Focusing on Barthes, I will attempt to describe the many thoughts raised to me that comes from something he pointed out. Barthes says that "text is a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none original, blend and clash; a tissue of quotations drawn from innumerable centers of culture..." (p.876 "Death of the Author). In other words, writing is the Death of the Author because the language and words one uses to write with, itself, is preconceived. He further explains saying that the only person that can be original and really own their work is a scriptor. Why? Because scriptors are the first ever to write down the new language. You would think that knowing this, that I would believe that that would mean anything anyone ever writes is already separate from the author, "where [all] subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost..." (p.874 "Death of the Author"). However, I do think it is possible for something to NOT be a remix, and original. "WHAT?" You say? "HOW?" Here's why:
Aside from the obvious, all-one-has-to-do-is-create-their-own-language (as Tolkien has done with his creation of the elvish language in LOTR... THERE! Already one original author...), there is a simpler way that I think you can make your work original. In fact, I would like to argue against Barthes' logic that just because an author writes with language already written down by someone that it means that whatever they write is unoriginal. You see, I see where he is coming from, what he is saying, and how he achieved these theories. I just see holes in them. First, I think there are different types of writing. To condense for the purpose of my post: observational, story-telling, and philosophical.
The example Barthes gave from "Sarrasine" by Balzac only works because that particular excerpt was very observational. Of course observations are unoriginal! The only methods of pointing out what anyone and everyone can see is by telling it in language that everyone understands. Observations are universal concepts (for lack of a better word) that all of the human race agree is common around them. I think Barthes centered all of his logic and arguing on this example of a text, and I believe, where the holes start. Did he take into account stories and philosophical works by authors? How can these types of writing not be original? See, Barthes was saying that just because the language is preconceived automatically means any work can't be it's own. The work exceeds the author. I just can't see that. I think that, yes, there is some sort of fallacy in having to use a language everyone understands to write your original work, but can another soul ever "blend and clash" them together in the way that you do? These "remixes" are so thusly so, that they become their own; original. Can there be another J.K. Rowling? Is it that possible another person would have written the Harry Potter series in the exact same way as she did? No. J.K. Rowling is the author of these books, and her voice in them is certainly not. dead.
Is Barthes own essay "Death of the Author" and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics to have no origin or subject as well? I don't think so. Then why is it that when studying rhetoric these specific essays and authors come up? Why don't we just read another author on the same topic if their works are unoriginal anyways? Because no-one can mix their thoughts and put them in the boiling pot of a paper like Barthes and Aristotle can. It is important to us who writes what. So, in conclusion, I see that.... Original authors are alive and well!!! Maybe it's possible now that even Barthes' idea of author's being dead is outdated. Our time is a time of collaboration and remixing. But how each person does it in their own way makes it original.
Now I do realize maybe I have my own holes in coming up with this conclusion or I may have interpreted Barthes' writing incompletely or not in the way that you have, so any thoughts on my logic is welcomed; I would love to hear what you think!
First off, this is an excellent post! It was clear and fun to read. I especially like that you included an LOTR reference.
ReplyDeleteI really think that semantics are becoming a center of this argument and where we were headed in our last class. Particularly with the word "original". You said about Barthes "In other words, writing is the Death of the Author because the language and words one uses to write with, itself, is preconceived." I interpreted what Barthes said differently. It's not so much that language is preconceived, but the ideas that we communicate are preconceived. The way we write and what we write are all influenced by those who come before us. BUT, that doesn't mean we can't create new and original ideas. We use the ideas, theories, teachings, and language of others to create new text, theories, ideas, etc. Still, saying that nothing is original sounds like we are saying everything is plagiarized. Of course we are capable of producing original thoughts, but the way we communicate those thoughts is the product of many different influences. So, I would rather say "nothing is uninfluenced", rather than nothing is "original".
I really dislike that we brought up the word "remix" in class. Mainly because we used that word so much in WEPO, and I just got tired of hearing it. But I also don't think it really applies to this situation. I think a remix more has to do with mixing different media types.