I am not a Western theory head by any means, but homeboy made some points. And it’s critical to keep in mind my (your) historical position if one is to maintain a (hysterically, historically) revolutionary existence. And Freddy J helps enormously.
From the (great) essay on Godard’s PASSION:
“...and it would be preferable to think of all such modernist classics as failures of variously monumental kinds, to persuade ourselves that ULYSSES is not a unity and never could have been (not to speak of the CANTOS), that in Proust there remains, forever unsolved and out of reach, the gap between intention and realization, between the idea of the book and the pages themselves, no matter how numerously piled up. The benefit of such a way of thinking is not merely to ward off the relentlessness of reification into which these by-products and after-effects gradually and fatally congeal like so much cold grease; it is also to keep them alive as efforts and experiments, that fall into the world and the past when they succeed, but stand out with something of their agency still warm and palpable in them in their very failure. Above all, it is to emphasize the modernist ideal of formal totality by way of the impossibility of achieving it. What makes a work modernist, then, in this sense is not its ultimate monadic self-enclosure like a scripture, which enveloping the entire world fold it all back upon itself, (‘Everything,’ in Mallarmé’s famous saying, ‘existing to end up in a Book in the first place’), but rather precisely its longing for such monadic closure, about which the postmodern text could care less.”