In From Work to Text (specifically pgs. 156-157) in Barthes' first point, "The Text is not thought of as an object that can be computed..." and etc. I found myself agreeing with Barthes' explanation that no work is somehow "sacred" against other works. The written word is just that; it's symbology with meaning attached to it. If I took a sheet from the Bible, ripped it out and wrote a grocery list on it, I would not be committing any sort of moral crime even though it would definitely be viewed as a social (and to some, moral) faux pas. (This is not to say that I advocate tearing out Biblical passages to carry out one's grocery shopping, just an extreme example.)
From the second point, "Text does not stop at (good) Literature; it cannot be contained in a hierarchy..." does two things for me in furthering an understanding of where Barthes' arguement is going, as well as giving me a better view for the class in terms of "playgarism" in that, coupled with the non-sacredity of the texts, the symbols put in a text can be manipulated by themselves, and put in other contexts to change the symbolism entirely.
So if any of us in the class ends up in a lawsuit at the end of this semester, we can always point to Barthes' argument and state that since we have changed the inherent meaning of the text, we are no longer voiding the copywrite of the text.
I really shouldn't even jinx anyone at this point. Lawsuits are messy things.
No comments:
Post a Comment