Patte has developed a personalised interpretation of Greimas' works which is valuable to those interested in structuralism and its application to the Bible.

Patte depends on placing heavier emphases on Greimas' understanding of actants that are manifestly true to the reader than anyone else who uses Greimas' methods. Greimas would have had no problem with Patte's approach. He was frequently happy to watch the impact his methodology would make in the area of biblical studies.

Several of Patte's publications are important to biblical structuralism, not least because I would content that Patte has created an important branch of biblical structuralism. Although he is methodical himself, Patte is heavy going! But that is in the nature of Greimas' works!

Think about the idea known to us as object-oriented programming; instead of rewriting everything from scratch over and over again, as we used to do, instead you have small blocks of code that can be used for many different procedures, thus decreasing the amount of work for the programmer and the amount of hard-drive space that the user needs. Simple and elegant. Makes sense, huh? It's actually an idea as old as language. "Object-oriented" is a good description of any language. While Oriental writing shows this most clearly, in that a relatively small number of syllabic characters are written in various ways to make larger words, it's easily understood in any language when looked at the right way.

This is the basis behind A.-J. Greimas' _Structural Semantics_. However, he extends the argument not only to language, but to thought as well, and gives the reader a new way to think about the critical analysis of what he reads.

Greimas' theory is that humans have a specific and limited number of possible ideas that can be used in various, still limited but much closer to infinite, ways to create sentences, and from there to create stories. Much of the book is spent developing and defending this theory, and only the last two chapters (devoted, respectively, to analysis of the body of Russian folktales and the body of work by French author Bernanos) show how to put the theory into practice. Given this, it should be evident to the reader that this is going to be a tough book to tackle even for experienced literary critics. It doesn't help that Greimas spends much of his time in the stratosphere, and assumes we're spending all that time with him; he drops references without backing them up constantly (the translators of the University of Nebraska Press edition identified and tracked down well over a hundred of these, and endnotes are included), and his language is so far into the abstract that if you attempt to take up this book without a pad and pen, you'll be lost early on.

This all changes, thankfully, as practical application makes itself known. Once we get down to actually applying everything from the book to the symbolism in a given author, it all starts to make sense. One wonders why the beginning part couldn't have been explained in an easier, more concise manner; perhaps Greimas, so involved in the world of literary theory, didn't know how any more.

A fascinating read, albeit a long one; while I found it tremendously enlightening, I have to penalize it heavily for being so obtuse most of the time.