Muistiinpano. Hulluudesta II ...ja kirjoittamisesta. Ja yksinäisyydestä.

Vähän lisää Dunckerin Foucault-houreita. Skitsofreeninen kirjailija kuvaa tutkijalle hulluuttaan:

"No, talking about it won't make me ill. Or send me into a terrible crisis. It's a state of fear, of real anguish, extreme terrors. At first I found myself running, rushing, as if I was being chased. You imagine yourself sought after, persecuted. Then you begin to live what you believe in. The most terrifying thing though is the way in which the colours change. I saw the whole world in violets, reds, greens. Nothing was subtle any more; just primary, violent colours. You can't eat. It is as if there is pain, pain everywhere. You lose track of time. Like entering a tunnel of colours... I put on an act. You know that. You're right. A born exhibitionist. But when I was mad I wasn't acting. I couldn't express myself, except through violence. I felt I had to defend myself. It was as if I was being constantly attacked. And I felt that I had no substance. I was transparent. --- Then I began to hallucinate. I saw tanks on the streets of Paris. Gradually I could no longer distinguish the delusions and the reality. I was a stranger to myself. I was a stranger in the world." (Patricia Duncker 1996 Hallucinating Foucault, 108)

Keksitty kirjailija hallusinoi... Tästä tulee mieleen myös Virginia Woolf ja värit. Itsen liukeneminen maailmaan ja aistimuksiin. Tulee myös mieleen, että Duncker on varmaan nauttinut tasapainoilustaan teorian ja kirjallisuuden välimaastossa. Käyttää ideat ja kirjoittaa vapaana silti...

Sitten: prosessinalaisen subjektin - ja tekstin - vaatimus (à la Barthes mutta Dunckerin Paul Michel-kirjailijan muotoilemana):

"I make the same demands of people and fictional texts, petit - that they should be open-ended, carry within them the possibility of being and of changing whoever it is they encounter. Then it will work - the dynamic that there must always be - between the writer and the reader. Then you don't have to bother asking is it beautiful, is it hideous?" (Duncker 1996, 111.)

Lopuksi: Kaksi yksinäisyyttä: eheyttävä, uudistava yksinäisyys sekä hulluuden absoluuttinen vieraus, muukalaisuus toisista ihmisistä ja maailmasta:

"Well - there are two kinds of loneliness, aren't there? There's the loneliness of absolute solitude - the physical fact of living alone, as I have always done. This need not be painful. For many writers it's necessary. --- Being alone for most of the day means that you listen to different rhythms, which are not determined by other people. I think it's better so. But there is another kind of loneliness which is terrible to endure. --- And that is the loneliness of seeing a different world from that of the people around you. Their lives remain remote from yours. You can see the gulf and they can't. You live among them. They walk on earth. You walk on glass. They reassure themselves with conformity, with carefully constructed resemblances. You are masked, aware of your absolute difference." (Duncker 1996, 113.)

---

Ja tärkein vielä: kielen merkitys subjektille: suojamuuri:

"Maybe madness is the excess of possibility, petit. And writing is about reducing possibility to one idea, one book, one sentence, one word. Madness is a form of self-expression. It is the opposite of creativity. You cannot make anything that can be separated from yourself if you are mad. --- My language was my protection, my guarantee against madness and when there was no one to listen my language vanished along with my reader." (Duncker 1996, 125.)