Reading Other People's Diaries

ANDREW HAS SAM Reading Other People's Diaries The question I want to address is this: if Ifind two books lying side by side on a library table, the first a manuscript diary evidently left by the person who has just vacated my seat, the other a published diary lifted from the shelves, why is my reaction to the idea of reading the first different from my reaction to the second? Why would I hesitate to open even a page of the tattered notebook yet feel no guilt at all about reading every sentence of the published work? Of course others may not share my scruples, may even abandon the reading they intended to spend a happy few hours (secretly) reading the notebook. But whatever their choice, I would guess most people finding themselves in my position would discriminate between their reading of these two books. It is this difference I want to account for. The starting point for the analysis of my dilemma will be Jean Roussel's tentative thoughts on the position of the reader of diaries outlined in 'Le journal intirne, texte sans destinataire?" Here Rousset constructs a typology of the diary based upon the position of the addressee, the reader to whom the work is addressed. However, while such a typology makes clearer the areas to be discussed, it does not answer my own question. To do so it will be necessary to extend the discussion beyond any personal contract between diarist and reader to the legal contract between publisher and reader. That is, I will want to know, first, how my attitude to a diary is altered by its publication, and, second, what sort of work the diary then becomes. In 'Le journal intime, texte sans destinataire?' Rousset suggests a typology of diary-writing according to the position of the addressee. Beginning with those diaries addressed solely to the diarist, Rousset identifies points on a scale according to the degree of 'openness' (ouverture),> the degree to which persons other than the diarist are addressed by the text. Simplifying, the points on the scale are as follows: 1 / Diaries written solely for the diarist 2/ Diaries directly addressed to the diarist, or addressed to an external addressee who will never read the diary UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY, VOLUME 56, NUMBER J, SPRING 1987 436 ANDREW HASSAM 3/ Diaries addressed to an external addressee who might read the diary 4/ Diaries which the diarist allows to be read by an intimate acquaintance 51Joint diaries 6/ Diaries addressed and presented to a group of friends 7/ Diaries which the diarist allows to be published, either posthumously or while living It will be seen from this outline that the typology is not based strictly upon whether or not the diary is directly addressed to a person other than the diarist. Rather, the degree of openness depends upon how many readers the diarist permits. Thus, a diary written for a particular person but which the diarist later allows to be published will, presumably, move up the scale, regardless of the addressee inscribed within the text. This is a little confusing, but does not undermine the logic of the typology. My main interest in the typology, however, is how it relates to my initial dilemma, the discrepancy of my feelings between the two diaries Ifind on the library table. In the case of the unpublished notebook, Rousset is very helpful, since my hesitancy would be due to the fact that the work is not addressed to me. Rousset reminds us that diaries were written long before the relatively modern practice of publishing diaries, and a founding principle of the diary is a belief in its own privacy - 'Que Ie cahier secret soit interdit de lecture est conforme II son projet initial. ,3 To read such a notebook would be to violate the secrecy clause - 'nous lisons, par effraction, des textes autodestinataires.,4 In its prelapsarian form, the diary is held to be a text closed to all but the diarist, a private communication with oneself. With the other book, the published diary, Rousset's typology is a little less helpful. Or rather, its basis becomes less relevant. For it is not...