Authorship
comes into question in the subject of Barthes essay "Death of the
Author." Throughout his essay, Barthes analyzes the idea of what is
considered to be an author. He does this through an analysis of what an author
is vs. the importance of knowing who the author is. In our society today, we
consider authorship too much of an importance in our readings. Many works today
are collaborations, mashups, or remixes of another person's original thought.
So then who becomes the author here?
Barthes agrees
with Mallarme when discussing the idea that language is what is speaking to us,
not the author (875). When the reader is able to actively read the essay and
the language it uses, there is a better interpretation then that of when trying
to think of what the author is trying to say. When discussing what authorship
is, the ideas become harmful, according to Barthes, because the idea of
authorship is lost. We become obsessive over the idea of who the author is
rather than fully understand the meaning and the language of the text.
Barthes
theorizes that the text is made to be interpreted by the reader. He believes
that the author is the inventor of the reader, in other words, the text is made
for the reader to understand and interpret in a certain way. The author invents
what he or she wants the reader to think. They can do this with their use of
language, to persuade a reader into reading a text a certain way.
Barthes also
says, "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of
the author" (877). The reader is created by the author, but only when the
reader is lost in the language of the text the that authorship is then
questioned. The reader is not able to fully read and comprehend the text
until the reader becomes so involved that the ideas of origin and the author
are not clouding their thoughts.
To Barthes,
giving a specific text an author takes away from our own ability to draw
conclusions and form unbiased opinions (Barthes 877). When the reader is not
given who the author is, he or she is able to fully understand the language of
the text and interpret it in their own way, rather than having a backstory and
having to draw conclusions based on what you know about the author. This gives
room for new ideas and thoughts without limitations. It is then that origin
does not define a text, but the destination.
When discussing
all of the ideas together, it becomes clear that instead of focusing on
authorship and where a text is originated, let us instead focus on content
and language of a text.
- Haley Bryant -
I agree with your interpretation and therefore description of Barthes work and his theories on readership and authorship. Like you, I also think that the use of language has a lot to do with the manner in which the reader interprets the text at hand, and therefore the way that the reader’s manner of deciphering the text shapes their understanding of a given text or work. Moreover, I like the ideas that you present on the reader being created only after the author dies, and how you have incorporated direct quotes from the texts about the ideas of origin. The discussion on the reader’s thoughts without limitations, and on the importance of origin and creation of both the reader and the author was insightful and a well-thought interpretation of the text. Lastly, the significance of the destination was emphasized in your post, which I felt was necessary and ultimately useful and contributed positively to a better reading and understanding of the text and it’s language.
ReplyDelete