Home › Posts

Jean-François Revel (1924–2006) sets out a number of paradoxes 🤔.

Translated from French.

Jean-François Revel (1924–2006) sets out some paradoxes 🤔. Speaking of Proust, for example, he assures us that in “In Search of Lost Time”, ‘time plays no part whatsoever in the narrative or in the progression of the story.’ 😨 That the theoretical argument of the two types of memory (voluntary and involuntary), borrowed from Bergson, is a cliché, and that there is nothing more tedious to reread than the episodes of reminiscence. 😰

Revel tries to take the Proustian reader by surprise. 😵‍💫 And to achieve this, he plunges headlong into his own dead ends right from the very first pages of this essay. For example, by choosing to ignore Proustian criticism, with the exception of Bernard de Fallois, whom he quotes without any critical distance or context. 📚

But the fundamental mistake Revel makes in seeking to challenge Proust – as if by claiming to return to the text and his own impressions as a reader – is to deliberately conflate Proust with his narrator 🤵🏻‍♂️🖋️. As if the Search were in no way a didactic construct. As if the work had neither a moral underpinning nor any structure other than that of a ‘hand-stitched’ work. 🪡

According to Revel, therefore, the narrator is Proust. And Proust is not a writer of fiction, but a chronicler 🗞️, a realist. The height of the paradox is that Proust’s metaphors are flat (Revel cites three chosen from amongst three thousand pages – which shows just how little concern he has for being exhaustive):

🖋️ “Whatever he himself may have thought, it is not when he is metaphorical that Proust is a great writer, but when he is direct; and it is not when he is a poet that he is original and has something to teach us, but when he is a realist, a storyteller and a chronicler.” 🥴

Fortunately, the book’s final sentence, which reads like a closing confession, puts everything back into perspective: “To speak of an author is to express, by drawing on his work, one’s own thoughts on the subjects he has addressed.” 🥸

QED.

#JeanFrançoisRevel #SurProust #MarcelProust #proustagram #RTP #LesCahiersRouges #BernarddeFallois #JeanSanteuil #ContreSainteBeuve #Albertine

Comments 8

Comments translated automatically.

On Instagram

  • P
    @pizzin.bertrand16 February 2025 · 2
    Bernard de Fallois is a very good analyst of Proust.
  • O
    @osouffledesmots3716 February 2025 · 2
    Subjectivity, which sometimes tends to lead to a dead end, at least from my point of view.
  • M
    @myriam_schaefer_new16 February 2025 · 4
    Just read it – that’s enough. I don’t understand a word of Revel’s ramblings; on the other hand, I understand Proust without asking myself that sort of question. I think that’s the best way to appreciate him – to read him over and over again!
  • S
    @shuraschwarz16 February 2025 · 3
    Proust appeals first and foremost to the reader’s sensibility. With all due respect to Mr Revel, one can do without analyses of the work, however brilliant they may be. And besides, one does not simply read Proust; one rereads him throughout one’s life until the work becomes the story of one’s own existence.
  • J
    @jp_marladot16 February 2025 · 1
    As far as I’m concerned, Proust is first and foremost a poet, not Revel… hug!
  • B
    @berthier_pierre16 February 2025 · 2
    That is indeed a strange point of view…
  • J
    @jeanmarc.quaranta16 February 2025 · 2
    I completely agree with this analysis of Revel’s book!
  • M
    @maryline_begot21 February 2025 · 1
    QED, yes!

Leave a comment

Comments are reviewed before they appear. Your email is never published — see the privacy policy.

The Proustagram newsletter

New posts, articles and essays in your inbox — now and then, never too often.

Unsubscribe in one click from any issue. Privacy.