How James Joyce Made His Name: A Reading of the Final Lacan (Contemporary Theory)

Rating:
Summary: Le Sinthome and James Joyce
Review: Congratulations to Roberto Harari (and Luke Thurston for his translation)! This is a must reading for those interested in coming to an understanding of Lacan's late work on le sinthome in relation to James Joyce. It is one of the clearest explanations in the literature on this very complex relationship.
Le sinthome was a late development of Lacan during a period where he was attempting to represent the subject in terms of three interconnected rings, the Borromean knots. Each ring represented one of the three main orders (Symbolic, Imaginary, and Real). Many of the key concepts he had developed in the 50s and 60s now reappeared within various configurations of knots. It was Lacan's ongoing interest in James Joyce that sparked the idea that Joyce's writings were applicable to an understanding of a fourth order, le sinthome, which sustained consistancy in the psychic apparatus. Unfortunately, Lacan's late works of the 1970s were replete with exposition of a variety of knots but with little in terms of clear explanations. Harari's work breaks through this impass. It also encourages the reader to converse with his book, not simply to put it to memory. In fact, I found myself cross-referencing his work with other less accessible works to work out a variety of complex points on the knots and le sinthome. Harari's book was a key to overcoming various impasses.
For many of us interested in understanding this material we have had to spend much time in studying literature that not only is equally as challenging as Lacan's, but not necessarily clarifying at all. Harari breaks through this barrier. And he adds his own spin on important ideas presented by Lacan. Some may disagree with his spin, but it is a refreshing elucidation of otherwise inaccessible material.
Sure, there are dogmatic Lacanians who insist on singular readings of Lacan; but this is fiction. And there are factional disputes over the "correct" reading; but let us get beyond this and engage important scholarly work that provides insights into one of the truly great discoveries in psychoanalysis: le sinthome. Lacan's late work still awaits the scholarly field to genuinely engage this material. And there is much to be done!
If we can judge a book by how much it clarifies and encourages further thought on a subject, this book is exceptional.

Rating:
Summary: Superficial or just plain Supercilious?
Review: Had I seen the review a 'Superficial Reading of Lacan, December 11, 2002', prior to reading Harari's book I would not have read it. For me this would have been a mistake. As a PhD candidate working on Joyce and Deleuze, I have found it enormously productive. It has forced me to completely rethink the chapter I have devoted to Lacan, as this originally relied too much on the negative critique contained in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus. I now believe that the 'final' Lacan of Seminar 23 onwards, particularly 'Le Séminaire de 20 January 1976, Le sinthome, 1975-76', but also the earlier 'Le Séminaire. Livre XIX. Ou pire, 1971-72', have not received sufficient attention, whether or not they have been officially suppressed. I owe this to Harari and to this book.
It now seems evident to me that the later Deleuze of The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, and the 'final' Lacan, through their respective use of mathematical topology, come much closer in their ultimate theorisations than I had previously thought possible. For me it is particularly significant that Lacan used Joyce so productively in order to bring about his own final theoretical advance. His topological approach makes it much more arguable for me to relate Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari's more fragmented use of Joyce to a schizoanalytic reading of Finnegans Wake. This will, I believe, prove particularly productive, at least for me and my dissertation.
Clearly my particular perspective is not one which will necessarily encourage others, who have an interest in Lacan or Joyce, to buy this book. I must therefore mention the extremely varied and rich variety of themes which the book contains, including Lacan's reading of Joyce as himself an analyst who brings about not simply Joycean doubles speaking Wakease, but an inventiveness in the analysand/ reader, through poetry and creativity, which changes our very discourse and allow us a new perception of the world. Nevertheless, as this is my review, I will stress one of the themes which is particularly important for me, as this should appeal to other likely purchasers of the book. This is the way in which Harari develops Lacan's thought on the Joycean epiphany, by showing that the Thomist notion of quidditas or 'whatness', which Lacan apparently did not find particularly 'striking', is absolutely decisive in Joyce's thinking and implicitly so in Lacan's development.
Deleuze and Guattari coined the concept of haecceity or 'thisness' to express their key notion of 'becoming' as an essence which did not result in a subjective identity. This I see as a very similar if not identical concept to quidditas. Deleuze implicitly linked haecceity to Joyce's 'epiphanic machine', in his comments on Stephen Hero, by noting that essence itself determines the conditions of its own incarnation. Harari too notes Joyce's privileging of 'whatness' ' through 'the epiphany', in Stephen Hero ' as a fundamental motif of his aesthetic thought which is realised in its fullness in Finnegans Wake. He shows that the occurrence and writing of the lived epiphany for Joyce turns his symptom into the Lacanian sinthome, as a revelation of the Real and its productive possibilities through the Symbolic. The revolutionary development in Lacan's thought at this point in finding the Real no longer 'impossible' but actually productive strongly links his thought, to my mind, to the equation of the Real with reality which had previously separated Deleuze and Guattari's theorisations from those of Lacan.
Harai concludes that Lacan has swept the way clear for a 'post-Joycean psycho-analysis', which is our own. From my perspective this can be no other than Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalysis. Lacanians will no doubt disagree, and Harari, I must stress, makes no such connection, but to ignore or belittle this book does no service I believe to either Lacan or Joyce, leave alone Deleuze and Guattari.
James Davies, University of Leeds.

Rating:
Summary: Superficial Reading of Lacan
Review: So far the English translations of Harari's work on Lacan have shown themselves to be substandard and superficial from both the perspective of psychoanalytical practice and Lacanian scholarship. Perhaps this is because they are transcriptions of seminars he gave, rather than written texts carefully worked over and developed. In short, Harari's work would benefit from some careful editorial work, integrating more concrete textual references-- for instance, actually quoting text relevant text --and spending more time developing a context for the arguments he's articulating. Harari simply lacks the speaking skills that Lacan himself possessed. Harari often contents himself with simply restating what Lacan [presumably] says in seminar X and XXIII, giving little or no commentary or conceptual analysis. This point should have already been evident in Harari's reading of seminar X which required a seventy page introduction by Shepherdson in order to situate Harari's work. Such a lengthy introduction suggests that the work itself is not doing its job, and this point is demonstrated by a reading of the text, which, while replete with Lacanian diagrams, has very little of interest to say about them that couldn't already be gathered from other seminars. When Harari does engage in commentary his points are often trite, focusing on irrelevant trivia-- and sometimes hero worship? --rather carefully developing Lacanian concepts in light of the greater body of his thought. This annoying tendency is especially clear in his analysis of seminar XXIII, which spends more time rambling on in a rather romantic way about Joyce, rather than focusing on the novel new concepts that Lacan there develops. Harari's text would be defensible if it provided us with a brilliant and novel reading of Joyce in Lacanian terms, but it does not even manage that in that it restricts itself to the most superficial observations of Joycian texts... Observations that are immediately evident to anyone who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of contemporary literary theory. All of this produces a rather comic effect when Harari tells us that he is attempting to correct the rampant misreadings of Lacan promulgated by the Millerian school. How can you correct a misreading if you barely offer a reading yourself? It is likely that those curious about Lacan's unpublished seminars will continue to buy his work; but such people would do better to save their money and either read these texts in the French themselves or await their translations.