S/Z

From “S/Z” (0) by Roland Barthes

The goal of literary work (of literature as work) (1) is to make the reader no longer a consumer, but a producer of the text. Our literature is characterized (2) by the pitiless divorce (3) which the literary institution maintains between the producer of the text and its user, between its owner and its customer (4), between its author and its reader (5). The reader is thereby plunged into a kind of idleness – he is intransitive; he is, in short, serious (6): instead of functioning himself (7), instead of gaining access to the magic of the signifier (8), to the pleasure of writing, he is left with no more than the poor freedom either to accept or reject the text (9): reading is nothing more than a referendum. Opposite the writerly text, then, is its countervalue, its negative (10), reactive value: what can be read, but not written (11): the readerly. We call any readerly text a classic text.

0

0) If I were to star the entire text (ISE #1), I would be able to comment more fully on the importance of re-reading. Since this starred text assumes that it has been read before, it would seem natural and even necessary that various comments should continually lead the writerly reader back to the text and its starred interpretations.

1

1) Why must this text be examined? (ISE #2) Since this passage claims to address “literary work,” which by definition includes itself, it is worthwhile to see how well this passage can be transformed from a readerly into a writerly text. S/Z devises its own system for examining the possibilities inherent in reading one text, but implicates all current literature as being antithetical to literature’s future goal. It is therefore fruitful to examine the text on its own terms; like a doctor treating himself, the text offer no better proof of its own validity than by using its protocol (DIG #0) of metatextuality. (ISE #3)

2

2) I will identify instances of textual self-awareness (ISE #4) that invite a potentially infinite cycle of self-referentiality as “ISEs” (Infinite Self-Examinations). In this sentence, Barthes invokes “our literature,” without conditions or parameters. He thereby includes his own text in this category, allowing the sentence to categorize itself. The veracity of his sentence is thereby dependent by the sentence’s conformity to its own mandates, inviting a potentially endless cycle, or an ISE.

3

3) Barthes frequently uses the language of opposition and duality in order to emphasize the rupture between readerly and writerly texts. Through word choices, such as “divorce,” this duality manifests itself on the level of the sentence structure. I will identify (ISE #5) applications of ISE and DIG that occur on a linguistic level as (+/-). The oppositional word-pairings also mimic the contradiction inherent in establishing a set of rules to analyze an inherently unknowable matrix of meaning.

4

4) Here, Barthes invokes the language of consumption and capital. (+/- #1) Literature is conceived of as a good or service, marketable by an “institution” and “consumed” by its readership. This is a language that denies literature its potential to be mentally liberating, or enjoyable outside the realm of capitalism. The “magic” and “pleasure” belong now to the signifiers and the act of writing. The literature itself is, instead, a labor: “work.” (DIG #1)

5

5) By repeating the formula of oppositional words, Barthes’ vocabulary (+/- #2) mimics the coding of binary, in which a bit is defined by presence and absence. This link between Barthes’ language and the properties of binary are introduced early in the paragraph, but become even more obvious during his discussion of “negativity” later.