Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Introducing Graphic Guides

Introducing Barthes: A Graphic Guide by Philip Thody

Rate this book
Roland Barthes is best known as a semiologist, a student of the science of signs. This sees human beings primarily as communicating animals. It looks at the way they use language, clothes, gestures, hair styles, visual images, shapes and colour to convey to one another their tastes, their emotions, their ideal self-image and the values of their society. Philip Thody and Ann Course elucidate Barthes' application of these ideas to literature, popular culture, clothes and fashion. They further clarify why his thinking in this area made him a key figure in the structuralist movement of the 1960s. Introducing Barthes describes how Barthes' insistence on pleasure, the delights of sexual non-conformity and the freedom of the reader to make use of existentialist, Marxist, Freudian and structuralist interpretations of literary texts continue to make him one of the most challenging of modern writers.

Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

37 people are currently reading
276 people want to read

About the author

Philip Thody

57 books4 followers

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
49 (18%)
4 stars
98 (36%)
3 stars
86 (32%)
2 stars
30 (11%)
1 star
4 (1%)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
Profile Image for Tim Pendry.
1,137 reviews478 followers
November 9, 2008
This should have got three stars as a bog standard basic introduction to the semiologist, Roland Barthes, but the graphics really do let it down and graphics are an essential element in this series which sells itself on using imagery to help get across complex ideas. The fact that Barthes was a sort of philosopher not only of language but of images makes this weakness doubly embarrassing.

And why is it so poor - other than looking as if it were little more than scribbles on a page? Because of a strange obsession with penises and sex that the artist, Ann Course, seems to have.

There is a natural point where sex comes into play but the interest here seems unnecessarily obsessive - not only in the insistence of five pages devoted to illustrating De Sade's range of perversity and the images of the homosexual Barthes buggering people but the repeated motif of willies on nearly every page in the first half, not a few of them clearly erect if clothed. Fine, nothing wrong with willies but the pictures and a strange leitmotif of a robot like creature with eyes on stalks add absolutely nothing to the argument.

The textual argument itself is fine as far as it goes (it is basically an hour's lecture) - though clearly Philip Thody isn't entirely convinced by his own subject, something which becomes fairly clear by the end. The truth is that Barthes is a bit of a one-trick pony, fashionable in his day, but a foot note in intellectual history. Perhaps he will always have to be read by anyone curious about the shenanigans of the post-war French Left Bank and, yes, he adds his bit to the general sense of cynical libertarianism that was part of the culture of the Generation of 68 but, no, he does not really say anything that others have not said better.

The flaw in post-structuralism is the obvious one - the great, 'so what?' that it inspires. We are living in a world of codes and significations - so what? Humans need narrative and codes and significations to create narrative - so what? Do the post-structuralists posit truth? or just expose lies?

And then it hits you - these people are just Gallic moralists with their visceral and unfair hatred of the 'bourgeois' and often silly (and soon dropped) adulation of the masses. There is no consideration of the human right to be self-deluded as a means of psychic survival in a dangerous world nor of the fact that the deluded and the aware are to be found in all walks of life regardless of their relationship to the means of production. Willing suspension of belief or, indeed, of disbelief is how we get along - observe the hysteria over Obama in recent weeks.

And as for Barthes' 'obsession' - that we can be artistically moved by the non-existent. Again, so what? Diana's funeral is a great 'movement' of this sort and some lost themselves in the nonsense (which is their right) while others saw through it and chose to stay silent so as not to hurt the feelings of the insanely sentimental. But we did not need post-structuralists to tell us what was going on? We knew it or we chose subconsciously not to know it - that is what being human is all about.

The knowers are not morally superior to the deluded - just different and with a rightful caution about what happens when the deluded capture the State and other forms of power over the undeluded. Fortunately one set of deluded usually dislikes the pretensions of the others enough to enable some degree of protection for those who can see the bones beneath the skin of society and culture.

In the end, we are left with another case of intellectuals discovering the bleeding obvious and then packaging it for a career. The squabbles between intellectuals in France in the 1970s about Racine seem to be mere repetitions in style (though not in content) of those between Catholics and Jansenists and not much better than that between the monks whose fisticuffs in Jerusalem are reported today (November 9th, 2008) - futile grandstanding between egos and tribes. So much intellectual effort to so little purpose ...
Profile Image for David.
865 reviews1,642 followers
October 3, 2009
This somewhat odd little book - a cartoon introduction to the ideas and work of Barthes - served its purpose by (a) being relatively painless to read (though the assorted phalluses - or possibly phalli - which were sprinkled liberally through what seemed like an unnecessarily large number of the drawings got a bit tedious after a while) and (b) confirming what I had already suspected, that I can comfortably leave Monsieur Barthes to the academic set and get on with my reading, without feeling unduly guilty, or worrying that I will be leaving some rich vein of meaning untapped. Not to be too critical, but most of the points that were made in this book seemed to be either glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain, or so weirdly peculiar that nobody in their right mind would waste time worrying about them.

Perhaps if I smoked morre Gauloises, or were less gruntled, or just more generally alienated, I might have liked it more. As it was, it seemed to me to be more suited to the pseudo-intellectual set than to those who just read for the pleasure that reading brings.

Not that there's anything wrong with zat, of course.

I read it in Spanish, but doubt that I would have reacted any differently to an English version.
Profile Image for John.
200 reviews
May 5, 2013
Why do semiologists insist on defining language as it is not, rather than trying to observe it as it is? What information can be conveyed by someone who insists that the mechanism for conveying information is inherently fascist? There may be some useful ideas in Barthes' work, but they're not conveyed in this introduction, and it sounds like he insists that only fellow obscurantists will be allowed to pretend they understand. Whatever he has to say apparently doesn't matter.
Profile Image for Zahraa.
24 reviews
October 7, 2021
بعيدًا عن كون الترجمة سيئة فهو مختصر جدًا، مبهم، اما عن الرسوم التوضيحية فلم تؤدِ دورها في ذلك وجدتها مجرد حشو لا فائدة منه والبعض منها لم تكن ذات صلة بما يُكتب اصلًا
Profile Image for Marcus.
217 reviews24 followers
May 1, 2016
Mythologies by Roland Barthes was definitely a challenging read. I read this book to supplement my understanding of that book. I think that Barthes essays have value... and definitely bring up fascinating points in analyzing the world around us for how it communicates to us... yet to put his view as a tent pole... would lead to the reductive problem that nothing can really be communicated. I respect him as a thinker but I do in fact believe that sometimes an author can communicate with intent to the reader... and this is in fact a goal worthy of striving for... not one to categorize as a hopeless prospect. This is a good book on its own merits... however it was authored by a writer who is biased against the work of Barthes... which may be the only way that a simplified perspective on his work could be written.
Profile Image for Tosh.
Author 13 books773 followers
February 2, 2008
I am a huge fan of the "Introducing" series or "....For Beginners" series -which maybe the one and the same, not sure? Nevertheless at its root it is a manga or comic version of a theory or subect matter. This particular one is on the great essaysist/critic Roland Barthes. It covers all his major works as well as his life. So in a sense it's a critical biography on the man via drawings and cartoon captions. If only all of life can be expressed that way!
Profile Image for Castles.
661 reviews27 followers
November 30, 2020
While most reviews for this book (and series) are somewhat not enthusiastic, I must admit I enjoyed this one. Putting Barthes in simple words is a difficult task, and while the author admits that it’s almost a sin to do so when considering Barthes’ teaching, it’s still an amusing way to get a grip about his concepts, even if it’s just a small introduction in the huge ocean of his thought.
187 reviews
October 12, 2017
Bueno, en realidad si uno quiere conocer a Barthes, mejor leer otro libro. El libro pasa bastante rápido su pensamiento. Personalmente me intereso lo que escribió sobre el tema de los signos. Creo que él lo hace bastante entendible el tema.
Profile Image for Sai.
97 reviews12 followers
January 9, 2016
Informative introduction to semiotics (study of signs and symbols in literature etc.) Lot of illuminating socio-political commentary. A couple quotes I thought that stood out:
"I desire to see writers making their audience more conscious of the kind of society in which they are living" - Roland Barthes
"The group in power in society always insists that intellectual discussions shall take place in the kind of language which it uses, which it understands, and which represents its wayof seeing, interpreting and dominating the world" - Antonio Gramsci, Theory of Hegemony

Got me thinking about these quotes shed so much light on how VCs have become overnight thought leaders in the modern tech landscape. Where Paul Graham is now suddenly an expert on economic inequality, and constantly towing the line by tone policing his critics, calling them losers and such. History keeps repeating itself, because people are all the same, through the ages.
Profile Image for Joseph Devine.
24 reviews7 followers
March 21, 2019
Despite being, as the author acknowledges in the afterword, written in exactly the sort of empiricist matter of fact style which Barthes dedicated his life to opposing, this is still a wonderful introduction to Barthes life and work. Ideal for a time-pressed student to get a full grasp of his ideas, it's of course not an alternative to reading Barthes' work itself, but it's a great set of training wheels to get you going. And despite the author's modesty, this is by no means an overly simplified summary; there is a depth and intelligence here that requires an active reading experience, covering a wide breadth of ideas and concepts with a lot of historical information and relevant ideas of other philosophers and thinkers to keep you on your toes. It is at times very funny too; the section on Marquis de Sade had me laughing out loud.
Profile Image for Bahman Bahman.
Author 3 books241 followers
March 30, 2020
رولان بارت که او را بیشتر به عنوان یک منتقد ادبی می شناسند،در واقع نشانه شناسی است که حوزه این رشته دانشگاهی را به تحلیل فرهنگ عمومی،لباس،مد و سایر جنبه های بیرونی این فرهنگ تعمیم داد.رولان بارت کار خود را در چارچوب ساختار گرایی آغاز کرد و تلاش اصلی اش آن بود که بتواند آنچه را که جوامع طبیعی به شمار می آورند به نقد کشیده و نقش قراردادی و صوری آن را فاش سازد.او سپس دامنه توجه خود را به ادبیات گسترش داد و بر آزادی خواننده در قرائت متن تاکید کرد.مداخله ای که به باور بارت،بدون آن،ادبیات به کلی فاقد عنصر رهایی بخش و لذت می شود.کتاب حاضر قدم اولی است در جهانی که با وام گیری آزادانه از مکاتبی چون مکتب اصالت وجود،مارکسیم و فرویدیسم و البته ساختارگرایی تبیین شد تا با طرح نظریه مرگ مولف که به معنایی نقد همه آن مکاتب را در بر می گیرد به اوج برسد.
Profile Image for Hina.
130 reviews24 followers
January 7, 2016
I had no idea who Barthes was or what significance semiology held in our modern world and context. This book, and the ideas it puts forth, are by no means easy to understand or digest. I found myself re-reading a couple of pages several times just because the subject matter is so complex. But the book does an excellent job of highlighting Barthes' major works, and his contributions to the field of semiotics. If anyone would like to know more about this revolutionary thinker, I would highly suggest this book!
Profile Image for Joel.
152 reviews25 followers
April 22, 2016
A sharp and succinct entry-point to the work and concepts of Roland Barthes. I'd previously covered The Death of the Author when studying musicology at UWS and am looking forward to reading more of his work, particularly Camera Lucida and Fashion System. I'm particularly interested to explore Barthes' concepts more as they relate to music, as well as literature and fashion.
48 reviews10 followers
August 25, 2007
It was surely entertaining reading this information-packed, visual-explanatory book! Barthes is already a pleasure to get to know and read to begin with. This is a great attempt to put together his life and work in a cartoon style. For a visually-stimulated student like me, I love it! :-)
Profile Image for Margot Note.
Author 11 books60 followers
Read
December 4, 2012
An easy-to-understand summary of Barthes's important works. The illustrations are a great addition, but the "orgiastic tableaux" they present, especially the section on Sade, made the book difficult to read on a crowded 6 train!
Profile Image for Patrick Fay.
320 reviews6 followers
September 11, 2015
Really fun and very enlightening look at Barthes life and work. I love his Mythologies and this book made me think about that book and want to read others.

A really pleasant surprise for such quick read.
Profile Image for Harsimran Khural.
64 reviews46 followers
March 27, 2016
This a readable and understandable introduction to Roland Barthes' work, although the author finds it difficult to avoid terminology sometimes. The illustrations are very interesting, and add to the book's appeal.
Profile Image for James Henry.
37 reviews4 followers
February 11, 2013
This series is hard to beat. I would never have tried to read Barthes "cold" so I got a nice intro to his ideas without trying too hard. :)
Profile Image for Joel Robert.
Author 2 books9 followers
July 31, 2015
penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.penus.
Profile Image for Nouru-éddine.
1,446 reviews265 followers
March 7, 2022
::انطباع عام::
=-=-=-=-=
كتاب رائع في التعريف برولان بارت الذي عرى اللغة من رزانتها المزعومة وسلخ الطبيعية عنها وقدم الأدب في صورة خام منزوعة التوجهات وقتل المؤلف وأولد القارئ وجعل للنص سلطة كبيرة ومقدرة على التجدد اللانهائي بفضل الكشف عن اختلافات العلامات وعدم وجود أية روابط طبيعية بين هذه العلامات. كل لغة هي طبيعية فقط في سياق من يتحدثون بها، وكل مأكل أو ملبس أو مشرب هو طبيعي فقط في نسق المجتمع الذي تعارف وتصالح أفراده على طبيعية هذه العناصر دون الأخرى.
تشجعت لقراءة كتاب رولان بارت أسطوريات بطريقة كاملة دون الاكتفاء فقط بالمقتبسات منه.
***
::الكتاب::
=-=-=-
Screenshot-20220307-094037


Screenshot-20220307-101800


Screenshot-20220307-102118


Screenshot-20220307-102445


Screenshot-20220307-102753


Screenshot-20220307-103043


[image error]


Screenshot-20220307-103723


Screenshot-20220307-104815


Screenshot-20220307-110836


Screenshot-20220307-112105


Screenshot-20220307-113411


Screenshot-20220307-114135


Screenshot-20220307-121221


Screenshot-20220307-121822-com-adobe-reader-edit-53978276454783


Screenshot-20220307-122038-com-adobe-reader


Screenshot-20220307-122100


Screenshot-20220307-132021


Screenshot-20220307-134147


Screenshot-20220307-135038


Screenshot-20220307-141122


Screenshot-20220307-142242


[image error]


***
Profile Image for Updesh Sharma.
48 reviews
January 23, 2022
My review or rather random thoughts on this book

So when I started reading this book O was puzzled most of time and my purpose was to just through the graphics and just read like a sponge who is just passively absorbing the book without ever pondering and thinking what the content is about

Now the irony of this book is that the author Roland Barthes (again French, homo, likes east) is famous for structuralism and then later in his life for post structuralism critques not me but the writer who after spending many hours a day researching , fighting with his wife , literally grinding is criticised by Barthes for having a elite image of authority for having a celebrity like image in the eyes of Bookworms . But you all know by reading this that I am straw Manning his argument . He is criticising the author but his presence in real society . He has according to Barthes a authority of meaning ........ I am tired to write next I will summarise the whole book in sentence

French theorist difficult to define
Profile Image for Deki Napolju.
140 reviews12 followers
June 29, 2020
Probably one of the more personal instalments in the 'Introducing...' series in that Thody inserts himself into the narrative more than most. This is not unwelcome and the postscript contextualisation is handy for a wider reading of Barthes.

If you are looking for an elucidation of Barthes' work on photography or a discussion of A Lover's Discourse you will be disappointed as this guide centres around Barthes' literature and media concerns (S/Z, Mythologies, On Racine, et al) and only devotes a couple of pages to ALD and Camera Lucida towards the very end.
Profile Image for Karen.
41 reviews
April 10, 2020
Meh - semiotics sounds interesting; I grabbed this off a shelf at the library the last time I went before it closed because of the cover. There were a couple of mildly interesting points. If I wasn't pushing myself to finish books I started during this COVID isolation, it was stuck at my house, and it wasn't so short and relatively quick (in number of sentences, not in time it took to slog through) I probably would have returned it quickly.
57 reviews1 follower
January 2, 2022
Interesting overview

I admittedly did not know much about Barthes, and while I am certainly more interested than I was, I don't feel like I really have a solid grasp on him after reading this book.
Profile Image for Ahil Kannan.
20 reviews
August 3, 2020
Good

Good notes on author views and the lives of everyone who theorised the concepts of languages and cultures. The pictures could be more detailing.
Profile Image for Alexand.
211 reviews7 followers
February 2, 2025
كتاب لطيف بس ما اشبعني مرة
Profile Image for Sir Ehssan.
153 reviews13 followers
July 17, 2020
بد نبود.
.
معولا منتقدان می گویند که بارت خیلی ثبات نداشته و از موضوعی به موضوع دیگر تغییر جهت داده است. اما هنر نویسنده در نشان دادن افکار بارت حول یک موضوع نسبتا واحد است.
از طرفی به خاطر این کار نویسنده، بسیاری از دیدگاه های بارت بیان نشده اند و شاید صرفا اشاره ای به انها شده بود. نویسنده طبق گفته خودش تصویر خاصی از بارت را ارایه کرده و به انتخاب خودش به بعضی از آثارش وزن بیشتری داده بود
Profile Image for Dana Safian.
38 reviews5 followers
Read
March 26, 2020
...ای کاش این مجموعه‌ها ترجمه‌ی بهتری داشتن.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.