Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dietcokeaddict91]

I agree with what popcorn says about how we cannot put the author to text in all aspects of writing. In some contexts of writing who the author is may be extremely relevant, an autobiography is an obvious example. Like mouse90 says every person may have different interpretations of a text, it is important to understand that both the reader and the author are important in terms of a text. They both give meaning.

[confused.com]

Although Barthes notion of the readers interpretation fits in many ways. I feel it necessary to also consider the author's own interpretation of the text, and how this can ensure their survival after the text has been read.

We as readers are only able to interpret what we are given- the author controls our sense of understanding of the text completely. We see the world through the authors eyes, and like dietcokeaddict91 an autobiography is a perfect example of this.

However, within fiction the author creates a world for the enjoyment of the reader. So could we take into consideration the simple fact that the author does not want to 'live'? They have created a world where the characters live, and we as the readers are able to interpret and involve ourselves in this world as we choose. This leads me to think that the most important point to consider is, does the genre dictate whether the author lives or dies?

[Artamis]

I find Barths text stands in strong contrast to the marketing strategies of today's bestsellers. Having worked in the book industry, it seems to me, if something goes forgotten its the publisher and not the author. The brand of the author is, arguably only in the bestseller range, the best way for a publisher to brand a new book. Who is not running in the store to get the new Grisham or Mankell ? People in these cases do rarely know the name of the title, they just wanna read the new book by this particular author. This is especially the case for children books, fantasy, sci-fi and crime fiction, where books are produced by the same author in sequels or even whole series. Of course there are examples like Harry Potter, where the name of the texts' hero, becomes the identifiable symbol rather than the author himself. The author himself may not be important to judge a text, but the branding of his name surely supports book sales. 

[hluiz]

I found the work of Barthes to be very thought provoking, and although I had never thought of the notion of an author's work being as unoriginal as he suggests I think it is in truth a fairly valid one. “It is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality to reach that point where only language acts and not me”. This example from Barthes intrigues me as to me it suggests that in writing what one is in fact doing is giving the words used permission to perform and allowing them to narrate the meaning of the text rather than the author himself.

[mwilliams]

I'm finding the conept of the 'performer' in Barthes text difficult o understand. I am the performer if I am reading a book for example, but is this becuase I am interpreting the writing in my own way or do I have to act upon it to be a performer?

[ellip]

This reading really makes you think. After multiple replications and duplication of text, one really has to ask who owns it. I guess it's safe to say no one owns the words however the way in which they are arranged is down to someone's thought process. Notice how the text takes precedence over the author, I care more about what is said than who says it.

[gadams]

I found this reading very difficult however I do feel Barthes has a clear point. When reading text or writing it is all about your interpretation - in this case the author and his view does not count. I do feel there are certain cases most of which are factual when the author's point of view is valid. I find is interesting the way different people interprate text differently. Several people may read the same text but all have a different take on it. Barthes ideas are very abstract and symbolic. The meaning of text lies in the person reading it not the author.

[Budgie]

 Barthes musings on "the Death of the Author" I actually find quite pessimistic. In my opinion, as soon as you put pen to paper, to fingers to keyboard or your words leave your lips in the company of others you are putting your creation up for critique and interpretation, and I think there's a beauty in how that is spread around and developed. Think of ground-breaking authors in academia and how other academic writers have built upon their key concepts with their own ideas, it's a part of evolution and an authors ideas live on through the connections it has with the readers. I don't think it should matter too much whether it was meant to be read in a certain place and a certain time to understand its contextual influence. Different people interpret different meanings, depending on variables such as their worldview, experiences and upbringing.

[AndreaLo]

I found Barthes' theories interesting as his writing in itself can be interpreted in many different ways. Moreover, his hypothesis is especially relevant now in this digital day and age, with the widespread prominence of social networking site Facebook and micro-blogging sites such as Twitter, where information is repeated again and again until its original authorship is either unknown or lost.

It also makes me consider the works of academics who study the works of such figures as Shakespeare and Chaucer. Many academics (and even school pupils and undergraduates alike studying English Literature) interpret the texts very, very differently; in the case of the aforementioned historical figures, indeed as Barthes suggests there is essentially no way of telling whether they really meant what we think they meant.

Even contemporary writers/playwrights such as Arthur Miller and Caryl Churchill whose works were produced and performed within the memory of many people today, it can still be argued that the original intent for their work and the interpretation of their work by others can differ greatly.

[missrager]

I agree totally with Budgie. It is undeniable that there is no such thing as spontaneous thought, therefore there cannot be such a thing as completely spontaneous writing - however, there can be writing which conveys your own ideals integrated with those of others. I understood this text in terms of music. An artist always has other influences.

[Sian]

I completely agree with some of the earlier points about instances where a writing would be nothing without the author, autobiographical for example. While it is intriguing to consider that the author no longer exists and writing is rewritten each time it a read a new, I find it difficult to agree that the author is of not influence of relevance to their written work once it has left them. People return to authors for clarification in academic research, and while we make stories out own through our own understanding and imagination people become very attached to the authors as much as they do their work. J.K Rowling and Harry Potter for example.. to some extent I believe that the fame, repeat, admiration, or even hate that can be achieved through the written word means that the author and the writing can never in totality be separate.

[jaffacake]

I think I have heard the phrase before in some translation of Goethe’s work. He similarly stated long ago, that the power of the literary work, lies on the reader, rather than the author. AS the reader has the final verdict, as he will have his own interpretation of the work, done by the author, but no longer has the power to impose his own interpretation on the reader.

[Georgina.]

A further thought to Rowland Barthes’ work; he argues that the author is merely stringing borrowed words and meanings together and the real performer is the reader. This implies the author of the text did not intend to create a piece of writing, however; it’ seems impossible that anyone could declare a piece of work unintentional.

I don't think that this means the author did not intend to create a piece of writing as such. If every piece of writing was created unintentionally then this would mean that every instance of writing would have been, instead, created accidently, which woudl then imply that noting would ever make sense. You can't ever truely accidently create a fully formed sentence that makes complete sense. Instead, I think his idea was instead that ideas are constantly being borrowed in order to create texts, so that the ideas the author is putting onto the page would never fully one hundred percent be their own, because the idea must have developed from somewhere, possibly as a development or disagreement of the idea of another.