If one were to take the risk to tackle the main purpose of Writing of the Formless. José Lezama Lima and the End of Time (2017) by Jaime Rodríguez Matos, one would say that the book opens the space for the possibility of a time that both precedes and exceeds teleology and the time of the eternal return. This time is, precisely, the time of the formless. The book is, somehow, an “anomaly” in the Latin American Studies field. As Rodríguez Matos acknowledges in the introduction. That is if “subalternism, along with other forms of Latinamericanism of the same historical moment, can manage to avoid the task of producing a political subject […] it nevertheless becomes entangled in the wider problem of how to represent such a heterogeneity: this is a problem that, paradoxically, is not endemic to its “field” of study.” (3). Writing of Formless is radical and effective attempt to think that “heterogeneity” mentioned above. The book touches the interrelations of arts, politics, theology and philosophy, while also offering an against the grain reading of José Lezama Lima and the context of the Cuban Revolution. For Rodríguez Matos this discussion is crucial today as it becomes clearer that there is no option outside of capital, and that both left and right tirelessly repeat their uncreative ways of time appropriation. In other words, Lezama Lima and Cuba are relevant today because in them we can clear the air for a thinking of a time to come, a time that does not cover the void of existence, a time where the non-subject of the political may roam.
Divided in two parts, Writing of the Formless serves less as a manual and more as a fragmentary and illuminating constellation of reflections. The first part challenges canonical approaches to temporality and time. All the chapters of part one are, in a way, the deconstruction of teleology and alienation of time and also of eternity and the eternal return. For every chapter, Rodríguez Matos evaluates in detail how Lezama, Cuba and the Cuban Revolution, poetry and theory are intermingled in complex ways. For every chapter, the task, too, is to show how “a deconstruction of time does not entail only a reconfiguration of philosophical categories but also a retreat from the grand politics of liberation (which is always the politics of submission, of forced labor, of the mandate to care for the always already too decrepit foundations) and the attempt to think through a different politicity beyond the reversibility of the sovereignty of the master” (16). Through this lenses, for instance, it becomes visible that the diverse and vast appropriation that the poetry of Lezama has suffered by the left and the right clearly missed the point of what Lezama was all about: the writing of formless, the end of time. The second part of the book centers on this writing.
Writing of the formless is writing “of” the void. This should be understood “not an aesthetic or imagined supplement; it is the first evidence of the modern political experience, particularly after the great political revolutions of the era.” (110). To this extend in the second part we witness via a series of passages how Lezama struggles with the romantic “spirit”, the aposiopesis as a mean of rendering silence a constituted part in the alienation of time, with the scribble as the embodiment and representation of the metaphorical subject. If the first part tested the limits of times, the second part testimonies of the way Lezama knew how to avoid every possibility of capture. Lezama is, then, not only a writer of the void, but on top of that, Rodríguez Matos invites us to see an infrapolitical Lezama. This infrapolitical Lezama is that one who knows that “There is no fall because of the very intensity of the fall (Lezama in Rodríguez Matos)” (134) and consequently this is a writing which “emerges by assuming that the void exists: absolute stasis and infinite speed together in one point” (134). Lezama is not part of “a collection of examples of how to do things and be in the world” (155). As an infrapolitical writing, the writing of formless is a writing of a time — “of” the void— that does not erase “the singularity that Lezama’s text brings to bear on our understanding of the history of politics: which is to say, not forgetting about those instances where politics is directly confronted with its shadow” (155). Lezama looked into the abyss “without covering it over and even giving symbolic frame” (172). This is how a writing of formless invites for “the aperture toward a time of life that is not directed toward caring for the enforcement of temporal organization in any way” (172). Maybe, as many times Rodríguez Matos suggest, it would be possible after Lezama to let the void resonate in all its force, to let the formless write the end of time for an infrapolitical passage to come. Or maybe, the void already has resonated enough and we are far beyond the possibility of imagining the end of time, but only maybe.