"Death of the author" is idiotic

Harry Potter is trash. Stop pretending it's somehow sacred.

Way to miss the point entirely

Don't act surprised that user is pushing its author=god concept of the sacred. It's a troll thread.

If the author is retarded, then so is the work.

Author's headcanon > yours.

It's not idiotic, just misunderstood

"supreme authority" is far more idiotic than "death of the author".

But Nietzsche's intent when writing it doesn't matter, it's all about how you want to interpret him. It means anything you want it to mean! ;^)

Human beings are creatures ruled largely by their subconscious. What the author wanted and what actually gets on the page can be entirely different

Like most things, the truth lies in the middle. Supreme authority and death of the author are too extreme. The author heavily influenced the reader. His intent is important and should not be totally misconstrued. However, literature is open for interpretation so long as that interpretation can be backed up in a logical fashion.

>Like most things, the truth lies in the middle
shut the fuck up

>Like most things, the truth lies in the middle

Pure ideology

The only way to justify the supremacy of the author's intent is to fall back on metaphysics.

That doesn't mean that it's not possible to trace a certain narrative project in any example of literature. But should interpretation be confined only in that? I don't think so.

>the truth lies in the middle

that quote is actually pretty gangsta, feels kinda nietzscheish to me, that is if u read it the patrish way and not the pleb way anyways

Wtf I love Aristotle now

What if the author intends that the author is dead?

what if the author didn't intend his book to be racist/christian/capitalist/blahblahblah but it came out that way anyways because of his time? like dfw was probably intended to be hip and knowledgable about english dialects when he wrote those awful ebonics lines, but instead it revealed that he never grew up with any black people and sucks at linguistics, in a lot of ways i think it captures that awkward anti-racism of the 90s, when people would say they support jesse jackson and aren't racist by saying "he isn't a poverty pimp, i support him" as if using that phrase doesn't expose their racial thoughts even if consciously they really meant well, etc.

I always thought that the purpose of literature (or all art, maybe) is to simply connect people on levels unreachable by a routine verbal conversation. We create things that express our ideas, feeling, desires etc, so that others can see and feel it and hopefully reach some mutual empathy with us. Death of the author crosses such notion out and declares items of art to be amorphous lumps to shape to your liking, and the artist is just someone who shat it out

#InfiniteJest

Unintentional content doesn't really take away the supreme authority of the author, you know ;)

It does if he says "No thats not racist"

No it doesn't. It only means that the author is racist, which perhaps makes a novel a hypocritical failure, if it's original purpose was an anti-racist message. But it doesn't change the content of a novel itself, nor does it affect the author's authority on it's meaning.

Jesus Christ, what a mess of a thread, but I can't say this is not the millionth thread about this that is a mess.

Why don't you fags read the actual text instead of sperging shit about something you glanced over in wikipedia or something. Here, I'll make it easy for you, and it's short:
tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

It's not even about disagreeing, you don't know the first thing about it, anyone who knows would have to go through the trouble of saying "no user, it's not like that...". Fuck you fags.

Death of the author is not death of the writer or fuck the writer, it's not even a manifesto of something that you can call idiotic, but a reading of the current situation of the modern text and something to take into account and ah fuck it go fuck yourself you fucking idiots for taking my time f

How?

You're a fucking idiot, that contradicts your original argument. You've gone from claiming the author is supreme to claiming the work defines the author

>pseud teenager learns a new phrase to misuse
shut up faggot.

Slow down, family. Why are you trying to psychoprofile the author? Here's how it goes
>the author writes a novel called "Tale of Non-Racist Larry And His Black Friend Ooga Booga McNigro"
>the novel sends of a positive message of unity and cooperation between races, which culminates in the scene where Larry wears a cuck cage and invites Ooga Booga to fuck his wife
>however, long academic analysis reveals that perhaps the authors portrayal of Ooga Booga's character is too simplistic and stereotypical (not all black gentlemen have 9 inch cocks, you know!) which hints at repressed, or perhaps dishonestly hidden racist tendencies
Now the question is, while it probably (but not certainly) cheapens the novel "Tale of Non-Racist Larry And His Black Friend Ooga Booga McNigro" as a work of art, does it really in any way change the meaning of the story, as intended by the author? I don't see how.

you don't know shit my man

well if it's read as an example of american racism rather than as an inspirational tale of unity then i guess what the author intended just doesn't matter

Yes, but in this case the novel is no longer being interpreted for what it is. This is why I called such work a failure is the previous post.

one of the lamest examples of this is that stupid book "the medium is the massage" by mcluhan...the idea is that the medium is what is used to make u susceptible to the message...but when ppl misread it as "message" he was like "oh yes, tha'ts exactly what i meant!the medium itself is more important than the content blahblahblah" such a sleazebag, in that cause the author killed himself for the sake of some quick fame

What are these fantastic scenarios you explain yourself with if not psychoprofiling?

Damn how'd I ruffle so many feathers

Underrated

what if the author said one thing about his intent publicly but like told his boyfriend something else and you will never know what he really meant? like what if when mohamed wrote the koran he wasn't actually getting messages from god but making up an ideology with himself as it's leader? but we all know that's impossible, since his stated intent was to write down all the stuff god told him, i mean how can u ever really know what the other meant? oh fuck, what ever shall we do? let's quit reading since we'll never truly know what any of these books were intended to mean!

Well then it would be fucking wonderful if the author of Gilgamesh would show up and tell us what the story is about, since now we can't derive interpretation from the text because an autist on a Malaysian finger puppet forum said so.