Daniel Bristow

A book on Joyce and Lacan is inevitably going to focus on the dreaded later period of Lacan's work, most notably, [b:The Sinthome: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XXIII|29277160|The Sinthome The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XXIII|Jacques Lacan|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1472826670s/29277160.jpg|2900394], in which he places Joyce at the front and center of his new theory of the "sinthome." Why is this period so dreaded? Because it is also the period of Lacan's work where he became less and less clear in explaining the twists and turns in his theory, preferring instead to make tortured puns, impenetrable mathemes, and worst of all, drew endless pictures of knots that supposedly, somehow represented the workings of the human psyche.

Despite its apparent impenetrability, the later work of Lacan has gained increasing critical interest and commentary. That is largely due to the efforts of Slavoj Žižek, who since the beginning of his career has been a champion of the later Lacan. Still, there have not been a lot of books about this period, and fewer still have there been critics who can actually write about it intelligently. I recently reread Raul Moncayo's [b:Lalangue, Sinthome, Jouissance, and Nomination: A Reading Companion and Commentary on Lacan's Seminar XXIII on the Sinthome|28862929|Lalangue, Sinthome, Jouissance, and Nomination A Reading Companion and Commentary on Lacan's Seminar XXIII on the Sinthome|Raul Moncayo|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1489700258s/28862929.jpg|49093487] and found it most unhelpful. There are also Roberto Harari's acclaimed [b:How James Joyce Made His Name:: A Reading of the Final Lacan|80302|How James Joyce Made His Name A Reading of the Final Lacan|Roberto Harari|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320398561s/80302.jpg|77543] and the collection [b:The Later Lacan: An Introduction|404678|The Later Lacan An Introduction|Veronique Voruz|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1349121960s/404678.jpg|394034], neither of which I have yet read.

To this point, though, the only intelligible explanation of the sinthome I have come across was in Žižek's [b:Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture|18911|Looking Awry An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture|Slavoj Žižek|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347257589s/18911.jpg|20256]. Daniel Bristow's book has helped to change that. Thanks to this book, I feel I have a stronger grasp on the key concepts of Seminar XXIII.

Bristow's book shows how Lacan's fascination with Joyce is connected to Joyce's resistance to psychoanalysis. As such, Joyce forces Lacan to approach psychoanalysis from the "other side" (l'envers) - an allusion to [b:The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis|75484|The Seminar of Jacques Lacan The Other Side of Psychoanalysis|Jacques Lacan|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347761146s/75484.jpg|73020] - and see how, against all expectations, Joyce finds a "solution" (the "sinthome") to the problems of psychoanalysis, especially that of psychosis.

Bristow is particular interested in an image that occurs in both Saussure and Joyce, that of a sheet of paper, which simultaneously represents one (one sheet) and two (two sides). Bristow connects this idea to Freud's mystic writing pad and Joyce's ideas to tease out the ramifications of this image.

The finest part of Bristow's book is Chapter 3, in which he looks at the transition from Joyce to the sinthome. Bristow is able to show convincingly how the sinthome connects to Lacan's ideas about jouissance, the subject, and the RSI registers in a way that moves beyond the structuralist, formal schema in order to create a paradoxical machine that produces singularities and contingencies. The similarity to Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalysis is particularly striking in this chapter.

The rest of the book increasingly focuses more on Joyce rather than Lacan, and with it my interest waned. I don't think this feeling can be attributed simply to the fact that I don't like Joyce much. Bristow, it seems to me, rather loses his theoretical focus, the illuminating development of the sinthome and lalangue and psychosis that make up the first half of the book.

Bristow's style is difficult and challenging, but it does have various moments of clarity and insight that make this book worth reading, especially if you are interested in finding out more about the later Lacan. I'm curious to read Harari's book now, to compare notes and see just how much sense can really be made of this period of Lacan's thought.… (mais)