THE (W)HOLE IN THE TEXT: A HERMENEUTIC READING OF MARGUERITE DURAS'S "LA

PLUIE D'ETE"
Author(s): Lisa F. Signori
Source: Romance Notes , 2013, Vol. 53, No. 1 (2013), pp. 3-10
Published by: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for its Department of
Romance Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43803247

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Romance Notes

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE (W)HOLE IN THE TEXT: A HERMENEUTIC
READING OF MARGUERITE DURAS'S
LA PLUIE D'ETE

Lisa F. Signori

SUŁ&SŁ&SłJUŁSŁSUtJUtStJŁSUUŁStJtJŁSLitJtStJtJUL&JtJłJłJtJLfł.

Marguerite Duras's complex and varied oeuvre certainly escapes any

single interpretation, just as it does any single genre classification. The
body of critical literature on Duras is extensive, emerging principally
from a context of poststructuralism and postmodernism. Nevertheless,
Christiane Blot-Labarrère reminds us that "en même temps, on pressent
qu'il reste encore à dire et à écrire .... C'est la marque des œuvres d'im-
portance" ("Entretien" 75-76). A similar call for the continual interpreta-
tion of literary works resides at the heart of the hermeneutic project: for
Hans Georg Gadamer, a literary work continually opens itself up to new
interpretations which could not have been anticipated by its author or
contemporary readers. Interestingly, while hermeneutics as an analytical
approach is conspicuously absent from the critical literature on Duras,
one of her less critically commented texts, La Pluie d'été, actually offers
a meta-reflection on the hermeneutic process. Duras self-consciously
explores the tenets of hermeneutics through the devices of the plot and
invites the reader to approach the text this way. Much like the characters
in the story who adopt hermeneutic ways of understanding each other,
the reader can employ similar means to achieve new understandings
of the novel.
Quite an enigma, the fragmented story of La Pluie d'été developed
out of Duras's 1971 children's short story "Ah Ernesto!" With the help
of Jean Mascolo and Jean-Marc Turine, Duras made the story into a
film, "Les Enfants," in 1984. Subsequently she rewrote it once again
and in 1990 it was published as the short novel La Pluie d'été. The
principal story line of the novel follows an immigrant family whose

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 ROMANCE NOTES

numerous children do not attend

discovers a charred book with a ho
The eldest son, Ernesto, begins to
never been taught to do so. A t
Ernesto to school, but he leaves scho
leaving the classroom, Ernesto co
Eventually, he abandons his family f
international fame. While the lang
novel is easy to read, the meaning
tions in La Pluie ďété resist unders
er and try to understand each oth
comprehend what is being said. I p
tic approach to La Pluie ďété , the
complete understanding of the no
approach to a complex text, herme
the novel. But it does offer a compe
most difficult passages. And, in fa
mirroring what the main character
edge, as we attempt to fill in the ho
ble the parts into a coherent whole.
Originally hermeneutics was the ar
ture. In the 18th and 19th centuri
Ernesti (note that the name of the m
differs by only one letter), Friedric
transformed hermeneutics into the
tual interpretation for the humanitie
the hermeneutic circle, which refe
dialectical interaction between the w
other meaning. In other words, an in
from the context, or horizon, withi
composed of the individual elements
More recently, with the contribu
degger and Hans Georg Gadamer,

1 Seminal works by these writers include

er, Hermeneutics and Criticism and Her
Dilthey, Hermeneutics and the Study of His
Two cogent overviews of hermeneutics
"Hermeneutics."

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE (W)HOLE IN THE TEXT: A HERMENEUTIC READING 5

philosophical system.2 In Gadamer's hermeneutics, understanding is

always a form of dialogue, and meaning is produced in the interplay
between text and reader or between speakers engaged in dialogue.
Whenever we engage in dialogue, we do so from within our own hori-
zon, which encompasses our social and individual histories, that is, the
pre-knowledge that we bring to any dialogical situation. It is in dialogue
that a fusion of horizons can take place between individuals or between
a text and a reader, and hence meaning can be generated. Understanding
is not, for Gadamer, about reproducing some predefined, intended
meaning as accurately as possible; in fact, Gadamer's system rejects the
idea of a fixed meaning produced by a text or speaker alone. The mean-
ing of a text or of words spoken in dialogue is never only a function of
the original intention of the author or speaker, but rather dependent on
the historical situation of the reader or listener as well.
Perhaps the most fascinating and extreme instance of Duras 's meta-
reflection on the hermeneutic process in La Pluie ďété occurs when
Ernesto learns to read without being taught. Before then, Ernesto's hori-
zon is severely limited in that he cannot engage directly in dialogue with
any written text. Never having attended school, never having learned to
read, the ability to decode a text is beyond his knowledge and experi-
ence, beyond the limits of his personal horizon. What Ernesto does first
is expand his horizon by providing himself with the necessary pre-
knowledge to enter into dialogue with a text: he teaches himself to read.
In the words of the narrator, "Il avait donné à tel dessin de mot, tout à
fait arbitrairement, un premier sens. Puis au deuxième mot qui avait
suivi, il avait donné un autre sens, mais en raison du premier sens sup-
posé au premier mot, et cela jusqu'à ce que la phrase tout entière veuille
dire quelque chose de sensé. Ainsi avait-il compris..." (16). Ernesto's
understanding is a referential operation: he understands each word first
by intuiting a meaning for it and then by comparing it to the other words
he had already understood, to see if it makes sense in relationship to the
immediate context.3

2 See Heidegger, Being and Time and Poetry, Language, Thought ; and especially
Gadamer, Truth and Method.
3 Schleiermacher saw that understanding is partly comparative and partly an intuitive
matter, and that the hermeneutic circle necessarily assumes an element of intuition. Put
differently, "by a dialectical process, a partial understanding is used to understand further,
like using pieces of a puzzle to figure out what is missing" (Palmer 25).

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6 ROMANCE NOTES

In fact, in this episode Ernesto ente

two intertwined hermeneutic circles:
the other the process of coming to un
burned book. First he interprets ea
sequence, as the narrator described,
understanding of the semiotic code w
then becomes the first area in which a fusion of horizons between him-
self and the text can take place; it is the first area of common knowledge
that Ernesto and the text share. This in turn allows Ernesto to enter the
dialectical space of the next hermeneutic circle, which comprises his
dialogue with the text's message. Ernesto can interpret the various parts
of the text and through them achieve a degree of understanding of the
whole; he can use that knowledge in turn to verify and refine his under-
standing of the parts: this is, precisely, the hermeneutic circle.
In the case of the burned book, however, there is an additional factor
that complicates Ernesto's ability to understand the book: "dont une par-
tie avait été brûlée de par à d'autre de son épaisseur ... Le trou ... était
parfaitement rond. Autour de lui le livre était resté comme avant d'être
brûlé...." (13). Because of the way the book had been damaged, Ernesto
was able to read only part of the story of "un roi qui avait régné dans un
pays loin de la France, ... il y avait très long-temps de cela" (16). Never-
theless, when he stepped outside the hermeneutic circle and verified his
understanding of the book, first with a neighbor and then with a teacher,
"les deux avaient dit à peu près la même chose, que c'était l'histoire d'un
roi" (17). Ernesto had indeed arrived at an understanding of the story
being related in the available text of the burned book. At the same time,
he achieved only a partial understanding, because the hole made it
impossible for him to read the entirety of the original text. He never had
the ability to realize any final, conclusive meaning in the text.
According to Gadamer, understanding is always a form of dialogue,
and meaning is produced in the interplay not only between text and
reader but also between speakers. Ernesto first engaged the burned
book in a dialogue and arrived at a level of understanding. Later his
younger siblings engaged him in dialogue to learn about the book, and
they also arrived at a level of understanding (55-57). Their understand-
ing was different than Ernesto's - it must be - because the pre-knowl-
edge that each sibling brought to the dialogue was less than his, and
Ernesto's imperfect knowledge of the book limited his ability to

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE (W)HOLE IN THE TEXT: A HERMENEUTIC READING 7

explain it. In this case, we see the degree to which the meaning of a
text or of words spoken in a dialogue is conditioned by the historical
situation of the reader or listener.
Not every verbal exchange between characters in the novel results in
the generation of meaning. If the listener in a dialogue does not possess
the pre-knowledge necessary for a fusion of horizons, then no under-
standing can be reached. Urged to attend school by the teacher who con-
firmed his reading of the burned book, "Ernesto était donc allé à l'école
municipale Biaise Pascal de Vitry-sur-Seine" (18). He attended for ten
days; he listened to the teacher closely; he asked no questions; and on
the tenth day, he left the school and returned home. In a conversation
with his mother, he explains why he left school, but his explanation
leaves us momentarily confused: "[Maman], je retournerai pas à l'école
parce que à l'école on m'apprend des choses que je sais pas" (22). We
the readers are not the only ones who cannot initially comprehend
Ernesto's statement. Several days later, the father tries to explain it to
Ernesto's teacher:

L'instituteur: D'abord: est-ce que votre enfant, Ernesto, dit pourquoi il ne veut plus aller
à l'école?

Le père, temps: Justement ... oui ... C'est là qu'ça s'bloque. C'est ce qu'elle essayait
d'vous dire... Il dit. Tenez-vous bien Monsieur. Il dit: je retournerai pas à l'école
parce que à l'école on m'apprend des choses que je ne sais pas.
L'instituteur, réfléchit. Il dit: J'comprends pas. Rien. (63).

If we apply a hermeneutic approach to understanding, Ernesto's state-

ment does begin to make sense. If Ernesto lacks the necessary pre-
knowledge with which to engage in dialogue what he is being taught -
the class lessons, the class "text" - then he has no context from which
he can intuit the meaning of new ideas. There can be no fusion of hori-
zons, no understanding, no learning.
Hermeneutically speaking, understanding emerges from a non-
adversarial dialogue in which both parties desire to achieve understand-
ing. From this perspective, one sentence stands out in the description of
Ernesto's ten days at school: "Il n'avait pas posé de questions" (19).
Ernesto in this case chose silence and thus prevented a dialogue from
developing. In refusing to engage the teacher or the other students, he
impeded the hermeneutic process and made it impossible to arrive at
understanding. In that situation, even a small overlap of horizons

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 8 ROMANCE NOTES

between Ernesto and the teacher could

process.4
Just as fascinating as the dialogues within the story of La Pluie
ď été is the one between the novel and its reader. In this multi-faceted
dialogue, we engage the novel via its parts as we attempt to create
meaning and arrive at an understanding of the whole. To illustrate how
this works, I return to the burned book, for it comprises a cornerstone
image in our interpretation of the novel. The burned book, Anne Cheva-
lier affirms, is "the generating center of the whole of La Pluie ďété.
The discovery of the book and the reading of it are the events which
constitute the basic weave of the plot.... It is, in every sense, the book
to be deciphered ..." (153-54), and at every turn the process of deci-
phering shows itself to be a hermeneutic process. If this is true of
Ernesto's efforts within the story, it is equally true of our efforts as
readers of the novel.
Nowhere in La Pluie ďété is the burned book ever identified by
name as the Biblical story of Ecclesiastes. It is only in the course of our
ongoing dialogue with the novel, conditioned by the breadth of our
horizon, that we arrive at understanding this part of the whole text.
Conditioned, because our interpretation will generate meaning only
insofar as our pre-knowledge can illuminate what the text is saying in
the fusion of our respective horizons. Once we have identified the
burned book as Ecclesiastes, we can use that knowledge to make con-
nections to other images and ideas in the novel, such as identifying the
tree that Ernesto contemplates as the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, to
mention just one possibility. Hermeneutically, since understanding
comes in degrees, we interpret the parts of a text to achieve a measure
of understanding of the whole text, then deploy that measure of under-
standing of the whole text in order to refine our understanding of the
parts, thereby refining our understanding of the whole text, and so on
(Forster 5-6).

4 Interestingly, Ernesto later does manage to learn while at school and he does so
without engaging in direct dialogue with any teachers. He stands outside, listens to what
is being said in the classrooms, and learns. The difference may be that, in the latter case,
Ernesto can engage in dialogue with the "text" of the classroom discourse, because he is
constantly expanding the horizon of his intellect, and also because he chooses to do so.
His leaning in this case resembles reading a book more than having a conversation, but in
hermeneutic terms it is a true dialogue from which Ernesto desires to come to under-
standing.

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ( W)HOLE IN THE TEXT: A HERMENEUTIC READING 9

In La Pluie ďété the words that have been obliterated by the hole in
the burned book remind us that we cannot ever recreate a predefined
meaning when we interpret a text. The hole serves as a metaphor for
what is always absent in any interpretation, which is the possibility "of
directly reproducing either text or spoken word to achieve the original
intended meaning" (Sammel 160). This impossibility is not a shortcom-
ing, however, for it is precisely what allows readers of different cultures
and different generations to create meaning when they engage in dia-
logue with a text.5 The dialectical movement between parts and whole in
the hermeneutic circle leads to an understanding which is a fluid, mal-
leable understanding that continues to evolve.
By the latter part of the novel, Ernesto has recognized the process
that leads to understanding and is able to express it - in his own way -
to his mother:

La mère: La chimie ... tu comprends la chimie maintenant?

Ernesto: On comprend d'abord un petit peu ... quelque chose ... et puis tout. Au début,
c'est lent et puis un jour on comprend tout. C'est d'un seul coup . . . c'est foudroyant. (92)

His words describe not only how he came to understand chemistry, but
reflexively how we the readers interpret La Pluie ďété' our learning
begins in that space where our horizon fuses with another, and as our
horizon expands we can understand more and more. Furthermore,
Ernesto seems to comprehend and point us toward the dialogic process
by which learning takes place. Via that dialogic process in the hermeneu-
tic circle, he ultimately comes to realize the limits of learning:

Ernesto: Je voulais justement vous le dire, j'en suis dans les derniers jours de la connais-
sance, Monsieur.
L'instituteur: Vous dites quoi, Monsieur Ernesto . . . vous en êtes à quoi. . .?
Ernesto: À la philosophie allemande. J'avais envie de vous le dire ... Pour moi, après, il
n'y a plus rien ... (113)

5 In her article "The Book and the Tree: Writing the Self in Marguerite Duras 's La
Pluie ďété," Anne Chevalier addresses this same topic. More than the twentieth-century
linguists and postmodern critics she invokes, however, I find her analysis of the meaning
of the hole in the burned book reflects Gadamer: "True reading is invention, the creation
of a continuity between words which constitutes meaning where before there were only
isolated fragments. The mutilated book is accidentally fragmentary, but the intrinsic dis-
continuity of the written word is fundamental: meaning cannot emerge from a 'full' text,
for without fissures reading cannot gain a purchase" (156).

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 10 ROMANCE NOTES

La philosophie allemande: German phi

stand it as anything other than herm
Ernesto, Marguerite Duras points us to
that will enrich our reading not only
works.

College of Clarleston

Works Cited

Blot-Labarrère, Christiane. "Entretien." Marguerite Duras, entre littérature et cinéma :

trajectoires d'une écriture. Jean Cléder. Rennes: Ennoia, 2003. 75-76.

Chevalier, Anne. "The Book and the Tree: Writing t

Pluie d'été." Subject Matters: Subject and Self in F
to the Present. Eds. Paul Gifford and Johnnie Gra
145-61.
Dilthey, Wilhelm. Hermeneutics and the Study of History. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1996.

Duras, Marguerite. Ah Ernesto! Vannes: Harlin Quist/R

Marc Turine. Productions Berthemont, 1985.

Ernesti, August. Ernesti's Institutes. Trans. C.H.

Forster, Michael N. "Hermeneutics." The Oxfo
Eds. Brian Leiter and Michael Rosen. New Yor
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New
Heidegger, Being and Time. New York: Harper

Palmer, Richard E. Hermeneutics. Evanston, Northw

Sammel, Ali. "An Invitation to Dialogue: Gadamer
Critical Environmental Education." Canadian Jo
8 (2003) 155-168.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Hermeneutics and C
1998. Print.

6 It may or it may not be a simple coincidence that Ernesto used a hermen

process to interpret a Biblical text when he read the burned book.

This content downloaded from

196.21.233.64 on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:03:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms