(")Counterfeit Money(") and Mis/Understanding Derrida

I recently finished my struggle through Jacques Derrida's Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money, a book-length study of Baudelaire's short story "Counterfeit Money" and its implications for the gift. It's nearly impossible to discuss a work by Derrida without excessive wordiness and potential confusion, so I apologize in advance. Consider this insight:

"Counterfeit  money is never, as such, counterfeit money. As soon as it is what it is, recognized as such, it ceases to act as and to be worth counterfeit money. It only is by being able to be, perhaps, what it is. . . . It obligates you first of all to wonder what money is: true money, false money, the falsely true and the truly false--and non-money which is neither true nor false, and so forth."

Perhaps one of the more lucid passages of the book, this quoted portion, to me, illustrates the fascinating quality of counterfeit money. Counterfeit money only has value as long as it passes for real money; it has a strange quality of non-existence even more profound than the art forgery or impersonator. When the art forgery is discovered, it retains its identity as a work of art, and the impersonator does not completely forfeit his existence when he is found out. As much as Frank Sinisterra, the counterfeiter from The Recognitions, tries to convince everyone that he is "a real artist," everyone, including his wife knows that the bills he makes are just "worthless, worthless paper."

Much of what Derrida discusses concerning both counterfeit money and "Counterfeit Money" involves their semiotic implications, so in many cases Derrida's analyses do not move away from the actual letters of the text. I find much of what he wrote oddly thrilling even in its obscurity, but it's also easy to dismiss everything as overly intellectual BS. I encourage you to think for yourselves and share your thoughts!