The Death of the Author

There is something i really want to talk about, but the last time i made this thread, it received three replies. So, if you participate in discussion, i will give you an an invite to Aaaaarg.fail.

Who here has read the literary essay The Death of the Author by Roland Barthes? He lays down the argument that it is beneficial for an author (or artist) to not include any information about his/her life to the general public. This is because these works then exist in a vacuum. We cannot attach anything from it to a concrete event in the artist's life because we know nothing about the artist's life. Therefore, we are then able to more openly and honestly interpret the work.

Now i'm going to talk Shakespeare of whom we know nearly nothing (assuming he was not Marlowe in a wig or Adrian IV's great grandson). He is considered, by most, subjectivity, i know, to be the most skilled writer in the English Language. I do not attest that claim. However, he is also renowned as a great writer because of his existential themes and characterization. And, as i said, we know little of Shakespeare besides where and when his life existed. Imagine if we could discern his political, religious, and moral views all from his wikipedia page before we ever read a word of him. At the very least we could say that the spectrum of interpretation and by extension inspiration would be moderately, if not significantly, reduced. Imagine if we could trace the inspiration for King Lear back to personal story of his elderly father (or perhaps just a personal acquaintance) who was betrayed by their son or daughter. His works would lose their sublime, almost ethereal quality they carry today. It's not that people are simply placing Shakespeare at the top of pyramid without any thought. It's the fact that his works stand alone, not supported by a biography, a personality, or even an trustworthy image that allows us the freedom of interpretation to place him there.


Consider Hemingway. Academics and skeptics have a tendency to study his biography and character more than his works. His mother dressed him up as a child, and he compensated by being overly masculine in nearly all parts of his life. But imagine if he was as mysterious to us as Shakespeare is today. He still wouldn't be on Shakespeare's level, of course, but perhaps people would interpret what he wrote a little more creatively, a little more openly because they have no idea what kind of person the author was.


We can trace Bloomsday back to when Nora Barnacle gave Joyce a handjob for the first time. Edward Munch's the Scream is traced back to the eruption of Krakatoa. All these people simplified, their life's work, their hours of study and practice and struggle, dumbed down to a few notable life events. Should we know an author's life story before we read a word from them? Are we losing something in our search to uncover the individual?

Everything any one person makes is entirely based on that person's lived experiences

To deny your audience any factoids is to leave analysis of your works forever empty and void of any real substance

>To deny your audience any factoids is to leave analysis of your works forever empty and void of any real substance.

What is "real substance"? Words? Experiences? Why can't an artist's, knowledge, their wisdom, be transcended into a more coherent format through their art form? What is specifically lost when nothing more than the work itself is consumed. All emotions, all knowledge, can be transformed into a work of art.

Facts don't have to matter. Reading a book or viewing a painting can hold a tangible meaning or "substance" within themselves.

Also, give an email in the name space for an invite if you're interested. The website has thousands of fiction and non fiction works in epub and pdf format you can download or free.

Read Mao II by Don DeLillo

I find that the answers to this question will vary depending on how important the respondent feels about collective experience vs. individual experience. The former would answer that context is indispensable. The latter would answer that only the text is significant.

Also to be honest I've never heard of aaaaarg and it is the only reason I'm replying. Hit me with that invite familia

did you mean [email protected]?

if so, invite sent

nope, it's as the name says. it's a temporary email. I wouldn't put a real address on Veeky Forums.

>[email protected]

it says it's invalid, dont know what to tell you

create a quick gmail account or something idk

Eh, I'd say you can be conscious of the influence of knowing about the author's life and just ignoring, if you are wise and attentive enough.

It's been a while since I've read that essay, but did Barthes really argue that the text exists in a vacuum? That seems contrary to the argument he is making. For example; if Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and then buried it in the ground somewhere, that work as a masterpiece of literature would cease to exists because the reader creates the work. Which I guess comes back to my main problem with the Death of the Author, is that it elevates the Reader and his/her ego to an almost supreme level.

John Doe reporting in, sorry to take your invite. I will stick around for the thread.

>bloomsday
>we know very little of Shakespeare

perhaps that was a bad word choice, but that's how i interpreted it

Essentially, he said that it is the work that speaks, not the author. I didn't mean to equate the vacuum to burying the work in the ground. I simply meant that, while i the process of consuming the work, only the work exists, nothing else. No knowledge of the individual who created it.

sent

what do we know of shakespeare's personality, morals, and religion for certain? the most we can ground in his life is the death of his son inspiring Hamlet (at least to my knowledge)

But where does the work come from? We assume from another human being. Only an assumption, sure, but we tend to live off assumptions.

Why do works have significance to us? Because we assume that they are saying something, that are communicating. Which implies someone else is sending a message.

Eh. I'd still enjoy reading and interpreting even if all books had their birth in Borges' infinite library.

Yes, but a work speaking is not the same as a human speaking. it does not have the same attributes because it is a product of creativity. The content of the work does not have to based in any reality. When we are given no information of the author, we are forced to take that viewpoint.

>but a work speaking is not the same as a human speaking
I was about to agree with this, but
>it does not have the same attributes because it is a product of creativity
is certainly not the reason. And the content of a work is based in a reality; the reality of the author's experience and its transmission into writing

fair enough

Yet we are given what they choose to give us. We must naturally call into question everything we are given. Whatever message they wish to convey, and whether or not it is complete, true, or accurate, is left up to us to discern. This is why our interpretation becomes more open. We are not given any facts about the author's experience, which by nature must be grounded in reality. So we are then forced to call everything into question.

Also, rather than a human speaking, a work will be more coherent and complete.

But we know a work must be created by a human, this does not mean it does not exist in a vacuum of knowledge. This work is all we are given besides the obvious necessities.

>rather than a human speaking, a work will be more coherent and complete.
I really don't see how that's necessarily true

it's not. i was wrong in saying that.

I guess i meant that sitting and writing something out will give the author more time to think their idea through, flesh it out. i know it's somewhat inane.

This is too Veeky Forums so I didn't read it all but I guess you could say that.

Artists already do everything to be difficultly understood, part of the allure, I think the ambiguity on purpose cheapens the art and the same too when someone holds the key to art in a story that surrounds it. I just want truth of my experience to be uncovered, I don't care if it involves someone else's and can dismiss the personal side of most things or invent my own from stereotypes so who cares.

I disagree.

Every piece of art comes from the context of what the artist has in their own consciousness, art if it be literature or anything never exists entirely a vacuum simply by the nature of creation itself. No matter what we do it is all tied to our consciousness, our memories, and our existence in the cosmos. We will never be able to delve deep into the mind of any particular artist, but I believe any information gives a piece of art only a more broad and human perspective plus whatever interpretation that exists outside of the artist themselves, there is nothing "simple" about that, it isn't ruining anything, it's only adding more layers. It's giving it more detail, more grain, more to think about.

Don't blame the artist's publicity if the interpreters aren't interpreting more creativity, or are missing objective truths about a work. Blame the interpreters for only thinking on the basis on the artists history and psychology itself, instead of trying to approach a piece of work from as many angles as possible.

Name one other famous writer other than Shakespeare that has the same mystery.

Even ancient authors have more information than we have on Shakespeare.

Shakespeare is a creation. Shakespeare the person is basically a scapegoat

The work and the author both speak simultaneously and will be forever interconnected. What the artist has to say about the world through literature has just as much to do with how the artist perceives the world through every day experience, and when we know more about the experiences of the author we can peer at works with greater magnification than before.

There is one thing though, having a sense of mystery perhaps creates more confusion, and allows for more artistic growth towards the specific individual trying to interpret the work, albeit most likely not hitting the original mark of the author's true meaning.

John Green is an example that the author should be dead for his work to be properly interpreted.

I can't just forget that he likes his Cheerios with thirty penises in it.

I have not read The Death of the Author by Roland Barthes so I feel ill-equipped to participate in this discussion.

Please accept this cartoon of Barthes and Friends in lieu of a normal contribution.

thanks for the invite bb

Mate i go to Stratford upon Avon every year and take the same goddamn tour. Theres a shit tonne of information on Shakespeares life and how it influenced his work.

Youre living in an age now where everything is recorded and stored indefinitely on little computers; where anyone can gain access to you with a little effort, and we depend on it socially now.

I'm surprised Pynchy has lasted this long desu