|Subject||Re: structuralism and semiotics|
|Posted on||Sat Jun 10 09:07:29 2000|
|In Reply to||structuralism and semiotics|
After reading your journal , there are two interesting points I feel like discussing. The first one is that basically I agree with your idea that the binary opposition---concealment V.S. unconcealment is very much related to another binary opposition---power V.S. powerless so that it is better to analyze them together. However, before reading your journal, I always think that the relation between the two binary oppositions are just very simple---that concealment is equaled with power, and unconcealment is equaled with powerless. In other words, once a character*s position belongs to concealment, he becomes powerful, and if his position turns to unconcealment, he becomes powerless. Just that simple! However, in your journal, you mentioned another point of view. You said that, for example, when Prefect V.S. minister D, Perfect belongs to unconcealment (because all his actions are known by D) and becomes powerless (I perfectly agree with this). But at the same time, you also said that because Perfect wants to hide himself from minister D, he can also belong to concealment but still is powerless. And this kind of point of view is what I never think of before. I think I understand what you mean. You mean that from a reader*s point of view (to see the whole story) or from D*s point of view, we will consider Perfect belongs to unconcealment when he V.S. D, because we know that all his actions are known by D. However, if it is from Perfect himself*s point of view, he didn*t know that his actions are known by D and would naturally think that he himself belongs to concealment and D belongs to unconcealment. It is really a very interesting point! It reminds me that there are really many different ways to interpret a text. I should not oversimplify it; instead, I shall try to think of a text from more different points of view.
|HOME PAGE Contact Me|
WWWThreads Version 2.7.3