In Roland Barthes' essay, "The Death of the Author", Barthes stresses the importance of a writer's realization that his work is not his own. As writers, we die every time we start a sentence. And though we may die, that does not mean that the text is not alive and well.
"No doubt it has always been that way. As soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins," (Barthes 875).
As writers, we become so tied to our writing. It's our personal thoughts and opinions, even if fact based, that push us to show, explain, and visualize for other people on paper. What I find interesting about the thought of putting yourself to death as a writer, once you begin writing, is that as much as we want people to see I wrote this, the reader just reads the text. They read the text, they analyze it for themselves, they form their own opinions about the subject matter, and all many times without ever thinking of who wrote what they're reading.
Granted, some people read certain writer's works because they enjoy the author's style or the author's views match up with their own. But many times, at least in my own experience, I see a name at the top of the page or on the spine of the book and then I move to the text; the name of who wrote what I am reading rarely ever influences what I take away from a piece of writing. So why then, should I be so egotistical in my thoughts to think that someone will read my work the exact way I intended it to be read? I, and all writers, must come to terms with the thought of putting ourselves to death, focusing on the text and not so much on the voice of origin, when we begin to scribble down something we believe is important enough for others to know.
"For him, for us too, it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through prerequisite impersonality (not at all to be confused with the castrating objectivity of the realist novelist), to reach that point where only language acts, "performs", and not "me,"" (Barthes 875).
I believe that by putting yourself to death as an author opens up the opportunity to revive or give birth to an entirely new figure. Barthes is explaining that writing can be treated as a performance. A fiction novel does not have to have its explanation be based within the author's life. Yes, our experiences influence our writing, but our writing can be influenced by so much more than just ourselves and what we have been through as individuals. Letting yourself 'die' when beginning to write can be overwhelmingly exciting and new due to now having to adopt the personality of another being. This is when one's creativity can blossom at full force, giving way to a type of writing you never knew yourself capable of. This 'death' leads to unpredictable conclusions and readers who read your works for the content and not for the name. Do I want my name to be revered as an author and journalist? Of course I do. But even more, I want readers to expect the unexpected when they pick up a text of mine. I want to be able to put myself to death when need be, and fully adopt someone else. The closing of yourself will open your mind to the experience of being in someone else's shoes. I believe this technique will improve one's writing if done fully and done correctly.
Hi Valerie,
ReplyDeleteI especially enjoyed reading your post because it is opposite of mine! All I can think about is how weird it is that I believe my post contrasting yours makes total sense, but at the same time, I can see how your beliefs on this subject makes sense. Isn't it crazy how each author creates a completely different space for the reader when read? Oh, I just realized our posts aren't exactly opposites because I focus on originality and you focus on the death of the author... I really like that you pointed out that when something is read, it CAN exceed the author because then, the content becomes more important. You have very open and humble thoughts about how you would want your work to transcend and resonate even without your name on it. I'm starting to wonder is it ever really possible for a reader to read someone's text and completely interpret it in the way the author meant? Or is it a rare ordeal because, as Professor Rayburn keeps saying about people, is that "perception is reality". Maybe it happens once every blue moon, maybe if you share the same kind of soul it works. I have this thing that soul-mates are hard to find. But sometimes, when you find a writing or author that really resonates with you, it's because you have the same kind of spirit. But most of the time we are all wondering about reading things from people with other kinds of spirits, so the connections don't often happen. Anyways, I don't know if this is an appropriate comment, but that everything that came to mind when reading your post!
Valerie,
ReplyDeleteI definitely understand your questioning of the idea that the writer needs to completely detach themselves from the writing. As someone who has a passion for writing and usually uses real life for inspiration, I am not sure if I would be able to completely detach myself. My question for you is how could a reader still use the authors intentions and apply it to their own interpretations? Does it change the way they think of the text? I'm not sure I agree with you that putting death to yourself could be exciting as a writer. I think I would be too worried about the constant possibility that my words would me misconstrued or taken in a way that wasn't the purpose, however I struggle with this idea because I would also want the reader to be able to have free range on interpreting text, because I know as a reader I enjoy making things into my own.
I really like the way you discussed the concepts of Barthes and I agree with everything that you've said. Having to distance yourself as a writer is the once part that I think seems fairly easy. I think that it is normal for the author to want that ownership and to be recognized as its creator and have some of the credit. I think that to assume that the reader has no interaction with the text would be kind of crazy given that every writer is also a reader so they know the roles well enough to understand what happens on both sides. Personally the idea of distancing myself as a writer makes it easier to let others view it. I hope this made some sense.
ReplyDelete