vershy versh

Well-known member
Saussure. Signified and signifier. All that bollocks.

Saussure_Signifie-Signifiant.png
 

vershy versh

Well-known member
I first happened upon this stuff via Baudrillard (brilliant) then Barthes (boring) and most recently in a Jacques Dupin review - that's where the title's from - and Levi-Strauss' introduction to Marcel Mauss.

It makes sense, but it's one of those things where once it's in your head it's hard to shake off. Are there competing models? I've only ever heard people talking in either these terms or not.
 

vershy versh

Well-known member
Actually, I lie. The first I ever heard of a 'floating signifier' was someone referring to the titular V. of Pynchon's novel as such. It was that crazy bald guy who was always smoking cigars and hocking phlegm while talking about astrology who ended up having a meltdown on Twitter and ranting about his ex-girlfriend:

"On the one hand, the letter V may be a floating signifier in the narrative, where it can signify all sorts of things (its meaning, therefore, cannot be precisely pinned down), but on the other, the woman V herself, as an image, actually is a Transcendental Signified: namely, the Muse of Western Civilization, who has gone by many names."​


I think that guy's actually thanked in my copy of The Agony of Power, although he's listed as 'John Ebert' rather than 'John David Ebert'. This was the kind of thing he was tweeting when he had his funny turn:

"If you don't like pussy, then you can go elsewhere! This is all about men who like pussy. If you don't, go complain to momma!"​
 

vershy versh

Well-known member
I'll take exception to that - in Mythologies the chapter on Romans in films is "laugh out loud", lol

I really didn't like that book. Everything he said seemed either obvious or pointless. The only bit that stood out was him talking about someone's hair...

"The haircut, for example, half shorn, devoid of affectation and above all of definite shape, is without doubt trying to achieve a style completely outside the bounds of art and even of technique, a sort of zero degree of haircut."​
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

william_kent

Well-known member
I really didn't like that book. Everything he said seemed either obvious or pointless. The only bit that stood out was him talking about someone's hair...

"The haircut, for example, half shorn, devoid of affectation and above all of definite shape, is without doubt trying to achieve a style completely outside the bounds of art and even of technique, a sort of zero degree of haircut."​

isn't that from the "Romans in film chapter" though?

and it only seems obvious because he said it first, and everyone else on the "continent" copied
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
"If you don't like pussy, then you can go elsewhere! This is all about men who like pussy. If you don't, go complain to momma."​
You can actually imagine a Pynchon character saying this, can't you?
 

vershy versh

Well-known member
We could link this thread up with 'Will the Objects Win?' and consider whether signified and signifier are in competition, are they trying to outbreed one another? Also, whether objects are aiming for homogeneity, like Burroughs says about the industrial revolution being a virus revolution producing the identical, whilst signifiers are aiming for heterogeneity, endless novelty.
 

william_kent

Well-known member
Eco.png


"The information of the message is only reduced by the addressee when he selects a definite interpretation"

Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics, 1974
 
Top