Tfw too intelligent to accept Death of the Author

>tfw too intelligent to accept Death of the Author

you, specifically you op, are configured within your culture in such a way that you have no choice but to have that belief.

how about you ask yourself why you don't accept it, then ask yourself why someone who does accept it might be sincere in their acceptance, and then compare the differences between you.

>OP could be some guy from my lit theory class

spooky

Maybe he died, he wasn't there last class.

You're right not to accept it: every author brings a piece of him/herself into the work, so to deny there's total detachment from a human and their art is pure bullshit

I love Barthes, but this was always one of his weirder ideas (typically French - let's throw authorial intent away so "we" can make the texts about "us")

But that's not what Barthes intended by death of the author. It's only your interpretation.

I was kinda of referring to Cammy P's take down of the piece:

>"Most pernicious of French imports is the notion that there is no person behind a text. Is there anything more affected, aggressive, and relentlessly concrete than a Parisian intellectual behind his/her turgid text? The Parisian is a provincial when he pretends to speak for the universe."

So I have to read the biography, autobiography, and psychologist transcripts of every author before I can accurately analyse a poem? I can justify anything I say that would normally be called death of the author by stating that it's a subconscious thought the author had anyway.

The Author is Dead user.

I guess that's why you were not saying anything accurate about Barthes.

So what you're saying is that Barrhead was wrong and the author is not dead?

Rejecting DoA is the brainlet position though. If you accept we are communicating with words that do not originate from us right now, you accept DoA. What is the origin of 'origin'?

I don't think the author is as dead as god whose death the 'death of the author' was obviously modeled after. The author can still be talked about and is attested empirically. So, yes, there probably really is such a thing as being "to intelligent" to fall for a slogan like "the author is dead". To disregard the author, on the other hand, to instead look at the 'field' in which his work is situated, at the rules that constitute it and that are beyond his control, is not being unintelligent.

What I'm taking from your post is that you reject DOA. Is this accurate?

>tfw so smart realize not accepting death of the author is still a form of accepting death of the author

I just wanted to note that the author is not as totally useless a token as 'god' is today. Like imagine something criticized some theory saying 'it doesn't please god', that is totally ridiculous but wouldn't have been in the middle ages. Whereas you still can talk about 'the author'. That's why I think speaking of the 'Death of the Author' is exaggerated. At the same time I really would like to read more non-author-centric arguments here. Not 'Was Dostojevsky more intelligent than Borges? Was he a greater artist?' but more: what in their approach is still possible today, what isn't?

>Death of the Author
>the author is still alive
>i saw the guy irl
busted

No self-respecting intellectual can disagree with the fact that biographism and auctorial intent lead to a subset of the infinite set of possible interpretations to a text.

What do the 4 symbols in the pic mean?

seven

Nigga, the whole purpose of thought is to find finite subsets of the infinite sets of possible interpretations of information we are presented with.
The question is under what circumstances and to which extent authorial intent should be considered when reading an individual text, and even more importantly how we define an individual. For instance, your reading of Plato may change depending on which of the Socratic dialogues you attribute to him, but it changes even more drastically depending on whether you think an author is a person capable of rational thought, or an animal ruled by its subconscious instincts.

The question of the value of authorship for literary analysis is really a cleverly disguised version of the question of what it means to be human.

Dankie skankie

>what Barthes intended
>implying that matters
lmoa

What a useless statement.

It's alright, the death of the author accepts you.

Barthes = GENIUS