Read درجه صفر نوشتار by Roland Barthes شیرین‌دخت دقیقیان Online

درجه صفر نوشتار

این اثر در دو بخش تدوین شده است ، بخش نخست شامل:ـ اسلوب نوشتار چیستنوشتارهای سیاسیاساوب نوشتار و رمانآیا اسلوب نوشتار شاعرانه وجود داردبخش دوم شامل:ـپیروزی و شکست نوشتار بورژوازیصناعت سبکنوشتار و انقلابنوشتار و سکوتنوشتار و گفتارآرمانشهرزبان...

Title : درجه صفر نوشتار
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789646641686
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 112 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

درجه صفر نوشتار Reviews

  • Özgür
    2019-03-24 09:13

    Yazım sanatının en doğuş halini anlatmış Barthes. Kalemin kutsallığının en akademik anlatımı sanırım. Dil gibi sonsuz bir mecrayı kontrol altına almak, kalemle, ses hücreleriyle düşünce ve yazımla dizginlemenin ne kadar zor ama ne kadar kutsal olduğunu da her sayfada bıkmadan anlatıyor.Kitabın sanırım yeni basımlarında uzatılmış hali mevcut. Yeni halinde uzun uzun anlatılan dil ve yazım sanatının örnekleri büyük yazarların kitaplarından alıntılarla örneklendirilmiş. (Proust, Pierre Loti gibi..)

  • أحمد شاكر
    2019-03-20 07:52

    حول الكتابة في درجة الصفر والكتابة والثورة والكتابة والصمت، ينقب رولان بارت في اللغة وفي تاريخ الكتابة معطيا قواعد جديدة انطلقت منها أغلب الكتابات الحديثة.

  • Bob
    2019-03-31 06:55

    Often just as impenetrable and abstruse as you fear - Susan Sontag's introductory essay to the 1968 English translation is enormously helpful in suggesting what to look for and laying out the ground rules of Barthes' thought - also by suggesting which essays to start with (not at the beginning).Inevitably a reader educated in the Anglo-American tradition, first language English, is going to retain a bit of ethnocentrism, so it is good medicine to read someone for whom "literature" means "French literature" and "language" means French; it does make me want to get a much better grip on things I feel I have only plodded through (Flaubert).Also interesting, at this remove from when he was criticizing and being criticized - by now any educated American has at least taken a stab at, and possibly even enjoyed (!), Robbe-Grillet, Beckett and Queneau, all of whom were considered examples of Barthes esotericism when he was championing them in the 1950s.

  • Soeine
    2019-04-20 03:55

    Roland Barthes succinctly expresses his concern about the separation between the (writer’s) individual “style” and the “language” of society. According to him, these two “objects” of convention (“style” and “language”) escape the writer’s control. The writer cannot choose them; they are given to him. Style results from one’s habits formed over the passage of time in his personal and biological conditions, and is alien to language which results from social convention, common to all social members. As a way to bridge these two, Barthes introduces “écriture” (writing), by which the writer commits himself to society. In this operation, écriture works as a “function” which connects style and language through the individual’s intention to carry out his moral responsibility to reach out to society.

  • Mohammed Yusuf
    2019-03-23 07:11

    الكتابة,الأسلوب,اللغة أعمدة أساسية للأدب سواء أكان سياسيا ,روائيا أو غير ذلك أول قراءاتي للكتب النقدية ولقد واجهت صعوبة في التعامل معه .. تحولت إلى إستمتاع بعد فترة وجيزة .. حيث بدأت أتحرك معه فكريابنية الكتاب ورؤيته في إعتقادي تمثل إفتراضات وليست بالقطعيات ولكن تعد نظرة من خبير كما يقال ..مفهوم الكتابة في درجة الصفر تناقض عندي بين عدة رؤى للكاتب بين التأثير وغيابه في الحالة الصفرية وبين ما حمله للكلمات التي أصبحت إتكاءة على المفهوم لها دور في توضيحه لكن ليست مرتكز فهذه الصورة الغيابية هي حالة صفرية أيضا والتي مثلت دور الحياد في عصر الأدب بلا أدباءأولى تناقضات الكتاب من وجهة نظري هي في طرح الأسلوب فهو حين نظر إليه أنه عنفوانية ونتاج شخصي بحت عاكس هذه النظرة بإعتباره صورة مزاجية ونظام توريثي .. وبذلك لا يكون خارج نطاق المجتمعالكتابة عند رولان بارت هي ناقل بين جزئيتي البيئة الداخلية العنفوانية واللغة .. الطور المجتمعي في ذكر الكتابة تعرض الكاتب للصورة والسياسية والروائية متفرعا في ذلك وبتوضيحات كثيرة إنتقل بعدها إلى منطقة البيوطيقيا في الصورة الشعرية وصورة النثر وهنا تطرق لحالة عصري الكلاسيكية والحداثة وفي هذه النقطة إختلفت معه في نظرته للكلاسيكية بإعتبارها مقيدة للفكر وتستلزم صياغة وشكلا أكثر من المعنى حيث أنني أعتبر أن العروض وغيره من القواعد الكلاسيكية يعتبر تجربة تحدي للكاتب فالمتنبي لم يوقفه العروض عن الإبداع وليس الإبداع مكتملا في توهان المعنى ولقد عاد فنظر إلى الصورة التدميرية رغم الديمومة التحديثية في شعر الحداثة .. إلى أنني أعزي هذا المفهوم إلى أنه كان يتحدث عن أساطير في الحداثة كرامبو وهيغو وغيرهم لكن الشعر الحديث في رأيي اليوم أصبح فيه من الهرطقات الكثير حيث أن الكاتب نفسه يغيب المعنى عن نفسه فلا يستطيع الإلمام بحقائق ما كتبوأظن إعجابه بالحداثة الشعرية هو إنعكاس فترة الحرية في ذلك الوقت والتجربة عندنا تختلف بالطبع عن التجربة الغربية هذا الشئ جعلني لا أنجذب إلى حديثه الذي عقب هذا الحديث عن البرجوازية رغم أنها لم تنحصر عليهم فإن تعدد المعاني البلاغية في غياب الحدود والقواعد التي مثلت تجربة البرجوازية لها وجودها في الأدب العربي البرجوازية التي صدعت نفسها حين إنتبه الشاعر لإزدواجية الشعور من حيث أنه صوت الشعب ( في القرنين السادس والسابع عشر وأمتدت حتى بعد الثورة )يصبح الكتاب تاريخيا حين يتحدث عن الفترة التي تلت ذلك حيث تردت النظرة للكتابة فأصبح هم الكاتب جذب الناس إليها وأنشغل كثيرا بدراستها هولاء الكتاب كأندريه جيد وفلوبير وفاليري (فرنسا) ... وجدوا حيث صنع الأدب المأساويوفي النقطة التالية ينقد الكاتب وبصورة متشددة كتاب المدرسة الواقعية التي نشأت عن كتابات فلوبير والتي من روادها زولا وموباسان حيث أنهم إهتموا بالشكلية دون الإبداع فكان الأمر عندهم مسألة إنتاج .. والحقيقة من ضمن قراءاتي القادمة كتاب من كتب زولا وسأرى بنفسي هذه الصورة إن شاء الله يتابع بعدها في نقده لكتاب الشكلية الذين كانت اللغة مبدأهم ومنتهاهم والشكلية إهتمامهم كمالارميه التي مثلت حالة عجز فلو أنهم تركوا الكتابة لكان ذلك أحرى بهم ( مرحلة الصمت ) ويكشف عن جزيئة الكتاب المحايدة (الصفرية ) التي أصبحت الحل كما ظهرت عند ألبير كامو حيث تم تغييب الشكل وحمل الفكر مسؤوليته وحتى هذه الكتاب تتدهور في الحيز الزماني حيث يضيق الشكل الخناق على الفكر ويصبح الكاتب مقلدا لأسطورته البدائية ( كتابته البيضاء – الحيادية )عموما هذه الفترة أثرت فيها الصورة السياسية أثرا جليا بعد هذه المرحلة ظهرت تجليات الكتابة في الأخذ من الكلام أو الإطار المجتمعي للغة متمثلا في اللهجات والصور العامية والتي كانت في بدايتها صورة لمواضعة الضحك فأصبحت صورة موضوعية كما هو عند بلزاك وبروستوفي مراجعة للكتابة الحديثة يوقع رولان بارت الكاتب موضع حيرة بين ما يفعله وبين ما يراه فهو محصور بين التراث الكتابي طريقة التعبير التي ألفها والوقائع الماثلة أمامه ولا يستطيع التعبير عنها .. هي إزدواجية المأساة الأدبية .. وتنتهي قوامة العصر الحديث خلال هذا العجز والتجربة المأساوية لتنتج عالما مثاليا وهميا هو يوتوبيا اللغةكتاب مرهق وممتع .. وقراءات أخرى لرولان بارتإقتباسات:اللسان إذن ما قبل الأدب والأسلوب هو مابعده تقريبا فالصور والإلقاء تولد من جسم الكاتب وماضيه لتغدو شيئا فشيئا آليات فنه ذاتهافالشكل يتراءى معلقا أمام الأنظار وكأنه موضوع . وهو مستنكر كيفما كان إن كان فخما بدا زيا قديما وإن كان فوضويا بدا غير إجتماعي ومتميزا بالنسبة إلى العصر أو الناس وعلى أي وجه بدا فهو عزلة اللسان والأسلوب هما قوة عشواء أما الكتابة فهي فعل تضامن تاريخي كل كتابة ثقافية هي أولى طفرات الفكرفي الحالة الراهنة للتاريخ لا يمكن لأي كتابة سياسية إلا أن تكون دعما لعالم بوليسي كما أن أي كتابة ثقافية لا يمكنها إلا أن تؤسس عالما يتجاوز الأدب ولا تملك الجرأة على ذكر إسمه الفن لا شئ سوى الكمال في تقليد الواقعاللغة بطبيعتها تميل إلى تدمير ذاتهاالأدب مثل الفوسفور يكون أكثر لمعانا لحظة موتهالرواية موت , وهي تجعل من الحياة قدرا , ومن الذكرى فعلا مفيدا , ومن الديمومة زمنا موجها له دلالةاللغة طقس إجتماعي من التعابير, وحيثما وجدت فهي لغة واحدة تعكس مقولات العقل الخالدةإن مفهوم الواقع في المذهب الطبيعي يقابله إصطناع الكتابة الفنون الأدبية تهدد كل لغة أسست على غير الكلام الإجتماعي الصرفالكاتب أمام الورقة البيضاء لحظة إختياره للكلمات هذا الكاتب يكون ممزقا بين ما يفعله وما يراه

  • Pooya Kiani
    2019-03-28 04:56

    مشخصا شروع کار رولان بارته، اون ابهت فکر و کلام همیشگی رو نداره، اما خیلی قابل اعتناست؛ و مهم‌ برای هر نویسنده.

  • Peter Landau
    2019-04-07 05:10

    WRITING DEGREE ZERO isn’t a poem, though the title is as inscrutable and evocative as one. Roland Barthes’ first book is an essay on literature, that much I got. Even Susan Sontag notes in her revealing preface that it’s not a good place to start in Barthes’ oeuvre. The prose is academic, difficult and assumes that the reader has already done the homework. I didn’t even know there was a test! Like having a dream where I’m in my underwear, totally unprepared, I figured I might as well go with it until I woke up. I don’t have a terrible body, for a man of my age, and I’m not a sound sleeper. While biding my time, trying to unravel reams of knotty ideas about writing and history, I’d be struck by a sentence or two. For example, “Modernism begins with the search for a Literature which is no longer possible.” I don’t know what that means, but I like it. Barthes has you digging through the fruit of his creative prose until you hit your teeth on a stone of truth that stops you. It’s not understanding — for me, at least — but an inarticulate knowledge. I get that I don’t get it. That's a start.

  • Nikola Tasev
    2019-04-08 08:54

    Written in a style heavy with complex, unneeded, heavy expressions and clumsy similes. Using words outside their normal definitions without providing his own definition. Using different meanings of a word without clarifying which one he means (Language, History - personal and societal). Talking about Literature and meaning just French literature. A whole lot of fluff you need to go through before you can see what he means. The author never states clearly something he can dance about - "let me tell you about Language and Style, Language springs from the body and past of the writer, while Style is of biological origin and its secret is locked in the recollection of the writer". Almost a quote.And when you do, you can find it it full of unbacked and untrue assertions (every Form is a Value), and drawing illogical and false conclusions from them. I am left with the impression that noone wanted to point out that the emperor had (almost) no clothes, fearing they would seem too stupid to understand the profound truths (intentionally vague and ambiguous deepities, mostly). There is a point and meaning behind all this, but it is not given easily, or willingly. You have to dig through a lot of sand to get your small gold reward... not worth it in my opinion. I have no desire to read an author that does not wish to be understood, I don't want to pry truth from someone who does not wish to share it freely.

  • Kent
    2019-04-12 10:11

    Barthes' primary allegiance is to the impulse that leads an artist to write. The language the writer uses, his style, is an organic response to what he feels needs to be said. It all seems so simple. And what I'm especially interested in is his statement describing accessibility in literature. It is merely a decision, for the writer, to participate in the dominant (for Barthes, this reads "bourgeoisie) rhetoric of that time. The writer is the one in control, then. There is no one language system the writer is beholden to. They are his to manipulate, or his to use.

  • Ahmed
    2019-04-09 03:56

    كتاب تقدي هام لكن اعتقد انه يخص اللغة الفرنسية و الثقافة الفرانكوفونية بشكل اساسي ، فصعب بل من شبه المستحيل فهم الكتاب كاملا اذا لم نكن نملك حد ادنى من الفهم للغة و الثقافة و التاريخ الفرنسي ، فهو يتحدث مثلا عن الماضي البسيط في الفرنسية و هو صيغة زمن له خصوصية في الفرنسية و لا يمكن ادراك تطور اللغة و الاسلوب دون فهم هذه الصيغة ، ايضا معظم استشهاداته بل اعتقد ان كلها مستمدة من الادب الفرنسي و مرتبطة بالتاريخ الفرنسي....... لذلك لا اعتقد انه كتاب مهم بالنسبة للأشخاص غير المهتمين بالفرنسية ، بالرغم من أهميته و اهمية الافكار التي يطرحها

  • عبلة جابر
    2019-03-21 08:11

    كتاب نقدي هام

  • Stefan Szczelkun
    2019-03-29 06:51

    In 1953 I was five and the coronation of Queen Elisabeth II of England was the main event. There was a surge in TV buying as the ceremony was relayed live and someone on our street got one and soon after we got our own black and white set and I was watching Bill & Ben the Flowerpot Men and Andy Pandy and Hopalong Cassidy.Meanwhile over in Paris the renegade critic Roland Barthes had his first book of essays printed - Writing Degree Zero. These essays contained startling and brilliant insight into the nature of Western European writing and language. I only recently read this book and it made me think a lot about my patchy experience of literature - my affinity with science fiction and then experimental writing from William Burroughs and Brion Gysin's cut-ups to Bob Cobbing's sound poetry. From Joyce and Beckett to the Fluxus instructions.He starts by impressing on us the depth at which writing springs "from the body and the past of the writer". Words themselves "have a second-order memory which mysteriously persists in the midst of new meanings". "Under each word in modern poetry there lies a sort of existential geology, in which is gathered the total content of the Name… Pregnant with all past and future specifications." p.48. "Every man is a prisoner of his language…. is put on show and delivered up by his language, betrayed by a formal reality which is beyond the reach of his lies, whether they are inspired by self-interest or generosity". p.81.Throughout the book Barthes refers to 'classical writing'. Classical writing is defined as the writing that appears as the national languages are standardised and codified by way of dictionaries and grammars under the economic focus of the expanding book market (around 1700). It is Literature that is at the core of the new Bourgeois culture and self-identity. Its exemplary form is the novel. The mythic unity of this language is an article of classical dogma. This singular language claims to externalise everything that is important about the human mind. In the end it claims its achievement as universal.Barthes calls the use of the preterite, past tense or simple past, which is rarely used in oral speech, the 'cornerstone' of classical Literary narration. The preterite is used to "reduce the exploded reality to a slim and pure logos, without density, without volume, without spread, and whose sole function is to unite as rapidly as possible a cause and an end." "He who tells the story has the power to do away with with the opacity and the solitude of the existences which made it up..." p.31.In C16th and beginning of C17th there was a profusion of literary languages. The written form has not yet come to a standardised dominant grammar and form. This is what he calls the pre-classical period. As written language comes to have national norms it become invisible as nothing else is allowed. All dialect variants are judged as incorrect usage. Within this dominating language varying rhythms and styles are possible of course but form is supposed to be at the service of content. "The only thing in question was rhetoric". "This classical writing is, needless to say, a class writing." p.57. Forged by those close to power, shaped by dogma, it had separated from speech by getting rid of 'colloquialism' and was drilled by definition for clarity and to be the unquestionably superior language of the elite. The national language of France remained intact through the revolution of the late 1700s and stayed all-powerful until 1848. It was promoted as universal but really was the cultural movement of an period of bourgeois dominance.The Realism of writers like Emile Zola (1840 - 1902) that was a part of this attempted break, used a combination of the formal signs of Literature (The past tense, indirect speech, written rhythms) with a smattering of colloquialisms, shock words and working class speech. It becomes a convention of 'the real', a spectacular fabrication.In the mid C19th national writing was so established that most writers were unaware that there were many ways of speaking French. What was most often quoted from these other 'inferior' forms, were humorous of picturesque phrases. "There began to find their way into literary language proper a few extraneous scraps lifted from inferior forms of language, provided they were suitably eccentric (otherwise they would have been a source of danger)." p.79. It is only Marcel Proust who uses language's breadth to "fully account for the whole content of society." p.80. With Proust literature becomes a useful qualitative information on the human world, it no longer exists to imply 'pride or escape'. Barthes claims that the use of a real language by a writer is the most human act they can make. However languages are surrounded by conventional usages that are most often strictly policed.Marxist writing broke with the moral justifications and grandiloquence of the French Revolutionaries, it was univocal, lexical, understated and above all maintained a cohesion of knowledge and the certainty of science. Naming and judging are simultaneously carried out by a strict terminology. "Between a proletariat excluded from all culture, and an intelligensia which has already begun to question literature itself, the average public produced by primary and secondary schools, namely lower middle class, roughly speaking, will therefor find in the artistic-realist mode of writing - which is that of a good proportion of commercial novels - the image par excellence of a Literature which has all the striking and intelligible signs of its identity." p.70. This invisible 'universal' form was assumed by many communist writers. There is an almost mechanised use of metaphors, like 'crystal clear'. Liberal use of metaphor give the stamp of 'good' writing. "Perhaps there is, in this well-behaved writing of revolutionaries, a feeling of powerlessness to create forthwith a free writing." p.73If only I could have had this read to me when I was five, or at least given it to read when I was moved to Sunbury Grammar School at age 11. It would have saved me a lot of bloody head scratching.This has been remixed from my blog: http://stefan-szczelkun.blogspot.co.u...

  • Mark
    2019-04-13 05:01

    The introduction helps a little, but you really don't need it.If people spent more time reading the fucking books and less time bitching about how the books were unreadable, then people might actually be able to read the books. There's so much crap about so much French literature being unreadable. I'm about 90% sure it's because everyone is taught to be terrified of Marx and so there's a massive chunk of world literature to which no one understands a significant section of the influence.Barthes is a structuralist. Structuralists believe social structures are real. They believe social relationships have an ontological status. It's almost like saying a social relationship has physical properties except that its intangible and invisible. Trust, feelings, words, memories are all parts of social relationships.So when you find someone saying something about how "Barthes writes in an obtuse style," first, no, he doesn't. He's pretty fucking clear. Second, he has a belief that people need to treat social relationships and history as substantive things. It's not him making it sound like "society is crazy man." It's him writing according to a fundamental belief that social relationships should be valued on the same level as something physical.

  • Sunny
    2019-04-19 11:11

    Relatively interesting book but I’m not sure I totally understood it to be honest. It’s about writing and literature. And had some interesting chapters like what is writing, writing and the novel, poetic writing, writing and revolution, writing and silence, the utopia or writing and bourgeois writing!A few of my best bits:• Poetry = prose +a+b+c • Prose = Poetry – a-b-c• These unrelated objects – words adorned with all the violence of their irruption the vibration of which though wholly mechanical strangely affects the next word, only to die out immediately – those poetic words exclude men – there is no humanise of modern poetry. This erect discourse if full of terror that is to say it relate man not to other men but to the most inhuman images in nature – heaven hell holiness childhood madness, pure matter etc.

  • Bruce Johnson
    2019-03-28 06:01

    A short, strange, uneven, and often fascinating book. Some of it is quite difficult to follow unless you know a lot about French literature, since 100% of the writers he cites are French. But the latter half's analysis of the traps fiction writing has found itself in for the last two hundred years is definitely worth the read.

  • Christopher McCaffery
    2019-04-18 06:17

    A whole lot of fun even though I don't know anything about French literature.

  • Elari
    2019-04-14 07:08

    Un régal de l'écartèlement nerveux.

  • Oscar Fuentevilla
    2019-04-09 03:52

    No es mi favorito de Barthes, definitivamente tiene mucho mejores. O tal vez es el tema que analiza no es tan estudiado de mi parte cómo otros... pero siempre analiza la literatura en cualquier libro de él, aunque sea un poco.Pero para alguien que quiere escribir y entender el fino arte de la literatura así como su historia, está de lujo. De echo una de mis particularidades favoritas de Barthes en todos sus libros es su figura narrativa y de redacción... es en verdad un gran escritor y tiene un manejo del leguaje muy amplio y suelto. Su uso de los puntos y las comas lo hacen muy especial y logra ser especifico en lo que está queriendo decir.En fin, es un buen libro pero no para juzgar a Roland Barthes. Es su primer libro de análisis pero el segundo(Mitologías) es donde alcanza realmente su mejor punto crudo (antes de madurar bastante como escritor).-PD. Lo acabe hace meses pero se me había olvidado actualizarlo aquí.

  • Gilbert Wesley Purdy
    2019-04-16 11:18

    "I was recently at a bookstore to pick up a copy of Writing Degree Zero I had ordered. The bookstore was a franchise of one of the old chains being driven out of business by the new mega-stores. In the particular area there are few privately owned bookstores and all are at a considerable distance. My desire to keep alive diversity and to prevent the publishing industry from descending to a mere commodity exchange would have to be satisfied by this ambivalent and surely inconsequential act.I felt that I needed to go back to Roland Barthes’s brilliant book on ‘non-style’ — on the ‘zero level’ or ‘spoken level’ of writing — in order to recapture a mythical clarity I once possessed...."Click here to read the complete essay/review at >>> Jacket Magazine. It is far and away my best known piece on the web.

  • verbava
    2019-03-30 04:17

    у всьому цьому (недовгому) тексті про літературу (взагалі, помітьте) барт аж двічі покликається на не-французьких письменників: агату крісті (не називаючи ні її, ні "вбивство роджера акройда", до якого, власне, й відсилає) і франца кафку (втім, не на нього самого, а на те, що про нього писав французький бланшо). і так багато говорить про особливості французької мови (простий минулий час у романі) як засадничі для розуміння літератури, що навіть сумніви виникають, чи вважає він літературою щось, написане не по-французьки.але не люблю я про цю книжку не великофранцузький снобізм. просто вона здебільша надумана і переважно скучна.

  • Scott
    2019-04-06 10:04

    Cryptograms of the writing of novels and histories with an singular approach using the styles of Flaubert, Camus, Balzac, Voltaire, Rousseau, Cayrol, Gide, Borges, Beckett, and on and so forth, to make some point about the Novel, History, and the languages found and made. It's a dense book, and it even seems that Susan Sontag is trying to make you not read it in her preface. This book was probably too much for the heavy American literary audience at one time, but I'm not so sure now. Then again it may not stand the test of time all that well. That said, I did find it to have quite a quality of joy and a poignancy that travels well. Plus, it fit in my back pocket well enough.

  • Erwin Maack
    2019-04-20 12:04

    Existe imagem mais voluptuosa do que a de um leito em deriva? Imagem profunda, pois reúne três ideias: a do amor, a da flutuação e a do pensamento de que o desejo é uma força em deriva - razão por que se propôs como a melhor abordagem, senão como a melhor tradução, da pulsão freudiana (conceito que provocou muita discussão) a própria palavra deriva: a deriva do tenente Loti (sobre as águas da Tessalônica, no bairro de Eiub, ao sabor das tardes de inverno, com Aziyadé ou dos degraus da devassidão nos subterrâneos e nos cemitérios de Istambul) é portanto a figura exata de seu desejo. | pág. 223 |

  • Tosh
    2019-04-14 10:54

    Not my favorite of the Barthes book, but the "Empire of Signs" is the one that springs to mind as being a masterpiece of some sort - as well as his great "Mythologies." Nevertheless, a very dense piece of work and an early Roland title as well. Geared totally to French literature, it is interesting in how it conveys a thoughtfulness on the art of reading and writing literature. There's text, and then there is how Barthes looks at that text. He is the scientist of the mood, and therefore probably one of the great critical writers. A modern mind looking at the history of French writing. Not perfect, mind you, but what is these days?

  • Nicolás Rivas
    2019-04-19 05:12

    Difícil, opaco, un texto inmensamente valioso como testimonio del que llegó a explorar las últimas profundidades del arte de escribir. No me detuve a repensar en cada salto entre cada frase, más me dejé llevar por la sed de querer a volver a encontrar esas ideas brillantes, precisas, que se hayan cada dos o tres párrafos. Cada una de ellas revela un nuevo mundo o conecta lo que hasta entonces, durante lecturas, habían sido en mi mente leves murmuraciones. Unificador y clarificador, abre nuevos caminos, un libro para ser releído y rumiado, de inteligencia superior, serio, e incluso, como guinda de la torta, con mucho humor.

  • Eric
    2019-03-28 07:09

    I only feel like reading Barthes mid-morning, at the caffeine crest. I'm skimming this as part of an obligatory lit-survey. His particular statement of 'classic vs. romantic' is perceptive (smooth, monotonous, compacted 'relational' diction as opposed to a more various and individually colorful word-choice) but needlessly elaborate; Strachey says the same thing, but in less than half the page-space.

  • احمد سعيد
    2019-04-20 05:55

    يتحدث الكاتب عن الكتابة من الدرجة صفر .. لغة بيضاء متحررة من كل تبعية لنظام محدد من أنظمة اللغة .. ومثالها الشفاف تجده في "الغريب" لـ كامي حيث اسلوب غياب .. الكتاب أمثلته كلها مستمدة من الأدب الفرنسي فقط ..اللسان قبل الأدب .. و الأسلوب هو ما بعده .. الأسلوب : انه ميثولوجيا الكتاب الفردية و السرية أيضاً .. إنه الشيء الذي يملكه الكاتب و هو بهاؤه و سجنه و هو عزلته .. الأسلوب لا مبال و شفاف بالنسبة إلى المجتمع .. مسيرة الشخص المغلقة و ليس نتاج اختيار على الإطلاق أو تأمل حول الأدب ..

  • Timothy
    2019-03-29 09:17

    I enjoyed feeling like I actually understood most of his book, and Susan Sontag's introductory essay helped. I don't actually like the schema that Barthes uses of language, style, and writing: the idea that the first two are immutable givens (linguistic/social and biological, respectively) doesn't make sense to me in light of later theory. But the rest of the book is a great read.

  • Daryn
    2019-04-20 11:20

    Barthes was trained as a philosopher, so his account of French literary history is a little dated. Also, his lectures are too brief and one-sided to be compelling. That said, this presents a provocative counterargument to Jean-Paul Sartre's equally relevant What is Literature?, pointing up some of the weaknesses in Sartre's case for a "committed" or "engaged" literature.

  • Ryan
    2019-03-22 06:06

    I wouldn't recommend this book as an intro to Barthes. Susan Sontag even seems to think the same. She wrote the preface. I might rather recommend Mythologies if you want to ease into Barthes. Of course, how you read is up to y o u.

  • Yoana
    2019-04-10 05:16

    Не мога да й дам оценка, защото разбрах най-много 25% от съдържанието, като какво по дяволите разбира Барт под "почерк" (ecriture) попада в останалите 75%. Никога преди книга не ме е карала да се чувствам толкова глупава. Отивам да чета обяснения на Барт за идиоти.