Is not the most erotic part of the body wherever the clothing affords a glimpse?
Roland BarthesRead
Death of the Father would deprive literature of many of its pleasures. If there is no longer a Father, why tell stories? Doesn't every narrative lead back to Oedipus? Isn't storytelling always a way of searching for one's origin, speaking one's conflicts with the Law, entering into the dialectic of tenderness and hatred?
Interpretation
The absence of a father's figure in literature reduces its richness and meaning.
Roland Barthes reflects on the importance of paternal figures in storytelling, suggesting that narratives often explore themes of origin, authority, and emotional complexity tied to family dynamics. He hints that without paternal influence, the drive to tell stories and confront one's internal conflicts diminishes, thereby altering the essence of literature itself.
In practice
During a lecture on the role of family in literature, you could quote Barthes to emphasize the importance of paternal relationships in storytelling.
Is not the most erotic part of the body wherever the clothing affords a glimpse?
If I acknowledge my dependency, I do so because for me it is a means of signifying my demand: in the realm of love, futility is not a "weakness" or an "absurdity": it is a strong sign: the more futile, the more it signifies and the more it asserts itself as strength.)
The gesture of the amorous embrace seems to fulfill, for a time, the subject's dream of total union with the loved being: The longing for consummation with the other.
The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.
I think that cars today are almost the exact equivalent of the great Gothic cathedrals: I mean the supreme creation of an era, conceived with passion by unknown artists, and consumed in image if not in usage by a whole population which appropriates them as a purely magical object.
All those young photographers who are at work in the world, determined upon the capture of actuality, do not know that they are agents of Death.
All literature, is, finally autobiographical.
I cannot start a story or chapter without knowing how it ends. ... Of course, it rarely ends that way.
Look, man, we'd probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid everything is?
Of course, the fact that Dostoevsky can tell a juicy story isn't enough to make him great. If it were, Judith Krantz and John Grisham would be great fiction writers, and by any but the most commercial standards they're not even very good.
There were epochs in the history of humanity in which the writer was a sacred person. He wrote the sacred books, universal books, the codes, the epic, the oracles. Sentences inscribed on the walls of the crypts; examples in the portals of the temples. But in those times the writer was not an individual alone; he was the people.
What I am going to write is the last of what I have to say. I will say that literature is the only consciousness we possess and that its role as consciousness must inform us of our ability to comprehend the hideous danger of nuclear power.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.