The Author's Discourse of his Name

The author is an influence that a text can never separate itself from. Knowing the author’s name is a way that the reader knows the text; understanding comes from similarities uncovered that makes the reading feel a sense of companionship. When speaking with an author, one is speaking with a person and in human conversation the introduction is always the initial mode of interaction.
Foucault, in his work questioning ‘What is an Author’, can "…indicate that an author’s name is not simply an element of speech (as a subject, a comlpement, or an element that could be replaced by a pronoun or other parts of speech). Its presence is functional in that it serves as a means of classification" (What is an Author 1263). Humans feel that to know the name of something, (a type of food, an animal, another person) gives a deeper understanding of that thing’s essence. Certain and specific information, such as "…an author’s name on the book cover, a newspaper by-line, or the author information in a blog" (http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=40) increase the potential that a reader will find common ground with the text, and the author, they are reading.
When a person discusses a text that the person they are speaking to is unfamiliar with, the first question asked will be, "Who wrote that?" It is easier for a person to reference a work, and remember it, when they know who wrote it—this memory of a text does not come from its title or even its context.
"Discourse that possesses and author’s name is not to be immediately consumed and forgotten" (What is an Author 1264).
The blog is a form of representation in which a person does not leave their ideas alone, hanging on the precipice with no connection to reality. The influx in blogging proves that it is not only important to get information out to other people, but the source of that information as well. A blog is a direct classification of the author through its unique ability to represent a characterization of one's self.
"The uptake of blogs proves that reports of the death of the author are greatly exaggerated. The Author is alive and well, and has a blog" (http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=40)

Love is Narcissism

When discussing his own love life, Jaques Derrida is quite reclusive, choosing to avoid the topic altogether. He often changes the subject to one he believes important, for certainly, he feels it unimportant for those who are creating the documentary, and even those who are viewing it, to know any depth about his life and love.
The story of Narcissus is one of the ways he avoids the topic of his own love life. He uses this story to give a more intimate detail of his earlier topics such as forgiveness and the purity of a relationship and the love between people. He interprets the image of the story as one about sound; he believes that Echo’s repetition of Narcissus’ words comes from the ‘infinite love’ and care she holds for imagery, or the use of language to produce such imagery (Derrida Documentary).
It is from this love that Echo forms her own language, private and unique, but no less powerful than those able to speak their full minds. “In repeating the language of another, she signs her own love” (Derrida Documentary). Echo creates both the image of her love, and the concept of it—an entirely new language—through the words of Narcissus.
Derrida claims that Echo is blind, for “…as always with speech, one is blind” (Derrida Documentary). He relates this blindness to that of Narcissus who admires himself and “To see oneself is a form of blindness. One sees nothing else” (Derrida Documentary). “Echo and Narcissus are then two blind people who love each other.”
It is often said that love is blind—we choose not who we love just as we do not choose our family or ourselves. I believe this is the purpose of Derrida’s story although he does not make this as clear as it can be.
I almost get the impression that he has been blind in love during his life, or at least, he sees it this way.

Irony in Derrida

I feel that it is most obvious how the documentary, or any film, cannot portray the true character of a man like Jaques Derrida. From what I saw, I can think of several actions on part of the director and or producers that created more tension and gave the viewer different knowledge than they were trying to portray. I also feel that Jaques Derrida is avoiding the prospect of delving too deep into his own life. Everyone wants to deconstruct the life of The Deconstructionalist and I felt that he purposely withheld the answers to multiple topics in order to keep a sort of uncharacterized understanding of himself.
In some ways, I would like to think that one can learn more from the way Derrida refuses to answer a question, or from how he avoids the answer, than if he answered the question that the director asks. It is interesting that he can be so vague about his own life when that life was spent delving into the depths of Structure, Sign, and Play.
There is a much more intellectual sense when listening to Derrida speak about topics of his own choosing—the beginning of the film, when he speaks about his conception on time, the future and l’avenir, I felt that I was given the opportunity to share in the inner workings of his mind. I thought, ‘This is how Jaques Derrida thinks!’ And in some ways, even though it did not immediately make me understand deconstruction, I felt that I at least understood who it was that thinks in the manner needed to devise such an understanding of language and the human world.
The beginning scene where he is speaking about a predictable future compared to one that is unknown, I believe relates well with the later topic Derrida speaks of when recalling the questions asked of him and his psychoanalyst female friend. When Derrida is asked how he and his female friend met, there is a bit of awkward movement and looks between the two. Jaques then asks her if he should tell or not. “I’m not going to tell you everything. No, I’m just going to tell you superficial things” (Derrida Documentary). Derrida later says, when again asked about this earlier filming, that he likes the scene particularly because he and Marguerite did not say anything. He says that they, “think the same thing, but we do not say it” (Derrida Documentary). He still avoids answering the question for his personal life is not one that he would like deconstructed.
At times I have felt that the director does not accept Derrida’s refusal to let them dig deep into his life. There is the scene early on when Jaques’ past is spoken of; his brother who died and other personal and family information. A feeling I got from seeing his house, especially with him in it, as well as from the way he answered questions of family and love, that Jaques Derrida is a recluse.
Much of his thought is directed towards continual learning and he always takes his time to answer questions. The problem was that several scenes show him stalling from being asked the same question several times throughout the film. The directors chose to structure this film with scenes that show Derrida being forgetful and even angry about the process of creating the documentary. It seemed that the directors had a few specific goals for answers they hoped to receive and they would continue to hammer on Derrida to obtain the information they saw as important when he would instead stall and speak vaguely about what they asked only to turn the conversation towards the matters he finds important, which he could continue to speak about, in detail, endlessly.
Derrida is a person of absolute singularity, as he speaks of later in the film. People see him as an ideal, not the true character of his being. “Often, love starts with some type of seduction. One is attracted because they are like this or that. Inversely, love is disappointed and dies when one comes to realize the other person does not merit our love” (Derrida Documentary). This line of Derrida’s is what I believe explains his entire character, or his lack of character, that is shown on the film. He knows that people love an idea of him and to shatter that belief is not something he wants to, or can, do.
I want to call attention to an ironic comment I found later in the film. The narrator says that philosophy has died because of the violent way it exposed itself to non-philosophy. Is this not a structuralist concept, knowing a truth about something because of its opposite? It is so clear that this narrator is not speaking Derrida’s words and by saying this comment after he uses deconsruction to talk about his mother and her influence on his philosophy; he wants the female philosopher to have a place in deconstruction—he has already seen them in his view of the theory.