"The Death of the Author" and Barthes short snippets on culture

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".

Thoughts on Communism

 I had to read the Communist Manifesto in high school, so I know what the general idea is. Examining it this time around, these are some thoughts that came to my head:

1) the idea of breaking the traditional formation of society (i.e. the class structure) and thus getting away from the problems associated with the class struggles, for example the upper classes oppressing the lower classes, is a grand idea, but it is much too utopian. I'm sure most of us are thinking this. There are always going to be people who are greedy and who will want to make more money and there will also be those who are lazy and don't want to work- neither will want to benefit society but rather themselves. This won't ever change. However, bringing about certain socialist ideas, such as the healthcare benefits that we enjoy in Canada, are definitely not a bad idea. There has to be a compromise between a purely communist society and a purely capitalist society- extremes are never good (at least that's how I see it). There may be a better system to run a country, but either we haven't found it yet or it simply doesn't exist. Then again, no system is perfect, we just have to try to improve and update our own way of structuring things so as to adapt to current society.

2) Marx's proletariat/bourgeoisie distinction and class struggle is suggested to be a global phenomenon- yet it is not. This is a very eurocentric and does not apply to many other countries in the world. Thus the way that he proposes to solve the issues related to the proletariat/bourgeoisie cannot be seen as a system that can be applied globally. I think this is a common criticism of Marx's theory.

3) When I was researching for my undergraduate honors thesis (which was about the flâneur in the latin american avant-garde), I found out that everything is related to communism. Like my whole paper is interwoven with communist theories. In particular, I read a lot about the condition of modern life and how this is strongly based on alienation. There was a break from tradition and hence the individual is left incompatible with bourgeois society. As Marx stated "all that is solid melts into air" (the eponymous title of Marshall Berman's book)- the solidity of our world seems to "melt into air" and hence we experience alienation. So the socio-political aspects of the early 1900's was a huge influence of the era of modernity which greatly affected the writers and artists of the time and therefore has a strong relevance to literature and how it was consequently shaped.

Ok, that's all.

Freud- "The Interpretation of Dreams"

So while reading this text, I couldn't help thinking that Freud is a kind of full of bullshit. The way that he analyzes dreams and goes so in depth with the meaning seems ridiculous. I'm sure that dreams have meaning but the way he dissects them seems so unbelievable, he goes so far as to dissect the meanings of the words that appear in our dreams and looks at every single possible association that goes along with it. I'll give him credit for his psychoanalytic method in the sense that it opened up doors for the field of psychiatry, but I feel like some of his interpretations are just based on nothing, like there's really no proof that all these associations that he uses to analyze elements in dreams really have anything to do with deconstructing the meaning behind the dreams. I feel like he interprets the dream to suit his diagnosis, which would be easy enough to do. Interpretation is always more or less biased- each person will see it in a different way.

Then I began thinking about how this is related to literary theory and I came to the conclusion that Freud's method of interpretation is similar to how we interpret literature. I remember having to read Shakespeare in highschool and the teacher would dissect every single word and show how it had all these different meanings in relation to the text, context (history), etc. and I remember thinking that there was no way that Shakespeare could have thought of all these meanings while writing his plays- if he had, then it would have taken him forever to complete anything. A lot of the time we overanalyze things but this process does allow us to find new meanings that the author might not have originally intended on- so in this way it becomes more personal to us. I guess we can do the same when we analyze dreams- we can give them a meaning that is personal to us. 

Propp "Morphology of the Folktale"

Reading this, I found myself wondering what the difference between a "folktale" and a "fairytale" is. Here's what wikipedia says about the definition of "folklore": Folklore consists of legends, music, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, fairy tales and customs that are the traditions of that culture, subculture, or group. 

So the general characteristics of the folktale that Propp outlines are: the hero leaves home, the hero is faced with a problem, the hero must overcome this problem, the bad guy comes into the picture and so forth. According to the definition, we can assume that this general storyline will weave in details about the customs and traditions of specific cultures. However, what I found the most surprising is that tales from different time periods and from different parts of the world all follow along a similar format. How can it be that this could be repeated within so many cultures and historical contexts?

This makes me think of this movie I saw a while ago, Waking Life by Richard Linklater. There's this scene with a couple talking about random things and they get on the subject of information and collective memory and how it seems like people all around the world simultaneously come up with the same idea yet they are all completely independent of each other. It's kind of like once someone thinks it up, this idea, this knowledge is out there for other people to grasp. Kind of like the structure of a folktale, someone thought it up and then it was repeated throughout the world. Propp shows how the storyline is the same, independent of the context and the characters, it's basically all aiming towards the same function. 

Here's the clip I'm referring to (they talk about it around the end, about at 2:30 minutes into the clip): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbAVF0L2Z-k&feature=related

But then again, maybe it's just a testament of human nature. Maybe that format is the basic steps to someone growing up and maturing, I mean we all have to leave home at some point, there's always going to be obstacles in the way and there will always be people who try to get in the way of our happiness and accomplishments. Maybe the folktale is just a way of showing children what they will eventually have to go through in life but told in a more fantastical and entertaining way.

Questions about Maupassant

The following question was asked:


"What do you think drove the characters to succumb to their weaknesses? And do you think these qualities are innate or that they were reactions in response to societal stimulus?"


Response:
I think that everyone experiences some sort of weakness but not all are able to overcome it. I'm not exactly sure why the two characters in the Maupassant story succumbed to their weaknesses, perhaps it is because it is much easier to just give up. Also, we cannot ignore that societal pressures are sometimes a huge burden which is difficult to ignore. However, I would hope that the negative characteristics shown in the story are not innate but rather socially constructed. Unfortunately, I feel that Maupassant is suggesting that they are innate, just as he seems to be suggesting that the social conduct of the characters (that is, the greed) is proof that human beings are naturally greedy. I would like to believe that if you took society away that people are innately good (and even in society) but I'm not sure I have much proof for this other than a gut feeling. Chicot and Magloire represent the opposite- they seem to have no remorse for their actions. But maybe there's more to it? 

Maupassant

From what I remember of Maupassant (I've only read Boule De Suif though), he tends to show the issues in society, perhaps we can classify it somewhat as social satire. I interpreted The Little Cask as representing human nature in a negative way. Both the old woman and Chicot have their own motives and don't really seem to consider the other party very much unless it is in their interest. In that sense, I found the story a bit depressing- in the end he leads her to an early death. Also, the old woman is shown as a contradiction- she seems very physically strong despite her old age but yet she is extremely weak when it comes to her drinking. It seems odd how Chicot would have known that the old woman would succumb to drinking.

So, both characters have their own weaknesses- greed and revenge. I wasn't thrilled with the story, I found the end to be flat and the approach to death non-emotional. This sounds super negative so I'l throw in some good things: I enjoyed the description of Chicot, "a red face and a round stomach", this made me chuckle. I also liked how it tied the earth in thematically, that is, that physical space plays such a large part in a persons life and their identity (as when she says "I was born here, and here I mean to die").

That's all for now.