English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article considers Valéry’s postulation ( Cahiers , 1923) that critics should work on discovering the « problem » experienced by the author consciously or unconsciously and decide whether it was successfully resolved. Three years later, Valéry added that critics should therefore concentrate their attention on the work itself and try to decipher all its meanings through close reading ( Cahiers , 1926). Through interviews and multiple exchanges with readers, Ferrier, the author, himself a seasoned critic, provides many reading clues. Such practices, however, threaten to kill critics’ efforts by turning them into parrots, less good than their master, and perhaps kept away from offering new perspectives. Also, another trap for critics is to take their own reading problems for those the writer might have had. The only solution is to reject the « affective fallacy » denounced by  The New Critics,  and to consider texts between author, narrator, contexts and critic. This article deals with  François, portrait d’un absent , and  Scrabble. Une enfance tchadienne.  The conclusion briefly examines Valéry’s negative attitude towards novels, wondering what his reactions might have been, if confronted, for instance, with Glissant’s or Ferrier’s poetic novels.

De Paul Valéry (« découvrir quel problème l’auteur s’est posé ») à une lecture de Michaël Ferrier