I think I am finally starting to understand this whole theory thing. Although this weeks Barry reading was dry, I really enjoyed Barthes’ “The Death of the Author.” I actually felt as though I understood some of what someone was talking about…for once.
The author is dead and I finally killed him. Wow, who would have thought I would agree with this statement. I think it was a month ago when I refused to kill him off. However, I understand it now. Barthes said, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to finish it with a final
The author is dead and I finally killed him. Wow, who would have thought I would agree with this statement. I think it was a month ago when I refused to kill him off. However, I understand it now. Barthes said, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to finish it with a final
signified, to close the writing.” I never thought of this perspective. I mean really, what does the author really have to do with anything if he/she is just a product of the times? After all Barthes said, “[a] book itself is only a tissue of signs.”
After my extensive walk through the blog-o-sphere, I discovered Bitch PH.D. Now, I must say that I am not one for reading every rant in the blog world; however, I did find what Ms. Bitch had to say appealing.
Dr. Bitch began talking about pseudonyms in the blogging community. She said, “Pseudonyms prevent texts from being impersonal, from pretending to objectivity; they draw attention to the author’s role in a way that a straight byline does not. At the same time, though, pseudonyms make a text more fully public: by hiding the author’s identity, the author becomes potentially anyone.”
Isn’t this exactly what Barthes and Foucault talk about in their essays? Isn’t pseudonymity a parallel for these theoretical beliefs? Perhaps this is what makes authorship so problematic. When I look at an author’s name, I immediate think of a context and other works they have written; I am already biased!
Since I have a hard time releasing the author from his work, I should adopt the idea that an Author is pseudonomininous (this is not a real word, but I like it). This relates to the whole idea of blogging. Blogging is almost like a production, it turns writers into actors on a stage where no ones identity is ever really fixed or set in stone.
After my extensive walk through the blog-o-sphere, I discovered Bitch PH.D. Now, I must say that I am not one for reading every rant in the blog world; however, I did find what Ms. Bitch had to say appealing.
Dr. Bitch began talking about pseudonyms in the blogging community. She said, “Pseudonyms prevent texts from being impersonal, from pretending to objectivity; they draw attention to the author’s role in a way that a straight byline does not. At the same time, though, pseudonyms make a text more fully public: by hiding the author’s identity, the author becomes potentially anyone.”
Isn’t this exactly what Barthes and Foucault talk about in their essays? Isn’t pseudonymity a parallel for these theoretical beliefs? Perhaps this is what makes authorship so problematic. When I look at an author’s name, I immediate think of a context and other works they have written; I am already biased!
Since I have a hard time releasing the author from his work, I should adopt the idea that an Author is pseudonomininous (this is not a real word, but I like it). This relates to the whole idea of blogging. Blogging is almost like a production, it turns writers into actors on a stage where no ones identity is ever really fixed or set in stone.
Hmmmmm..... The picture you may ask??? Its how theory makes me feel... most days.
3 comments:
Your blog helped me have a better understanding on how the author limits us. I also had a hard time with the whole idea of the author not having any influence on the text because in school that’s always what I was taught. But reading your article helped grasp the idea of the author being dead. Thanks!
I'm reminded of an XTC song, "I'm the man who murdered Love:"
I put a bullet in his sugar head
He thanked me kindly
then he layed down dead
Phoney roses blossomed where he bled
Then all the cheering angels shook my
hand and said
I'm the man who murdered love
Yeah, what do you think to that?
I'm the man who murdered love
Yeah, what do you think to that?"
I do think the one oddity of Barthes is that if:
1) All readers are like authors, recreating the text, and
2) the author is a product of his times, and thus does not control the meaning of the text, and
3) belief in the author's intent limits the meaning of the text, then:
why isn't the reader also a product of his/her times, and thus prone to limit the interpretive potential of the text in the same fashion as the author would produce it?
I Must say that this is where I agree with you. I think readers are subject to the same influence that an author is. Does this mean that we should kill off the reader?? I don't think it would be wise...however, it is nice to have some kind of power.
Then again, it is readers who make a work powerful. If an author writes an amazing piece and no one reads it, it has no power. We decide what is good lit. and what is not.
Post a Comment