论文部分内容阅读
关于文本与作者的性质,近几十年里出现了诸多极端历史主义的视角。根据这些视角(巴尔泰斯和福柯是先行者),文本与作者应该被看作不同种类功能的具体实现,历史则为实现这些功能提供可能条件。没有作者,阐释就不可能(这是巴尔泰斯和福柯的目的)。与巴尔泰斯与福柯相反,尼赫马斯对文本与作者的描述则避免了前二者的缺憾。我运用吉尔·德勒兹的著作中的方法,在探讨莫言的过程中,以一种根本上异于前三人的方式看待文本,从而使得文本既有意义,有没有阐释的必要。
With regard to the nature of the text and the author, there have been many extreme historicist perspectives in recent decades. From these perspectives (Balthasit and Foucault are forerunners), texts and authors should be seen as a concrete realization of different kinds of functions, and history provides possible conditions for the realization of these functions. Without the author, interpretation is impossible (this is the purpose of Barthes and Foucault). Contrary to Barthes and Foucault, Nehemiah’s description of the text and the author avoids the shortcomings of the first two. I used the method of Jill Deleuze’s book to treat the text in a way that is fundamentally different from the first three, so that the text is both meaningful and unexpressed.