Customer Reviews

Semiotics: The Basics

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

'Semiotics: the Basics' is remarkable for its clarity but never simplistic. From Saussure to Barthes, from Peirce to Eco, from Freud to Lacan and Derrida, Daniel Chandler offers a compelling and deeply insightful tour through the labyrinths of structuralism, sign systems, mediation, deconstruction, and other themes. Chandler delivers an essential summary of the major ideas in semiotics theory, but with careful sensitivity to those who are new to these ideas. His explanations are rich with examples. Where appropriate, he relates classical semiotics thinking to the highly mediated, postmodern world of mass communication. Chandler's online 'Semiotics for Beginners' has become the most often referred electronic text on the subject. 'Semiotics: the Basics' will undoubtely become a standard introductory text in undergraduate courses covering any aspect of contemporary communication theory.

Daniel Chandler decided to write this book because at the time there were no books providing an introduction to the complex subject of semiotics. There are now a number of titles on the market, but Chandler's is by far the best. At once accessible, Semiotics: The Basics, takes the reader through all the stages in the evolution of an understanding of semiotics and contextualises with clear examples. I used this book while writing my final undergraduate dissertation and had to read many of the other books on semiotics, but this is the book that I kept coming back to when I needed refreshing both in the basics and the more sophisticated concepts of semiotics. If you are an undergraduate just starting a course in semiotics then buy this book. And if you are about to teach a course in semiotics then read this book and recommend it to your students.

'Semiotics: the Basics' is remarkable for its clarity but never simplistic. From Saussure to Barthes, from Peirce to Eco, from Freud to Lacan and Derrida, Daniel Chandler offers a compelling and deeply insightful tour through the labyrinths of structuralism, sign systems, mediation, deconstruction, and other themes. Chandler delivers an essential summary of the major ideas in semiotics theory, but with careful sensitivity to those who are new to these ideas. His explanations are rich with examples. Where appropriate, he relates classical semiotics thinking to the highly mediated, postmodern world of mass communication. Chandler's online 'Semiotics for Beginners' has become the most often referred electronic text on the subject. 'Semiotics: the Basics' will undoubtely become a standard introductory text in undergraduate courses covering any aspect of contemporary communication theory.

Chandler's book is a highly condensed but remarkably lucid overview of semiotics. He combines a keen sense of the historical development of the field with a clear-headed (and much appreciated) delineation of the various semiotic schools. Chandler tosses about jargon with enthusiastic abandon, and although this will no doubt put off some readers -- especially students coming to the discipline for the first time -- the inclusion of a comprehension glossary will help to put most of those concerns to rest.

This book has been a great introduction to semiotics. However, it has been more, for when trying to understand what appeared to be unrelated topics I have returned to this book and found new insights which reach into philosophy and ontology.

This book does exactly what it set out to do; introduce the field of semiotics with an emphasis on media aplications. Unfortunatly semiotics is not a very reputable subject. An intresting quote that opitimizes what most of this book is about, "... since the code of linear perspective is built into the camera, photography and film, while appearing to involve simply a neutral coding of reality, serve to reinforce the borgeois individualism." I find the linking between artistic perspective and individualism specious (to say the least). If this isn't your opinion about these kinds of "enlightening" links then this book will be a fantastic read. For those that agree with the incredibility of most high-flying intellectual bigotry, this book is still good as an introduction to semiotics (the study of signs and sign systems), with an (for me) unfortunate bent towards idealism. Either way this is a good introduction to the literature with some good material in its own right.

then this is perhaps the best book to pick up, as an intro... But ask yourself, honestly- why are you doing this to your mind? Writers who write as badly as the ones dealt with in this tome do so for one reason: intimidation. You're supposed to think, "wow this is hard to read. It must mean the writer has a grasp of things I don't. His arbitrarily constructed and half-assed idiolect make me feel befuddled... Ooh... He smart. Me dumb."

This is not the case.

'Twas the not the case with Schopenhauer, or Rousseau, or Plato, or Nietzsche, or Descartes, or any thinker/writer of substance. Ok, maybe Wittgenstein is hard at times, but his was an original and alien mind... One that struggled, always struggled... Sadly- the 20th C. was a benighted time for original thought. It had wordplay in abundance... but not much thought... one big candy store of thought. Neither caviar nor kale. No beef, no collard greens...

Semioticians and post-structuralists and post-mods, whatever: Their all-too-bombastic obscurantism is a sign of their bad faith. These thinkers are dead ends, their basic presuppositions are highly questionable (if not laughable) and their "discipline," if one may boldly employ the word in as ironical a way as possible- is a joke. The academic legacy of semiotics is a boil on the face of literature. "How many angels can dance oer' the head of a pin," but for post-modernity.

So, why are you taking these prating fools seriously? Call them on their bluff... and abandon their books to the fate of not being read.

Still, as they go, this is a Good Book, a clear book, albeit on a senseless, worthless and ultimately useless subject. Do you really think in 20 years the corpus of these frauds will have any bearing on the world? Does it now?