I have battled a while with the 'death of the author.' Which I disagree with. Yet, he makes points that cannot be denied. For instance, like how readers may find meaning and connections the author did not intend. However, I do not see why the birth of the reader must mean the death of the author.
This last part ---that the birth of the reader must not mean the death of the author--- is heavily represented in Tolkien's distinction between allegory and applicability. He said, "I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." Which, if I were to name it, would be "manifoldness." The reader can find manifolds of meanings in a text without contradicting the author's intention: this is something you may find in Dante's four senses of scriptural reading. Following this train of thought, I think it slightly betrays Barthes' intentions ---his ferocious desire to be revolutionary. To not only make the author invisible but also other structures that allow life to produce meaning. This is no benign intention as you said he understood the beast he was unleashing on the world.
Finally, one can see the point of the author and literature being the point of concentration if you fancy the idea of muses: that mystical sense which allows artists to produce great work. It makes more sense in this view then that the author is a performer or mediator. Still, the author's genius is not erased or made of no importance. Socrates in Phaedrus appeals to the muses. Yet we think Socrates is unique. And even still yet, if we look to the muses behind Socrates, we receive a kind of humility and openness. The author doesn't have to die and the reader is well and alive.
"I do not see why the birth of the reader must mean the death of the author"
I agree. But the more I read literary criticism, philosophy, etc., the more I think that many of the most successful writers/thinkers became successful by doubling down on an extreme position, even if they wouldn't necessarily hold that position in a private discussion. Reflecting on this a few months later, I think the 'Death of the Author' is an 'argument for argument's sake' more so than a true reflection of Barthes' private beliefs. Perhaps also, as you note, a reflection of his 'ferocious desire to be revolutionary'.
The idea of muses is an interesting one - to take the spiritual/metaphysical element of this seriously, we might imagine that there is a 'cosmic battle' of ideas taking place, and the muses pick particularly talented thinkers and writers to champion their positions. The idea itself may not be theirs, but how that idea is expressed is a personal touch of the author.
Honestly, I found this essay a little hard to read, but I think that made it more interesting. Your summary helped in my understanding of it, but I think my effort in interpreting it only proved the authors point. I was only ever going to get out of it, my interpretation of it.
I think as a writer, once you write something and put it out there, it's almost no longer yours, but the readers and there is no way to ensure that they will take from it, what you want them to. They will make their interpretation based on their own life experiences, backgrounds, education, emotional intelligence and state of mind on the day of reading.
I dont think I agree so much with the 'death of the author' idea but like to see it more as almost an invisible relationship. An interaction of history and meaning behind what led the author to write the words he did with the history and meaning that the reader applies to what he is reading.
"I dont think I agree so much with the 'death of the author' idea but like to see it more as almost an invisible relationship. An interaction of history and meaning behind what led the author to write the words he did with the history and meaning that the reader applies to what he is reading."
I like this idea. The Death of the Author is too strong in its removal of the author's intentions, and in reality, people are genuinely interested in what the author intended in creating their work. But it doesn't have to be the only perspective, and as time goes on, more perspectives are going to be generated on/about a piece of work. Many of history's great thinkers are still read through their own lens, but we also have hundreds or (in some cases) thousands of years worth of additional interpretation to consider.
I have battled a while with the 'death of the author.' Which I disagree with. Yet, he makes points that cannot be denied. For instance, like how readers may find meaning and connections the author did not intend. However, I do not see why the birth of the reader must mean the death of the author.
This last part ---that the birth of the reader must not mean the death of the author--- is heavily represented in Tolkien's distinction between allegory and applicability. He said, "I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." Which, if I were to name it, would be "manifoldness." The reader can find manifolds of meanings in a text without contradicting the author's intention: this is something you may find in Dante's four senses of scriptural reading. Following this train of thought, I think it slightly betrays Barthes' intentions ---his ferocious desire to be revolutionary. To not only make the author invisible but also other structures that allow life to produce meaning. This is no benign intention as you said he understood the beast he was unleashing on the world.
Finally, one can see the point of the author and literature being the point of concentration if you fancy the idea of muses: that mystical sense which allows artists to produce great work. It makes more sense in this view then that the author is a performer or mediator. Still, the author's genius is not erased or made of no importance. Socrates in Phaedrus appeals to the muses. Yet we think Socrates is unique. And even still yet, if we look to the muses behind Socrates, we receive a kind of humility and openness. The author doesn't have to die and the reader is well and alive.
"I do not see why the birth of the reader must mean the death of the author"
I agree. But the more I read literary criticism, philosophy, etc., the more I think that many of the most successful writers/thinkers became successful by doubling down on an extreme position, even if they wouldn't necessarily hold that position in a private discussion. Reflecting on this a few months later, I think the 'Death of the Author' is an 'argument for argument's sake' more so than a true reflection of Barthes' private beliefs. Perhaps also, as you note, a reflection of his 'ferocious desire to be revolutionary'.
The idea of muses is an interesting one - to take the spiritual/metaphysical element of this seriously, we might imagine that there is a 'cosmic battle' of ideas taking place, and the muses pick particularly talented thinkers and writers to champion their positions. The idea itself may not be theirs, but how that idea is expressed is a personal touch of the author.
Honestly, I found this essay a little hard to read, but I think that made it more interesting. Your summary helped in my understanding of it, but I think my effort in interpreting it only proved the authors point. I was only ever going to get out of it, my interpretation of it.
I think as a writer, once you write something and put it out there, it's almost no longer yours, but the readers and there is no way to ensure that they will take from it, what you want them to. They will make their interpretation based on their own life experiences, backgrounds, education, emotional intelligence and state of mind on the day of reading.
I dont think I agree so much with the 'death of the author' idea but like to see it more as almost an invisible relationship. An interaction of history and meaning behind what led the author to write the words he did with the history and meaning that the reader applies to what he is reading.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
"I dont think I agree so much with the 'death of the author' idea but like to see it more as almost an invisible relationship. An interaction of history and meaning behind what led the author to write the words he did with the history and meaning that the reader applies to what he is reading."
I like this idea. The Death of the Author is too strong in its removal of the author's intentions, and in reality, people are genuinely interested in what the author intended in creating their work. But it doesn't have to be the only perspective, and as time goes on, more perspectives are going to be generated on/about a piece of work. Many of history's great thinkers are still read through their own lens, but we also have hundreds or (in some cases) thousands of years worth of additional interpretation to consider.