I actually really like "The Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes. From what I understood, he's basically saying that the idea of "authorship" no longer exists (or never did, we just chose to attribute an author to a text). The person writing the text is taking ideas and words from a bank of information which is technically available to everyone and anyone, so we can't really attribute a book to an author but rather a 'modern scriptor' who is born simultaneously with the text. Thus, by taking away the importance of the author and all the power that goes along with it, the importance of the text turns to the reader. This is what I especially like about what Barthes is arguing- the power is no longer in the author but in the reader. It is the reader who determines the interpretation of the text. Since I don't consider myself a spectacular writer but rather a spectacular reader, this particularly tickles my fancy. Quoting Barthes, "to give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing". This is because then we are interpreting the text based on how the Author wanted us to. We do this through the biographical information of the author, his expressed desires and motifs about the text, etc. However, when we choose to say that the text has no author, just a scriptor, then we no longer have the latter elements to deal with in our interpretation. It really becomes about us (the readers)- how we choose to approach and view what we are reading. It really is a completely different way of looking at books and literature.
However, I can see how people would find it difficult to completely disassociate the author from the text. We've been taught for our whole lives to look at the author's historical and biographical context and how that influenced the text that he/she was writing. I can't help thinking that this really does influence the text, but perhaps I can't shake that thought because I've been taught to associate the two together (that is, author and text)? Can we completely get past the idea of "author"?
As for the other little texts by Barthes, "Toys", "Striptease","Wine and Milk" and "The Blue Guide", I found them all very entertaining. He introduces us to several aspects of French culture and tradition and breaks them down so as to show what the meaning behind them is (or, cultural significance). I especially enjoyed the "Wine and Milk" short text, in particular the following sentence: "There is no situation involving some physical constraint (temperature, hunger, boredom, compulsion, disorientation) which does not give rise to dreams of wine".
I think it's pretty much inevitable to think about an author when we read something. We try to associate the creator with the product. The same goes for the context of the written work - be it a setting or a time frame. It would be nice to be able to read a book, just for the sake of enjoyig it, but we've been trained to look for something deeper: a deeper meaning or a metaphore, or a morale of the story.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you and your view of the author and the concept that the reader is the one who has the power to interpret the story. Afterall, we are the ones really giving it meaning. But you do bring up a good question because I don't know if it would be possible to disassociate the author from his text.
ReplyDelete"We try to associate the creator with the product."
ReplyDeleteSurely Barthes's point in large part is that the so-called "author" isn't really the creator at all? Barthes wants us to associate the creator with the product; he just wants us to identify with more precision who or what the creator is.