ABSTRACT
In his book “Writing and difference”, Derrida presents a critique of Blanchot’s interpretation of Artaud, under the title “La parole soufflé [The whispered word], in which he implies Blanchot's reading was biased. First, his discomfort occurs because of the comparison Blanchot makes of Hölderlin and Artaud, for both being poets that experimented the poetic demand and, because of that, had their works interpreted through a psychiatric reductionism. For Derrida, this clinical and critical double interpretive stems from a dualistic separation that has long been present, a constitutive difference of the metaphysics what creates all division, including the condition of commentary on clinic and critic. Hence, what is exposed by Derrida is the deflagration of a metaphysical structure that supports these dualisms. The way Artaud realized this limit of achievement in writing is what Derrida tries to recognize as a structural effraction of the difference that exists in our way of relating with the work. Derrida remakes the path of Artaud's work to show how we could overcome this absence that occurs in the relation between the artist and the work, the body and spirit. Finally, it shows - from Artaud himself - the reductionism made also by Blanchot.
Keywords:
Artaud; commentary; work; metaphysics; writing; difference