I also think that it isn't desirable to define a serious contact through an exchange of letters. Once before this mode of communication exerted a negative influence on a debate between us.
My trip -- or that of Michele [Bernstein] -- to Montreal would be perfect. But the lack of money condemns this project for the moment. Later on, we will see if we can get around this contradiction or if it will be necessary to use the makeshift of writing to substitute for a trip. All of my most letter is only a corrective addition to certain points treated in the [situationist] publications that you can read.
I have judged it necessary to specify that, despite the different circumstances of our separation, a reprise of dialogue with Ivain is possible (neither looked for, nor avoided). But the fact that you left [the Lettrist International] together in 1954 obviously doesn't mean that you maintained a communal position. In a general fashion, I don't know what you are today. If Ivain no longer has relations with you, it is without doubt that he finds himself further from the places at which we once met each other. It is clear that the limits of all this are in the interest that we can find reciprocally in each other.Best to you,
P.S. Our publications will be sent to the 3 addresses that you've communicated to me.
 Ivan Chtcheglov (Gilles Ivain).
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 1, 1957-1960. Footnote by Alice Debord. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! May 2005.)