Content area
Full Text
Timothy Scheie’s book on the importance of the theatre in Roland Barthes’ oeuvre begins with what Scheie poses as an enigma: Barthes wrote frequently of the theatre at the beginning of his career and then ceased to do so, without comment, after 1960. Scheie argues that Barthes’ abandonment of the theatre reveals something important about the development of his thoughts and even about his life. Scheie also considers Barthes’ early theatrical criticism and later use of theatrical metaphors to be an under-considered aspect of the critic’s work. Performance Degree Zero is an ambitious work not so much because of what it argues, but because of its attempt to trace the theatre’s presence (or absence) during Barthes’ entire career as a writer, from roughly 1947 to 1980, through close readings of sections of most of his major works. The book also reviews the history of theatrical criticism in a more general way during a similar time period. Unfortunately, these goals are somewhat at odds with each other; Scheie’s subject is perhaps too narrow to merit a book-length study, while the amount of Barthes’ criticism and theatrical history he attempts to analyze is too broad. As a result, the book is uneven; Scheie makes some very cogent observations about the presence of the human body both in Barthes’ criticism and in performance theory, but he makes the same points over and over again in each of the four chapters as he progresses through Barthes’ work in an occasionally confusing, chronologically oriented reading.
Scheie breaks Barthes’ career down into several distinct periods around which he organizes the four chapters of the book: Barthes’ early career in the 1950s as a journalist and critic who frequently reviewed theatrical performances; his articulation of structuralism and emergence as an important and famous theorist in the 1960s; and his post-structuralist writings of the 1970s, during which time Barthes turned to more personal subjects and less academic forms of writing. Scheie shows an impressive familiarity with the majority of Barthes’ work, as well as with much of the criticism surrounding it. Even if his overview of the development of Barthes’ thought has been largely accomplished by other writers (cf. works by Louis-Jean Calvet, Jonathan Culler, and D. A. Miller, for example), Scheie forefronts...