Summary: Barthe, "From Work to Text"
Editor’s Note: For this assignment, I needed to read and summarize the published piece or content listed below, and then provide a response or assessment of the writing.
Summary
Barthes discusses how literary Text and literary work differ. He cites seven “approaches” (he also calls them enunciations and touches) that he uses to call out the contrasts between Text and work: method, genres, signs, plurality, filiation, reading and pleasure. Barthes states that Text is not something that “can be computed”; but rather, Text is a process. Barthes states that work can be categorized, while Text cannot be confined to any one genre or category. He states that Text is experienced as a reaction to the sign; whereas, the work is the signified. Text, as a part of language, is infinite, contrary to work, which is finite. Barthes also states that text is plural and without origin (because it is related to all texts before it), which allows readers infinite dissemination of the text, not simply multiple interpretations. Barthes states that the connection between the author and the Text is nonexistent and Text “reads without the inscription of the Father.” Work is viewed as writing and, therefore, an author or writer is attached to it. Text, however, is a language, and no author is attached to any specific language, so there is a clear disconnect between Text and author. Barthes also states that Text requires the reader to “play” it and interact with it, similar to how someone would play or interact with a musical instrument. Barthes goes on to state that work is consumed, but Text asks the reader for collaboration and not simply consumption. Finally, Barthes admits to finding pleasure in reading or the act of consuming work, and he argues that Text is not separated from work in this sense.
Response
I enjoyed reading Barthes’ essay, and particularly enjoyed his sixth point that discusses the reader “playing” the Text. I had never thought about reading in such a way and could relate to that idea once I let it sit with me for a minute. I like the idea that a reader must actually engage and interact with a Text to be able to more completely understand and disseminate it. Much like playing a musical instrument, the student does not improve in their ability to play without practice and becoming more familiar with their instrument. Similarly, a scholar reading and criticizing literature only improves their ability to disseminate text by learning how to question, consider, and formulate meanings that potentially include social, historical, political, environmental, or personal influences. By thinking critically about the text and questioning the value or meaning behind the text in this way, a reader can connect to it in a more meaningful manner. By avoiding the “reduction of reading to a consumption,” readers not only avoid the boredom that Barthes notes, but they learn how to “play” the literature.
One other point about Barthes sixth point that I thought was somewhat comical is envisioning his reception of today’s book clubs. I belong to a book club made up of about eight of my girlfriends. Each month, someone randomly chooses a book for the group. Without a doubt, these books are consumed, not played. The discussion of each book is superficial, at best, but that discussion typically falls in line with the book’s content, so perhaps it’s fitting. I think Barthes would be disgusted, at a minimum, with the book club’s approach to choosing and disseminating (or lack thereof) Text. I think Barthes’ approach would be fun to introduce and try though, so I’m going to see what I can do to persuade the group to read an older, well-known piece of literature and give it a dissemination attempt.