When it comes to art, who has the power? The creator/artist or the observer/consumer? Does a writer’s authority dissipate once the reader comes into the scene? Should the relationship between a writer and their audiences contain a basis of equality? While the answers to these complex questions can be left solely to personal opinion, both Roland Barthes and Walter Ong expertly challenge the preconceived ideas of a writer and the audience and how that connection can completely alter
In Barthes groundbreaking piece “The Death of the Author”, he makes no shy attempts at making known his belief that in order for a work to gain meaning and value, the author must “die” to allow for the “birth” of the reader. At first, this concept comes across as completely nonsensical; if the author dies, then does the subsequent work die as well? Throughout his piece, Barthes challenges the unreachable pedestal that writers reside on, allowing their literary works to be tainted with their own personal life, tastes, and passions. In order to break the tyrannical power of the Author, Barthes pushes instead for “the language to speak, not the author” (Barthes, 875). Once the language speaks for itself, the readers are free to choose any explanation for a work without the constricting grip of the author’s opinions. Barthes goes on to acclaim the surrealist movement for their powerful strides in the “desacralization of the image of the Author by… entrusting the hand with the task of writing as quickly as possible what the head itself is unaware” (876). In doing so, the language becomes the origin of the work. With the language speaking directly to the reader, the reason for the author to exist becomes obsolete. As a result, “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the Author.”
Although Barthes makes an astounding observation in letting the beauty of language flourish without the limitations of the authors physical earthly bonds, it leaves the question that without an author to write the work, wouldn’t the work abstain from existence in the first place? Is not the author the life-blood of literature that allows language to come forth and provide a reader a break from reality? In direct contrast to Barthes need for the author to die in order for the reader to live, in “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction” Ong raises the point that both the author and his readers or audience reside in a mutual, give and take relationship. Without one there is no other.
While Ong points out the differences between a speaker and his audience, and a writer and his readers, he maintains the idea of the author “fictionalizing” his audience in order for their own beliefs, contexts, and explanations to shine through. With this concept in mind, many writers enjoy challenging this relationship to create innovative, groundbreaking works. For example, in Italo Calvino’s novel, If on a winter’s night a traveler, he casts the readers in role as the main character where they are the one’s experiencing the adventures in the story. Although Calvino is obviously leading where the story goes, he allows the readers to explore their own experience as the main character. For Ong, this novel precisely represents the concept of casting the readers in a role and fictionalizing their existence.
Though it is incorrect to assume either Barthes or Ong must be right, they raise astute observations on the ever-changing concept of the relationship between the author and the readers. They equally value the importance of language and the right for the reader to choose their given meaning of a work. While Barthes veers off and claims the author should remain obsolete in order for the much needed connection between the language and the reader to occur, Ong takes it a step further and allows both the author and the reader to enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship which permits the work to flourish.
-Clare Davis
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition. Ed. David H. Richter. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 868, 874-77.
Ong, Walter J. “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction.” PMLA 90 (1975): 9-21.
Clare I really enjoyed your tone through out this piece and the way you begin your discussion of Barthes theories with a series of questions "When it comes to art, who has the power? The creator/artist or the observer/consumer? Does a writer’s authority dissipate once the reader comes into the scene? Should the relationship between a writer and their audiences contain a basis of equality?". When I read these I was instantly curious to see how you answered them in your piece. I was also intrigued by the way you connected Ong's theory of fictionalization to both authors notion of "death of the author". Comparing these ideas along side each other brings a new element to the table in terms of how and why the author must "die". In your closing paragraph you said that the relationship between reader and author is ever-changing, I would have been very interested to read more about that thought, it definitely could have been its own section of your paper. However that is not to say that it needed an additional section, only that it would have added an interesting other level to your argument. I really enjoyed reading your opinions about the way these two Arthur ideas intersect to attempt to answer the question of author disappearance.
ReplyDelete