in fidelity

<p>« … It has taken me years to admit — perhaps only to myself — that I don’t care about writing something important something significant. That my only hope wish — dream even — is to write something beautiful … » (139) </p><p>This book attempts to open the dossier of fidelity; and in particular attend to the question of the relationship between fidelity and its object to the question of: <em>must there be an object to fidelity?</em> For if one is faithful to something or someone is one responding to the <em>what</em> the characteristics of the thing the person; or the <em>who</em> the person thing as such? Which is not to say that <em>what</em> and <em>who </em>are necessarily distinguishable separable to begin with. However if we open the possibility that the <em>who</em> is always already beyond us — outside of knowability if even only slightly — this suggests that it is the spectre the potential unknowability that haunts all relationality. Thus even if there is an object to one’s fidelity — for without which one cannot even begin to speak of fidelity speak of relationality — this might well be an objectless object or at least an object that remains veiled from us.  </p><p>In order to explore this relationship — in which one cannot even be sure if there is a relationality; for without the object the nature if one can call it that of the relation is speculative — the text takes the form of an <em>exploratory fiction</em>. Where it attempts to bear witness to the possibility of fidelity — keeping in mind that fiction is both the limit to and condition of testimony — whilst quite possibly only testifying to the possibility of being able to testify. </p><p>Nothing more. </p>