Can someone explain this shit to me...

Can someone explain this shit to me? The very idea of blocking off a whole avenue of analysis and critique for seemingly no reason irks me. Is there any reason someone would willingly not take such a critical fact into account as the individual who wrote the fucking book?

Psychological considerations toward motivations are still relevant.

Motivations actual impact union the work of art in itself are totally unrelated.

The schism with dota is on that level.

Union=upon***

the idea that an artistic work stands as it's own entity separate of whomever the creator was/is.

>the idea that an artistic work stands as it's own entity separate of whomever the creator was/is.

But you cannot deny that the author's experiences and ideas are a very large factor? And if they are a very large factor then why not include them?

>Motivations actual impact union the work of art in itself are totally unrelated.

How? The motivation makes the author put certain things in their book, no? Dostoevsky reacting to nihilism and western influence in his works isn't important, as far as the work with those things in them are concerned?

>The very idea of blocking off a whole avenue of analysis and critique for seemingly no reason irks me.

That isn't really the point of "Death of the Author" - Barthes expounded the idea in a time where the author's own interpretation was the final word, and what he was really trying to do was open up all the *other* avenues of interpretation.

He's a European. He makes these big claims and assumes you will actually read the book and come to terms with their nuance. Also it is a direct reference to Nietzsche.

As far as I understood it, it's the notion that the ideas expressed in a piece of art should be independently valid regardless of whoever created it. Or in a more general sense, the creator should have no say about what you can extract from a text, and that anything you extract is just as valid as whatever the creator wanted their audience to extract in the first place.

>Also it is a direct reference to Nietzsche.

Could you explain this part a bit more?

>the creator should have no say about what you can extract from a text

But if they are the creator and had the whole book in their mind while they were writing it and they claim that what you are gaining from the book is wrong, doesn't this mean that the most logical explanation is you putting in your own subjective experiences and biases and are in fact, wrong?

It certainly matters historically. Yes it created the conditions for him to write they book.

But for the books meaning in itself it matters not at all.


Dota is like if you found a book on a desert island and had no knowledge of the author.
It's your interpretation wrong because you don't know?

No. It's not. The book had transmitted a meaning, or more correctly the book presents a pattern your interpretation has taken meaning from.


Im not saying dota is always correct. Sometimes it's very retarded imo. But it does describe how most people read even if only to a small extent. It highlights the interpretive essence of a book

That makes a lot more sense. Can you give an example of when you think death of the author is incorrect or retarded?

Haha except I can say that the author of Death of the Author is dead because he himself is an author and therefore in my opinion the author is still alive

Bet he didn't think of that one. Checkmate, Barthes you retarded french faggot

Explanation: Author isn't ultimate authority of own work's meaning. Author is just another interpreter.

It's the loophole lit critics created so they can say whatever they want about a book.

Ideas are not generated by people.

Thing is, if an author wants the reader to get a very clear thing out of their worl, they should be good enough as a writer to get that point accross explicitly so there can be no mistake, or otherwise reconcile themselves to the fact that they cannot possibly control how every single person interperites their work. A wprk will always convey a certain thing. A truly gifted author will create a work that in reality, actually presents the same thing that they had concieved that it should

ITS A USEFUL TOOL OF CRITIQUE AND SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN AS ANYTHING MORE OR LESS THAN THAT. IF THIS IS A BIG DEAL TO YOU THEN YOU LACK NUANCE AS A THINKER AND PROBABLY HAVEN'T READ VERY MUCH.

ANY ASSERTION NEEDS TEXTUAL EVIDENCE AND PROPER ARGUMENTATION TO BACK IT UP. AN ASSERTION HOWEVER DOES NOT NEED BIOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

how short was hegel?

Maybe the author doesn't want you thinking about the bullshit he has to deal with day to day while you read his book. The purpose of the book qua the author is to illicit the images and ideas that that book explicitly puts foreward, and doesn't invite the reader to his house to get to know him. Also, it holds authors accountable for the bullshit they write down. If they cant get the idea across without someone reading their biography then they sucked at writing. If on the off chance that instead of them sucking at writing, you just suck at reading, then it might be nice for you to read a biography written at the 6th grade level so as to take a break from a text beyond your means, but nothing irks me more than some faggot like that who brings back his interpretation and rains it down on me like its holly water sent from the damn gods.

>tfw waiting for death of the reader

cont.
The idea that you can reduce a text to the author's ideology concerning it also pisses me off. Its reductive to 'have the right answer' regarding a work of art you pretentious cock.

it is the literary equivalent/expression of nietzsche's death of god. essentially you are 'allowed' or morally permitted to express and live by your own 'truths', especially if they make you stronger and 'affirm life' or whatever. so, say I am a feminist, say I've found my purpose in tearing down the patriarchy and repairing broken gender ideologies, it's totally cool for me to develop a feminist reading of nietzsche and use deconstruction to show how despite appearing to think and express one thing, nietzsche's text actually undermines itself (possibly intentionally, but because the author is dead it is irrelevant) and reveals the opposite view, or perhaps it destroys the theoretical structure of the dichotomy. anyways, it's basically a kind of antifascist move, an attempt to break up the monopoly view in its contemporary critical milieu which was very much focused on autobiographical study of the author and bound by the belief that his word is law.

cont.
Its that attitude that stops all consideration of the literature at hand. I'm gestating some text I've just finished - considering its nuances - maybe I find some particular part evocative and I've focused on that. And along you come having not understood the work worth a damn, having taken someone else's word on it, looking to unilaterally end the conversation on the book by delivering up the conventional fare. At best you're not some moron, but you're still whipping around the author's head like a little fly instead of revealing interesting notions about the text. The death of the author lets a reader reassemble the text as a thesis about the text uninterrupted and you should appreciate that as a reader who wants to deal with the work. Otherwise you're just some 'facts guy'.

*biographical, not autobiographical

>But you cannot deny that the author's experiences and ideas are a very large factor?
But they aren't.

Yes and no, there are as many writers that only report or retell as those who draw from own experiences.

>occiasionally there are moments in a literary text when ambiguity about meaning comes into play
>because of this we have to just THROW OUT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF THE AUTHOR FUCK THE POLICE CANT TELL ME WHAT TO THINK MUH BIRTH OF THE READER

Convince me this isnt what Barthes is saying

Yes they are.

bitches swarmed to hear him lecture

hey fucktard, this has already been addressed. read the fucking responses before posting like a goddamned mongrel idiot:

look at the dubs especially. that's a parsimonious interpretation of the concept that you should sit with to erase that "POSTMODERNISTS ONLY CARE ABOUT OPINIONS" bullshit from your head. you should fucking kill yourself.

Okay will do thanks :)

If you go that route you eliminate all subtlety because people won't get it.

It's funny that you act like death of the author is limiting interpretation when it's the exact opposite. Barthes was mainly concerned with preventing literature from becoming dominated by singular "correct" interpretations that eclipse all other possible readings. If you start from the assumption that whatever the author intended is the correct meaning, then further speculation is pointless. If you have a work that is rich with potential meanings in it and you want to dig deeper you have to ignore the likely intentions of the author, in fact it's best to just pretend like there is no author so you can see what the text per se is telling you.

People are approaching it this way because there are a lot of other people who don't keep the context and full meaning in mind or never even knew it in the first place. A lot of people (probably not that many people who really studied the subject, but isn't that the world we live in) just use "death of the author" as justification for ignoring anything about the author and the author's environment they want when analyzing their work, even if it doesn't make any sense when considered in context. Some people even use it to shoot down interpretations that take the author's life and times into account.

That's one of the red flags that shows you're talking with a "self educated" pseud and should probably stop talking to them seriously because you'll only hurt your own head.