dans la solitude des champs de coton

One reason that Deleuze takes the theater as model for his theory of singular events lies in the fact that as a performing art (mine: opposed to seeing theatre as a mimetic art, which is, a representational apparatus to our world), the theater is based on presence, on actions and events happening live in front of our eyes, without always inciting us to attribute to them a representational status. This presentational, as opposed to representational, character is precisely what Deleuze needs for his theater of singular events, for these events form series of differences that cannot be reduced to a stabilizing identity behind them. But doesn't the theater nevertheless try to somehow represent a world? (Puchner, 2002)

現在正在寫接著這問題的部份（沒有很直接回答不過也差不多）。一直難產。上星期竟然不知道為甚麼，答應這禮拜弄出來給老闆看，一邊講其實心裡一邊想，wow, I will never make it。。。自討沒趣。。。（眼看著又要見她了。。。）

While Derrida’s insistence that any form of presence is forever interrupted and displaced in a chain of signifiers is derived from the fact that text displaces presence, Deleuze’s understanding of singular events is based on the precarious form of presence that characterizes live human bodies on a stage.

We can thus trace back the difference between Derrida’s (and Benjmain’s) textualism and Deleuze’s theatricalism not to a simple opposition between text and theater, but to a difference within the field of drama, namely the difference between the purely textual closet drama (mine: Mallarm’s unstagable plays for example) and the antitextual theater of the avant-garde (mine: this point is an oversimplification but beyond my capacity at this moment though will definitely come back to this (years?) later).

同樣一篇文章裡的後面兩段。（read: this blog is boring, especially for a Derrida fan. And, don't come anymore or skip any DG entry.）