The 'author is a salaried priest' says Barthes.





Perhaps Sarrasine, a novella by Honoure Balzac is a revelant example. In the 

socio-economic perspective the story might be a moral lesson in that money 

corrupts.

Noticed that I used a qualifier 'might'

Balzac labored to work language into the moral lesson 'Sarrasine'. But he is 

always 'an inductor of ambiguity' and because he is conscious of language, 

the tool that he uses, he cannot protest without corrupting the intention of 

the protest.



How can a person who immorally withholds the ending of a story in order to be trusted to teach a moral lesson?