Why Derrida Should have Read Macbeth Instead of Hamlet

From a draft of my Intellectual Masturbation essay, speaking in the voice of The Porter from Macbeth:

But be wary: the body-text does not speak in words; it haunts the edges of words. Derrida always liked Hamlet more than Macbeth; probably because there are no speaking ghosts in Macbeth. Bah! But there are specters—specters of ghosts. The ghost of Banquo may not speak, but it makes demands on Macbeth: He is captivated by this spectral past reanimated at the edges of his perceptual present. When Derrida constructs his theory of hauntology in Specters of Marx, he should have consulted Macbeth. Derrida, rather, takes up Hamlet’s line “Time is out of joint” as the veritable slogan of hauntology (see Derrida Specters chapter 1). He was wrong. It should always have been my “Anon, anon!”—which is a performative utterance in which time is out of joint!

Let me explain. The American Heritage Dictionary offers three definitions for “anon”:
1. At another time; later.
2. In a short time; soon.
3. At once; forthwith.

Later, soon, now… These meanings are precisely irreconcilable without a decidedly dislocated temporality. Let us also look to a more classic account in Abbott’s Shakespearean Grammar:

(Abbott 39)

Anon: “the moment after,” a previous moment being implied. Later, but immanently. Anon references a spectral present which is always yet-to-come, the next instant. The declarative authority of “is” is precisely what is foreclosed by the very statement that time is out of joint. It cannot simultaneously be-is whilst the temporality of stability and presence is precisely what is fractured. (This paradox is exactly what Derrida means by his use of the phrase, of course, I do not make this substitutive claim in order to argue against his conceptualization, merely his choice of mantra.) “Anon, anon!” takes the paradox one step further by repeating itself, folding time back on itself, a repetition of immanence—“Now-later, later-now”—that cannot possibly be empirically reproduced apart from its utterance. Macbeth too was haunted by this intoxicating temporality, “Thy letters have transported me beyond this ignorant present, and I feel now the future in the instant.” You shall experience it too. In the near future you will be textually confounded by the period and its temporal enigmas.

The Author was again taken aback by the odd statement, but, as before, The Porter continues without pause:

Derrida writes, “Differance… does not mean only (as some people have too often believed and so naively) deferral, lateness, delay, postponement. In the incoercible differance the here-now unfurls… in imminence and in urgency.” (Derrida Specters 31) “Anon, anon!” It expresses not just deferral, but is also reflexive of the here-now; the future and the return of a specter: Anon. I will return. That’s why it is so blissfully unsettling: “A specter is all the more terrifying… on the condition that one can never distinguish between the future-to-come and the coming-back of a specter.” (Derrida Specters 38) “Anon, anon!” I will return.