In his introduction to the New Directions edition of THE BESIEGED CITY, Clarice Lispector’s third novel, Benjamin Moser, the man who has been most responsible for the recent upsurge of interest in this truly magnificent writer throughout the English-speaking world, suggests that her work, perhaps especially her prose, continually carries out what Wordsworth once said was poetry’s task, namely “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.” While I think that this is indeed fundamentally the case, I think we should ammend such a concession by noting that it is more purely the case insofar as concerns her first novel, NEAR TO THE WILD HEART, than it is as regards the two she wrote immediately after it. While THE CHANDELIER and THE BESIEGED CITY still utilize a sensorially rich stream-of-consciousness, operating most elementally as an ecstatic immersion in lived experience of a decidedly heightened nature, they are more ambitious undertakings, more challenging as such, with more to unpack. They were also less successful with critics and the public than was her debut. They ask a great deal of the reader and readers can be put off by such demands. Many of Clarice’s finest later works, and I think especially of THE PASSION ACCORDING TO G.H. and ÁGUA VIVA, are fiercely streamlined, conceptually contained, plainly profound, at times producing a kind of sublime incantatory spell, and as such have more in common with the intoxicatingly pure NEAR TO THE WILD HEART than they do those other two novels of the forties, each of which seems significantly more concerned with form, with thinking through structure and revolutionizing it, subverting conventional notions of what the novel can and ought to do. I read THE CHANDELIER last year and found it dazzling; if it is a radical and ambitious novel, THE BESIEGED CITY is even more so. THE CHANDELIER moves forward from NEAR TO THE WILD HEART by incorporating a more rigorous schematics insofar as concerns narrative and point of view. THE BESIEGED CITY likewise finds its author posing challenges to herself in terms of narrative construction, but does extremely radical things at the level of point of view, and embarking upon its tricky experiments finds a way to express new and radical ideas about identity, reality, succession, and community. Moser’s introduction to THE BESIEGED CITY is perhaps the most useful he has supplied for the recent New Directions Lispector editions. He talks about the central importance to the novel of horses and “things,” and how both horses and things, objects in general, become central to how the nominal protagonist, Lucrécia Neves, frames herself in her world, how she navigates each. There is the idea of the horse and the idea of unhorsing, obyezloshadenie, a concept borrowed from Isaac Babel, who wrote of the disappearance of horses, their replacement by motors, during the process of industrial modernization. Lucrécia Neves lives in the township of São Geraldo, and the novel depicts a process of modernization in which the town is first filled with horses, brought in to do work related to building and transportation, followed later by a subsequent emptying of the emergent city of said horses. Horse and woman are presented as the basic agents of building. São Geraldo is itself every bit as much a principal character in this novel as is Lucrécia Neves, herself both a becoming-thing and a becoming-horse. Lucrécia is in dalliance with thing and horse at the centre of a community in a condition of becoming, all of these elements resonating in a beautiful and highly characteristic passage late in the book: “Impossible love piercing her with joy, she who belonged to a man as she had belonged to things—wounded in the trunk of her species, standing, jubilant, rigid…Feeling on the surface of her skin thick horse veins. And Lucas, turning around to look at her: seeing her standing, isolated, in her equestrian grace.” There are repeated references to Lucrécia’s hooves, a continual positioning of her in terms of the “dominion of the equines.” Readers of Lispector’s debut novel will recall how it culminates in a vision of its protagonist Joana, a woman focused throughout the novel on fusing with pure material flux, herself transforming into a horse. Moser at one point in his introduction to THE BESIEGED CITY makes the very interesting observation that the Greek word for horse is álogo, a word also meaning “unreasoning, without speech.” Joana was herself a character who struggled with the insufficiencies of language, lamenting for example how the word “everything” fails to encompass enough. Lucrécia Neves has even less use for language. Lispector herself later wrote about how Lucrécia was a unique character in her novels; she is fundamentally uneducated and lacking what we would think of as intelligence, certainly not possessing anything like intellectual-creative ambition. If Joana and Virginia, the protagonist of THE CHANDELIER, are precocious and brilliant, not unlike highly-stimulated amateur philosophers assimilating the phenomenal world and postulating something not unlike burgeoning ontologies, Lucrécia is something else entirely, her inborn purpose born of the command to perceive rather than to prognosticate: “The main thing really was not to understand. Not even joy itself.” Moser writes about the proximity of the publications of THE BESIEGED CITY and Simone de Beauvoir’s epochal THE SECOND SEX, suggesting that Lucrécia’s relationship with things and their status as such coincides with her roll within a patriarchal apparatus, the to-be-looked-at-ness of the feminine object, her role as something to be possessed by men. While I think this is a point of comparison available for legitimate analysis, I think we need to go deeper here, as is so often the case with Lispector, a writer always operating at a limit, a depth, in dialogue with a beyond. “Things” always have a primary ontological status in Lispector. Already in NEAR TO THE WILD HEART we have Joana insisting on how “vision consisted of surprising the symbol of the thing in the thing itself.” If I have thought of later Lispector as fundamentally Spinozist, addressing the immanent material oneness of eternal creation, her first three novels are more fundamentally Kantian, fixated on the relationship between the noumena (ideality and the transcendental subject) and phenomena (things in themselves). The New Directions edition of THE BESIEGED CITY includes something of an appendix at the back, a valuable inclusion indeed, in which a fairly negative review of the novel published in Brazil at the time of its initial appearance is followed by Lispector’s response to that review, produced for her weekly newspaper column twenty-two years later (apparently the review had just come to be made known to her). In response to the accusation that her novel consisted of little more than extremely good poetic “phrases” and fleeting impressions, many perhaps of interest, failing to add up to a proper novel, Lispector writes: “The struggle to reach reality—that’s the main objective of this creature who tries, in every way, to cling to whatever exists by means of a total vision of things. I meant to make clear too the way vision—the way of seeing, the viewpoint—alters reality, constructing it. A house is not only constructed with stones, cement etc. A man’s way of looking constructs it too.” The world as synthesis born above all else of perception. Precisely because the evolving township of São Geraldo is every bit as much a main character as is Lucrécia Neves, what Lispector sees as the real subject of THE BESIEGED CITY is “collective construction.” Indeed. That is exactly right. Note this sentence in the novel itself: “Oh, but things were never seen: people were the ones who saw.” And of course the reader is also involved in this collective construction, making the whole practice all the more communal. What the novel is emphatically not about is the construction of rigid consensus reality. Lucrécia does not have much of a mental life, as we have already established. She is not invested in the work of imagination or the making intelligible of her relations within the context of a grander scheme. “Lucrécia who didn’t possess the futilities of the imagination but just the narrow existence of whatever she was seeing.” As such, the true radical break of THE BESIEGED CITY is that it is far less a novel of the inner life of a woman, the way we can still say NEAR TO THE WILD HEART and THE CHANDELIER are essentially that, and more a novel of the inner life of sets of relations, sets of relations provisionally named São Geraldo, in which Lucrécia occupies a central position (as builder, as becoming-horse, as becoming-thing). Horse, woman. Want to know the name of another great builder? We call this builder the Unconscious. Because she is not an intellect, because she operates beneath the seat of the intellect in a condition of oscillation and drift—subdural, subconscious, subliminal—Lucrécia’s inner life is that of the percolating Unconscious. As such the poetics of THE BESIGED CITY are more vaporous and diffuse than I have found them to be anywhere else in Lispector. That being said, Lucrécia is in consonance with São Geraldo itself, a microcosm that though not exactly a product of dream is very much built with heavy support of the Unconscious (derfracted across the inchoate field it straddles). This is why we are hardly talking about rigid consensus reality. The boarder between dream life and waking life is itself addressed. The chapter “In the Garden” commences with an evocation of falling asleep surrounded by objects from childhood. “A little camel. The giraffe. The elephant with raised trunk. Ah, bull, bull! crossing the air among the fleshy vegetables of sleep.” Falling into things is coupled here to falling into sleep, and the novel everywhere finds things suspended in a dripping syrup, constructed in cloudy movements, metaphors very often precipitating real material transformation. If Lucrécia is caprice and dreamy drift, São Geraldo and reality itself are constructed in kind. This caprice is interesting. A thing among things, often hijacked by fancies, committed to nothing but thingness and the raw content of experience, Lucrécia drifts through São Geraldo and drifts from man to man. She drifts from Felipe to Perseu Maria. Late in the novel we get to the chapter titled “The Exposed Treasure” and find that she is now Lucrécia Correia, wife of Mateus. She will be widowed. There will be Lucas. Her mother will write, sending word of yet another man, a hazy numeral x, and the novel will end with Lucrécia's flight in this man's uncertain direction. Lucrécia lives on Market Street, and she drifts through the free market of men and things on offer, bound to nothing but what passes through her senses, what she thereby constructs or helps to construct, if only in passing, if only sketching an ephemeral diagram. If São Geraldo is not a dream world it has something of a dream geography and is never fixed in place, not only because of the predations of progress but because of how unstable our constructions cannot help but be to begin with. Early in my reading of THE BESIEGED CITY I thought a little of Orson Welles’s 1942 film adaptation of Booth Tarkington’s THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, that preeminent Hollywood movie about the effect on a community of unhorsing and the rise of the motor, but the further I went into Lispector’s vision the more it reminded me of Bruno Schulz’s THE STREET OF CROCODILES, perhaps the greatest work we have of the slippages and propensity to spontaneously morph of an urban community build to the specifications of the fugitive Unconscious. It is not so much about retreating into dream as it is about unleashing the Unconscious on the day, or a suspension between these poles, a plane of tremulous, somnolent synthesis. “She finally fell into a deeper sleep. Awake as the moonlight is erect. She was sleeping so deeply that she’d become enormous. Dragging her body, searching.” Consider that passage, like as it is to something from Bruno Schulz. I believe I understand Clarice Lispector. At the heart of this understanding lies a conviction that when she writes that a character becomes enormous on account of sleeping very deeply, this is not a metaphor or a product purely of dream, but rather an event within the real, evidence of how creation opens itself to our creations as material fact. Does she mean that moonlight is literally erect? Certainly she does. We create into the world that is itself the infinite creating, the reader and the writer and the symbols on the page creating their concerto, and the horse seeing everything clearly. Lucrécia Neves may not know much, not being anything like an intellectual sort of a person, but she knows that a horse knows how to see a house better than the rest of us. So she knows a lot. There is no thing waiting there to be seen. There is only the thing we see. A transcendental synthesis. Okay. But the idea here is that you might best leave this seeing to the horses. I think of OUT OF THIS WORLD: DELEUZE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF CREATION, a book on Fench philosopher Gilles Deleuze in which Peter Hallward, its author, looks at the etymological connection that makes a "creature" and thing "created" and a thing "creating." A creature without language might well be a more adequate creater than a creature saddled (if you will excuse a term highly charged in this context) with language. Separation from the thing in itself is not just central to Kant but also to structural linguistics, lest we forget. Lispector would continue to move further in her later work from the transcendental subject and toward an immanentist spiritual materialism. It is no surprise that the poetic sensibility might have ocassion to take exception to our analytical containers, might even pause to compare them to prisons. Us people? How well do we ultimately creature? We have our moments. Our vision can definitely DO THINGS. But: “Like a bat the city was blind by day.” Well, that line might indeed be Clarice Lispector’s final word on what I previously called “rigid consensus reality,” a phenomenon wherein we comprehensively pull the wool over our own eyes, kill off the horse in us. What of the horse? Dehorsing, the motor, progress, the looming extinction we seem to have manufactured for ourselves? Well, of course you can take the horses out of the city with the caveat that at one and the same time you also cannot.