At the edge of itself and the other (the husband)

Si The husband continues the autobiographical cycle “observation” engaged with The saint of the familythere is nonetheless an autonomous and complementary book in the constellation that the writing of Patrick Aouréaux draws.

Why this autobiographical cycle? For example, We could ask ourselves the so much frequent question uses romantic possibilities from one book to another. However, also by taste for form, without necessarily attaching to the generic label. Therefore, One could undoubtedly sketch a possible answer in an increasingly strong. Similarly, firm way, in the Autreal writing, to inscribe the subject in history. Furthermore, So. For example, the autobiographical dimension would still not be read in the light of the little “me” – the author has a certain talent to avoid the traps of egotic narrations – but since the power of edge itself other (the husband) impulse of events on him.

In other words, at Aveurus, the “me” would always be a crossroads. For example, More specifically still, and to use a terminology specific to the author: a threshold, or a “borders”. Consequently, The “me”. Nevertheless, never deployed as a finished character or subject, says “I” only on the threshold of intersubjectivity, says “I” only on the edge of himself and the other, and since-say, inside-of the relationship. However, The image then is made, space of the meeting and perpetual movement.

The husbandin an even more lively way, accentuates this practice since the novel opens with a marriage, acme of institutional recognition edge itself other (the husband) of the romantic relationship, but of a marriage which carries with it a geographic in motion. Furthermore, Throughout the book. However, Autreaux tells not the “me” but the discovery of the conflictual in-laws, its roots and its culture, Hebrew, its political positions too. Consequently, So many possible subjects of discord which. Nevertheless, under the prism of difference, become without complacency meeting spaces with the character of the husband. Similarly, Which attracts us to recognition. Consequently, “” (J) ‘calls recognition what makes you a similar, an ally », Writes Anne Dufourmantelle. For example, How does the husband get similar? Nevertheless, What learning of the similar and the Ally Freer does it work in writing? For example, What. in the already there and not known of the husband nourishes the love and the relationship which one would always be and on the edge, because individually otherwise other, and inside?

« I looked at you, it is the suffering that I saw – a disappointment does not want to formulate itself: that of a child who no longer feels loved how far he thought he was. Abandonment whose parents could not alleviate injuries by trying to make efforts, as they said.

To help you better and listen, you will have to detach myself from the fascination for this culture that I had idealized by falling in love with you, and which had revived my questioning on this face that no text describes. We also had to decide our marches – which occurred after a few tremors of life – to emancipate us. allow me to better see the beauty of the spiritual purity which was forged by your side. »

The romantic discourse that is exposed is a discourse of the relationship and the bond that is based on the lively desire of the other as a great different. This difference interests in that it arouses a decentering. vertigo, it interests in that it awakens in us the possibility of recognizing something non-us. This non-us is not the truism of an attraction of opposites. a reverse polarity which would necessarily be complementary, it is recognition a posteriori of a communism of hearts, by the similar, the ally.

« And then you arrived in my life. Rarely since, we will have been far from each other. You will have been a lover, friend, brother and husband. You liked my youthful body. its greed and edge itself other (the husband) its impatience; You liked my sick body, another fever; You liked a balafred body and you whispered: you are beautiful; You liked a body that abandoned you and came back to you; You like an aging body. I could speak for a long time of your eyes. your lips, a grain of beauty on your arm, the veins of your hands, your breathing belly, whispers in the evening and also of this pinch that strangled your tears when you thought that I was going to leave you for another. I could talk about your smile and your eyelids when you sleep. I like the letters of your first name. They are full of crumpled breaths. pleasant mute, they hide herbaria and granite gates, they are fragile and unwavering like shadow; To spell them, I made a lot of stars of them. From your gaze comes the promise of this hour edge itself other (the husband) when everything is just what we do together. »

Writing, then, is archeology of self, weaves sons and links. Not a self -fiction. Not a justification exercise. But the discovery in the other of greater than oneself. the other as carries towards the world and in the love of the other all the love of the non -self. There. perhaps, the amalgamation between the narrative husband and the divine husband makes sense when the other becomes the great other. The first. certainly not occupying the position of a transcendence that would respond to anything, clears the obscure trails of a sensitive experience in the world. The character of the husband alone crystallizes a whole cartography of the Esides Me Féconde. which moves individual history and nourishes in the narrator the desire for difference, of the understanding of cultural otherness, and the need for historicity. If the gesture is edge itself other (the husband) in love, it is also ontological.

« I drink firewater on your eyelids. Body water that doesn’t need words, and this water is me. Is it to love? I meet you, and here is that stir what seemed to have been you. Any line becomes a spiral. Look how alive fire, as the water burns. To love is the surprise at the corner of our destinies. »

If the “me” is a threshold, in Autobiographical Autobiographical writing, it is precisely because it is above all the place where the phenomenon arises. Also. the relationship to history is moved because the phenomenon, which is the very encounter, infers the history and the possibility of the story.

History is also the authority of the divine as a unitary story, a prism of the narrator’s culture, opened by the other of the culture of the husband. But this question of a unity of which God would be the guarantor. is metaphorical interviewed by the discovery of an ability to tell the story yourself: to write.

In fact, the myth of the ego, in its demurgical dimension, gives way under the experience of literature, as the idea of ​​the divine gives in the possibility of writing as a link. When the story opens onto a wedding scene. he tears the possibility of thinking about his own cultural prism – let’s also say an education – to make vacillating. The other is doubt in us, he opens the breath of a decentering, he shows other spaces.

If the story of Patrick Autreaux is autobiographical, it would undoubtedly be negatively, because it opens on a “me” already there, whose layers he exhausts in favor of one story. The autobiographical is then always decentralized by the movement to the other. the love of an otherness of which we would always be both the edge and the inside.

Patrick AURREAUX, The husbandGallimard editions/Labor & Fides editions, March 2025, 208 pages, 20 €.

Edge itself other (the husband)

Similar articles