I was quite happy to hear that there is a new book by Barthes coming out in the next few weeks, called Mourning Diary, which is comprised of notes that Barthes made after the death of his mother (this is a subject that he speaks of in his wonderful Camera Lucida as well - students taking my course on photography next semester, take note). The New Yorker website happened to publish some of these cards (and their translations) recently, and I have decided to post one of the cards here.
Translation:
—”Never again, never again!”
—And yet there’s a contradiction: “never again” isn’t eternal, since you yourself will die one day.
“Never again” is the expression of an immortal.
I was also looking at Advanced Book Exchange and found this:
$300 USD is a bit out of my budget, but it would be a nice thing to have. I will be buying Mourning Diary, though.
(You can see the other cards, and read more at the New Yorker website.)
6 comments:
I found Roland Barthes writings on the ideas of pleasure and desire great too, and I'm happy to get to look over his stuff and use it when analyzing in cultural studies classes as well as in some English courses i've taken/am taking.
Just thought I'd let you know that.. Hugs from everyone here!
Hi Nicholas,
Re: Roland Barthes’ expression "never again" and his claim that there is a contradiction.
I'm puzzled. It seems to me that if "never again" is understood as not again during every remaining moment in my finite lifespan, then, whether “never again” is said by a mortal or an immortal (and all other things being equal), the meaning remains the same—and so there is no contradiction. It seems to me too that if the meaning of "never again" is understood as not again over a period of infinite duration, then again, whether said by a mortal or an immortal (and all other things being equal), the meaning remains the same—and so there is no contradiction. (A contradiction occurs when something is stated to be the case and not the case at the same time and in the same sense.)
Perhaps the idea is that mortals can’t use language to describe any goings-on or states of affairs beyond their own death, and so a contradiction occurs if they try to use language to describe such things. But mortals surely can and do use language to make reference to what is beyond their lifespan. Think of the language of a legal will. Or think of language such as tomorrow and the day after and the day after, and so on without stopping. Or think of Barthes’ language when he informed us (intelligibly, presumably, even though he has since died) that the expression “never again” is the expression of an immortal.
I realize that I might be coming across (above) as insensitive to Barthes, because his comments about "never again" come from his Mourning Diary, written after the death of his mother. Please know that I don't intend any insensitivity or disrespect. I am simply puzzled by Barthes' claim that a contradiction has occurred—and, with all due respect, I submit that (if one does not equivocate on "never again") no contradiction has occurred.
For the record, I am deeply touched by Barthes' sentence, "'Never again' is the expression of an immortal." For the sake of clarity, I would just add (and, because of Barthes' language use, I think Barthes would agree with this) that immortals are not the only ones who can speak intelligibly about eternity—though immortals can probably say much more about eternity than mortals.
To be fair to Barthes, he was writing on a postcard…. And, to be fair to me, I am presently probably engaging in form of philosophical procrastination as I neglect a small pile of philosophy exams waiting for me to grade them….
See you in the halls,
Hendrik
Whoops. My last sentence is missing an "a" and should read as follows:
"And, to be fair to me, I am presently probably engaging in a form of philosophical procrastination as I neglect a small pile of philosophy exams waiting for me to grade them…."
More procrastination!
Hendrik
P.S. A note of clarification: Immediately after "I'm puzzled" (in my larger comment above), the "my" in "my finite lifespan" should read "Hendrik's" as in "Hendrik's finite lifespan" (i.e., the lifespan under discussion is mine, not an immortal utterer's).
P.P.S. Will I return to this blog? Never again. (Well, at least not for a while.)
Nicholas,
In my ongoing procrastinations, I put a "cleaned up" version of my above comments over at The New Yorker's original article on Barthes. Thanks for letting me think out loud here on your blog.
Okay, back to grading.
Hendrik
Post a Comment