'Why more accounts do not mention flies': Deconstruction, or the Corpse of Man Cut by the Insect.

"Why more accounts do not mention flies": Deconstruction, or the Corpse of Man Cut by the Insect This paper stages an encounter between certain moments of textual transgression, articulated in differing disciplinary registers, which intersect at the "exorbitant"[1] terminus marked by the figure of the "insect". I did not know exactly why these parenthetic carnivorous flies were so fascinating, even fabulous, until I chanced upon the "insect-asides" of Derrida.[59] In "Typewriter Ribbon", in the middle of a long engagement with Paul de Man's reading of Rousseau's autobiography, Derrida opens a digression: It might be worthwhile to ask whether the name "insect" is different from the name "animal", but this paper cannot pursue that thread.[96] Derrida notes that the word "insect" can mean both "linking up" and "cutting", tempting deconstruction to deploy it as one of those fulcrums turning on which it accesses a text.[97] In a way the divisibility of the I graphic mark i "insect", beyond semantic limits, makes it stand for a certain interval between "deconstructibility" and "undeconstructibility". [Extracted from the article]