Literary Criticism Class #6. Roland Barthes “” (1968) “ The Death of the Author ” (1968) The article is “ the ‘ hinge ’ round which Barthes turns from.

Literary Literary CriticismCriticism

Class #6

•Roland Barthes

““The Death of the Author” (1968)” (1968)

•The article is “the ‘hingThe article is “the ‘hinge’ round which Barthes te’ round which Barthes turns from structuralism turns from structuralism to post-structuralism” (Bao post-structuralism” (Barry 66).rry 66).

The readerly vs. the writerly

• The readerly (lisible) text: a text t: a text that turns the reader into a hat turns the reader into a consumerconsumer. I. It is a ‘closed’ text with a limited met is a ‘closed’ text with a limited meaning, such as a realistic novel. aning, such as a realistic novel.

• The writerly (scriptible) text: a te: a text that encourages the reader to xt that encourages the reader to produproducece meaning. meaning.

The writerly text• This ideal text “is a galaxy of signifierThis ideal text “is a galaxy of signifier

s, not a structure of signifieds; it has ns, not a structure of signifieds; it has no beginning; it is reversible; we gain ao beginning; it is reversible; we gain access to it by several entrances, none ccess to it by several entrances, none of which can be authoritatively declareof which can be authoritatively declared to be the main one; the codes it mobid to be the main one; the codes it mobilizes extend lizes extend as far as the eye can reachas far as the eye can reach,, they are indeterminable . . .” (Barthe they are indeterminable . . .” (Barthes, s, S/ZS/Z, 5-6), 5-6)

車站留言車站留言 陳克華陳克華 阿美阿草阿美阿草 我先搭我先搭 11:3711:37 的南下了 我並不恨你 的南下了 我並不恨你 如果颱風明天到達如果颱風明天到達 來電：來電： (00)7127(00)7127 ㄓㄓ 998ψ998ψ 父留。孩子記得我父留。孩子記得我 先生下再說先生下再說 錢，不要等我了錢，不要等我了 我家不在台北，我家不在台北， EchoEcho ：： ECHOECHO 欠你的欠你的 工作已找著工作已找著 很久很久以後，本質很久很久以後，本質 和現象衝突 得很厲害和現象衝突 得很厲害 祝快回家祝快回家 三隻母雞和甘藍菜三隻母雞和甘藍菜 都好你最真誠的愛匆此都好你最真誠的愛匆此 再還你。再還你。 (( 孟樊 〈當代新詩理論〉 頁二五七孟樊 〈當代新詩理論〉 頁二五七 ))

Food for thought

•What’s the consequence What’s the consequence of the death of the of the death of the author?author?

•Does it matter who is Does it matter who is doing the talking?doing the talking?

•Jacques Derrida

•“Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” (1966)

•Structure

Centered Structure

•All notions of structure have a centre. It is a sign – “the transcendental signifier” -- that will give meaning to all others.

Logocentrism• This desire for a center is called This desire for a center is called

““logocentrism”.”. • Western though has developed i

nnumerable terms which operate as centering principles: God, the Idea, the World spirit, the Self, and so on. (Eagleton 131)

Center = Presence = Logos

• ““LogosLogos” (Greek for ‘word’) is a ” (Greek for ‘word’) is a term which in the New term which in the New Testament carries the greatest Testament carries the greatest possible concentration of possible concentration of presence: “In the beginning presence: “In the beginning was the Word.” Being the was the Word.” Being the origin of all things, the ‘Word’ origin of all things, the ‘Word’ underwrites the full underwrites the full presencepresence of the world . . . . (Selden 88)of the world . . . . (Selden 88)

Centers in Literary Texts

• Typical concepts of centre in Typical concepts of centre in literary criticism, for instance, literary criticism, for instance, would include the would include the authorauthor, the , the historical contexthistorical context, the , the readerreader, the , the ideologyideology of a of a political economypolitical economy, , each of which provide a ground each of which provide a ground outside the text for limiting outside the text for limiting interpretation.interpretation.

• http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htmhttp://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htm

The center rests upon a paradox.

•““The center is, paradoxically, The center is, paradoxically, within within the structure and the structure and outside outside it. it. The center is at the center of the The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality not part of the totality), the totality has its center elsewhere. has its center elsewhere. The The center is not the center.” (Derrida center is not the center.” (Derrida 109) 109)

Food for Thought

•Give concrete examples to suGive concrete examples to support Derrida’s claim that pport Derrida’s claim that the definition of structure the definition of structure is contradictory, namely is contradictory, namely that the center is both that the center is both inside and outside a inside and outside a structure.structure.

有一句話 鄧禹平有一句話 鄧禹平

當你童年 小辮雙雙，當你童年 小辮雙雙， 情竇之門未開放，情竇之門未開放， 有一句話 想說；有一句話 想說； 我卻不能講。我卻不能講。

當你青春 玉立婷婷，當你青春 玉立婷婷， 美眸閃動愛與光，美眸閃動愛與光， 有一句話 想說；有一句話 想說； 我卻不敢講。我卻不敢講。

當你已婚 笑態盈盈，當你已婚 笑態盈盈，心靈關着情之窗，心靈關着情之窗，不必說了——埋葬吧 埋葬。不必說了——埋葬吧 埋葬。

•Différance

Roots in Structuralism

• "In language there are only "In language there are only differences" " (Saussure, (Saussure, Course in General LinguCourse in General Linguisticsistics).).

•The distinctive doctrine of strThe distinctive doctrine of structuralism: “the belief that tucturalism: “the belief that the individual units of any systhe individual units of any system have meaning only by virtem have meaning only by virtue of their relations to one anue of their relations to one another” other” (Eagleton, Literary Theory, 94).

Not binary opposition but différance

• Derrida points out that a binary Derrida points out that a binary opposition is algebraic (a=~b, a opposition is algebraic (a=~b, a equals not-b), and that two terms equals not-b), and that two terms can't exist without reference to the can't exist without reference to the other--light (as presence) is defined other--light (as presence) is defined as the absence of darkness, goodness as the absence of darkness, goodness the absence of evil, etc. . . . the absence of evil, etc. . . .

• http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1997derridaA.html

Not binary opposition but différance

•Deconstruction wants to Deconstruction wants to erase the boundaries (the erase the boundaries (the slash) between oppositions, slash) between oppositions, hence to show that the values hence to show that the values and order implied by the and order implied by the opposition are . . . not rigid.opposition are . . . not rigid.

• http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1997derridaA.html

Différance(1) It means (1) It means to differ: : to be separate from; to discriminate

(2) It wishes (2) It wishes to defer: : to delay; to postpone

Différance The one, take note, implieThe one, take note, implie

s spatiality (s spatiality (difference) wh) while the other implies tempile the other implies temporality (orality (deferral).).

http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/dhttp://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htmeconstruction.htm

Différance•Différance is what prevents the

sign from being a full presence.•“When we cannot make pres

ent a thing, take hold of it, show it, we use a sign; we signify a deferred presence, something absent” (Gras 279).

雨聲說些什麼 余光中

一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？樓上的燈問窗外的樹樓上的燈問窗外的樹窗外的燈問巷口的車窗外的燈問巷口的車一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？巷口的車問遠方的路巷口的車問遠方的路遠方的路問上游的橋遠方的路問上游的橋一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？上游的橋問小時的傘上游的橋問小時的傘小時的傘問濕了的鞋小時的傘問濕了的鞋

一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？濕了的鞋問亂叫的蛙濕了的鞋問亂叫的蛙亂叫的蛙問四周的霧亂叫的蛙問四周的霧都說些什麼呢，一夜的雨聲？都說些什麼呢，一夜的雨聲？四週的霧問樓上的燈四週的霧問樓上的燈樓上的燈問燈下的人樓上的燈問燈下的人燈下的人抬起頭來說燈下的人抬起頭來說

怎麼還沒有停啊：怎麼還沒有停啊：從傳說落到了現在從傳說落到了現在從霏霏落到了湃湃從霏霏落到了湃湃從簷漏落到了江海從簷漏落到了江海問你啊，蠢蠢的青苔問你啊，蠢蠢的青苔

一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？

A is a supplément to B (1)A = writing A = writing B = God, Truth, love . . . .B = God, Truth, love . . . .

• A is added to B.A is added to B.• A substitutes for B.A substitutes for B.• A is a superfluous addition to B.A is a superfluous addition to B.• A makes up for the absence of B.A makes up for the absence of B.• A usurps the place of B.A usurps the place of B.

A is a supplément to B (2)• A makes up for B’s deficiency.A makes up for B’s deficiency.• A corrupts the purity of B.A corrupts the purity of B.• A is necessary so that B can be A is necessary so that B can be

restored.restored.• A is an accident alienating B A is an accident alienating B

from itself.from itself.• A is that without which B would A is that without which B would

be lost.be lost.

A is a supplément to B (3)• A is that through which B is lost.A is that through which B is lost.• A is a danger to B.A is a danger to B.• A is a remedy to B.A is a remedy to B.• A’s fallacious charm seduces one A’s fallacious charm seduces one

away from B.away from B.• A can never satisfy the desire of B.A can never satisfy the desire of B.• A protects against direct encounter A protects against direct encounter

with B.with B.

(Johnson 45)(Johnson 45)

An ExampleAn Example: : IdentityIdentity

• The deconstructionist wants to show The deconstructionist wants to show that the notion of identity, which that the notion of identity, which seems so basic, so "present," actually seems so basic, so "present," actually depends upon the notion of depends upon the notion of difference. Identity is only difference. Identity is only comprehensible in terms of comprehensible in terms of difference, just as difference can only difference, just as difference can only be understood in terms of identity. be understood in terms of identity.

• http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/sep/17/17092005ft.htmhttp://independent-bangladesh.com/news/sep/17/17092005ft.htm

An ExampleAn Example: : IdentityIdentity

• Identity can be considered as Identity can be considered as an essential and integrated unity (my ident (my identity involves my name, my status, my ity involves my name, my status, my hair colour and the number of my fihair colour and the number of my fingers, among many other things). Tngers, among many other things). The idea of a unity broken into differehe idea of a unity broken into differences is one possible traditional idea. nces is one possible traditional idea.

• http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htmhttp://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htm

An ExampleAn Example: : IdentityIdentity

•Another one would be the idea Another one would be the idea of an identity that could be of an identity that could be contrasted to other identities as contrasted to other identities as its its differences (and for which it (and for which it too would be different). I am too would be different). I am different from my colleagues, different from my colleagues, my students, my family and my students, my family and friends and my enemies.friends and my enemies.

• http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htmhttp://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htm

An ExampleAn Example: : IdentityIdentity

• What was thought to be foundational What was thought to be foundational (identity) is itself dependent upon the (identity) is itself dependent upon the concept it was privileged over concept it was privileged over (difference). (difference). The conclusion that neither term is foundational, but that both are mutually dependent upon each other, is precisely the conclusion , is precisely the conclusion that Derrida wants us to reach. that Derrida wants us to reach.

• http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/sep/17/17092005ft.htmhttp://independent-bangladesh.com/news/sep/17/17092005ft.htm

•Deconstruction as a Critical Approach:

3 Stages (Barry 74-76)

The The Verbal Verbal StageStage• Close ReadingClose Reading• Identify contradictions or paradoxes.Identify contradictions or paradoxes.• The polarity of common binary The polarity of common binary

oppositions (like oppositions (like malemale and and femalefemale, , dayday and and nightnight, , lightlight and and darkdark) is reversed. ) is reversed. And then the second term, rather than And then the second term, rather than the first, is shown to be ‘privileged’ and the first, is shown to be ‘privileged’ and regarded as the more desirable.regarded as the more desirable.

(Barry 74)(Barry 74)

The The Verbal Verbal StageStage• Here's the basic method of Here's the basic method of

deconstruction: find a binary opposition. deconstruction: find a binary opposition. Show how each term, rather than being Show how each term, rather than being polar opposite of its paired term, is polar opposite of its paired term, is actually part of it. Then the structure or actually part of it. Then the structure or opposition which kept them apart opposition which kept them apart collapses . . . . Ultimately, you can't tell collapses . . . . Ultimately, you can't tell which is which, and the idea of binary which is which, and the idea of binary opposites loses meaning, or is put into opposites loses meaning, or is put into "play“."play“. http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1997derridaA.htmlhttp://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1997derridaA.html

The Textual Stage• Look for Look for shifts shifts or or breaksbreaks in the in the

continuity of the text (shifts in focus, continuity of the text (shifts in focus, shifts in time, or tone, or point of view, shifts in time, or tone, or point of view, or attitude, or pace, or vocabulary); or attitude, or pace, or vocabulary); these shifts reveal instabilities of these shifts reveal instabilities of attitude, and hence the lack of a fixed attitude, and hence the lack of a fixed and unified position.and unified position.

• OmissionsOmissions are important here, that is, are important here, that is, when a text doesn’t tell us things we when a text doesn’t tell us things we would like to be told. would like to be told. (Barry 75) (Barry 75)

The The Linguistic StageStage

•Look for linguistic oddities, Look for linguistic oddities, or moments in the text when or moments in the text when the adequacy of language the adequacy of language itself as a medium of itself as a medium of communication is called into communication is called into question.question.

Structuralism vs. Deconstruction

• ““Whereas structuralism finds order and Whereas structuralism finds order and meaning in the text as in the sentence, meaning in the text as in the sentence, deconstruction finds disorder and a constant deconstruction finds disorder and a constant tendency of the language to refute its tendency of the language to refute its apparent sense. Hence the approach’s name: apparent sense. Hence the approach’s name: texts are found to deconstruct themselves texts are found to deconstruct themselves rather than to provide a stable, identifiable rather than to provide a stable, identifiable meaning” (Guerin et al. 255)meaning” (Guerin et al. 255)

• See Barry 63-65 for a more comprehensive See Barry 63-65 for a more comprehensive list.list.

ReferencesReferences• Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse oDerrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse o

f the Human Science.” f the Human Science.” Modern Criticism and TheoryModern Criticism and Theory. Ed. Da. Ed. David Lodge. London: Longman, 1988. 108-123.vid Lodge. London: Longman, 1988. 108-123.

• Eagleton, Terry. Eagleton, Terry. Literary TheoryLiterary Theory. Minneapolis: U of Minnesot. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983.a P, 1983.

• Gras, Vernon W. “Deconstruction.” Gras, Vernon W. “Deconstruction.” The New Princeton EncThe New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poeticsyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Eds. Alex Preminger and T.V.. Eds. Alex Preminger and T.V.F. Brogan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1993. 277-82.F. Brogan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1993. 277-82.

• Guerin, Wilfred L. et al. Guerin, Wilfred L. et al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to A Handbook of Critical Approaches to LiteratureLiterature. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992.. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992.

• Johnson, Barbara. “Writing.” Johnson, Barbara. “Writing.” Critical Terms for Literary StuCritical Terms for Literary Studydy. Eds. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: . Eds. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990.U of Chicago P, 1990.

• Selden, Raman. Selden, Raman. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary TheoryTheory. 2nd ed. Lexington, KT: UP of Kentucky, 1989.. 2nd ed. Lexington, KT: UP of Kentucky, 1989.