Some view the fragment as the embodiment of the preservation of potentiality. Once cannot speak of potentiality without invoking Agamben, whose work on the subject has become an unavoidable point of reference today. Before explicating what can be understood for potentiality, I would like to linger a bit longer with the notion of preserving it, particularly with the idea that the form of the fragment exercises a labor of preservation. What does the fragment preserve (prior to preserving potentiality) foremost? The fragment preserves itself. It seems to me that there is a precarious, tentative, temporary, even marginal quality inscribed in the body of the fragment, a quality that may declare it always to be en route to something else. As I said in another post, Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy have led us to see that the
fragment is not only sub-work but also super-work in that each fragment cannot be but an autonomous piece that contain full completion. Otherwise, it would not be a fragment, but rather just a part of something else whose form is similar to a fragment’s. Being a fragment means that temporarily and permanently one is a fragment displaying completion.
Realism 