Disaster: What's left to say when everything has been said, ruin speech, fainting writing, murmuring rumor, what remains without rest; always coming, always passed; historical out-of-the-story. Forget ordinary language: only exercise sublime irony (? Can be given that name) makes writing possible disaster. Forget all dialectic: only an acrobatic, intense exercise and excessive language (a word is always more than one word) enables a thought of the disaster.

Through this thought, sustained in an almost aphoristic, fragmentary writing that makes speak the language beyond itself (language of pure transcendence without any correlative, would Levinas) about Maurice Blanchot the reader to nuclear issues in his work: passivity as demand laden with responsibility as anonymous passion (I without me) that before the power and oppression responds with rejection, resistance and combat (the disaster is the only thing that keeps away the domain); the ratio of non-reciprocity with the other neighbor (which weighs upon me to open up to the radical passivity); as immeasurable friendship relationship (the outside united in its rupture and inaccessibility); the experience of death impossible (infinite patience of what is never done once and for all)?

fragmentary writing, but not tight: the thought of the disaster drags Blanchot a critical dialogue, at times with psychoanalysis (cast aside by the beautiful and captivating description, autobiographical, of a "primal scene" and his secret), at times with Hegel (that inevitable enemy), and especially with Heidegger (the use of etymology always in question); but also in creative resonance with Nietzsche, Kafka, Melville, Hölderlin, Mallarmé, Valéry and René Char.