Nr. 3 (12) anul IV / iulie-septembrie 2006 - ROMDIDAC

The Embedded Meanings of ErasureThe etymological meaning of “erasure” (Latin past participle of eradere)attaches a more active role to erasure than it is usually thought: erasure is notonly connected with writing as a dependent operation on writing, which cannottake place without the previous act of writing, but also it can be an activityin itself. The process of erasure can produce its own signs, not necessarilyaltering the written signs. The modern definition, though, makes erasureinseparable from writing. At the same time, erasure puts into evidence thespace covered by writing and uncovered by erasing, the space that hostswriting and which is often ignored because of its peripheral role of supportingthe concreteness of writing.Derrida’s point of view in Dissemination adds another theoreticalconnotation to the meaning of erasing which is no longer the act that comesafter writing, destroying the signs of writing, but the writing itself. According toDerrida, writing erases the pure meaning, which cannot be attained by writing.Writing as “trace” which “erases itself in presenting itself, muffles itself inresonating, like the A writing itself, inscribing its pyramid in difference.” 1 Thus,two conclusions can be reached: first, writing cannot support the pure meaning;second, writing cannot achieve full completeness and clearness. In Writingand Difference, he goes further and states that writing indicates the physicalabsence of what it refers to and effaces writing subjects who identify withtheir writing itself. Writing is nothing more than a trace, but a trace, which canbe erased. Otherwise, it would have been “a full presence, an immobile anduncorruptible substance, a son of God, a sign of parousia and not a seed,that is, a mortal germ.” 2Reversing the Platonic perspective on writing, Derrida tries to minimizethe importance of the written text and to increase both the contribution of theauthor’s creative act, and the relevance of its shape and material support. Atleast some of his volumes prove his interest in the way his texts are placed onthe page and how this arrangement may lead to or away from the reading.When Erasure Becomes RelevantEditing ErasureEx Ponto nr.3, 2006From the perspective of the editor of a genetic edition, erasures are partof the work in progress as much as the text itself is. They put into evidencethe dynamics of authorial intentions since they indicate the places where theauthor shifts from one version to another, from one intention to another. Thus,genetic editions reveal more than the body of the text: they make visible themultiple layers of the process of textual creation and the fragility of the textunder the dis/constructive action of the writer.Hans Gabler’s genetic edition of Ulysses (1984) marks with a geometricalsymbol the spots from which the text was erased. The square with one diagonaldrawn from the right to the left is the symbol of a previous textual inscribingand then of a latter “rejection”. According to his theory, erasures are eventsthat occur in the writing process. They seem to be the counterpoint to thewriting, but still not necessarily marked if their only significance is that of makingroom for another text. Gabler seems unable to distinguish what is relevantfrom what is irrelevant; consequently he edits everything. In his attempt toget a “stable critical text”, Gabler preserves “variant records” because they80