(593)
|
| 〈環法自行車大賽一如史詩〉──試論羅蘭巴特的神話解析書寫 |
| “The French Tour as an Epic”──Roland Barthes and his Mythological Writing |
 |
| 作者 |
許綺玲 |
| Author |
Chi-lin Hsu |
| 關鍵詞 |
羅蘭巴特、
神話、
史詩、
散文（隨筆或雜感文）、
環法自行車大賽、
運動表演
|
| Keywords |
Roland Barthes,
mythology,
epic,
essay,
the French Tour,
sport spectacle
|
| 摘要 |
巴特在一九五○年代寫《神話學》，將環法自行車大賽解讀為一則永恆的史詩，並在文末宣稱這是現代神話的最佳實例。然而，就內容而言，巴特與當時普遍的時代觀感有何交集？他對於自行車競賽的發展背景與塑成其「神話」的歷史條件究竟有何看法？因這些問題的提出，值得我們細讀這篇被遺忘了的巴特散文。有趣的是，比起其他神話短篇，巴特在這篇文章裡的立場顯得有些曖昧，令人想到他後來為一部加拿大紀錄片《運動與人》（Le Sport et les Hommes）所撰的旁白，在當中他對於運動員的道德精神以及運動表演的體制都有相當「正面」的描述。如何解釋一位神話解析者看似如此不尋常的包容態度？巴特文章那細膩的美學修辭，是否為了刻意玩弄既定的意識形態，卻反而對自己的批判對象若即若離，導致立場不清？還是，對這可能落入的「妥協」態度，巴特早已自有警覺？為了省思這些問題，有必要重新審視巴特的神話書寫。但是，與其一再鑽研他在〈今日神話〉理論篇所提出用以解析社會符號的基本架構，不如探究其真正落實於後設書寫的變形互文擬仿，換言之，本文欲直接從其書寫切入，來檢驗巴特所自言的「形式的責任」。 |
| Abstract |
When Roland Barthes wrote Mythologies in the 1950’s, he interpreted “the French Tour” as an everlasting epic. In the end of the essay, he even concluded that it must be the best example of modern mythologies that one even knew. Nevertheless, how did he share with the common opinions about the most popular French sport at that time? What did he think about the creation of the French Tour and its historical context that had predetermined the mythological status of this sport? In order to deal with these questions, it is necessary that we read again this text now almost forgotten by people. What is especially interesting for us is that, to compare with other myths, this text seems to be based upon a curiously ambiguous position. This reminds us of a text Barthes later on wrote for a Canadian documentary film, “the Sport and the Human Kind.” In this film, he gave a quite positive image about the sportsmen’s morality as well as the entire sport spectacle. How to explain such an unusually indulgent attitude that could be found in a mythologist? With his highly refined style, would it be possible that Barthes might fail to keep his critical distance, while playing ironically with the general ideology about this particular sport? In face of such risk of becoming compromising, was Barthes, however, conscious of his own precarious point of view? It is precisely for a reconsideration of these questions that we should study in detail the mythological writing of Barthes. But instead of repeating the semiologic analysis structure proposed by Barthes himself, we think it would be more instructive to enter directly into the text itself, so as to examine the barthesian “responsibility of form.” |
|
|
|
