FORGOTTEN MANUSCRIPT by Sergio Chejfec — reviewed by Thomas

Forgotten Manuscript by Sergio Chejfec (translated by Jeffrey Lawrence)

Chejfec considers his sturdy green notebook essential to his writing, even though he doesn’t often write in it. The notebook represents to him all the things that he has not written and it preserves the possibility of writing them. “The notebook becomes the evidence of what one has failed to write rather than of what one has already written,” he says, or, rather, writes, not in the notebook but in Forgotten Manuscript, a printed book, though it was not yet printed when he wrote it. What is the process by which text comes into being, and how do its various states affect its meaning? The sturdy green notebook is Chejfec’s most precious object, he is a writer after all, and uses the notebook, somewhat talismanicly, if that’s a word, to make contact, somehow, with the “quiet textual mass that lurks behind the whiteness” of its pages. Anything that he writes upon the pages of the notebook is by definition unfinished, embryonic, tentative. This is what Chejfec likes most about being a writer and this is why the sturdy green notebook is his most precious object. “Does this mean that the things we cherish most are the things that are most indeterminate?” he asks. The printed book entitled Forgotten Manuscript is full of speculations by Chejfec on the contrasting merits or functions, or propensities perhaps, of the various states, as we have called them, somewhat presumptively, of literature, so to call it, or text, rather, perhaps, if that makes any sense (the book perhaps makes sense where the review perhaps does not (we can only hope)). Why is it that a manuscript has “come to represent the auratic and irreplaceable source of the work”, when it is inherently incomplete, fluid and tentative? The manuscript is seen as the quintessential expression of the author’s intention, but really the author intends to be relieved of the words, which happens only when they are made immutable and printed (however much they may then be regretted). Nothing otherwise is ever finished and we can be relieved of nothing. Maybe I take a negative view of writing that is not shared by Chejfec, but there is much good thought to be had when reading Chejfec and much further reading or thought that can lead outwards from that reading. Sometimes I was not sure whether the ideas I had when reading Forgotten Manuscript were Chejfec’s or my own, and this is how it should be, this is what reading should lead to, the reader immersed in the work finds themselves subject to and the generator of ideas (so to call them), what more could you want? Chejfec has several things of interest to say of the differing functions of printed (material) and digital (immaterial) texts, their effect upon both reading and writing, what we could call the writing-reading complex if we wished to be obtuse) and on the kinds of literature (or literary experiences, perhaps) that they enable or constrain. “Immaterial writing (represented paradigmatically by the computer screen) encodes a friction between immutability (the promise of perpetual presence and the absence of material degradation) and fragility (the risk of a sudden collapse that would destroy the archive, and the constant danger of variation). There is an afterlife suggested by immaterial writing that is different from the afterlife suggested by material writing. Material writing persists as an inscription upon reality, on actual objects, and therefore it exhibits or prefigures its eventual death.”