 |
| Image from Wikipedia |
I have been skimming through this book by French Author Roland Barthes. The chapters are not linked, other than the underlining semiotics of french nationality and domestic metaphors in symbols. I'm sure people will disagree with me. I find this soothing, as I can scan the contents and pick any chapter I like the sound of and read it. Rather than having to read up to chapters so I know what's going on in context, I found it a light intellectual read.
The book consists of all sorts of topics from his opinion of what wrestling is and the meaning behind the sport, to steak and chips and what makes it a typical french meal. I'm going to talk about his chapter about toys.
"...French Toys always mean something, and this something is always entirely socialised, constituted by the myths or the techniques of modern adult life: the Army, Broadcasting, the Post Office, Medicine (miniature-instrument cases, operating theatres for dolls), School. Hair-Styling (driers for permanent-waving), the Air Force (Parachutists), Transport (trains, Citroen, Vedettes, Vespas, petrol-stations), Science (Martian toys)." Barthes is making the point that toys are given to children as a reflection of the adult world and based on the adult. "...the adult Frenchman sees the child as ones self."
Barthes also talks highly of wooden toys. "Wood removes, from all the forms which it supports, the wounding quality of angles which are too sharp, the chemical coldness of metal... It is a familiar and poetic substance, which does not sever the child from close contact with the tree, the table, and the floor."
I agree with Barthes about the adults seeing a child as an image of themselves which I think in a way is true, when I was younger my mum would very, very rarely let me have toy guns because she hates guns and didn't want them in the house or me to be influenced by violence, my dad is a musician he would buy little shakers from music shops or tapes rather than lego, toy cars, like a lot of my friends had at the time.
I like his theory about wooden toys as well. There's is something romantic about playing with wooden toys. They don't seem to age and there is the reassurance of them being tough to break and clean to touch, a natural resource in a small harmless form.
However, as much as I respect and agree with Barthes I don't agree with his style of writing. I thought he was right about a lot of subjects in his book, his style, choice of words, and his overall opinions. But saying this, he wrote his book giving the reader the illusion of facts, when in actual fact they are just his opinions. As interesting and well written his opinions may be, I don't think that gives him the right to write them as facts, nor anyone for that matter.
If I was to write a book about my mythologies on British semiotics, I would make it clear that the book is my personal opinion. I wouldn't (as I feel that Barthes may have done) try and impose my opinion like it is the only option. No matter how great my ideas may be or how many people agree with me. Saying this though, and seeing it written down, maybe that's what it takes to get people to agree with you. Imposing your opinion as fact and forcing your point on someone. Even if it is just about steak and chips.
Mytholgies - Roland Barthes, Published 1957, Publisher - Les Lettres nouvelles
I agree with Barthes about the adults seeing a child as an image of themselves which I think in a way is true, when I was younger my mum would very, very rarely let me have toy guns because she hates guns and didn't want them in the house or me to be influenced by violence, my dad is a musician he would buy little shakers from music shops or tapes rather than lego, toy cars, like a lot of my friends had at the time.
I like his theory about wooden toys as well. There's is something romantic about playing with wooden toys. They don't seem to age and there is the reassurance of them being tough to break and clean to touch, a natural resource in a small harmless form.
However, as much as I respect and agree with Barthes I don't agree with his style of writing. I thought he was right about a lot of subjects in his book, his style, choice of words, and his overall opinions. But saying this, he wrote his book giving the reader the illusion of facts, when in actual fact they are just his opinions. As interesting and well written his opinions may be, I don't think that gives him the right to write them as facts, nor anyone for that matter.
If I was to write a book about my mythologies on British semiotics, I would make it clear that the book is my personal opinion. I wouldn't (as I feel that Barthes may have done) try and impose my opinion like it is the only option. No matter how great my ideas may be or how many people agree with me. Saying this though, and seeing it written down, maybe that's what it takes to get people to agree with you. Imposing your opinion as fact and forcing your point on someone. Even if it is just about steak and chips.
Mytholgies - Roland Barthes, Published 1957, Publisher - Les Lettres nouvelles
No comments:
Post a Comment