延异之塔：重读希利斯?米勒的文学阅读观（英文）

迈克?希尔

Abstract： While abroad in Wuhan in 2005， I discussed the future of literary studies in the current era of globalization with J. Hillis Miller. This paper reconsiders the question of “deferral” of literary studies through the analysis of Millers rethinking of literary studies in the era of digital media. Given the withering of English departments in the U. S. in recent years， Miller distinguishes the relationship between literary criticism and cultural studies. Through further pursual of the distinction between ideological and real relations， Miller posits an theory of aesthetics uniquely positioned in relation to the real. From here， he joins the future development of literary research to the predicament of going abroad， which enables meaning to move in multiple directions. Millers regular travel to China， as a kind of estrangement that is compatible with the field of literature itself as existing in a moment of displacement and “deferral”.

Key words： Hillis Miller; literature; reading; culture; reality

Author： Mike Hill is Professor of English at State University of New York at Albany and a renowned literary critic. He has published many books， including Whiteness： A Critical Reader （1997）， Masses， Classes， and the Public Sphere （2001）， After Whiteness： Unmaking an American Majority （2004）， and The Other Adam Smith （2015）.

标题：延异之塔：重读希利斯·米勒的文学阅读观

内容摘要：在2005年的武汉之行中，我与希利斯·米勒讨论了文学研究在当今全球化时代下的未来路径。本文通过分析米勒当下的文学阅读观，重新思考了文学研究在数字化媒体发展时代“延异”的问题。米勒关于文学阅读与生活的思考，区分了文学研究与文化研究之间的关系，进而提出了文学研究在新时代语境下如何发展的问题；随后，通过对现实和现实主义的思考，米勒指出文学中对意识形态问题的思考应更多地与现实相结合；同时，文学研究未来的发展与研究者定期旅行相关联，旅行使意义得到规模性的发展，文學的更新往往通过疏离来实现。米勒的中国之行，作为一种疏离，同样帮助他扩展了文学研究的路径。在当下的语境下以“延异”的视角重新解读米勒对文学的阅读，为未来的文学研究提供了一种新的视角。

关键字：希利斯·米勒；文学；阅读；文化；现实

作者简介：迈克·希尔（Mike Hill），纽约州立大学奥尔巴尼分校英语教授，著名文学批评家。他著述丰富，包括《白人性：批评读本》（1997）、《群众、阶级与公共领域》（2001）、《白人性之后：还原美国的多数人》（2004）、《另一个亚当·斯密》（2015）等。

What， Me Worry？

Moreover， worrying about whether literature any longer matters seems a trivial pastime in a globalized and telecommunications-dominated world of financial meltdown; double-dip recessions; unemployment in the United States; a 15.1 percent poverty rate and crumbling infrastructure in the United States; political chaos in many countries; and catastrophic human-caused climate change.1

—J. Hillis Miller

This essay draws on an idiosyncratic archive. Of Millers vast and varied corpus， I refer to only five monographs， one chapter in a multiply authored book， and primarily， a volume containing 15 chapters originating as invited talks and plenary speaking engagements in China. The 15 chapters span a period between Millers groundbreaking address to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 1988， and his talk on World Literature at Tsinghua University and again at Peking University， both in 2012. The title of this volume， punning on the notion of being “in a foreign country，” a well as “not on target; astray; [as] in error，” is not-so-innocently called： An Innocent Abroad. This is partly an allusion Mark Twains Innocents Abroad” （IA xxv）. But in addition to connecting travel and error with this canonical American ironist， Millers characteristic understatement and trademark humility is clear when he assures us， “nevertheless， gradually over the years and through many visits， I began to get the hang of things there a little” （IA xxv）. Getting the hang of Miller in China recalls Tom Cohens observation about his “tone of reply， not defensive， not bothering to play or not play the game…， celebrating the ‘joy of unshackled reading modes and their exfoliation.”2 Cohen， my Chinese ticket-to-ride， remarks too about Millers “secret power，” his treatment of “justice，” and his ability to “remind everyone with ears what abysses may be spoken from and for with Hillis” （“HD” 1）. Justice and the abyss， not to mention the so-called joy of reading： How could these items be spoken in the same breath？

I got the hang of Miller—a little—after hearing the Chinese lecture revised as chapter 10 of An Innocent Abroad. There he was， “trying out [his] ideas on a distinguished Chinese audience”; and there we were， a handful of less distinguished foreigners lucky enough to end up in the mix. The lecture Miller was trying out addressed literary studies and globalization. It occurred in 2005 when the unlikely paring of “the global” and “the literary” were conceptsstill up for grabs. Implicitly for Miller， global literary studies were very much the right ofChinese scholars to help the rest of us devise. In retrospect， its oddly coincidental that thispresentation occurred at Wuhan University， located in a city of both foreignness and trials-anderrorsinsofar as Wuhan is now illusorily painted in Western pop-media as the locus horribilusfor COVID-19. Not incidental to this later viral scene， Millers commitment to dissolving theerroneous conception of humanity as the fulcrum and master of ecological existence comes tomind. We cant help reverse engineering the concept of Wuhan as a form of intimacy in error：The beginning of a virus， the World Health Organization tells us， was transmitted through fatalcontact between a person and a bat.3

A certain portion of my idiosyncratic archive is my memorys mutation of Miller，COVID-like， after all thats passed between being abroad in Wuhan with him in 2005， andbeing scheduled to go there again during my own lecture tour just weeks before COVID. Now，in 2022， dubiously sealed against the viral spread within a suffocating prophylaxis of post-Trumpian U. S. A.， I see Wuhan up close and yet still from afar. Its been a long time sinceI met Miller in China， and it was relatively brief. Given his passing in 2021， I wonder nowabout the significance of our unforeseen conversation， rambling through the hills surroundingWuhan around twilight at a surprisingly accelerated clip given the humid heat， with nodestination in mind. Besides an example of “the most extraordinary metabolism” （“HD” 2），this scene， too， presented a strange kind of intimacy. I remember complaining in line with theepigram above about the demise of literary studies， poverty， academic and more traditionallyvocational forms of un- and under-employment， political chaos， and given the unfathomablesmog depriving us of much needed oxygen， what Miller also calls above， catastrophic climatechange. His off-the-cuff response to my litany of complaints， which would find its wayverbatim into one of the published Chinese lectures， was this—and he was smiling： “I feel likeAlfred E. Newman from MAD Magazine： ‘What， me worry？” （IA 234）.4

I remember disliking this response in the moment， and true to the titular reference ofhis own idiosyncratic archive， it sort of exasperated me. Ill say more about the Wuhan walk，its intimacy in error， the later appropriateness I discovered beyond my initial exasperation inreading Miller as he reads literature now， in later parts of the essay. For now， keep in mindthe two of us somehow ended up at The Pagoda of Deferral. Wuhan is a city famous for itsancient pagodas. One of them， Xingfu Temple Pagoda， was built in 1270， during the SouthernSong Dynasty. This structure is referred to by locals as the Shadowless Pagoda， because atnoon on the summer solstice its said no shadows appear. You cant make this stuff up.

Shadows， strangers， and foreigners not altogether aside， the remaining sections ofthis essay proceed as follows： section one addresses what Miller had to say about readingand the life， or he would say， the afterlife， of literary studies， the disciplinary catastropheforeshadowing what was at the time of the Wuhan walk the less visible ecological catastrophes already in our midst. An Innocent Abroad is characterized by Frederic Jameson as an “apologia for literature，” a “defense，” as Miller remarks， of what is “not easily defensible” （IA xxi; 27）. The book is certainly what Jameson says it is， and this too is apparent in the epigrams dual position of defending something while also affirming its loss. But An Innocent Abroad is also more than a petition for the indefensible study of literature （let alone a defense of humanity， God forbid）. In section one， I want to detail what this more is， exactly， and how the problem of more-ness complicates the inarguable contraction of literary studies in U.S. academe， its shrinkage now to almost nothing with institutional， public， or political force. Millers doubling down on defending the indefensible has something to do with being abroad， as in being both foreign and in error， as Ill suggest. Here we might think about the problem of more-ness in its critical dimension as a way of determining where literary studies ends and where contesting disciplines begin. How do disciplines die， and more to the point of being abroad， what is literary studies once we admit its value lies precisely in its absence？

Moreover， whats to come？ Miller has a lot to say， for example， about literature in relation to cultural studies while pressing hard on the arrival of this discipline which claims not to be one and which， unlike literary studies， never lived long enough to die well. If we think about how Miller wrestles with the promise of expanding scales—in his terms： multiplicity， infinitude， excess， collectivity， doubling， swarms， and not least， globalization—we might better get the hang of his judiciously critical treatment of cultural studies more restrictive concepts like culture， the human being， consciousness， ego， man， subjectivity， personal agency， identity， and so on， all repeated targets in my Miller archive. This is not to suggest he was—at 92 years old—a curmudgeonly Luddite resisting contemporary breakthroughs like telecommunication tout court （as if writing isnt technical in every way， as Miller rightly says it is）. To the contrary， the ghostly species of expression tied to virtual and other digital media interested him greatly and is revealingly described as compatible with the afterlife of literary studies.5 If youve read An Innocent Abroad， youll envision a personal library where among a multitude of books is his pile of MAD magazines. Next to them， there are well-worn copies of WIRED. The “tele-” in telecommunications is in some promiscuous sense akin to traveling， being in error， returning to something other （as in more） than yourself， and disappearing， all at once.6

Despite shadows and strangers， or rather， in close relation to them， my unfinished Miller archive also contains lots of references to reality， realism， and the real. This is the focus of section two. Was Miller for real？ Here is a scholar famous world-wide for the defense of literary studies， the Western canon， close reading， and written English in the form of the “great books.” But with the second sense of greatness in mind （as in volume， not only volumes）its also worth recalling， as early as 1966 Miller published Poets of Reality： Six Twentieth-Century Writers.7 Poetry and realism？ Its an odd combination even now， when reality is stilltheoretically positioned as transparently knowable， self-evidently physical， ego-reenforcing，non-artificial， bounded， and small enough to fit within the limits of human cognition. Asreality is for big science， imagination is for small literary studies. But as Ill suggest in sectiontwo， there is no such division in Hilliss work between systems of meaning， biotic， andnon-biotic entities， and the tools we use （for better and for worse） to bring experience andunderstanding never quite completely together. His expansive notion of reality makes thispossible.

Think here not of Mark Twain， but of Blakes Songs of Innocence and Experience，the subtitle of which is Shewing the Two Contrary States of the Human Soul. Reality， wemight say after Miller apropos Blake， is more than we think we know. It is extensively andinfinitely large， and not reducible to what the Marxists philosopher Louis Althusser calledsubject = object adequation. As any good quantum physicist will tell you， the universe is bothprovisionally knowable and inarguably “shady，” as in Blakes line， “once a dream did weave ashade.”8 With emphasis on the artificial （as in media-oriented process） of doing the weaving，alongside Twain and Blake think of Einstein， who smartly said： “My pencil and I are smarterthan I am.”9 But this kind of smartness is spooky as hell.

My goal in the second part of this essay is to elucidate the corresponding question ofhow scale and spooks come together in Millers work， giving us a paradoxical glimpse ofreality as the Shadowless Pagoda， blinding us with impossible clarity， as if spooks didntexist. Realism， he suggests， runs counter to “nihilism， [in the sense of humankind] separatingsubjectivity from everything but itself” （PR 2）. Miller did not explicitly embrace the labelMarxist， but the one-time physics major seduced by the prospect of “accounting for apoem in the way astrophysicists account for data from outer space” was committed both torecognizing infinitude and engaging in error correction （IA 261）. As Ill show with Millersreference to the issue of ideology， error correction means for him affirming and expanding， notignoring， or reducing， real relations over imaginary ones. The adjectives Im choosing hereare decidedly Marxist and widely misunderstood. They conjure up an Althusserian traditionrunning through the notable work of Michael Sprinker， no Platonist in his distinction betweenreality and shadows， who searched hard for compatibility between the tenets of materialismand deconstruction where the wisdom of the hands rejects naively empirical notions of thereal.10 References to the term ideology are plentiful in An Innocent Abroad， as are referencesto Marxs concept of real relations alongside de Mans theory of rhetorical reading. Insection two， Ill address the ideology question， with specific attention to Millers interest intechnology， error correction， and the big example of reality in abject relation to subjectivistreductions： catastrophic climate change. Thus， when I ask if Miller is for real， I mean： What does the indefensible defense of literary studies have to do with ending not just of a huminites discipline but also the presumptive dominance of the human being per se？

In section three， Ill bring the afterlife of literary studies to bear on the importance in Millers career （and less consequentially， mine） of traveling regularly to China. In addition to the PRCs role in determining the future of the planet when it comes to climate change （and given the Belt and Road initiative， so much else）， and alongside its enigmatic historical relation to Western literature in the form of print-base technology， we might think again of the issue of scale.11 Like reality defined as both larger than what the human-species-writ-as foreigner can know and something you can get the hang of， the Western scholar of English literature in China presents another case of intimacy in error. But the error， or estrangement， is enabling. With more than 4，000 years of recorded history， the nations government of more than 1.4 billion people （and rising） is officially antagonistic to Western forms of self-destructive greed; but more affirmatively， and as we might read Miller reading literature now， theres something in common about the Westerner abroad and the way English literary studies， like its most famous ambassador， goes away to rekindle its worth.

Miller simply says： “I have come more and more to learn from these conferences as much as or more than I have contributed to them... I have more and more turned to the question of why studying literature still matters now that we are in the midst of an epochal transition from printed books to digital media” （IA， xxxi）. Or maybe not so simply？ Focus here on the word more， and then focus on more again： the problem of scale implicit in the multiplication of the word as Miller uses it repeatedly is commensurate with reading Hillis reading literature now. In reference to China， as in reference conceived commonly as semiotic， epistemic， and ontological problems， meaning goes in multiple directions. Like memory mutation， in the magic act of travel repetition happens in non-identical ways， leaving with whoever you are and returning different than before. Being abroad describes a problem of geo-political territories and the movement of bodies， as much as it explains the kind of reference enigmas conjured by the world-wide web. So， too， human physiology becomes a vector of viral invasion. The great fire walls barricading data， like COVID-inspired travel restrictions， become exploding cul-de-sacs， where presumptive immunity meets irresistible dissemination.

In reference to Miller reading literature now， or reading him as I am， beginning with the China lectures and moving selectively backwards through a selective portion of his enormous ouvre （50-plus books）， here too is an enigma of scale. Only this scale enigma inverts Millers propensity for reality expansion as a major theme of his equally expansive body of work： My limited choice of texts means theres more of Miller （and other Millers） yet to read. In my peculiar archive， permanent separations give way to mutable branches， firewalls become fuses，and shadows dance with things. The strange intimacy of putting would-be opposing zonestogether （East and West; ecological and human; real and artificial; literary and technical） putssystems of meaning not simply front-and-center. The more accurate spatial metaphor would beto say systems of meaning become the very substance of what Miller calls inclusively humanand non-human matter. So， too， following Jean-Luc Nancy， “eco-technological” media infusesthis fragile old opposition.12 “Literature still matters，” Miller insists， but to get the hang of thisunlikely declaration youd need to scale up as well as read him closely. Youd need to read allthree words in multiply inflected ways （IA， xxvi）： The matter at work in a literary way wouldhave to lend itself equally to books as much as bodies. And then there is the temporal issue ofthe word still： Literature matters most when its gone.

Near the end of this section on English literature in China， well get to the Pagoda ofDeferral or get there to the extent its name affords getting anywhere finally at all. Here Illtry to remember my conversation with Miller in on a humid smoggy day around the hills ofWuhan where we talked about about literary studies being trivial in the prevailing epoch ofecological calamity and political chaos. I know I was worried， and Hillis was not. My focus inreciting the Wuhan walk will be on our difference， which turns out not to be an incompatibleone. What does it mean in the context of deferral to affirm realitys infinite complexity， literarystudies mattering， and the potential—only the potential—of knowing things and acting better？The “false story of deconstruction，” Hillis remarks， “[says] it is apolitical and ahistorical， turnseverything into language， and so on， [and is merely an] apotropaic litany [advanced from]both the right and the left” （IA 29）. Error correction is implicit in this statement. But how doesgoing abroad， in contrast with false stories and pseudo-protective theocratic recitation， initiatea better accounting of things？

In recalling the Wuhan walk with Miller in its latest variation， Ill introduce a temporalquestion inseparable from the spatial one of being abroad. Here Ill remark further on howtime and space， as Miller says about the human being per se， are mediated by old and newtechnologies， how they mutate， yes， but how time-space mutation also warps the categorieswe use， as in the literary， the humanities， and the human， in both positive and negative ways.The warping I have in mind is meant to underscore his preoccupation with digitally inflecteddisciplinary change， now happening， at warp speed. Deferral pertains in this sense to literarystudies alongside the human species， as if we were finished before knowing wed somedaybe gone. But postponement does not rule out usefully pondering things and beings said notto be there. This is what we might call a virtual problem， or at least one that challenges thedistinction between the artifice and what we call real. Its also a problem of life and death， toreference spooks again， and foreshadow Millers interest in climate change.

The Pagoda of Deferral couldnt be a better way of surmising how literature matters now，in the sense of disciplinary disappearance Miller describes—how and where the remains of literature might live on; nor is there a more accurate way to think about the belatedness of error correction with it comes to ecological self-suicide for the human species. But I also cant help wondering about whether being abroad is a better way of being at home， now too， the very activity replaced by so-called Zooming. Think here of the zoom and the warp， and youll begin to get the hang of the Miller-figure I want to share. Can reading Miller reading literature now help us un-suicide the species while we change our concept of what the species is， as if deferral， rather than being a mere synonym for never， means neither dead nor living， almost but never quite here？

The Need to Read

I have elsewhere said a lot about the virtues of keeping literary study alive in these days of cultural studies， about the fundamental differences between literary study and cultural study， and about the need to read philosophy and theory in order to understand literature （IA 187）.

—J. Hillis Miller

The elsewhere referred to in this epigram is everywhere in An Innocent Abroad. To quote at greater length， Miller writes： “However we might wish it were not the case， the sad fact is that literature in the old-fashioned sense is playing a smaller and smaller role worldwide in the new globalized cultures. This fact is particularly distressing to me， since I have already spent fifty years in the study of literature and plan to go on studying it... Nevertheless， the facts must be faced” （IA 49）. In other places， he “registers agony， in the sense of death throes， of the traditional discipline of comparative literature as it melts into being just another form of cultural studies” （IA 55）; and repeatedly quotes Derrida， who proclaims： “‘an entire epoch of so-called literature， if not all of it， cannot survive a certain technological regime of telecommunications” （IA 57）. Here he continues with Derrida： “‘[the new] regime of telecommunications does not simply transform but absolutely brings to an end literature... It does this by a kind of death-dealing performative fiat” （IA 59）. Instead of simply mourning， Derrida suggests prospective students “‘ask the question of the effects of the most advanced telematics [la te?le?matique la plus avance?e] on whatever would still remain of literature” （IA 57）.

There are lots of other places in An Innocent Abroad where Miller opines on the “vanishing of print literature as a cultural force” （IA 264）. This justifies Jamesons classification of the book as equal parts apologia and defense. My first point is to simply repeat the obituary： literature is declared by perhaps its most ardent and certainly visible proponent to have all but passed. But theres more. Note in the thread of disciplinary eulogies from Miller and Derridahow the sad new fact of literature in its death throes displaces old fashioned hopes where closereading sticks around. Note how facing the facts distresses the hoper， agonizingly so， such thata long life of literary study leads defiantly with plans to go on doing it， facts be damned. Thelanguage here is correspondently dramatic， as dealing out disciplinary death， melting literature（the epistemic effect of global warming？）， contracting it， performing upon the dying disciplinea performative fiat， and most intriguingly， pushing it mercilessly toward a point of no return.Literary studies at its vanishing point is an intriguing a way of reading in the face of sad factsbecause it puts value on what Derrida calls literatures remains. At the point of no returnsomething curious happens. Literature goes abroad in extreme but still—whatever remains…remains. So， what about this peculiar form of presence and， if cryptically， how can the deathknell of literary studies repurpose the object claimed to be gone？

Literary studies at its vanishing point alludes neither to de-disciplinarity （having nodisciplines）， interdisciplinarity （funding just the right mix of knowledge categories）， or transdisciplinarity（the surpassing of knowledge expertise）. In some occulted way， what we mightcall the re-disciplining of literary studies is ironically based on the agony we see in the eyes ofits most ardent pupils.13 Miller continues， “this new [agonizing] situation of literary studies isremarkably fluid and changing with dizzying rapidity” （IA 55）. The temporal analogue to thecategorical melting of literature appears ironically as a form of stopping that also speeds thingsup： literary studies Zoomed. The velocity of disciplinary change， yet the desire to hold on towhats gone， provides a puzzling historical sense that what we knew about literature whenwe were sure of our object is different than it exists when “the displacement language-basedtheory by cultural studies is evident everywhere in the humanities departments of Westernuniversities” （IA 52）. Ill come back to why the displacement of literary by cultural studies isparticularly objectionable to Miller insofar as the prevailing concept of culture tends towardsthe restriction rather than expansion of what hell theorize as reality here and in other work.“The arbitrariness of any belief or culture，” he writes， “depends on material determinants：climate， mode of agriculture or manufacture” （IA 62）. Culture is a concept equivalent withidealism， as well soon see. Thinking farther about this term， well need to parse the complexrelationship in Miller between determination and material relations.

For now， consider Millers “stubborn， recalcitrant， and defiant plea for close reading inthe original languages，” and his corresponding insistence： “Close reading，” supported by themost vigilant theoretical reflection…， is still [as in Derridas remains] essential to universitystudy” （IA 56）. At this point in the lecture， I am tempted to change Millers title from “TheEffects of Globalization on Literary Studies，” to “Literary Studies： A Survival Guide”; orfor scholars like me who havent written enough on the great books， “Surviving Literary Studies.” This is because folded within Millers stubborn plea is something more sinister， even perverse， the ghostly Miller， a voice putting his audience between the heaven of joyous close reading and the hell of the end of the print-media. Here， as we might expect， he remarks upon the value of literary studies because “literature during the age of the book was a major way in which a culture expressed itself and constituted itself. Those who do not understand the past are condemned to repeat it” （IA 55）. But in the context of Millers erudite and sophisticated theory of non-identical repetition， being condemned to repeat history sounds pat. One is more likely condemned not to repeat it， or not repeat historys big problems in better ways than before. The perversity of Miller exists within this tension between beginnings and ends. If Im correct about literature becoming differently valuable at its vanishing point， in the Derridean sense， then repetition—the repetition of leaving and returning （being abroad）; of remembering to forget （my peculiar Miller archive）， and of forgetting to recall something better （worrying or not in useful ways）—is the challenge buried in Millers deft use of an epistemic cliché.

Consider on this score what he goes on to say about “historical，” as well as “biographical， cultural， or technological modes [of reading]” （IA 55）. He continues： “the close study of literature—I mean the actual words on all those pages—is an indispensable means of access to a confrontation with what I call the strangeness or irreducible otherness of others， not only those belonging to different cultures but even those within ones own culture” （IA 55）. Then comes the key proposition， obliterating the earlier cliché： “As opposed to the homogenizing implications of cultural studies， where the assumption tends to be that all cultures are variants of the same universal human culture， I propose the hypothesis that each work may be ‘other to all the rationalizing apparatus we have constructed to make it the same” （IA 55）. Here the term “culture” is called out for being homogenizing where all is reduced to the same. By contrast， “those words on all the pages” reverse the reduction： each is the other of all.

So， in this case of writing literary theory as survival guide there are competing versions of “all-ness，” the cultural studies one， dominant but restrictive， and the expanded version of “all-ness” remaining in the space of literary studies as it returns in death-defying form. Further on the issue of literary remains， Hillis says at the onset of An Innocent Abroad： “English literature was co-opted by American schools and universities as the basic tool for the creation of a national culture that always remains something evermore about to be” （IA 25）. For the term “same” read “national culture”; for a better form of “all-ness” read “about to be evermore”; and for the “something” thats not here， read literary studies in the form of whatever lingers in the fact of its disappearance. If this life-and-death scenario （or better said， this zombie scene of living death） is “truly frightening， at least to a lover of literature like me [Miller]，” stop worrying and get ready to make use of your fear. Love your zombies， to paraphrase Bruno Latour.14 As Cohen says about Miller， given his longevity and the ubiquity of his writing： “It is quite hard…to ‘mourn him， since he passed back and forth across theLife Death membrane” （“HD” 2）.

Here things get more enigmatic still： “What the protagonist [Derrida dealing death toliterary studies] says，” Miller ultimately confesses， “arouses in me the passions of anxiety，dubiety， fear， disgust， and perhaps a little secret desire to see what it would be like to livebeyond the end of literature [as a] prime example of ‘humanistic discourse” （IA 58）. In themidst of agony， Miller also announces： “I doubt that this process can or should be stopped” （IA55）. The little secret desire to live beyond the end of literature leads to big public prospects：“the potentially subversive attention to ‘close reading，” Miller says， “was already a stagein the dismantling of the traditional idea of the university as the guardian and transmitter ofa single cultures eternal values” （IA 29）. Here， too， a perverse desire for literary studiesdisplacement， like a lover facing the facts of an unwanted but inevitable separation， is foundedon a condition of partiality， latency， and incompleteness already within intimacys foundingact. In this sense， the energizing crisis of moving on from literary studies toward greatercapacities of “all-ness” bespeaks a form of absence ironically addressed by the readers unmetdesire for more words and pages.

I say unmet desires for two reasons： the obvious reason pertain to the big departure—literary studies in its death throes. But it is less easy to explain how Millers desire for literarystudies to remain practicable despite the “epochal transition from printed books to digitalmedia” （IA xxxi） presents a worthy alternative to the ascent of cultural studies， especiallyin U. S. academe.15 Ive alluded to this already by making a distinction I want to tag toMillers work between reality and so-called culture. The distinction is determined be differingconcepts of category and scale. Millers reality is combinatory and expansive， while in hischaracterization， correctly， the concept of culture prevailing in the dominant strain of culturalstudies is pure and restrictive. He writes， “the universitys project of Bildung depended onthe notion of a nation-state with a single unified culture” （IA 34）; and further， “The universitywas to serve the nation-state… as the place of education， formation， or Bildung， where malecitizens （they were all male then in the university） are inculcated with the basic values of aunified national culture. It was the business of the university to produce subjects of the state，in both senses of the word ‘subject： as subjectivities and as citizens accountable to statepower and capable of promulgating it” （IA 24）.

In contrast with a concept of culture in this Arnoldian sense of homogenizing anddividing national， gender， racial distinctions from one another absolutely， Miller calls for aproximity of difference made possible by adding more of it than the prevailing categories ofhuman subjectivity can bear. He discounts how in cultural studies “the subject， subjectivity，and the self are back in， along with personal agency， identity politics， responsibility， dialogue，and intersubjectivity” （IA 32）. This reveals how cultural studies appeal to disciplinary mixture is in contradiction with the effect of “turning the other into the same” （IA 211）. Its mix is effectively sameness in disguise.

Moreover， “[the term] ‘culture in ‘cultural studies becomes a term progressively emptied of meaning by coming more and more to include everything in human life” （IA 32）. Note here an important point about meaning， how Millers affirmation of it alludes to fullness and potential， rather than restiveness and predictability. So， its not that Miller is against all forms of more-ness， just the ones presuming to be a “magic elixir， [or] omnipotent cure all” where the concept of “all” enforces the same injuries of division， false unity， and exclusion the culture tincture claims to heal. Instead， Miller offers intra-categorical explanation at larger scales than the weak medicine of culture can deliver. He affirms “the minority cultures within ones own culture. In the United States， these would include Native American， Chicano， Asian American， and African American cultures， among others” （IA 55）. The term culture is pluralized in this citation as well as constrained. Its also clear how adding more means creating difference without lapsing into pacified form of all-as-nothing， where “everything under the sun may be culture， [and] where culture is not open to study” （IA 32）.

A better rendering of more-ness works at a point of reversal where major and minor no longer blindly adhere to immutable or small-scale distinctions. Toni Morrisons brilliant definition of American Africanism as formatively immanent within the works of canonical American writers such as Cather， Hawthorne， and Poe， is consistent with Millers curious minoritization of white masculinity， an event now factually realized given changes in U.S. demography. （As we might also conjecture， the minoritization of white masculinity is lived out almost weekly within the distinctly American terrors of white guys murdering their neighbors larger in scale and with snow-flakes the color of red. Miller writes， “Archiving multiculturalism…may even denature or negate the power that such works have to make cultural change. The university has a formidable power of recuperation and neutralization” （IA 33）. The archive here， consistent with Millers reading of de Mans unpublished lecture on irony， is necessarily ambiguous， and therefore， open to change.17 This ambiguity exists as a plethora of meaning， not in the conservative version of undecidability where everything is culture and culture is the neutralization of difference in essentialized form. After Derrida， Miller argues， “archiving is not just constative. It is a performative act that does something to what is stored” （TDF 57）. Derrida writes more explicitly about the temporal aspect of archiving and posits： “The technical structure of archiving the archive also determines the structure of the archivable content even in its ever coming into existence and in relationship to the future.”18 Exit whiteness， stage extreme right.

As in Morrison， Millers point in archiving the archive is to show how ones own socalledculture is both present and estranged by differences occulted within it. Better still，this expansiveness qua self-estrangement offers prospects for unification beyond culturaldifference writ as immutable and pure. The opposite of identity is not simply the other in thissense but is more accurately put as the difference of more. This， too， is ironic， in the sensethat “the literary imagination，” to cite the subtitle of Morrisons groundbreaking book， is how“whiteness” plays out—fatally—as something different from the U. S. national norm. Or if wecannot admit white difference in the American context， lets say that the violence exteriorizedat its original boundaries on the colonial frontier have come back to haunt the nation vis-àvisthe infinite crisscrossing of interior margins now dividing the nation in volatile ways. InPlaying in the Dark， Morrison turns the tables on the old ratios of racial denomination， wellbefore the actual replacement of the white majority by too many differences for the censusto name. Its literary studies rather than the cultural kind that delivers the prospect for realchange in both Morrison and Miller， which is both terrifying and promising at once.

Walking Barefoot in Reality

To walk barefoot into reality means abandoning the independence of theego. Instead of making everything an object for the self， the mind mustefface itself before reality， or plunge into the density of an exterior world，dispersing itself in a milieu which exceeds it and which it has not made.The effacement of the ego before reality means abandoning the will topower over things. This is the most difficult of acts for [a] modern [humanbeing] to perform （PR 8）.

—J. Hillis Miller

Before recalling our Wuhan walk in the last section of this essay， consider the walkingreference in the epigram from Miller above. This almost Buddha-esque passage is taken fromhis 1966 book， Poets of Reality， written long before Miller tarried with the Chinese. Thetactility of walking barefoot alludes to Wallace Stevens and signals a unique intimacy with—or as Miller says in to—reality here. But the intimacy is unusual insofar as being in or beingout of reality is less significant than being， you might say， infused with it. Fast facts aboutthe human foot， its an unusual appendage： Each one has 26 bones， 33 joints and a networkof more than 100 tendons， muscles， and ligaments. One quarter of all the bones in the humanbody are in your feet. When these bones are out of alignment， so is the rest of the body.The heel bone is the largest of the bones in the foot. There are over 7，000 nerve endings in each foot. Feet have 250，000 sweat glands.19 Having two feet means doubling those last two numbers.

If youve never had a Chinese foot massage， which everyone in China from the peasants to party bosses do have， theres no doubt youre out of alignment. But to move further through the epigram and on to the issue of the poetry of realism， we should ask the podiatrist-as-literary critic： what would you be out of alignment with？ Its easy enough to see in the epigram what youd be dis-aligning from： Althusserian object adequation， Cartesian subjectivism， Kantian idealism， Freuds ego， Foucaults man， Morrisons whiteness， and the Western plague of possessive individualism. The alignment between your body and reality is a material rather than a transcendent one， to use old philosophical language. The critique of Western humanism on this order is well-known and has gone on in various forms for a long time （e.g. Spinoza， and preceding the infamous mind/body split， back to the ancient Greeks， Democritus and Epicurus， both studied by the young Marx）.20 There is not much point in tracing the twists and turns of materialists philosophy outside the way it mattered to Miller because a lot has been said by other scholars.21 We can leave things settled with the broad consensus held by most philosophers today： Human subjectivity alone tends to connect barely with reality; or rather， human subjectivity cant bear such a connection. Human beings cant be laid bare and still be human beings.

So， what about walking barefoot in reality， and does this suggest some unmediated romantic absolute， as in getting back to nature， subliming the real world， or going technology free？ This is a difficult question but its at the crux of Millers characteristically sly allusion to a feature of barefoot walking he almost never names in this early book. He loved a pun， so lets say he barely names it. There is a missing third term in the epigram， which goes by many names， be it media， tool， technology， artifice—or after all， this is Miller—so the term is so obvious youll never see it： poetry.22 Elsewhere， Miller will argue， “the practical way to test the medium of poetry is through the examination of specimens of poetry， not through theoretical speculation.”23 You might think barefoot means unmediated and the subordination of theory to poetry draws us away from the more important term media， here. But the point of offering those fast foot facts should create a second thought. Our bones， nerves， glands， joints， tendons， and ligaments are part of the reality we feel. Moreover， feet and reality comprise a dynamic system of information exchange， processed by brains and bodies vis-à-vis a part of reality plugged into skin. This is one large and complex ecological system， leaving a lot of assumptions about Western consciousness behind.

This system must be described as both material and mediated， both real and artificial. “The earth，” Miller writes， “is a complicated machine made of almost innumerable atoms and molecules that signal to one another.”24 The apparent integration of media and matter is hard to the hang of in Millers early writing， foreshadowing as it does myriad debates within twentyfirstcentury philosophy over object ontology， speculative realism， and quantum mechanics.25His technical-corporeal-terrestrial theory of reality suggests a materialist conception of totalitythats also sign-dependent and subject to change. Call this a scientific and aesthetic enterprisewhere we get to have the cake of our empirical knowledge and eat our sublimity too.

When Miller affirms Stevens further into the reality walk as seeing “things as they are”（recall here， the Shadowless Pagoda）， Miller also conjures the Baconian tradition of empiricalunderstanding and error correction. His interest in climate science alongside technologicalconcerns is clear in later works. He writes about writing “‘now… the hot September morningof September 2010， the culmination of the hottest six months on record. This is clear evidence，for those who have bodies to feel， of global warming” （IA 227）. But this is not a referenceto unmediated empiricism， whipping boy of identity politicians， economic determinists， andpostmodernisms anti-Enlightenment bunk （all forms of what Miller would denounce asnihilism， i.e. “the nothingness of consciousness when consciousness becomes the foundationof everything” [PR 3]）. Rather， the “everything [that] the human ego opposes [attemptingto become] sovereign valuer， [and] measurer of all things [by] assimilating everything toitself” repudiates “the nearness of the real” （PR 11）. We create the illusion of being outsidereality less it effaces the substance of us. As Miller writes about this effacement， “the space ofseparation [between human and nature] is turned inside out， so that elements once dispersedare gathered together in a new region of co-presence” （PR 9）. Moreover， the media by whichour bodies and our tools—both organs， in Bacons sense of Novum Organum—render realityknowable is akin to “the rhetorical， figurative， and storytelling possibilities of language” （IA55）.

The word illusion I just used should not suggest we reintroduce， contra Millers theoryof co-presence， the bad idea that， once the illusion is over and the shadows are gone， wesimply stand on bare truth. Stories are not all we have; but they are a good way to advanceour capacities to live and work compatibly within all-ness. Knowledge without bare truthdoesnt mean surrendering error correction. You can look at the Shadowless Pagoda for alittle while but dont look at the sun for even just for one second. The Pagoda， too， is media：it is a shadow （for a brief moment） without other shadows. Millers interest in the poetryof reality works compatibly with his insistence that we can also have knowledge about it.He uses Marxian language time and again in his writing to position himself between what Icalled science and the sublime， swapping back-and-forth between them the same way he doesbetween things as they are， the primacy of media， and the infinitude of “everything.”

Note one of his favorite references （one anyway， that he repeats in the China lectures，and other places） for doing this kind of aesthetic-empirical swapping. When he writes “reading itself is extraordinarily hard work，” hes being as crafty as ever.26 The reference is to de Man， who Miller cites as writing： “‘the linguistics of literariness is a powerful and indispensable tool in the unmasking of ideological aberrations， as well as a determining factor in accounting for their occurrence” （IA 240）; and “‘What we call ideology is precisely the confusion of linguistic with natural reality” （IA 63）. It would be a mistake to say correcting mistakes means swapping out the mask of fiction or poetry for bare truth. Rather， the notion of swapping back-and-forth between old and new masks offers possibility for knowing things in the same way disciplinary swapping may signal worthwhile change. We should read de Mans reference to masks in this way， without retreat from the hard work of reading， where masks mean media—bodies， and equally texts， in better and worse relations to each other. In the Althusserian terms Miller would appreciate， there is no outside ideology where illusions are swapped for bare truth. But there is in this Marxist tradition better and worse forms of allusion， indirect （as in mediated） ways of tooling out better （because more capacious） and worse （because more restrictive） forms of co-presence， with the integrating （not assimilating） functions Miller endorses above.

Miller is clear on this point about work， tools， and bodies， what Marxist dream about as workers reclaiming the means of production， and it holds equally for realist poetry and unmasking ideological aberrations. In the later writing on climate change， Miller adds to Nancys notion of “eco” as “oikos，” meaning house or home. He highlights from Nancy the intra-connection between the dwelling place of all circumambient creatures and the “everything” writ here as “ecology”： the “total environment…， climate in the broad sense of environment” （“EE”）. But note， too， on the order of emphasizing the importance of means： “The ecosystem also includes technical apparatuses” （“EE”）.27 He continues， “neuroscientists on brain chemistry and the brains ‘wiring is showing that a technological paradigm is a better way than a traditional organic paradigm to understand the body and even its most human-appearing concomitants of consciousness and the accompanying senses of self-hood and volition” （“EE”）. This reference to science is consistent with early suspicions about “the technical assimilation and assertion of mastery over all features of human life” （ER 5）. At issue here is what Miller calls the “human sciences，” not science write large as the possibility for error correction and as reality expansion. Moreover， science liberated from the confines of the human being （think of the eighteenth-centurys lost etymology where science meant knowledge in general， and literature meant all writing） is compatible with Stevens aspiration of walking poetically. Recalling William Carlos Williams this time， Miller writes， “poetry brings being into the open by naming things as they are， in their glistening immediacy…the wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater…the new poetry…” （PR 10）.

For Miller， the Western notion of God is the way we occupy， tragically， and sometimes comically， the illusion of ego as the antithesis of body and matter： “the gradual withdrawal ofGod from the world [means] he is no longer inhering the world as the force binding togetherall men and all things.”28 Culture does the same thing as God， in the sense that “the oppositionbetween the illusion of culture and the desolation of reality [renders] reality as gross， heavy，meaningless， the desert of the world before man” （DG 11）. Walking barefoot with reality isfiguratively liberating， if also hard and scary. This is because realist poetry and good scienceboth offer more capacious ways of intra-connecting human and non-human entities. Toadmit this is to grasp Millers concept of ecotechics： “the body…functioning like a machine[is] a technical product of the ecotechnical” （“EE”）. You can see how the various modes ofmediations stack up.

Robinson Crusoe comes to mind alongside Millers reality walk because Crusoe， likeMiller， is a character with strong interests in being abroad. In the isolation of Crusoesego， which he must renounce to live well but never really does， the castaway both affirmsand rejects his Calvinist God. He oscillates wildly between being a slave-holding absenteeplantation owner and a communist worker in a party of one. Crusoe is never at home， andeven when he ends up back in London he lives there depressed， a home-grown stranger. True，hes made rich by his Brazilian sugar works， but in the end “his” island is “invaded by “300Caribbees [who] ruin their [his successors] plantations” （RC 487）. About midway through thetext （we cannot in 1719 call The Life and Strange Suffering Adventures of Robinson Crusoea novel）， the protagonist finds himself “hurried out of [his] knowledge [and] exceedinglysurprised with the print of a mans naked foot on the shore.”29 Its a scene of terror， becauseit turns from the possibility of co-presence to impending species annihilation. The fearof cannibalism turns into a relationship with Friday sometimes （arguably） exceeding thedominance of master over slave， other times reducing the other-worker-collaborator to thestatus of a captive animal. The footprint is a missed opportunity for Millers aspirational copresence.But note also， this missed opportunity is consistent with the temporal signatureattached to literary studies as Miller signs off on it. To follow Miller， you almost have to trackhim down in China. Again， this is not easy. At first， Crusoe goes gothic in this so-called realisttext， “as if I had seen an apparition” （RC 245）. As he returns to his “fortress，” he is “a manperfectly confused” （RC 245）. This is only one episode of so many comings and goings， eachone leading unpredictably to the end of a story which really has no end.

But revealingly， Crusoes “wild ideas，” so “inconsistent with the thing itself” are nottamed by an immediate return to God， culture， or the human being per se. The text alludessubtly to Crusoes ongoing struggle： a barefoot walk in reality writ as a missed encounterwith abundance： “The abundance of such things [wild ideas] as these assisted to argue me outof all apprehensions of its being the devil” （RC 247）. We can think about this abundance as produced when the relations of labor are equitable and correct， as they are not under colonial capitalism. If only Friday had joined the Party！ We can also reflect on the referential sense of abundance， the issue of more force and meaning （keywords in Millers The Disappearance of God） abounding in the poetry of reality in the form of human and non-human co-presence.

Like Millers allusion to Stevens， Crusoes walk is corporeal， terrestrial， and mediated. The word print in the eighteenth century denoted a media revolution perhaps even more than a representation of the human foot. But why make the distinction between bodies and technologies， which Miller does not？ The footprint in the sand is compatible with Millers take on realist poetry： a footprint reminding us of what mightve been or maybe will be again， a shape-shifting outline， a non-mimetic referent， and the mark of a secret desire to exist on the other side of literature and humanity both. As any good paleontologist will tell you， the footprint is an archive. Geologists will read layers of earthly substance going back before the dawn of homo sapiens， created as we were by the innovative use of tools. Glaciologists will drill ice cores giving us atmospheric data going back millennia. Why is it so hard for humanists to fathom how print in Defoe and Millers dual senses of the term （feet， earth， poetry） designates a corporeal， terrestrial， and technical nexus？

Recall first， Crusoe mistakenly experiences rocks and trees as people in his first encounter with the print. There are， incidentally， lots of rocks and trees in the text， 44 references to the former， and 65 references to the latter， including a significant refence where the castaway sleeps like the protectors of Californias ancient redwood forests in a tree. Its a minor but important scene， considering Millers re-definition as early as 1965 of “the mind” as better described through “the metaphor of organism and environment” （DG x）. Think here not only of the importance of skin-media in Defoes and Stevenss barefoot reality walks， but even further， of the action under their feet. For Crusoe， the abundance of the real in this sense is present in the unenumerable grains of sand he mustve felt without knowing it， each with their own archaic backstory; for Miller apropos Stevens， we might recall the jungles understory， myriad roots， worm-laden soil， and the networks of fungal threads extending everywhere unseen， the mycelial kingdom， the wood-wide web. Is this ecological network distinguishable in kind or dynamic from the foot or the footprint？

Miller suggests a more integrated take： “In literature the organism creates the environment as much as it is created by it，” and further， “a work of literature is the act whereby a mind takes possession of space， time， nature， or some other minds” （DG x）. Ive said enough about literature as it remains， or following Miller through Derrida， how it lives in an afterlife， like Crusoes companion-apparition. We might also consider literary studies fossilized， and maybe even discover some of its subterrain bones. Itd be too much to ask that we bring the dinosaurs alive， and we all know where that leads （too many sequels！）.Nonetheless， we can reassemble their parts.

Better Ways to Exercise

I see no particular virtue in slogging around the library， as in the dayswhen “scholarship was mostly legwork，” as my doctor-father at Harvard，Douglas Bush， put it. He meant scholarship involved walking up anddown miles of stacks in a research library looking for the books youwanted. Better ways exist to get exercise” （IA 184）.

Weve come a long way since explaining Millers need to read： his defense of literarystudies in spite of its disappearance; his doubling down on the defense because literaturesremains offer a lesson in how the real world works; acknowledgement of better and worseways of human beings working with （or in） reality; and the more challenging proposition thatthe media we use to make something legible out of reality are， like humanity per se， part ofthe reality they render into thought. One of the things about going abroad is not just returninga stranger to your home （as with Crusoe）. If your lucky， you see things at home in a morecapacious light， which makes you want to leave and come back again.

The idea of going abroad we began with， Millers doubly inflected sense of abroadas being both foreign and in error， is something I want to present again here， at the end ofthis essay. Stevens barefoot reality walk， Crusoes spooky encounter with himself， and myunexpected Wuhan walk with Miller， are examples of exercise in the best sense. They areexamples of what Cohen calls his secret power， summed up in Millers desire to live beyondthe end of literature. In the epigram， he expresses relief for not having to walk the libraryphysically; and he affirms the distance-collapsing， time-warping capacities of searching thearchive with digital means. You can do this mode of research anywhere youve got access tothe web. In fact， its often better the farther you go from the stacks. The digital scholar cansearch multiple sites simultaneously， and theres no prohibitive difference between the smallarchives in handbags and pockets and big ones spread out on the world-wide web.

Earlier I asked if Miller was for real. Its clear to me now that instead of being for it， hewas and is， apropos his poets of reality， virtually in it. China is to Miller what literary studiesis in its afterlife; and to narrow the frame even further， China and literature are to each otherwhat poetry is to the real world. All are examples akin to Millers corpus， or my rendering ofit， as occupied with what I suggested are problems of scale： digital technology gives more （orcan） in less time， and the new space-time formula has had drastic effects on the categories weuse to organize thought： Disciplines come and go. But thats only part of the story. Because，if were to take seriously the flip-side of Millers defense of literary studies， his secret desire to live beyond it， then we should note too that the chronicles of Chinese travel published in 2015 share a kinship with the earlier writing of Millers career. The latter work renders visible things we mightve missed about the former， an in that sense， returning to Millers work means， we take it abroad from itself. Call this a new reading of Miller， a way of working with his work， or a way meeting him （again） on the other side of literature.

Miller notes about China a curious contrast he witnessed （and so did I） between the relative stasis of U. S. universities in the twentieth century， especially， the marked decline of humanities disciplines， the death of literary studies， and so on， and the reverse phenomena in China. During the decades he was there， “the Chinese university system has been utterly transformed， and the number of universities has doubled， from one thousand to over two thousand， with up-to-date programs not only in the so-called STEM disciplines （science， technology， engineering， and math） but also in humanities departments like English and comparative literature” （xvii）. Here again is the issue of scale， also alluding to a fundamental point： English literature exists best today in its absence， or at least， in its geo-political and therefore epistemic displacement. Like Millers own work， its renewal is made possible by its estrangement. He writes， “The strange use of the literature of a foreign country as the basis of the national culture…is a symptom… of a fundamental change in the Humboldtian model of the research university when it was institutionalized in the United States” （IA 28）.

Whereas the Humboldtian model of knowledge was premised on unified disciplines corresponding with unified nations， to travel with the discipline of English offers the opportunity to dis- and re-assemble it. English as American literature， or as having a strong purchase on American literary studies， presents a lesson about its originally estranged position. Physical travel as well as the virtual kind enables the discipline to change productively; or in Millers terms， whats dead about literary studies in the U. S. is what goes on living a different kind of life in China. Almost 7 thousand miles （or 12 thousand kilometers） away， “the study of English literature is flourishing” （IA 192）. I want to add virtually flourishing to this line from Miller， because whatever vitality dead literary studies has in China exhibits the problem of repetition and difference in Miller， his own “repeated visits” （IA 192）. Literature， dead and alive， a ghostly parallel to Millers corpus as the same and different from what it was before its author left home once and for all.

My virtual Miller parallels an experience I had visiting the terra cotta warriors in the Chinese city of Xian， years after our walk in Wuhan. Tourists will know the facts： The attractions official name， The Qin Tomb Terracotta Warriors and Horses， is considered one of the greatest archeological sites in the world， as if Crusoes footprint was upscaled more than 8，000-fold and the sand became the island dweller. The legions of clay figures， each in battle formation and facing defensive positions tested successfully in real time， were constructed and buried in 246-206 BC with the tomb of Emperor Qin Shihuang. It took 720，000 builders，many of them also buried near the site. Each life-sized soldier and horse is unique， fromfacial expressions， hair style， fingernails， exact weight， and height， and most remarkably Ifound， exhibiting different details down to the soles of their shoes. It is the epitome of realismin its infinity of detail， and yet totally crafted by human beings. Indeed， its virtual reality（literally） avant la lettre. You can never look twice at the same object taken as a whole， andprovocatively most of the soldiers remain unseen because they are still buried. To see themwould mean exposing the terra cotta to physical elements that will erode them. Seeing theobject is its discovery and a moment where the object tends toward disappearing. Leavingthe pit to strap on a headset in the virtual reality exhibition featured at the site only stepsfrom the site proves seamless. In the headset reality， we experience what Miller would callthe “performative efficacy” of media， as it exists in the form of “virtual reality machines，transmitting ideological ghosts， specters， spooks， like those images on a television screen or ina film， or like those ghosts that are raised when [he] read[s] a novel” （IA 186）. Standing beforethe overwhelming spectacle of the Emperors army in clay， reality appears no less mediated orcomplex.

My memory of the Wuhan walk with Miller also works virtually. I dont just meanvirtual in the strange sense of the reality you get in the headset at Xian， where looking at thewarriors and horses physically is similar， because of the similitude of the objects physicaldifference and scale， and the way you move your eyes in a VR headset just like you do at thepit. Theres something lingering in how I recollect the difference we seemed to have withanother over worrying on a day when our only goal was to find a good way of exercising. Aswe exercised， Millers seeming complacency about the death of literature was astounding tome， even though our agreement about the existential threat facing the human species givenclimate change inspired shared insights about generations of sufferers we， like the terra cottasoldiers， could imagine into being.

Thinking of the Wuhan walk again， Im wondering more about Millers “‘What， meworry？” statement， especially about what I didnt process fully when Miller said this at thetime. The comment was after all posed as a question， a question that was itself questionable，unoriginal but totally meaningful， and out of context for a literary defender of his ilk. Was hesaying， “I refuse to worry so dont try to make me”; or “I dont have to worry because Imbetter off than you and the other worriers like you”; or “what would you have me worry aboutand what good would my worrying do？” The phrase does not say explicitly， “I dont worry，”as in： “The hell with it all， I just dont care.” True to his interest in multiply inflected sitesof communication and how meaning changes over time， and consistent with his repudiationof nihilism， it turns out Miller cared a great deal. Literary studies in An Innocent Abroad is for him worth defending because he dared both to care too much and too little. Remember that secret desire to live on the other side of literary studies， in a way， to dance on its grave. Reading Miller in the context of how knowledge changes， his citation of MAD magazines fictious mascot， Alfred E. Neuman， may mean all and none of the options available in parsing “‘What， me worry？.”

A little online research tells us Neuman first appeared in a play from 1894， called The New Boy. The strongest impression I had of myself in contact with Miller on the Wuhan walk was being exactly that， both boyish in my quick-to-worry tendencies， and as far as literary studies was concerned， pretty much new. In the play， Neuman says： “Whats the good of anything？ —Nothing！”30 This is what happened after Miller referenced Neuman on the Wuhan walk. Things just went quiet. But this nothing was absolutely everything in retrospect. Before I could muster enough boyishness to worry more about his not worrying （which is by no means what he was saying， I know now）， we came upon the Pagoda of Deferral. As I see us standing next to this structure， worrying is demoted to the self-defeatist status it deserves. The silence we shared amidst the moments irony， our astonishment， and the Pagodas peculiar challenge to try and fail， and to see failure as something worth having because its always more than it seems， said a lot： worry all you want. But its not the same as doing something useful， and especially not the same as doing something useful and defensible， like literary studies evidently used to be.

Of course， this kind of work comes with its prices： do it if you can， but dont expect the consequences to emerge on your own or the disciplines terms. The name Pagoda of Deferral was of course written in Chinese， and underneath the structures title， were a lot of other Chinese words （or rather， ideograms）. Who knows if the translation into English was accurate or not？ In any case， staring at the sign is when Hillis broke the silence. If memory serves， he said something like what he wrote in one of the China lectures， published near the end of An Innocent Abroad： “If I had my life to live over again， I would learn Chinese， and I mean really learn it， so I could read Chinese literature， classical and modern， for myself” （emphasis original， IA 201）. Who knows， Hillis？ Maybe theres still time.

Notes

1. Hillis， worrying in IA 265. Hereafter referred to by page number in text as IA.

2. Tom Cohen， “The Hand and the Dog—Hillis Millers secret power”， unpublished mss. Hereafter referred to with page reference in text as “HD.”

3. March 29， 2021 Kevin Kunzmann WHO， China Report Suggests COVID-19 Passed From Bats to Humans Through Another Animal https：//www.contagionlive.com/view/who-china-report-covid-19-passed-bats-humans-animal

4. For those unlucky enough to have missed the era of Mad Magazine， the just-above-ground publication

began in 1957， and was advertised as featuring “Tales Calculated to Drive You MAD.”

5. Readers of derrida will recogonize the “hauntology” of literary studies at its end in Derrida， Ghostly

Demarcations.

6. See Tom Cohen， telepresence.

7. Poets of reality. Cited hereafter with page number in text as PR.

8. Blake， A Dream https：//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dream_（Blake_poem）

9. Einstein， https：//en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein.

10. See sprinker， imaginary relations.

11. On Chinas Belt and Road initiative

12. “Ecotechnics Ecotehcnca Odredek” in OHP anth.

13. See Derrida， literary studies in the eyes of its pupils.

14. Latour， love your monsters.

15. See hill， the ends of CS.

16. See Morrison， PD; see Hill， AW. On US shootings， see…

17. Tom et al， Theory and the Disappearing Future. Hereafter cited with page number in text as TDF.

18. Derrida 1996， 16-17 （TDF 57）.

19. https：//www.bridgewater.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Foot-Facts.pdf

20. https：//brill.com/view/journals/hima/7/1/article-p3_1.xml？language=en

21. Marxism for and againt decon; see sprinker， Montag， fraser.

22. On poetry as medium， see The Medium is the Maker： Browning， Freud， Derrida and the New Telepathic Ecotechnologies Brighton and Portland： Sussex Academic Press， 2009.

23. The Linguistic Moment， 1985， xix.

24. Ecotech in tom vol， no pg， https：//quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/10539563.0001.001/1：5/--telemorphosistheory-in-the-era-of-climate-change-vol-1？rgn=div1;view=fulltext Hereafter cited w/ page number in text as“EE.”

25. See spec real people， etc.

26. Miller， ethics of reading. 5. Hereafter cited in text as ER.

27. Contra Kant on means and ends in the rechckere; see Hill OPW.

28. Hillis， The Disappearance of God （1965）， 1; 2） Hereafter cited with page number in text as DG.

29. Crusoe， note PDF. 244. Hereafter refered to with page number in text as RC.

30. “The History of Alfred E. Neumans Image”. Youtube.

責任编辑：张甜