Summary: Barthe, “The Death of the Author”
Editor’s Note: For this assignment, I needed to read and summarize the published piece or content listed below, and then provide a response or assessment of the writing.
Summary
Barthes states that the identity of the author of any literary text is so separate from the text that the author is essentially dead. The author is simply a medium for creating the text; the author has no personal connection to the text. He states that although literary criticism has long focused on the author’s biography and history as a pathway to text interpretation, that methodology is not correct. In fact, Barthes believes that assigning an author to a text “is to impose a limit on that text.” Those limitations hinder the realm of interpretation for the reader. Differing from authors of the past, Barthes believes modern day writers understand their position as conduits for text, calling them “scriptors” who are “born simultaneously with the text” and are “not the subject with the book as predicate.” Emphasizing his belief that the role of the author has changed, he compares authors of the past and their literature to fathers and their children; whereas, scriptors of Barthes’ current day do not consider their literary works to be an extension of themselves in any form. Barthes also stated that the interpretation of literary text is the responsibility of the reader, with the unity of the text “not in its origin but in its destination,” explaining that individual reader interpretations may vary. These interpretations vary, in part, because each reader holds a unique view of the text, but also because the text is “a multi-dimensional space” that includes a variety of meanings.
Response
I found the Barthes text difficult to understand. I thought the text was difficult to read, and I thought the overall concept was difficult to grasp. I understood the idea of separating the author from the text—similar to New Criticism—and I really liked Barthes’ explanation that assigning an author and their biographical and historical backgrounds to a text imposes limits on the interpretation options available for that text. I can understand his point of view about separating author from text, although I do not agree with him. The part that I could not wrap my head around was when Barthes stated, “the hand, cut off from any voice, borne by a pure gesture of inscription (and not of expression), traces a field without origin…” He’s stating that the author is irrelevant in the writing process. The author, or scriptor, is not expressing any message in his or her work. The author is simply relaying a literary message that may be interpreted in the manner the reader best sees fit. Again, similar to the idea of separating the author from the text and focusing on the text for interpretation, I can understand that each reader may have an individual interpretation of the text. However, how can Barthes sincerely believe that an author or even a scriptor can be completely separated from a literary text. How can Barthes not see that even the subject matter that an author chooses to write about is a result of that author being influenced by something or someone? Taking it a level deeper, how can Barthes believe that any author can craft a literary work in such a way that dismisses any experience, thought, feeling, or belief that the author may hold? In that regard, I had a particularly difficult time understanding Barthes’ point of view.