Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Illegibility: Blanchot and Hegel by William S. AllenBryan CounterAllen, William S. Illegibility: Blanchot and Hegel. Bloomsbury, 2021. 264pp.With its absence of commentaries, imitative reproductions, unreflective quarrels, baseless miscomprehensions, creative research, faithful admiration, and the works of thought that accompanied it, the reception of Blanchot’s work was perhaps more diverse than that of any other major body of work of its time, of any time. However, it always lacked free discussion unhindered by creative ambitions or by complacent reiterations of the ‘themes’ at its heart.(Bident 420)The notorious difficulty of Maurice Blanchot’s writing has been extensively documented, as is evidenced by how hesitant his contemporaries have been to engage with his work. Serious considerations of Blanchot’s thought did begin to accumulate in the 1970s, a period that saw an increase in his critical relevance, which has remained strong in more recent years. In the past, the “difficulty” of Blanchot’s thought and writing often resulted in texts that either blindly imitated or derided his work. 1 Due to his subtle logic, intense focus, and sub-referential style (that is, the rarity of direct quotation in his nearly constant engagements with prominent philosophers and literary figures), any critical study of Blanchot calls for a thorough and unwavering commitment to the texts at hand in order to do justice to his work.As a study of the Hegelian underpinnings of Blanchot’s thought, William S. Allen’s Illegibility: Blanchot and Hegel stands out on the contemporary critical landscape by focusing attention on a specific dimension of Blanchot’s writing and thinking. Already, the title offers two suggestions as to what is at work here. First, and most importantly, Allen foregrounds Blanchot’s engagement with Hegel and does so in way that eschews dogma and proceeds by undertaking a careful, detailed reading of the latter’s thought. Second, Allen highlights Blanchot’s persistent concern with literature, particularly that of Raymond Roussel and Lautréamont. Taken together, this approach supports Allen’s main assertion that Blanchot was [End Page 86] keenly aware that philosophy requires literature in order to address its own concerns. 2 Accordingly, Allen’s assessment bears not on Blanchot’s approach to discrete works of literature, or to a particular philosophical doctrine, but rather to the fundamental question of the illegibility of all literary writing.Allen makes clear that illegibility does not appear in only one form. The book’s opening lines posit:A text can be illegible because its language is too complex, too foreign, or too obscure to be read, but these obstacles can to some degree be overcome with time and patience. But a text can also be illegible because it cannot be read in any summative way, and in a text like this what is in play is structurally unreachable, that is, it cannot be read because doing so would require more (in whatever way this ‘more’ might be measured: time, effort, thought, etc.) than is possible.(1)In line with Blanchot’s own general method, Allen isolates and contrasts two different kinds of illegibility: mere difficulty on the one hand, and true obscurity on the other. Taking up the latter, Allen asks: “How is it possible to write a text like this, and what would be the effects of reading it?” (1). We are thus asked from the outset to consider the illegible text in the context of another of Blanchot’s classic ways of distinguishing aspects of writing — namely, from the respective positions of writer and reader. These positions participate in the dialectic because they are two opposing, yet interrelated, moments in the experience of the work of literature. 3 Allen goes on to classify such a text as infinite, meaning ultimately that it possesses a “lack of boundary that needs to be considered, and that informs the problematic of its reading” (1). The illegibility of the text, in this absolute sense, implies the very impossibility that any writer would ever set out, consciously, to write a text that would deserve to be called illegible.On the side of the reader, such a text evades recognition or classification by means of any particular content, but form and...