From 11:00PM PDT on Friday, July 1 until 5:00AM PDT on Saturday, July 2, the Shmoop engineering elves will be making tweaks and improvements to the site. That means Shmoop will be unavailable for use during that time. Thanks for your patience!
We have changed our privacy policy. In addition, we use cookies on our website for various purposes. By continuing on our website, you consent to our use of cookies. You can learn about our practices by reading our privacy policy.
© 2016 Shmoop University, Inc. All rights reserved.

Roland Barthes’s Dispute: The Picard Affair

When Barthes published On Racine in 1963, some critics weren't exactly fans of his style. But one critic, a professor at the Sorbonne, wasn't content with just poohing-poohing Barthes's work at cocktail parties. So Jean-Luc Picard published an attack article, "New Criticism or New Fraud?" (1965) that accused Barthes of being too, well, Barthes-y.

To Picard, Barthes's On Racine seemed too subjective—it wasn't how-to-read-Racine, it was how-to-read-Racine-like-Barthes. Picard wanted the old style of literary criticism, seemingly objective and full of history and biography. But Barthes wanted to get at Racine through close readings of structure and through psychoanalysis—basically, through all sorts of scary, newfangled ideas.

Although Barthes didn't stoop to quite the same style of attack, he did defend himself in Criticism and Truth (1966). From Barthes's angle, it's not that he was being too subjective in his criticism, but that Picard (and others) didn't see how their supposed objectivity wasn't really all that objective in the first place.

People who Shmooped this also Shmooped...