAZAR, DERRIDA AND THE EXIT FROM THE TEXT As a parable of w r i t i n g , Rayuela questions the meaning of meaning, the engendering of meaning, or the conditions which render possible the exit of sense from the text. Rayuela i s based upon O l i v e i r a - M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r ' s desire to f i n d a way out of the confines of binary reasoning or language, into a c l e a r i n g or analagous consciousness capable of embracing the i n t e r n a l essence of things which elude language. We saw i n chapters one and two that O l i v e i r a ' s journey toward a u t h e n t i c i t y or se l f - d i s c o v e r y parodies the conditions which permit the i n f i n i t e movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the text within the closure of a f i n i t e ensemble. O l i v e i r a appears to remain suspended i n a l a b y r i n t h of h i s own creation, or a never-ending search for a u t h e n t i c i t y which paraodies the inescapable l a b y r i n t h of s i g n i f i -cations engendered by the movement of the book, described by Derrida i n " E l l i p s e " : "Le l i v r e est l e labyrinthe. Tu c r o i s en s o r t i r , tu t'y enfonces.. Tu n'a aucune chance de te sauver. I I te faut detruire 1'ouvrage. Tu ne peux t'y resoudre. Je note l a l e n t e , mais sure montee de ton angoisse. Mur apres mur. Au bout qui t'attend? - Personne...Ton nom s'est r e p l i e sur soi-meme..."1 Although escape from the l a b y r i n t h of the book appears to be impossible, Cortazar and Derrida both designate an opening or ex i t from the textV Chapter s i x t y - s i x of Rayuela- describes the conclusion of M o r e i l l i ' s unfinished hook, cons i s t i n g of a single sentence repeated the length of the page: "En e l fondo sabia que no se puede i r mas a l i a porque no l o hay." 2 Cortazar explains that the repeated sentence appears to s i g n i f y 86 a w a l l of words behind which there i s nothing. An attentive observer, however, would be capable of n o t i c i n g that one word i s missing, and through t h i s hole, the l i g h t from beyond passes: Proyecta uno de l o s muchos f i n a l e s de su l i b r o inconcluso, y deja una maqueta. La pagina contiene una sola frase: "en e l fondo sabia que no se puede i r mas a l i a porque no l o hay." La frase se r e p i t e a l o largo de toda l a pagina, dando l a impresion de un muro, de un impedimiento. No hay puntos n i comas n i margenes. De hecho un muro de palabras ilustrando e l sentido de l a fr a s e , e l choque contra una barrera detras de l o cual no hay nada. Pero hacia abajo, y a l a derecha, en una de l a s frases f a l t a ' l a palabra l o . Un ojo sensible descubre e l hueco entre los l a d r i l l o s , l a luz que pasa. 3 In t h i s manner, Cortazar suggests that w r i t i n g i s a seemingly closed system which has an opening within i t s e l f onto another r e a l i t y p o s s i b l y beyond i t s e l f . S i m i l a r l y , Derrida - e l u c i d a t i n g Edmond Jabes - comments that the e x i t from the book has i t s threshold i n the book: "On.dit l a s o r t i e hors du l i v r e , on d i t l'autre et l e s e u i l dans l e l i v r e . " 4 Derrida explains that w r i t i n g i s both an opening and a c l o s i n g : a non-symmetrical d i v i s i o n designating on the one hand the closure of the book, and on the other hand^ the opening of the text: I c i ou l a , nous avons discerne l ' e c r i t u r e : un partage sans symetrie dess i n a i t d'un cote l a cloture du l i v r e , de 1'autre 1'ouverture du texte. D',un cote 1' encyclopedie theologique et sur son modele, l e l i v r e de l'homme. De l'autre un t i s s u de traces marquant l a d i s p a r i t i o n d'un Dieu excede ou d'un homme efface^ La question de l ' e c r i t u r e ne pouvait s'ouvrir qu'a l i v r e ferme. 5 The one book of Rayuela containing two books within i t s e l f parodies writing as both an opening and a c l o s i n g : the f i r s t book - terminating i n O l i v e i r a ' s death - evokes the closure of the book; whereas the second book - ending with O l i v e i r a ' s pledge to dedicate himself to a new career founded on w r i t i n g - represents the opening of the t e x t . For both 87 Cortazar and Derrida, the closure i s an opening: as explained i n chapters one and. two of t h i s t h e s i s , the cl o s i n g of the hook as the death of speech or the rupture with a ce n t r a l s i g n i f i e d e f f e c t s the opening of the freeplay of the t e x t . 6 Derrida explains that the ex i t from the book i s through d i f f e r e n c e , which occurs as a r e s u l t of r e p e t i t i o n . The return to the book through redoubling pronounces nonclosure, as r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t s a loss of o r i g i n which allows the book to become a movement of i n f i n i t e r e f l e c t i o n on i t s e l f . The r e p e t i t i o n of the book doubles the closure of the book, and between the imperceptible difference between the two closures, meaning emerges from the text: Des l o r s que l e ce r c l e tourne, que l e volume s'enroule sur lui-meme, que l e l i v r e se repete, son i d e n t i t e a soi a c c u e i l l e une imperceptible difference qui nous permet de s o r t i r efficacement, rigoureusement, c'est-a-dire discretement de l a c l o t u r e . En redoublant l a cloture du l i v r e , on l a dedouble. On l u i echappe alors furtivement entre deux passages par l e meme l i v r e , par l a meme l i g n e , selon l a meme boucle....Le retour au l i v r e est 1'abandon du l i v r e , i l s'est g l i s s e entre Dieu et Dieu, l e Li v r e et l e L i v r e , dans l'espace neutre de l a sucession, dans l e suspens de 1 ' i n t e r v a l l e . Le retour alors ne reprend pas possession. II ne se reappropie pas l ' o r i g i n e . C e l l - c i n'est plus en elle-meme.... A i n s i entendu, l e retour au l i v r e est d'essence e l l i p t i q u e . Quelquechose.d'invisible manque dans l a grammaire de cette r e p e t i t i o n . . . . E t pourtant tout l e sens est a l t e r e par ce manque.7 Cortazar i l l u s t r a t e s the above premise metaphorically through the dual construction of the book. As explained i n chapter two of t h i s t h e s i s , Del Lado de Aca may be regarded as a redoubling or r e p e t i t i o n of Del Lado de A l i a , i n so f a r as that the same themes - the reverse p o l a r i t y of reason and madness, the outside and the i n s i d e , the same pattern of character r e l a t i o n s h i p s (groups of two which evolve to a unity of three), and some of the same characters ( l a Maga and O l i v e i r a ) or others who resemble -psychologically another character on the opposite side of the book - occur on both sides of the book. The redoubling of the book also e f f e c t s the redoubling of the closure of the book: O l i v e i r a i s separated from h i s o r i g i n a l experience of la' Maga at the end of Del Lado de A l i a , and t h i s separation repeats i t s e l f with l a Maga's s p a t i a l image at the end of Del Lado de Aca. Aft e r chapter f i f t y - s i x , l a Maga i s no longer present i n the book. The difference between O l i v e i r a ' s o r i g i n a l experience of l a Maga i n P a r i s , and his secondary experience of her through her surrogate T a l i t a i n Buenos Aires i s that which allows O l i v e i r a to escape from- the enclosure of her influence. Through r e p e t i t i o n , the or i g i n a r y l a Maga i s l o s t i n the play of r e f l e c t e d doubles, and O l i v e i r a i s able to embark on his open movement of s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n through the gap created by l a Maga's absence. Derrida reminds us that the opening of the book as r e f l e c t i o n i s an opening without exit - the book i n f i n i t e l y r e f l e c t i n g on itself'.' The la b y r i n t h of the book encloses within i t s e l f a way out' of i t s e l f , which opens onto i t s e l f : Comme i l devait l ' e t r e , en restant ouvert, en disant l a non-cloture, a l a f o i s infiniment ouvert et'se r e f l e c h i s s a n t infiniment sur lui-meme...livre sans cesse entame et r e p r i s depuis un l i e u qui n'est n i dans l e l i v r e n i hors du l i v r e , se disant comme l'ouverture meme qui est r e f l e t sans issue, renvoi, retour et detour du labyrinthe. C e l u i - c i est un chemin qui enferme en s o i l e s . s o r t i e s hors de s o i , qui comprend ses propres issues, qui ouvre lui-meme ses portes, c'est-a-dire, l e s ouvrant sur lui-meme, se cl o t de penser sa propre ouverture. 8 S i m i l a r l y , O l i v e i r a ' s way out of the ph y s i c a l l a b y r i n t h of s t r i n g i n the mental asylum i s h i s way into the s p a t i a l l a b y r i n t h of w r i t i n g , as the book once again folds over on i t s e l f i n the Capitulos p r e s c i n d i b l e s . In the Table of Instructions that preceeds Rayuela, Cortazar alludes to the hook as i n f i n i t e r e f l e c t i o n on i t s e l f when he t e l l s the reader that his hook consists of many hooks: "A su manera este l i b r o es muchos l i b r o s . O l i v e i r a ' s desperate plunge out of the window into darkness, followed by h i s serene return to l i f e parodies the w r i t i n g of the hole, the chance of the book - which i s meaning - a l l e g o r i z e d by Edmond Jabes i n Le retour au l i v r e and interpreted by Derrida i n " E l l i p s e " : "Ce n ' e t a i t qu'un trou dans l e mur s i e t r o i t que t u n'a jamais pu t'y i n t r o d u i r e pour f u i r . Mefiez-vous des demeures. E l l e s ne sont pas toujours h o s p i t a l i e r e s . " Etrange serenite d'un t e l retour. Desesperee par l a r e p e t i t i o n , et joyeuse pourtant d'affirmer 1'abime, d'habiter l e labyrinthe en poete, d' e c r i r e l e t r o u , " l a chance du l i v r e " dans leq u e l on ne peut que s'enfoncer, qu'on doit garder en l e detruisant. Affirma-t i o n dansante et c r u e l l e d'une economie desesperee. 9 For both Cortazar and Derrida, the chance of the book as the w r i t i n g of the hole (which i s the conception of meaning) occurs as the descent of the other i n being. In "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , Derrida postulates that "L'ecriture est l e moment de cette V a l l e e o r i g i n a i r e 1 d e l'autre dans l ' e t r e . Moment de l a profondeur aussi comme decheance." 1 0 The meetings between l a Maga and O l i v e i r a i n Rayuela parody the descent.of the other i n being. As explained i n chapter one, l a Maga p e r s o n i f i e s being as presence. In Del Lado de Aca, O l i v e i r a becomes the "other" i n so f a r that he manifests the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of madness, which i s the inner r e a l i t y of discourse and r e a s o n . 1 1 When O l i v e i r a makes love with l a Maga, and when he jumps out of the window of the mental asylum i n order to meet with her s p a t i a l image on the hopscotch chart below, h i s actions parody 90 l u d i c r o u s l y the descent of the other i n being. The heightened state of awareness and the e l e c t r i c a l phosphorescences O l i v e i r a experiences a f t e r his f a l l symbolize meaning as the product of the f r i c a t i o n of the other i n being. Derrida explains that meaning becomes what i t i s by d i f f e r i n g from i t s e l f : "Le sens doit attendre d'§tre d i t ou e c r i t pour s'habiter lui-meme et devenir ce qu'a d i f f e r e r de s o i i l est: l e s e n s . " 1 2 In h i s heightened state of consciousness a f t e r h i s f a l l , O l i v e i r a p e r s o n i f i e s the sense of w r i t i n g as d i f f e r i n g from i t s e l f i n so f a r as that he now manifests a human warmth t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from h i s previously c o l d , r a t i o n a l , emotional state. Derrida proposes that meaning or the secondary experience of the text presents i t s e l f as such at the moment'that'the other i s there; the other who maintains both the v i g i l and the back and f o r t h motion, the i r r e d u c i b l e work between reading and w r i t i n g : ...1'experience'de secondarite ne t i e n t - e l l e pas a ce redoublement etrange par l e q u e l l e sens constitue -e c r i t - se donne comme l u , prealablement ou simultanement, ou 1'autre est l a qui v e i l l e et rend i r r e d u c t i b l e l ' a l l e r et retour, l e t r a v a i l - e n t r e l ' e c r i t u r e et l a l e c t u r e ? 1 3 Like the "other" alluded to by Derrida, O l i v e i r a has maintained both, the v i g i l (the never-ending quest f o r authenticity) and the back and f o r t h motion between his past h i s t o r y and pure surface ( w r i t i n g ) , 1 L + O l i v i e r a ' s r e a l i z a t i o n of genuine human emotions i n Del Lado: de Aca" ( e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r his f a l l out of the window) parodies the other as there, or the presen-t a t i o n of meaning, i n so f a r as that h i s i r r a t i o n a l emotional i n t e r i o r surfaces, and counterbalances h i s former over-reliance on reason; a s i t u a t i o n which evokes the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of w r i t i n g away . 91 from the external conventions of logos towards an inner r e a l i t y (the other) which preceeded logos; meaning occurring at the moment that these two forces i n t e r a c t . Derrida postulates that sense r e a l i z e s i t s e l f i n the i n t e r v a l between absence and presence, h i s t o r y and pure surface, self-knowledge and sel f - d i s c o v e r y : "Le sens n'est n i avant n i apres l ' a c t e . " 1 5 In "Ontolo-g i c a l Fabulation", Sara Castro-Klarens suggests that the objective of Cortazar's w r i t i n g i s "to'see' or l i v e the text as the i n t e r v a l i n which meaning becomes m a n i f e s t . " 1 6 She notes that i n Ultimo Round, Cortazar acknowledges Mallarme's work on the theory that meaning resides i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n s of what i s betweeen the signs, i n the gaps and i n t e r v a l s created by them. 1 7 In Rayuela, the sustained suspension of O l i v e i r a between absence and presence, h i s t o r y and pure surface, self-knowledge and s e l f - d i s c o v e r y demonstrates metaphorically the p o s i t i o n of sense i n w r i t i n g . 1 8 In Rayuela, Cortazar i s concerned not only with the engendering of meaning or the exit of sense from the text i t s e l f , but also with how the reader p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the meaning of the t e x t , and consequently, how the reader exits from the text. Cortazar attempts to involve the reader a c t i v e l y i n the book and make him a writer-accomplice, and'consequently, a protagonist-accomplice: P o s i b i l i d a d t e r c e r a : l a de hacer del l e c t o r un complice, un camarada de camino. Simultaneizarlo, puesto que l a l e c t u r a a b o l i r a e l tiempo del l e c t o r y l o trasladera, a l del autor. A s i , e l l e c t o r podria l l e g a r a ser coparticipe y copadiciente de l a experiencia por l a que pasa e l n o v e l i s t a , en e l mismo momento y en l a misma forma....da ( a l l e c t o r ) como una fachada, con puertas y ventanas detras de l a s cuales se esta operando un misterio que e l l e c t o r complice debera buscar (de ahi l a complicidad) y quiza no encontrara (de ahi e l copadicimiento). Lo que e l autor de esa novela haya logrado para s i mismo, se r e p e t i r a (agigantandose, quiza, y eso s e r i a maravilloso) en e l l e c t o r c o m p l i c e . 1 9 Derrida suggests that because i t s forethought (or the input.of the reader) cannot be predicted, the act of reading makes a hole i n the act of w r i t i n g , and i t i s through t h i s hole that the reader escapes: "Parce qu'on ne peut prevenir sa prevenance, l'acte de l e c t u r e troue l ' a c t e de parole ou d'ecriture. Par ce t r o u , j e m'echappe a moi-meme."20 Although Cortazar's attempt to induce the reader into a state of complicity and co-suffering with the writer appears to advocate entrapping the reader i n the text rather than allowing him to escape through h i s own experience, a more c a r e f u l examination of Cortazar's theories on w r i t i n g reveals that Cortazar's reader escapes from the text by a route very s i m i l a r to that suggested by Derrida above.- M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r explains that he attempts to induce the reader into the writer's state i n order that the reader can experience what the writer succeeded i n for himself. M o r e i l l i suggests that w r i t i n g sketches a mandala (or labyrinth) at the same time that i t allows the writer to escape from i t : A s i por l a e s c r i t u r a bajo a l volcan, me acerco a .las Madres, me conecto con.el Centro - sea l o que sea. E s c r i b i r es dibujar mi mandala y a l a vez r e c o r r e r l o . 2 1 In l i k e manner, Cortazar explains i n "Del cuento breve y.sus alrededores" that the author exorcises himself from h i s obsession - which i s the work -through the act of w r i t i n g : ....en cualquier cuento breve memorable se percibe esa p o l a r i z a c i o n , como s i e l autor hubiera querido desprenderse l o antes posible y l a manera mas absoluta de su c r i a t u r a exorcisandola en l a unica forma que l e era dado hacerlo: escribiendolo...,de su capacidad de transvasar l a obsesion dependia e l regreso a condiciones mas t o l e r a b l e s . 2 2 93 Assuming that Cortazar does succeed i n inducing the reader to become his accomplice i n Rayuela, then Cortazar's exorcism from the book i s also the reader's e x i t from the book.. On the l e v e l of meaning i t s e l f , C o r t a z a r - M o r e i l l i proposes opening up the closed order of the novel through irony, ceaseless s e l f - c r i t i c i s m , incongruency, and imagination i n the service of no-one: Como todas l a s c r i a t u r a s de eleccion del Occidente, l a novela se contenta con un orden cerrado. Resueltamente en contra, buscar tambien aqui l a apertura y para eso cortar de r a i z toda construccion sistematica de caracteres y situaciones. Metodo: l a i r o n i a , l a a u t o c r i t i c a incesante, l a incongruencia, l a imaginacion a l s e r v i c i o de n a d i e . 2 3 For the reader and w r i t e r , Cortazar perceives laughter or the joke as a means of tunneling out of, or escaping from the l a b y r i n t h of the book:' " . . . l a r i s a e l l a s o l a ha cavado mas tuneles u t i l e s que todas l a s lagrimas de l a t i e r r a . " 2 4 Harss and Dohmann suggest that "laughter, i n a l l i t s dimensions i s the key to Rayuela. I t s aim i s to catch the reader o f f guard, penetrate h i s defenses, and s e t . o f f uncontrollable r e f l e x e s . . . . Part of the e f f e c t (Cortazar) achieves i n h i s best scenes i s the r e s u l t of the enormous distance that e x i s t s between: the narrative surface, and the underlying r e a l i t y i t encloses and encompasses. At moments, a meeting occurs: p a r a l l e l l i n e s i n t e r s e c t . There i s a burst of l i g h t . " 2 5 We already noted i n chapter two that Cortazar compares the i r r e c o n c i l i a b i l i t y of the two worlds which enter discourse - that of joyous freeplay and that of a n o s t a l g i c turning toward a l o s t center - to a joke: "Dos mundos d i s -tantes, ajenos, c a s i siempre i n c o n c i l i a b l e s , entran en nuestras palabras, y como de comun acuerdo, nace l a b u r l a . " 2 6 In Rayuela, laughter i s the erup-t i o n of the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of two l e v e l s of consciousness. In an interview recorded by Harss and Dohmann, Cortazar explains that "There's a t e r r i b l e 9^  paradox i n being a w r i t e r , a man of words, and f i g h t i n g against words. It.'s^.a kind of s u i c i d e . " 2 7 Cortazar escapes from the insurmountable task he sets himself by laughing at himself. Cortazar acknowledges the joke which pervades Rayuela when he points out the ridiculousness of M o r e i l l i ' s attempts to r e a l i z e an authentic language that would do away with the l o g i c a l a r t i c u l a t i o n s of discourse (the l a t t e r being s e l f -c r i t i c i s m on the part of Cortazar, as M o r e i l l i i s Cortazar): "Para algunos de sus l e c t o r e s (y para e l mismo) resultaba i r r i s o r i a l a intencion de e s c r i b i r una especie de novela prescindiendo de l a s a r t i c u l a c i o n e s logicas del d i s c u r s o . " 2 8 Derrida explains that even though the highest objective of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i s to embrace the force and movement which displaces the l i n e s of the t e x t , c r i t i c i s m i s not able to exceed i t s e l f to t h i s point, as comprehending the structure of a force i s to lose meaning by f i n d i n g i t : Comprendre l a structure d'un devenir, l a forme d'une force, c'est perdre l e sens en l e gagnant. Le sens du devenir et de l a force, dans l e u r pure et propre q u a l i t e , c'est l e repos du commencement et de l a f i n , l a paix d'un spectacle, horizon ou visage. En ce repos et en cette paix, l a q u a l i t e du devenir et de l a force est offusquee par l e sens meme.29 By attempting a l i t e r a t u r e that w i l l comprehend both the binary reasoning of language and the essence of things that eludes i t , C o r t a z a r - M o r e i l l i -O l i v e i r a attempts to express the force of the work within the work i t s e l f . In order to release himself from t h i s insuperable, paradoxical problem, Cortazar bursts out laughing. In turn, the reader escapes from the hook by laughing at the w r i t e r - and also at himself f o r taking the writer s e r i o u s l y - and the c r i t i c laughs at the f u t i l i t y of h i s own attempt to f i n d an e x i t from the problem f o r both the w r i t e r and the reader. In an interview, Cortazar comments: 95 ...I want to stress that at bottom I don't f i g h t against words as a whole or i n essence. I f i g h t against a c e r t a i n usage, a language that I think has been f a l s i f i e d , debased, made to serve ignoble ends. I t ' s a b i t l i k e the accusation - a mistaken accusation, i t turned out to be f i n a l l y - that was brought up against the sophists i n t h e i r day. Of course, I have to f i g h t by means of words themselves. That's why Rayuela, from a s t y l i s t i c point of view, i s very badly written. There's even a part (chapter 75) where the language s t a r t s to become very elegant. O l i v e i r a remembers his past l i f e i n Buenos Aires and does so i n a polished, highly c h i s e l e d language. I t ' s an episode that's written fussing over every word, u n t i l , a f t e r about h a l f a page, suddenly O l i v e i r a breaks out laughing. He's r e a l l y been watching himself a i r the time i n the mirror. So then he takes h i s shaving cream and s t a r t s to draw l i n e s and shapes on the mirror, making fun of himself. I think t h i s scene f a i r l y w e l l sums up what the book i s t r y i n g to d o . 3 0 Just as O l i v e i r a bursts out laughing at the pretentious, "written" s t y l e he uses to describe his past l i f e , Cortazar laughs at h i s own contrived attempts to produce an authentic expression: many of the devices Cortazar-O l i v e i r a u t i l i z e s i n Rayuela to evoke the essence which eludes language -word games, etymologies, invented words, the combination of opposites, the superimposition of characters and events on one another, stream of consciousness passages, an i n v i t a t i o n to the reader to jump from chapter to chapter i n order to experience second-hand the creative leap of the author from v i s i o n to words - reveal themselves to be as d e l i b e r a t e , pondered (and hence counterfeit) as the t r a d i t i o n a l n o v e l i s t i c techniques which Cortazar purports to d i s t a i n as f a l s i f i e d and debased. The exorcism of the writer and the reader .from the book occurs through language i t s e l f . Harss and Dohmann' suggest that "language has a s p e c i f i c function i n Rayuela: to t a l k the problem out u n t i l i t has been exhausted, or annulled - or e x o r c i s e d . " 3 1 Every hypothesis of O l i v e i r a -M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r concerning an authentic language i s tested, and then 96 discarded as a f a i l u r e : as previously explained i n chapter two, O l i v e i r a ' s attempts to reach a center e f f e c t h i s irrevocahle separation from a center; M o r e i l l i ' s attempts to negate the f a l s i t y of external l o g i c by reducing matter into s p i r i t constitute the t o t a l l o s s of meaning and s i g n i f i c a t i o n , rather than i t s opening. Like Derrida, Oliveira-Cortazar concludes that the writer i s unable to describe the force of the work, or the i n t e r v a l i n which meaning r e s i d e s , because there are no words for a material between word and pure v i s i o n : y .en ese instante se l o que soy porque estoy exactamente sabiendo l o que no soy (eso que ignorare luego astutamente). Pero no hay palabras para una materia entre palabra y v i s i o n pura, como un bloque de evidencia. Imposible o b j e c t i v a r , p r e c i s a r esa d e f e c t i v i d a d que aprendi en e l instante y que era c l a r a ausencia ,o claro:. error o c l a r a i n s u f i . c i e n c i a . . . 3 2 In "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , Derrida explains that only pure absence can i n s p i r e , and i t i s for t h i s reason that one must turn oneself toward the i n v i s i b l e i n t e r i o r of poetic freedom that i s absence, i f one i s to grasp the operation of creative imagination at i t s closest possible proximity. Upon t h i s consciousness of nothing, a l l consciousness of some-thing enriches i t s e l f , takes on meaning and shape by d i f f e r i n g from i t . 3 3 Meaning as pure absence becomes tangible only by d i f f e r i n g from i t s e l f . In Rayuela, O l i v e i r a p e r s o n i f i e s the w r i t e r , the reader and the text i t -s e l f who turn themselves toward absence i n order to experience meaning. M o r e i l l i - C o r t a z a r explains that sometimes the missing l i n e s are the most important ones, as the reader must complete the figure with hi s own imagination: E l l i b r o debia ser como esos dibujos que proponen l o s psicologos de l a Gestalt, y a s i c i e r t a s l i n e a s i n d u c i r i a n a l observador a t r a z a r imaginativamente l a s que cerraban l a f i g u r a . Pero a veces l a s l i n e a s ausentes eran l a s mas importantes, las'unicas que 97 realmente contahan. 3 4 Although Cortazar does not explain why the missing l i n e s are the most important ones, we may complete h i s argument with some of Derrida's pos-t u l a t e s , and suggest that i t i s the reader's completion.iof the missing l i n e s - h i s complicity with absence - that p r e c i p i t a t e s meaning as absence differing..from i t s e l f , at the same time that the reader's input pierces the act of w r i t i n g i t s e l f , and allows him to exit from the text through the opening of his own creation. In t h i s chapter we summarized the conditions which permit the ex i t of sense from the t e x t , and then analyzed Rayuela as an a l l e g o r i c a l ex-pression ...of these conditions. We also examined the p o s s i b i l i t y of an ex i t f o r the wr i t e r and reader from the l a b y r i n t h of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the t ext. The t e x t , for both Cortazar and Derrida, comprehends a cl o s i n g which i s also an opening of i n f i n i t e r e f l e c t i o n on i t s e l f : the r e p e t i t i o n of wr i t i n g e f f e c t s the c l o s i n g of the book as the death of speech or the loss of an o r i g i n , while i t simultaneously allows the text - i n the absence of a center - to open and r e f l e c t i n f i n i t e l y on i t s e l f . The exi t of sense or meaning from the apparently closed l a b y r i n t h of s i g n i f i -cation of the text occurs through the i n t e r v a l of di f f e r e n c e , created i n the moment of r e p e t i t i o n or redoubling when the book folds over on i t s e l f i n the act of w r i t i n g and reading. The exorcism of the w r i t e r and the reader from Rayuela occurs through the gap created by the difference between the writer's goals and expectations, and the ultimate r e a l i t y of h i s achievement. This gap parodies the i n t e r v a l which separates the two i r r e c o n c i l i a b l e worlds which enter discourse: the joyous aff i r m a t i o n of freeplay with no t r u t h present 98 versus the hopeless, n o s t a l g i c turning towards a l o s t presence to which w r i t i n g previously r e f e r r e d . The reader and the writ e r of Rayuela are expulsed from the text through t h e i r recognition of the joke inherent i n Cortazar's stated objectives i n w r i t i n g the novel - laughter being the eruption of the excessive counterpository tension engendered from Cortazar-M o r e i l l i - Q l i v e i r a ' s attempt to force language to exceed i t s own boundaries, and the innate nature of language to p u l l , back toward the confines of logos and the h i s t o r y of metaphysics, which must be recognized i n order for language to be meaningful. Derrida explains that the reader e x i t s from the text through his complicity with the t e x t : the i n d i v i d u a l input of the reader perforates the act of w r i t i n g , and through t h i s p e r f o r a t i o n , the reader escapes. Cortazar attempted to construct Rayuela i n such a manner that the reader was obligated to become a writer-accomplice. The doors opening onto the text which Cortazar attempted to unlock for the reader by f o r c i n g him to project himself into the text are the same doors 'which allow him to escape from the book and i n t o himself. 99 FOOTNOTES Jacques Derrida, " E l l i p s e " , L'Ecriture et l a Difference, Editions du S e u i l , P a r i s , 196*7, P«U3U. This quotation was o r i g i n a l l y from Le Livre'des Questions by Edmond Jabes. 2 J u l i o Cortazar, Rayuela, E d i t o r i a l Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1 9 6 3 , p. U25. 3 I b i d . , p. U25. ^Jacques Derrida, "Edmond Jabes et l a Question du L i v r e " , L'Ecriture  et l a Difference, p. 113. d e r r i d a , " E l l i p s e " , p. U29. ^Derrida explains the postulate set forth i n t h i s sentence most succinctly i n "La f i n du l i v r e et l e commencement de l ' e c r i t u r e " (De l a  Grammatologie) and i n "La Structure, l e Signe et l e Jeu dans l e Discours des Sciences Humaines" (.L'Ecriture et l a Difference) 7Derrida, " E l l i p s e " , pp. U30-U31. 8 I b i d . , pp. L33.I1.3U. 9 I b i d . , p. U3U. 1 0Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , L'Ecriture et l a Difference, p. U9. 1 *In his book, Julio'Cortazar:Rayuela, Robert Brody suggests that O l i v e i r a becomes the other i n the second reading of the novel, i n so far as that he experiences a profoundly human.reality, or a f u l l range of human situations and emotions, which Cortazar perceives as part of the second inner human r e a l i t y . See Robert Brody, J u l i o Cortazar:Rayuela, ( C r i t i c a l Guides to Spanish Texts) , Grant and Cutler Ltd. London, 1976, p. 2k. 12 Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , p. 22 . 1 3 I b i d . , p. 22 . 14 See chapter one, p. 39 of t h i s thesis for a more complete develop-ment of the theme of Oliveira's (and writing's) v a s c i l l a t i o n between the past and the present. 1 5Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , p. 22 . 1 6Sara Castro-Klaren, "Ontological Fabulation". The F i n a l Island, ed. Jaime Alazraki and Ivar Ivask, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1 979 , P .1U9. 1 7 I b i d . , p. lU2. 1 ft For a more complete development of the theme of Oliveira's sus-tained state of suspension between absence and presence, history and freeplay, see chapter two of t h i s t h e s i s , especially p. 78. 1 9Cortazar, Rayuela, pp. -^53-^5^. 2 0 D e r r i d a , "La Parole Soufflee", p. 265 . 21 22 Cortazar, Rayuela, p. U58. •Julio Cortazar, "Del cuento breve y sus alrededores", La C a s i l l a de  los M o r e i l l i , Tusquets Editor, Barcelona, 1973, pp.108-109-2 3 Cortazar, Rayuela, p. U52. This topic was explored i n chapter one of t h i s thesis. 2 L t I b i d . , p. 2 5 L u i s Harss and Barbara Dohmann, Into the Mainstream, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York , Evanston and London, 1966, p.232. 2 6Corta zar, Rayuela, p. 596. 2 7Harss and Dohmann, Into the Mainstream, p. 23^-2 Cortazar, Rayuela, p. h-90. 2 9Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , p. hh. 3 0Harss and Dohmann, Into the Mainstream, p. 23^. 3 1 I b i d . , p. 233-3 C o r t a z a r , Rayuela, p. U62. 3 3Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , C F. p. 17-3Cortazar, Rayuela, p. 533-CONCLUSION In "Edmond Jabes et l a Question du L i v r e " , Jacques Derrida suggests that writing simultaneously sketches and recognizes an i n v i s i b l e l a b y r i n t h , a c i t y i n the sand: Sans l e savoir, l ' e c r i t u r e dessine a1 l a f o i s et reconnait dans l e desert, un labyrinthe i n v i s i b l e , une v i l l e dans l e sable." 1 In t h i s t h e s i s , I examined how Cortazar's Rayuela, l i k e w riting i t s e l f , engenders a labyrinth of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s as i t simultaneously explains metaphorically or recognizes the forces which give r i s e to i t . Although Cortazar i s not a philosopher., I attempted to'prove that Rayuela i s an a l l e g o r i c a l expression of a philosophy of writing which'parallels that of Jacques Derrida, The labyrinth of strings and washbasins which O l i v e i r a constructs i n the f i n a l chapter of the f i r s t reading of the book parodies the laby-r i n t h of s i g n i f i c a t i o n s which the book or writing has sketched as the novel unfolded i t s e l f , and also provides a symbolic synopsis of the main problems about writing which Cortazar-Oliveira-Moreilli attempt to resolve i n Rayuela. O l i v e i r a finds i t ' "bastante divertido" that the washbasins and strings should come together at the end of his reasoning, and not at the beginning. He also asks himself which came f i r s t : the waterbasins or the strings: ....todo acababa por encontrarse, era bastante divertido que l a palangana con agua y los piolines se encontraron a l f i n a l del razonamiento y no a l p r i n c i p i o , pero aqui Horacio se permetia conjecturar que e l orden de los razonamientos no tenia a) que seguir e l tiempo f i s i c o , e l antes y e l despues, y b) que a l o mejor e l razonamiento se habia cumplido inconscientemente para l l e v a r l o de l a nocion de 101 p i o l i n a l a de l a palangana acuosa)....De todas maneras, ique venia primero, e l p i o l i n o l a palangana? Como ejecucion, l a palangana, pero e l p i o l i n habia sido decidido antes. No v a l i a l a pena seguir preocupandose cuando estaba eh juego l a v i d a . . . 2 J.E. C i r l o t , i n A Dictionary of Symbols, defines water as the "preserver of l i f e . . . . t h e beginning and end of a l l things on earth....the "fons et origo" which preceeds a l l form and a l l c r e a t i o n . " 3 In f a c t , water i s the o r i g i n . A waterbasin i s a receptacle of water; or, i f we substitute f o r water i t s symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e , then the waterbasin i s the c a r r i e r of the o r i g i n . Speech, as defined by Plato i n the Phaedrus, i s also the c a r r i e r of the origin,..as: i t i s the l i v i n g memory which has a d i r e c t connection with the mind or the f e e l i n g s of the s o u l . 4 Therefore, the waterbasins which border O l i v e i r a ' s s t r i n g l a b y r i n t h represent speech. Threads, according to C i r l o t ' s d e f i n i t i o n , denote "the e s s e n t i a l connection between any of the d i f f e r e n t planes - the s p i r i t u a l , the b i o l o g i c a l , the s o c i a l , e t c . " 5 Like the symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e of threads, w r i t i n g i s the connection between two planes. In chapters one and two of t h i s t h e s i s , I explained that Derrida and Cortazar p o s i t w r i t i n g i n the i n t e r v a l between the ph y s i c a l and the metaphysical. We may deduce, therefore, that the strings or threads O l i v e i r a uses to construct h i s l a b y r i n t h symbolize w r i t i n g . When O l i v e i r a asks himself whether the s t r i n g s or the waterbasins came f i r s t , he i s questioning metaphorically the h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of speech t o . w r i t i n g ; a question also posed by Saussure i n Cours de Lingu i s - tique Generale, and u t i l i z e d by Jacques Derrida to explain the o r i g i n of the concept of di f f e r a n c e . Saussure concludes that language i s necessary i n order f o r speech to be i n t e l l i g i b l e , but speech i s necessary f o r language to be established: 103 La langue est necessaire pour que l a parole s o i t i n t e l l i g i b l e , et produise tous ses e f f e t s ; mais c e l l e - c i est necessaire pour que l a langue s ' e t a b l i s s e ; historiquement, l e f a i t de parole precede tou j o u r s . 6 ' In l i k e manner, O l i v e i r a concludes that from the point of view of execution, the waterbasins (speech) came f i r s t , - b u t the strings (writing) had been decided previously. A f t e r commencing construction of the l a b y r i n t h , however, O l i v e i r a no longer preoccupies himself with the temporal d i s t i n c -t i o n between the waterbasins and the s t r i n g s , but regards the game, i n which h i s l i f e i s at stake, as the p r i o r i t y which transcends a l l . p r e v i o u s preoccupations. In opting f o r a p o s i t i o n which situates the unresolvable question of the h i s t o r i c a l r e c i p r o c i t y of speech and w r i t i n g i n opposition to the game or freeplay of the text which has arisen from that unresolved confrontation of speech and w r i t i n g , O l i v e i r a duplicates the point of perspective of many contemporary philosophies of w r i t i n g - one of them being that of Jacques Derrida - which postulate that the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of w r i t i n g arises from the freeplay of the text i t s e l f , rather than from i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to a speech outside i t s e l f . O l i v e i r a expresses surprise that the st r i n g s (writing) and the water-basins (speech) came together at the end of h i s reasoning, and not at the beginning; an assertion which constitutes a metaphorical conclusion f o r one of the main problems explored by Cortazar i n Rayuela - that of the necessity of the book "changing i t s s i g n " i f i t i s to be compatible with the d i s r u p t i v e energy of w r i t i n g i t s e l f . Derrida and Saussure explain that w r i t i n g and speech were separated within the h i s t o r y of metaphysics (which i s the h i s t o r y of reason) as w r i t i n g was regarded as the "dead l e t t e r " which r e f e r r e d to a l i v i n g speech which preceeded i t . Writing and speech come together at the end of reasoning, however, ~.as,. D e r r i da;': SL. concept f of differance breaks down the binary oppositions between speech and'writing, and allow them to function as accomplices of each other: the one becomes the other i n differance. Whereas the movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of w r i t i n g was previously dependent upon the t o t a l i t y of a s i g n i f i e r which preceeded i t i n accordance with the c l a s s i c a l conceptual oppositions of metaphysics ( s i g n i f i e r - s i g n i f i e d , s e n s i b l e - i n t e l l i g i b l e , writing-speech) the concept of differance allows w r i t i n g to r e f e r to difference i t s e l f without i n c o r -porating p o s i t i v e terms that would l i m i t the freeplay of the te x t . In "La Differance", Derrida explains that within a language there are only d i f f e r e n c e s . The point of reference of the movement of s i g n i f i -cation of language becomes difference i t s e l f : every concept i n a language i s i n s c r i b e d i n a chain within which i t r e f e r s to other concepts by the play of dif f e r e n c e s . Cortazar's Rayuela encarnates difference or the d i a l e c t i c a l forces which w r i t i n g brings i n t o play by means of i t s binary construction, binary character r e l a t i o n s h i p s , binary imagery, binary m i l i e u s , and binary themes which a l l i l l u s t r a t e that each term of an opposition has i t s o r i g i n i n the other: reason i s the i n t e r i o r i t y of madness and madness i s the i n t e r i o r i t y of reason, the past i s i n the pre-sent and the present i s i n the past, death i s engendered from l i f e and l i f e i s engendered from death, absence as madness i s a presence i n reason, and presence becomes absence i n madness. The antagonistic-complistic r e l a t i o n s h i p r e s u l t i n g 'from- the reverse p o l a r i t y of a l l s t r u c t u r a l and conceptual oppositions i n Rayuela breaks down the opposition between the terms of the d i a l e c t i c which l i m i t s t h e i r movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and allows the sense of the book to r e f e r to "diffe r a n c e " i t s e l f . The plot of Rayuela i s based on O l i v e i r a ' s search f o r a center, o r i g i n or ultimate meaning that transcends the l i m i t a t i o n s of binary reasoning. Although 105 O l i v e i r a does not succeed i n reaching the center or the unvarying mean/free from di f f e r e n c e , he does succeed i n r e a l i z i n g d i f f e r a n c e , or a state of sustained abolishment of himself i n his antagonist Traveler, thereby a n n i h i l a t i n g the state of opposition between them, at the very moment that the state of differance i t s e l f which they have created i n each other sus-tains i t . In the same manner that the concept of differance allows w r i t i n g to r e f e r to difference i t s e l f without incorporating p o s i t i v e terms or a center that would l i m i t the freeplay of the t e x t , O l i v e i r a ' s sustained abolishment of himself i n Traveler allows him to continue hi s i n f i n i t e movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n without l a Maga - h i s i n d i c a t o r of the center -present. O l i v e i r a ' s unending search for s i g n i f i c a t i o n within the "Capitulos p r e s c i n d i b l e s " of the book parodies the supplementary, supera-bundant nature of the s i g n i f i e r whose i n f i n i t e , unresolved movement of s i g n i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t s from i t s ; lack of a center or a point of reference -a lack which must be supplemented. I attempted to i l l u s t r a t e i n t h i s t h e s i s that f o r both Cortazar and Derrida, the comprehension of w r i t i n g as a non-centered system i s based on a paradox: although the d i s r u p t i v e energy of the f i e l d of freeplay of w r i t i n g i s h o s t i l e to the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by a center, i t can never divorce i t s e l f e n t i r e l y from the concept of a f u l l presence, as i t has i t s roots i n the metaphysical opposition of s i g n i f i e r to s i g n i f i e d . The s t r i n g l a b y r i n t h which O l i v e i r a constructs i n the mental asylum i s a symbolic model of the accomplistic-antagonistic r e l a t i o n s h i p of w r i t i n g to speech or a f u l l presence: the circumference of the s t r i n g l a b y r i n t h (writing) i s defined by the waterbasins (speech); thereby implying that even though the f i e l d of freeplay of w r i t i n g i s a l a b y r i n t h of i n f i n i t e r e f l e c t i o n on i t s e l f within i t s e l f , i t s f i n i t e boundaries are s t i l l de-i o 6 terminer! by i t s former r e l a t i o n s h i p to speech and the h i s t o r y of meta-physics. Derrida explains that i n order to maintain both i t s s i g n i f y i n g power derived from i t s place within a :metaphysical opposition, and also i t s a p h o r i s t i c energy which i s h o s t i l e to t h i s metaphysical opposition, w r i t i n g must ex i s t i n a state of unresolved tension between i t s former r e l a t i o n s h i p to the metaphysics of presence, and i t s present r e a l i t y as a sign without s i g n i f i c a t i o n , a game or a pure functionning. The sense of wr i t i n g resides i n the inexpressible difference between these two i r r e -ducible differences. In chapter two of t h i s t h e s i s , I explained that Cortazar and Derrida recognize two i r r e c o n c i l i a h l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of w r i t i n g and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : one turning toward a l o s t , impossible o r i g i n - the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of wr i t i n g metaphorized by the f i r s t book of Rayuela - and the other affirming the freeplay of a world of signs without t r u t h or an o r i g i n present - the re n d i t i o n of wr i t i n g which the second reading of Rayuela evokes. Cortazar and Derrida both imply that the ever elusive p o s s i b i l i t y of sense i t s e l f resides i n the i n t e r v a l between these two i r r e c o n c i l i a h l e worlds. The book of Rayuela, l i k e w r i t i n g i t s e l f , embraces a turning toward an o r i g i n at the same time that i t comprises the turning away from the o r i g i n . The reader who reads consecutively books one and two of Rayuela experiences within himself the unresolvable tension e x i s t i n g be-tween these two i r r e c o n c i l i a h l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of w r i t i n g , which i s the o r i g i n of w r i t i n g as di f f e r a n c e i t s e l f . In accordance with Derrida's philosophy of w r i t i n g , Cortazar implies i n Rayuela that the sense of wr i t i n g i s neither a regained presence nor a pure absence; neither a re-r affirmation of h i s t o r y nor a play of pure surface; neither reason nor ab-sence; but the tension which i s born from the reverse p o l a r i c i n t e r a c t i o n 1 0 7 of these opposing poles. The p l o t of Rayuela i s based on O l i v e i r a ' s search for the center, which I interpreted i n t h i s t h e s i s as an a l l e g o r y of the movement of w r i t i n g toward the r e a l i z a t i o n of meaning. O l i v e i r a never succeeds i n reaching a center or o r i g i n , but accepts the play of differences as h i s ultimate r e a l i t y . In l i k e manner, the sense of w r i t i n g i s never present i n i t s e l f as such, but only as the difference between diff e r e n c e s . The reader of Rayuela never succeeds i n discovering an ultimate meaning of the book i t s e l f , but becomes swept up i n the play of differences which i s the book i t s e l f . Rayuela i s the encarnation of d i f f e r e n c e s , within which sense, r e a l i z e s i t s e l f as an inexpressible d i f f e r i n g from i t s e l f . Whereas Derrida the philosopher accepts the i n t a n g i b l e i n e x p r e s s i -b i l i t y of sense, Cortazar the w r i t e r bursts i n t o laughter when overwhelmed by h i s i n a b i l i t y to express the inexpressible. Like the sense of w r i t i n g i t s e l f , however, laughter i s a manifestation of the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y or diffe r e n c e between two l e v e l s of consciousness. Consequently, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Rayuela as a parody of w r i t i n g i s congruous with the e x p l i c a t i o n of Rayuela as a parable of w r i t i n g , as the "joke" inherent i n Cortazar's attempts to r e a l i z e an authentic expression i s only one more manifestation i n Rayuela of the tension between i r r e c o n c i l i a b l e d i f f e r -ences which i s the f i e l d of freeplay of w r i t i n g i t s e l f . 108 FOOTNOTES "•Jacques Derrida, "Force et S i g n i f i c a t i o n " , L'Ecriture et l a Difference, Editions du S e u i l , P a r i s , 196T, p. 105. 2 J u l i o Cortazar, Rayuela, E d i t o r i a l Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1963, p. 380. 3 J . E. C i r l o t , A Dictionary Of Symbols, trans. Jack Sage, Philosophical Library, New York, 1962, p, 3^5. ^Jacques Derrida, De l a Grammatologie, Editions de Minuit, P a r i s , 1967, p. 55. 5 C i r l o t , A Dictionary of Symbols, p, 323, 6Jacques Derrida, "La Differance", Marges de l a Philosophie, Les Editions de Minuit, P a r i s , 1972, p, 12, SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Works of J u l i o Cortazar d i r e c t l y relevant to the thesis: Cortazar, J u l i o . La C a s i l l a de los M o r e i l l i . Barcelona: Cuadernos Marginales 30, Tusquets Editor, 1973. ' Cortazar, J u l i o . Rayuela. Buenos Aires: E d i t o r i a l Sudamericana, 196k. Cortazar, J u l i o . Los reyes. 19^9; rpt. Buenos A i r e s : E d i t o r i a l Sudamericana, 1970. Cortazar, J u l i o . Ultimo Round. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores 1969. Cortazar, J u l i o . La vuelta a l dia en ochenta mundos. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores, S.A., 1967. I I . Books, a r t i c l e s and interviews about Cortazar's work: Ed. Jaime Alazraki and Ivar Ivask. The F i n a l Island. Norman: -University of Oklahoma Press, 1978. The following a r t i c l e s i n the above anthology are especially relevant to t h i s thesis: A l a z r a k i , Jaime. "Introduction: Toward the Last Square of the Hopscotch". Castro-Klaren, Sara. "Ontological Fabulation: Toward Cortazar's Theory of Literature". Gonzalez Echevarria, Roberto. "Los reyes: Cortazar's Mythology of Writing". Rabassa, Gregory. "Lying to Athena: Cortazar and the Art of F i c t i o n " . Yukievich, Saul. "Eros Ludens: Games, Love and Humour i n Hopscotch". Barrenechea, Ana Maria. "La estructura de Rayuela, de J u l i o Cortazar". Litterae Hispanae* e t Lusitanae. Ed. Hans Flas'che. Munich: Max Hueber Verlag, 1968, pp.69-8U. Broden, B r i t a . Criaturas F i c t i c i a s y su Mundo en "Rayuela" de J u l i o  Cortazar. Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1975 Brody, Robert. J u l i o Cortazar: Rayuela. C r i t i c a l Guide to Spanish Texts, ed. J.E. Varey and A. D. Deyermond. London: Grant and Cutler Limited, 1975. 109 110 Garcia F l o r e s , Margarita. "Siete respuestas de J u l i o Cortazar". Revista de l a Universidad de Mexico, 21, No. 7. :(March 1967), pp. 10-13. Fuentes, Carlos. "Rayuela: l a novela como caja de Pandora". Mundo Nuevo, 9, No. 9. (March 1967), pp. 67-69. G a r f i e l d . Evelyn Picon. Es J u l i o Cortazar un S u r r e a l i s t a . Madrid: B i b l i o t e c a Romanica Hispanica, E d i t o r i a l Gredos, 1975. Genover, Kathleen. Claves de una n o v e l i s t i c a e x i s t e n c i a l (en Rayuela  de Cortazar). Madrid: Coleccion Plaza Mayor Scolar, 1973. Ed. Helmy F. Giacoman. Homenaje a Cortazar. New York: L.A. Publishing Company Inc., 1972. The following a r t i c l e s i n the above anthology are e s p e c i a l l y relevant to t h i s t h e s i s : A l e g r i a , Fernando. "Rayuela o e l orden del caos". Copeland, John G. "Las imagenes de Rayuela". Giacoman, Helmy F. "Prefacio". Giordano, Enrique. "Algunas aproximaciones a "Rayuela" de J u l i o Cortazar, a traves de l a dinamica d e l juego". Lima. Jose Lezama. "Cortazar y e l comienzo de l a o t r a novela". Villanueva, Marcelo Alberto. " E l sa l t o hacia adelante, o l a razon de l a sinrazon". Harss, Luis.and Dohmann, Barbara. " J u l i o Cortazar, or the Slap i n the Face". Into the Mainstream: Converations with L a t i n - American Writers. New York: Evanston and Harper Row Publishers, 1966, pp.206-2^5. Kerr, L u c i l l e ; Gonzalez Echevarria, Roberto; Grossvogel, David I.; trans. T r i l l e r , Jonathan. "Interview with J u l i o Cortazar". D i a c r i t i c s , h, No. k. (Winter 197*0 pp.35-^0. Sosnowski, Saul. J u l i o Cortazar: una busqueda m i t i c a . Buenos A i r e s : Ediciones Noe, 1973. I I I . Works of Jacques Derrida: Derrida, Jacques. De l a Grammatologie. P a r i s : Editions de Minuit, 1967. Derrida, Jacques. La Dissemination. P a r i s : Editions du S e u i l , 1972. Derrida, Jacques. L' E c r i t u r e et l a Difference. P a r i s : Editions du S e u i l , 1967. I l l Derrida, Jacques. Glas. P a r i s : Editions G a l i l e e , 1 9 7 L . Derrida, Jacques. La Voix et l e Phenomene. P a r i s : Presses Uni-v e r s i t a i r e s de France, 1 9 6 7 . Derrida, Jacques. Marges de l a Philosophie. P a r i s : Les. Editions de Minuit, 1 9 7 2 . Derrida, Jacques. P o s i t i o n s . P a r i s : Editions de Minuit, 1 9 7 2 . IV. Works of Jacques Derrida i n English Translation: Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated and with an Introduction by Spivak, Gayatri .Chakrovorty. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 7 2 -Derrida, Jacques. Speech and Phenomena, and Other Essays on Husserl's  Theory of Signs.. Translated and with an Introduction by A l l i s o n , David B. Prefaced by Garver, Newton. Evanston: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 7 2 • Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Translated and with an Introduction by Bass, Alan. Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1 9 7 8 . V. A r t i c l e s and Interviews about Derrida's. work: Garver, Newton. "Derrida on Rousseau on Writing". The Journal of  Philosophy, lh ( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 6 6 3 - 6 7 3 . Gelley, Alexander. "Form as Force". D i a c r i t i c s , 2 , No. h, (Spring 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 9-13. Hartman, Geoffry H. "Monsieur Texte: On Jacques Derrida, h i s Glas". The Georgia Review, 2 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , pp. 7 5 9 - 7 9 5 . Hartman, Geoffry H. "Monsieur Texte I I : Epiphony i n Echoland". The Georgia Review, 3 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 1 6 9 - 1 9 7 -Houbedine, J.L. and Scarpetta, Guy. "Positions: Interview with Jacques Derrida".- D i a c r i t i c s ^ 2 , No. k.(Winter'1972), pp. 3 5 - U 3 . Houbedine, J.L. and Scarpetta, Guy. "Positions: Interview with Jacques Derrida". D i a c r i t i c s , 3 , No. 1 (Spring 1 9 7 3 ) , pp. 3 3 - U 6 . K l e i n , Richard. "Prolegomenon to Derrida". D i a c r i t i c s , 2 , No. k (Winter 1 9 7 2 ) , p p . 2 9 - 3 U . Rorty, Richard. "Derrida on Language, Being, and Abnormal Philosophy". The Journal of. Philosophy, jh ( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 6 7 3 - 6 8 1 . 1 1 2 Rorty, Richard. "Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: An Essay on Derrida" Mew L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , . 1 0 , Ho. 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p p . l U 2 - l 6 0 . Said, Edward W. "Abecedarium Culturae: Absence, Writing, Statement, Discourse, Archeology, Structuralism". Beginnings. Hew York: Basic Books Inc., 1 9 7 5 , pp. 2 7 7 - 3 U L . Other Works Consulted: Artaud, Antonin. Oeuvres Completes. P a r i s . Editions Gallimard, 1 9 5 6 . Barthes, Roland. Le Degre Zero de l ' E c r i t u r e , s u i v i de Elements de  Semiologie. P a r i s : Gonthier, 1 9 6 5 . C i r l o t , J.E. A Dictionary of Symbols. Trans. Jack Sage. New York: P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y , 1 9 6 2 . Foucault, Michel. F o l i e et Deraisori: H i s t o i r e de l a F o l i e a'l'Age  Classique. P a r i s : Plon, 1 9 6 l . Ronse, Henri. "Le Labyrinthe: Espace S i g n i f i c a t i f " . Cahiers Inter-. nationaux de SymbOlisme^ , 9 - 1 0 ( 1 9 6 5 - 6 6 ) , pp. 27-1+3. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de Linguistique Generale. Ed. C. B a l l y and A. Sechaye (Paris: Payot, 1 9 l 6 ) . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094859/manifest

Comment

Related Items