From teaching to writing
Ricardou always took a radical stand against a biographical approach to writing. As he states in a short biographic note at the beginning of the “Postface” to his radio play, “Communications”, in ''Le Théâtre des Métamorphoses'':It must be said: however accurate, however factual such details might be, and despite their compliance with accepted autobiographical practice, they offer the reader strictly nothing of interest.After graduating from the Paris École Normale d'Instituteurs (teachers' college) in 1953, he taught reading and writing in a boys' primary school until 1961, then at a boys' high school in Paris where he also taught literature, history, science, and geography until 1977, and finally as visiting professor where he gave courses and conferences on his theory of the French New Novel in universities worldwide. However, as his teaching left him little time for his own writing, he resigned from the French school system in 1977 and only still accepted the occasional conference. In 1973 he obtained a degree in Modern Literature at the University of Paris VIII (Vincennes), then in 1975 a “Doctorat de 3e cycle, Littérature française”, and in 1982 a “Doctorat d'État ès-lettres et sciences humaines” (Toulouse-Le Mirail). From 1980 to 2016, he assumed part-time work for the International Cultural Center at Cerisy-la-Salle (France) as programs and publications advisor. Although he was already writing in primary school, his literary career began in 1955 when, intrigued by an unfavorable review judging Alain Robbe-Grillet's novel ''Le Voyeur'' incomprehensible, he decided to model his own writing on what was then just beginning to be known as the “Nouveau Roman”. His first novel '' L'Observatoire de Cannes'' was published in 1961 by Editions de Minuit. In 1966, his second novel, '' La Prise de Constantinople'' (Minuit, 1965), was awarded the Feneon prize for literature. Ricardou published his first book of critical theory,
Fiction
The importance of Ricardou's theoretical works tends to distract attention from his fiction (novels and short stories). Nevertheless, a statement he made many times throughout his lifetime should be emphasized: the reason he devised his theory was to understand the fiction which came, partially beyond his conscious determination, from the act of writing itself. In his case, writing involved certain principles of generation and selection that he developed and amplified (and renamed) throughout the years, and his theoretical work was mainly based on his experiments in fiction writing, i.e. discovering what could be generated by the deliberate integration of certain formal procedures and constraints. Such supplementary structures, far from stifling inventiveness, actually provide stimulation to go far beyond that which, without these formal rules and principles, he might initially have imagined. The following quotation, from ''Révélations minuscules'', says as much (and more). Instead of an approximate and inadequate translation, one might propose as a paraphrase a sentence from Ricardou's 1971 conference at Cerisy, “Birth of a Fiction”: “The generative operations of similitude and of selection by overdetermination, far from restricting a supposed creative aptitude, are in fact the machinery whereby an entire production of elements and relations becomes possible”:Ce que personne, de nos jours, ne devrait méconnaître, (...), c'est avec quelle force les directives d'écriture, funambulesques maintes fois quelques-unes il est vrai, loin d'interdire, ainsi que les naïfs le croient, les mouvements de la pensée, lors confondue sans doute avec le vague à l'âme, savent offrir à l'invention, au contraire, et parce qu'elles lui posent, tout simplement, de très exacts problèmes, les meilleures des chances. (...). Mieux: telles supplémentaires structures, non seulement elles permettent d'obtenir, et beaucoup plus qu'on ne l'avoue, ce que fors elles on n'eût jamais conçu (et c'est pourquoi mieux vaut, que n'a-t-il susurré (si un temps suffisant, du moins, m'est consenti, je le ferai paraître un soir pour Mallarmé), de préférence à tout pyramidal recensement d'un univers imaginaire, fournir la stricte analyse des matérielles relations par lesquelles un poète imagine), mais encore, tel est le dos caché du mécanisme (...), elles conduisent quelquefois à produire des idées strictement étrangères, peut-être, à ce qu'on se figure avoir émis.Ricardou, Jean (1988). ''Révélations minuscules, en guise de préface, à la gloire de Jean Paulhan'', added to the second edition of ''Révolutions minuscules'', Paris/Brussels 1988, Les impressions nouvelles.His earliest writing, both prose and poetry (now archived at th
Ricardou soon adopted and considerably adapted the model of the early “Nouveau Roman”, with its non-realist, “creative” use of description, the interest of which, Ricardou put it, in a much-cited formula, lay less in “l’écriture d’une aventure” than in “l'aventure d’une écriture”. It was a technique, with voyeuristic male fantasies to boot, that Ricardou quickly made his own, and one he develops, with more rigor and ingenuity than ever apparent in his mentor, in his first novel, ''L’Observatoire de Cannes'' (Minuit, 1961). The inverse relationship between writing and referentiality thus laid bare (not for nothing did he call literary “description” a kind of “strip-tease”) soon became one of the hallmarks of his writing. Traditional plot and character, conspicuous by their absence, were replaced by an intricate quasi-musical web of textual and intertextual variations on selected motifs.Review by Leslie Hill, University of Warwick, in FRENCH STUDIES: A Quarterly Review, Volume 74, Number 2, April 2020, pp. 314-316, Published by Oxford University Press
''La Prise de Constantinople''
The many favorable reviews of ''L’Observatoire de Canne''s encouraged Ricardou to compose a second, much more ambitious novel, '' La Prise de Constantinople'', which was awarded the Fénéon prize for literature in 1966. The book was an innovation even for the New Novel movement. To start with, the titles on the front and back cover were not the same (''La prise/La prose de Constantinople''), inaugurating the wordplay that would characterize the entire novel, whose pages and chapters were unnumbered. Then, assuming Flaubert's project of “writing a book about nothing”, it began literally, as did the poem ''“Salut”'' (“Rien, cette écume, vierge vers”) that inaugurated Mallarmé’s collected ''Poésies'', with the word “rien”. As he explained:Nothing, one day, seemed more imperative to me than the project whose fiction would be constructed not as the representation of some preexistent entity, real or imaginary, but rather on the basis of certain specific mechanisms of generation and selection. The principle of selection may be called overdetermination. It requires that every element in the text have at least two justifications. (...) Elsewhere I gave the name generator of elements for a fiction to the couple formed by a base and an operation. The operations are numerous; I do not propose to list them here. (...) As for the base, it may be either a single word or a group of words. Since the book is supposed to be constructed without the establishment of any preexistent entity, what generative base can be chosen? It goes without saying that nothing is suitable, and that the book must be built upon nothing.Ricardou, Jean, trans. Erica Freiberg. “Birth of a Fiction”. ''Critical Inquiry'', vol. 4, no. 2, The University of Chicago Press, 1977, pp. 221–30, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342960Called by Lynn Higgins a superbook which “not only exploits its points of departure (puzzles, material givens of the cover design, generative wordplay), but also explores the enigmas of its own evolution and takes responsibility for meanings produced”,Lynn A. Higgins, ''Parables of Theory - Jean Ricardou's Metafiction'', Summa Publications Inc., Birmingham, Alabama, 1984, pp. 93 sq ''La Prise de Constantinople'' led the way toward a new kind of composition: the polydiegetic novel, i.e. “a text that combines different “stories” taking place in what are ''a priori'' incompatible space-time worlds. It also devised and endlessly refined a procedure that fascinated Ricardou all his life, from when, at 5, in his first year at school, the teacher had the class sing canons, and the staggered repetition was a revelation, as he later said:
À 5 ans, à l'école maternelle, on nous a fait chanter des canons, et j'ai tout compris. Tout. ''Frère Jacques'', décalé, la répétition avec une constante d'irrégularité: le récit, c'est ça.His emblematic painting, done around 1960, which hung over his writing desk for the rest of his life and may be seen in many of the photos of him taken to illustrate articles in the press (see “Infobox” above), was a depiction of this process which he described as “a procedure of duplication (or “rule of repetition”) integrating a constant of irregularity”. One finds, in ''La Prise de Constantinople'', many examples of its application to literature, such as:
Les fortifications proposent une matière bleuâtre, polie, lucide, distribuée en surfaces entrecroisées que gauchissent, multiplient et décalent divers effets de réflexions réciproques. À chaque déplacement de l’œil, des arêtes, des rentrants imprévus, à chaque déplacement de l’œil, des arêtes, des rentrants imprévus, des perspectives paradoxales se déclarent à chaque déplacement de l’œil, des arêtes, des rentrants imprévus, des perspectives paradoxales se déclarent selon un ordre incomplet qui pénètre l’esprit, à chaque déplacement de l’œil, des arêtes, des rentrants imprévus, des perspectives paradoxales se déclarent selon un ordre incomplet qui pénètre l’esprit et y accrédite l’idée qu’il existe un point de cet espace d’où il est possible de percevoir simultanément la convergence des rythmes de toute la configuration et d’en pénétrer les arcanes en tous sens à chaque déplacement de l’œil.Translation:
''The fortifications propose a steel-blue surface, polished, translucent, distributed in intersecting planes that are warped, compounded and disjoined by the effects of their reciprocal reflections. With each shift in focus, sharp edges, acute angles, with each shift in focus, sharp edges, acute angles, paradoxical perspectives appear in an incomplete pattern that pervades the mind, with each shift in focus, sharp edges, acute angles, paradoxical perspectives appear in an incomplete pattern that pervades the mind and accredits the idea that there exists some point in that space from which it is possible simultaneously to perceive the convergence of rhythms of the whole configuration and to penetrate its arcana in every sense with each shift in focus''.As Leslie Hill summarized the novel in his review of the first four volumes of ''L'Intégrale Jean Ricardou'':
Taking literally Flaubert’s remark about wanting to write “un livre sur rien”, Ricardou undertook to generate an entire novel if not from “nothing”, then at least from nothing other than its material instantiation. His own name, consisting of 4 + 8 letters, generated a series of mathematical ratios used in the construction of the narrative, as did its convergence with that of Geoffroi de Villehardouin, the chronicler of the Fourth Crusade which, as Villehardouin “wrote”, “took” Constantinople in 1204. The name and star emblem of Editions de Minuit contributed further textual pathways, as well as the names Ed, Ed. Word, or Edith. Other mechanisms were devised too, resulting in a constructivist labyrinth of literally Byzantine complexity. Such fictions were not just fascinating objects of reading, they were abyssal reflections on themselves, and the nothing of which they came.
''Les Lieux-dits'' & ''Révolutions minuscules''
While continuing to work on his novels, Jean Ricardou regularly published shorter pieces, essays and fictions, in various literary reviews, including the ''NRF'' (''Nouvelle Revue Française''), ''Critique'', and ''Tel Quel'', where he became a member of the editorial board in 1962. In 1971, he put together a collection of these stories, all written using procedures invented by the New Novel, in a book ironically name''Les Lieux-dits'' has a plot, and this distinguishes it from isother novels, all of which have either several conflicting plots or no story at all. The story is an outrageously improbable quest, however, whose vicissitudes are determined by word-play, by permutation of letters and of geometric shapes, and by the exigencies of its theoretical and didactic purposes. Germaine Brée calls this novel “a beautiful piece of work, impeccably constructed, a cross between a poem, a surrealistic dream and a critical meditation on the relation of language to reality.”
''Le Théâtre des métamorphoses''
Ricardou’s ninth book, '' Le Théâtre des Métamorphoses'', was published in 1982 by Le Seuil in the collection “Fiction & Cie”. It came after four books of theory and four books of fiction. After 8 previous volumes in two groups of 4, this ninth book was to receive a different name: a “mix”. The explanation of this neologism is given on the book’s back cover: it is a work of fiction and a work of theory at the same time, with poems and illustrations, parallels and rhymes, all interwoven in an assortment of registers, a sort of “Fiction & Cie”. It is not a "mixture" (a simple collection of disparate items), it is a “mix” (a precise texture of diverse components). As always, Ricardou's intention is to awaken the somnolent reader by a narrative continuously switching directions. As always, his goal is to teach the reader something, to provide a new text education. The combination of fiction (here with all its poetic and graphic adjuncts) and theory, although both types of writing are well known and easily identifiable, may seem disconcerting, but it is however understandable. What may seem disconcerting is not that one book combines two distinct types of writing, but rather that it combines two types of writing generally held to be incompatible. These two types of writing, fiction and theory, are usually considered to belong to two antagonistic or, at least, mutually exclusive systems. According to the cultural ideology prevailing at least until the end of the 20th century, with this “division of work” the two disciplines were separate, one excluding the other:Apparently today it seems that one has a choice only between two incomplete attitudes: either the “naive” (the artist, let's say, who “creates” without much thought ..or the “sterile” (the professor, let's say, who thinks a lot without much “creation” ...“Lire ce qui change”, entretien avec Bernard Magné, ''Affaires de style'', n°3, Bruxelles 1983The combination is nevertheless understandable. On the one hand, the “mix” is an attempt to overcome the “dominant model” that tends to separate art from theory. On the other hand, it is a direct consequence of the method characterizing the author of ''La Prise de Constantinople'' (1965) and of ''Problèmes du Nouveau Roman'' (1967), i.e. a systematic alternation between works of fiction and works of theory (and also a determination to do things in groups of 4 or 8). Thus his ninth book could only take on both practices together and combine the two:
These two separate activities are both found in my work, but only partly, so to speak, since they are found in separate books: novels or essays. With ''Le Théâtre des Métamorphoses'', they are combined in one and the same book. And I do say “combined”, not “assembled”. Because this book is not a “mixture” (a mish-mash), it's a “mix” (a calculated disparity). In other words, it's a book divided: a fiction, attempting to cast its spells (by means of suspense and strip-teases), and a reflection on the processes employed (by means of analyses and concepts).The book's radical innovation, which probably pushed writing to its limits, seemed to preclude a return to the previous simple alternation between fiction and theory. The ''Théâtre des Métamorphoses'' was to be followed, in 1988, by two collections of stories, published b
Theory
The ''nouveau roman'' literary movement and its novels were mainly theorized by Jean Ricardou who, in addition to his well-known theoretical works — ''Problèmes du Nouveau roman'' (1967), ''Pour une théorie du Nouveau roman'' (1971), ''Le Nouveau roman'' (1973), ''Nouveaux Problèmes du roman'' (1978) — also published several ''nouveaux romans'' himself: ''L’Observatoire de Cannes'' (1961), ''La Prise de Constantinople'' (1965, Feneon prize for literature in 1966), ''Les Lieux-dits, petit guide d’un voyage dans le livre'' (1969). Besides his own writing, he organized, directed and published the acts of several conferences on the ''nouveau roman'', including the famous 1971 conference and debate at Cerisy, published in two volumes: ''Nouveau roman : hier, aujourd’hui'', indispensable for an understanding of the history of that important period of French literature. Just before his demise in 2016, he was working on a book of interviews with Amir Biglari, in which he provides a complete, precise and objective account of the ''nouveau roman'' movement.Ricardou's first book of critical theory, ''Problèmes du Nouveau Roman'' (1967), bears a title exemplifying his way of thinking: he discerns a problem where no one else notices anything, and then proceeds to discover, within the text itself, the solution that nobody else seems ever to have noticed either. As Patrick Quinn put it:Every move icardoumakes has reference to specific details within the story. There is no overt or covert imposition of meaning, but rather a process of eliciting meaning from the particular details that ts authorused. What is astonishing is that Ricardou can fasten on what seem the most trivial of details and show, or at least put on a brilliant demonstration of showing, how these details are not inert but rather have an active function within the story as a whole.In ''Problèmes du Nouveau Roman'', rather than examining the usual overt or covert imposition of some realistic or psychological meaning and/or its supposed relation to the biography of the author, Ricardou devotes his analyses to the problems of description, metaphor and writing itself, as they are implemented in the production and organisation of the French New Novel, which he famously defines as no longer the narration of an adventure, but rather the adventure of a narration: "Non plus le récit d'une aventure, mais l'aventure du récit". Essays in ''Problèmes'' provide insight not only into New Novels by Michel Butor, Claude Ollier, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Claude Simon and Philippe Sollers, but also classics such as Œdipus Rex, ''The Fall of the House of Usher'' and ''The Gold Bug'' by E.A. Poe, ''La Recherche du Temps Perdu'' by Marcel Poust, as well as Borges and Novalis. His attentive examination of the texts themselves enables him to discover the dialectical relationship between fiction and narration, fiction not so much producing the narration as produced by it, and, in a sort of reverse role, ending up by challenging itself. In his second volume of literary theory, ''Pour une Théorie du Nouveau Roman'', Ricardou continues to develop his theory of the New Novel and applies it as well to classics by Flaubert, Proust, Poe, Valery, and Roussel, developing original theoretical concepts which will continue to evolve throughout his work. His third book of theory, ''Le Nouveau Roman'', now a classic, was ordered by the publisher Le Seuil as a textbook on the New Novel. In 1990 a new edition included excerpts from interviews with the new novelists themselves, a preface and an additional essay, born of an argument with Alain Robbe-Grillet, which goes on to describe the origin and evolution of the movement and then to examine the issues involved in literary movements in general. His fourth book of theory, ''Nouveaux Problèmes du Roman'', may be characterized by this quotation from Jean Paulhan:
Some solutions are stranger than the problems they were meant to solve, for the problem was only ONE question whereas its solution poses many more.(à suivre)
Complete works (in French): posthumous edition
Works of fiction (novels and short stories)
* Novel: ''L'Observatoire de Cannes'' (Minuit, 1961); ''L'Intégrale Jean Ricardou'' tome 1 (1956-1961), Les Impressions nouvelles, Bruxelles, 2017 * Novel: ''La prise de Constantinople'' (Minuit, 1965); ''L'Intégrale Jean Ricardou'' tome 2 (1962-1966), Les Impressions nouvelles, Bruxelles, 2017 * Novel: ''Les lieux-dits, petit guide d'un voyage dans le livre'' (Gallimard, Le Chemin, 1969; UGE, 10/18, 1972); ''L'Intégrale Jean Ricardou'' tome 4 (1969-1970), Les Impressions nouvelles, Bruxelles, 2018.See review of this volume iFiction (in English)
* “Epitaphe”, transl. Erica Freiberg, ''Chicago Review'', vol. 27, no. 3, 1975, pp. 4–8 * To date, ''Les lieux-dits'' (''Place Names: A Brief Guide to Travels in the Book'' translated byCritical theory (books)
*''Problèmes du Nouveau Roman'', Paris, Seuil, Tel Quel, 1967Critical theory (in English)
* “Rethinking Literature Today”, transl. Carol Rigolot, ''SubStance'', vol. 2/4 (Autumn 1972): 65-72. * “Composition Discomposed”, transl. Erica Freiberg,Mix (of theory, fiction, poetry, etc.)
*''Le Théâtre des métamorphoses'' (Seuil, Fiction et Cie, 1982)Textics
*About textics (in English)
Interview (with Michel Sirvent)Bibliography
Books * Lynn A. Higgins, ''Parables of Theory. Jean Ricardou's Metafiction.'' Summa Publications In., Birmingham, Alabama, 1984. * Michel Sirvent, ''Jean Ricardou (de Tel Quel au Nouveau Roman textuel)'', collection monographique en littérature française contemporaine 36, Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi, 2001. Préface de Michaël Bishop. 154 p. Articles * ''French Studies'', Volume 74, Issue 2, April 2020, Pages 314–31References
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ricardou, Jean 1932 births 2016 deaths French male writers Prix Fénéon winners