The magnolia trees hadn't read Roland Barthes.
玉兰树并没有读过罗兰·巴特。
For a book purportedly about love, the Barthes didn't look very romantic.
虽然巴特这本书号称是关于爱情的，但它看上去并不怎么浪漫。
This paper elaborates on Roland Barthes' post-structuralism text theory.
本文主要论述巴特的后结构主义文本观。
Let me just read two texts to that effect, first going back to Roland Barthes on page 877.
让我们读两篇和这个意思大致相同的文章，首先翻回877页罗兰，巴特的文章。
Barthes says, "Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile."
巴特说：“一旦作者被移位，那么解读原文就没有希望了。”
Barthes constructed meaning system of sign on the foundation of partition between language and speech.
巴尔特的符号学以语言和言语的划分为基础，构成符号的意义系统。
By the way, once again there's a bit of a rift there between Barthes and Foucault. Foucault wouldn't say "quite futile."
顺便说一句，这里巴特和福柯，又有了分歧，巴特不会说“没有希望。”
Barthes, while writing this--he's writing what has perhaps in retrospect seemed to be his most important book, it's called S/Z.
巴特在创作这篇文章的时候，根据他的回忆这应该是他最重要的一本书，名叫《S\Z》。
Barthes even associates the invention of photography with the crisis of death in our society and refers to photography as la Mort plate (flat Death).
罗兰‧巴特甚至把摄影技术的发明与现代社会中的死亡危机联系起来，认为摄影就是在制造一种“苍白的死亡”。
So we consider a text as a structured entity, or perhaps as an entity which is structured and yet at the same time that's the case with Roland Barthes.
所以，我们把原文视为一个结构上的实体，或者是作为一个，有结构上的实体同时，这就是罗兰，巴特的例子。
Yes, Barthes talks about the death of the author, but even Barthes doesn't mean that the author is dead like Nietzsche's God. The author is there, sure.
是的，巴尔特谈到了作者已死的问题，但和尼采所说的上帝已死这个层面上的内容还是有所不同，作者肯定就在那里。
In other words, the author, the traditional idea of the author -so much under suspicion in the work of Foucault and Barthes in the late sixties — can be turned on its ear.
换言之，有一种传统的看法就是对作者置之不理，六十年代晚期在福柯和巴特的，作品中有那么多疑点。
This intertextual view of literature, as shown by Roland Barthes, supports the concept that the meaning of an artistic work does not reside in that work, but in the viewers.
正如RolandBarthes所证明的那样，对文学所持的互文性观点，支持了一个概念，即一部艺术作品的意义并不存在于作品本身，而是在于观赏者。
It's not just a question, as obviously Foucault and Barthes are always suggesting, of deferring to authority as though the authority were the police with a baton in its hand, right?
这不仅仅是一个，如福柯和巴特经常暗示的一样明显的，尊崇作者权威就好像这种权威，是一个手握警棍的警官的问题，对吧？
Roland Barthes, a prominent French thinker of the 20th century, became known to the Chinese intelligentsia through the introduction and translation of his writings in the early 1980s.
作为20世纪法国最著名的思想家之一，罗兰。 巴特在上世纪80年代初通过译介始为中国知识界知晓。
This is 1969, and the purpose that's alleged for appealing to the author as a paternal source, as an authority, is, according to both Barthes and Foucault, to police the way texts are read.
这是1969年，断言把作者作为一种，父性的资源，一种权威的目的，根据巴特和福柯的说法，是为了监督文本被阅读的方式。
I want to quote from the beginning of Roland Barthes' essay, which I know I only suggested, but I'm simply going to quote the passage so you don't have to have read it, the Death of the Author.
我想引用罗兰，巴特文章开头的几句话，我只是推荐这篇文章，从中引用几句，所以你们不用事先读，这篇文章就是《作者之死》。
I want to quote from the beginning of Roland Barthes' essay, which I know I only suggested, but I'm simply going to quote the passage so you don't have to have read it, the Death of the Author.
我想引用罗兰，巴特文章开头的几句话，我只是推荐这篇文章，从中引用几句，所以你们不用事先读，这篇文章就是《作者之死》。
应用推荐