“What follows, then, needs to be understood as involving an ethical critique of concrete political structures and as not simply concerned with the writing of the text before us because, as I will argue, the city along with every subjectival creation is a product of myth. Delany’s text interrogates such monumental myths through a representation of the city (and thereby, the subject) as wounded and open to certain ethical possibilities. In its fragmentation Delany’s text represents, internally and externally, subjectivity at its limit, which is to say, a “subjectivity” whose assimilative powers have been overwhelmed by the experience of the death of the other,exposing it to community. However, I read Dhalgren first as a way of thinking about how writing can mitigate against the monumentalism of the subject and the subject’s myths that obsess after non-relation, eliding that birth or (communal) relation that comes from the outside and others.
Dhalgren becomes above all a “novel” which plays at birth, at never getting beyond birth, always coming and never arriving at presence, and, hence, always remaining with others.”