What do you think?
Rate this book
The Death of the Author
"We know that to restore to writing its future, we must reverse its myth: the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author."
'The Death of the Author' is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes. Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated.
Roland Barthes (1915-1980) was a French literary theorist, philosopher, linguist, critic and semiotician. Barthes' ideas explored a diverse range of fields and he influenced the development of schools of theory including structuralism, semiotics, social theory, design theory, anthropology, and post-structuralism.
'The Death of the Author' is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes. Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated.
Roland Barthes (1915-1980) was a French literary theorist, philosopher, linguist, critic and semiotician. Barthes' ideas explored a diverse range of fields and he influenced the development of schools of theory including structuralism, semiotics, social theory, design theory, anthropology, and post-structuralism.
7 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1967
51 people are currently reading
7018 people want to read
About the author
Roland Barthes
403 books2,631 followersRoland Barthes of France applied semiology, the study of signs and symbols, to literary and social criticism.
Ideas of Roland Gérard Barthes, a theorist, philosopher, and linguist, explored a diverse range of fields. He influenced the development of schools of theory, including design, anthropology, and poststructuralism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_...
Ideas of Roland Gérard Barthes, a theorist, philosopher, and linguist, explored a diverse range of fields. He influenced the development of schools of theory, including design, anthropology, and poststructuralism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 335 reviews
October 8, 2015
Wow. I can't remember the last time I've been this angry at a Literary theory before. Barthes is essentially saying that the translation of thought into language removes the specific voice of the author. Which to me, sounds like he is completely disregarding author's intent. Because, well... he is.
He is saying that regardless of what the author meant to write, there are cultural influences and "the author", his person, his life, his passions--" are what creates the text. To this, I agree to an extent. BUT OH NO, BARTHES DOESN'T STOP THERE. He then goes on to say "Utterance, in it's entirety, is a void process" which translated into lay-people prose is saying that when we utter language(written or spoken), we are stringing together words, that then assume their own meaning in the body of language... and it's the language itself that speaks and not the author.
THIS IS SO STUPID. IS HE LISTENING TO HIMSELF?! If writing isn't really creating / representing, and the author is dead... WHY AREN'T WE ALL DEAD? WHY ISN'T THE TEXT DEAD? We, as transient and irrelevant to language as a whole may be, HAVE EMOTIONS / MEMORIES / CULTURAL INFLUENCES TOO. And if I want to be really philosophical, I can go on to say that the text itself does too.
Ridiculous right? There is MORE.
The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture Translation: The author has nothing original to say.
If the whole theory is based around the idea that everything the author writes isn't really writing and there is nothing that is original, then we, as readers should be categorized in the same field. We should be side by side in this proverbial coffin with 'The Author'.
The Scriptor no longer bears within him passions, humours, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt
Then, what's the point of an author? Why do we create art? If not to express ourselves?! Different emotions, different situations. No single person is exactly the same for everything to be unoriginal. Sure, there is intertextuality and interpretation, but that can only take you so far. If this theory had any logical leeway, why does shit like Plagiarism exist?!
If the Author is Dead, then WHY AREN'T WE DEAD?!
(5*s because it made me so angry, brilliant)
He is saying that regardless of what the author meant to write, there are cultural influences and "the author", his person, his life, his passions--" are what creates the text. To this, I agree to an extent. BUT OH NO, BARTHES DOESN'T STOP THERE. He then goes on to say "Utterance, in it's entirety, is a void process" which translated into lay-people prose is saying that when we utter language(written or spoken), we are stringing together words, that then assume their own meaning in the body of language... and it's the language itself that speaks and not the author.
THIS IS SO STUPID. IS HE LISTENING TO HIMSELF?! If writing isn't really creating / representing, and the author is dead... WHY AREN'T WE ALL DEAD? WHY ISN'T THE TEXT DEAD? We, as transient and irrelevant to language as a whole may be, HAVE EMOTIONS / MEMORIES / CULTURAL INFLUENCES TOO. And if I want to be really philosophical, I can go on to say that the text itself does too.
Ridiculous right? There is MORE.
The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture Translation: The author has nothing original to say.
If the whole theory is based around the idea that everything the author writes isn't really writing and there is nothing that is original, then we, as readers should be categorized in the same field. We should be side by side in this proverbial coffin with 'The Author'.
The Scriptor no longer bears within him passions, humours, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt
Then, what's the point of an author? Why do we create art? If not to express ourselves?! Different emotions, different situations. No single person is exactly the same for everything to be unoriginal. Sure, there is intertextuality and interpretation, but that can only take you so far. If this theory had any logical leeway, why does shit like Plagiarism exist?!
If the Author is Dead, then WHY AREN'T WE DEAD?!
(5*s because it made me so angry, brilliant)
January 26, 2019
In my reading past the novel was king, and I would have never in a million years thought about reading poetry, until I did, and fell in love with it. Well, the same sort of thing is happening with essays. I had absolutely no interest in reading essays, thinking they would generally be boring and soporific. Then a few tricked through my palms, Hitchens, Sontag, to name two, and then Barthes. I was really starting to take notice. Some, not all, were at least interesting. But with Barthes I felt there was more there than meets the eye. Something just clicked. And it clicked in all the right places. And now I love reading him!
This 1967 text was my sixth Barthes and found it to be another thought-provoking read. Barthes argues on the rules of author and reader as mediated by the text, that the author has no sovereignty over his own words or images that belong to the reader who interprets them. When we encounter a literary text, he goes on to say, we need not ask ourselves what the author intended in his words but what the words themselves actually say. Text employ symbols which are deciphered by readers, and since function of the text is to be read, the author and process of writing is irrelevant. In simple terms, it's an attack on traditional literary criticism that focuses too much on trying to retrace the author's intentions and original meaning in mind.
More Barthes to follow for sure. Its like being back in the classroom, but in cool way.
This 1967 text was my sixth Barthes and found it to be another thought-provoking read. Barthes argues on the rules of author and reader as mediated by the text, that the author has no sovereignty over his own words or images that belong to the reader who interprets them. When we encounter a literary text, he goes on to say, we need not ask ourselves what the author intended in his words but what the words themselves actually say. Text employ symbols which are deciphered by readers, and since function of the text is to be read, the author and process of writing is irrelevant. In simple terms, it's an attack on traditional literary criticism that focuses too much on trying to retrace the author's intentions and original meaning in mind.
More Barthes to follow for sure. Its like being back in the classroom, but in cool way.
September 16, 2022
Hay varios puntos a destacar en lo dicho por Roland Barthes:
1. El lenguaje es el que habla en el texto, no hay voz del autor y por lo tanto el sentido de la obra es múltiple.
2. La obra literaria nace a la vez que el escritor. Ninguna antecede a la otra por lo que cada una tiene vida propia y es independiente.
3. Dotar al texto como una unidad de sentido que solo proviene del escritor es cerrar cualquier contacto con el lector y las interpretaciones de cada uno.
4. No pensar tanto en el origen de la obra literaria sino en el destino de ella. En este caso los lectores.
Con estos puntos, se hace obvio que el pensamiento posestructuralista de Roland va encaminado a darle importancia al lector, cosa que no se hacía en los comienzos de los estudios literarios. Y si bien concuerdo con Roland Barthes en que la literatura no puede reducirse solo a la relación de la obra y el sentido del autor, sino que también se debe tomar en cuenta a los lectores con posturas igual de válidas siempre y cuando se argumenten; siento que no se puede menospreciar el hecho de que el escritor tiene una intención al contar una historia por más simple o compleja que parezca y que su propia creación literaria ya es una lectura que él mismo ha hecho y que no se puede minusvalorar.
Creo que el punto medio es entender que el libro tiene un fuerte componente del autor sumergido en él y que luego pasa al consumo de lectores de distintos partes del mundo que le dan su propio sentido.
1. El lenguaje es el que habla en el texto, no hay voz del autor y por lo tanto el sentido de la obra es múltiple.
2. La obra literaria nace a la vez que el escritor. Ninguna antecede a la otra por lo que cada una tiene vida propia y es independiente.
3. Dotar al texto como una unidad de sentido que solo proviene del escritor es cerrar cualquier contacto con el lector y las interpretaciones de cada uno.
4. No pensar tanto en el origen de la obra literaria sino en el destino de ella. En este caso los lectores.
Con estos puntos, se hace obvio que el pensamiento posestructuralista de Roland va encaminado a darle importancia al lector, cosa que no se hacía en los comienzos de los estudios literarios. Y si bien concuerdo con Roland Barthes en que la literatura no puede reducirse solo a la relación de la obra y el sentido del autor, sino que también se debe tomar en cuenta a los lectores con posturas igual de válidas siempre y cuando se argumenten; siento que no se puede menospreciar el hecho de que el escritor tiene una intención al contar una historia por más simple o compleja que parezca y que su propia creación literaria ya es una lectura que él mismo ha hecho y que no se puede minusvalorar.
Creo que el punto medio es entender que el libro tiene un fuerte componente del autor sumergido en él y que luego pasa al consumo de lectores de distintos partes del mundo que le dan su propio sentido.
September 16, 2020
Πριν γράψω οτιδήποτε, μια σημαντική προειδοποίηση. Ο Roland Barthes ξεκινάει το ολιγοσέλιδο άρθρο του με τίτλο "Ο θάνατος του συγγραφέα" (The Death of the Author) με μια φράση από το Sarrasine του Balzac και αποκαλύπτει όλη την ουσία της υπόθεσης του έργου. Αν το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο βρίσκεται στη λίστα σας με τα προς ανάγνωση ΜΗ διαβάσετε το άρθρο του Barthes.
Ο Roland Barthes, Γάλλος φιλόσοφος και κριτικός λογοτεχνίας (1915 – 1980) καταπιάνεται με ένα ζήτημα θεμελιώδους σημασίας που αφορά τη συγγραφή, την ανάγνωση και τον τρόπο πρόσληψής τους. Το κείμενό του δημοσιεύτηκε στα 1967 στο Αμερικανικό περιοδικό Aspen, αρ. 5–6. Γενικά, κάθε φορά που κάποιος φιλόσοφος θέλει να διαφοροποιηθεί από τους προγενέστερούς του, κάνει και μια κηδεία πχ ο θάνατος του θεού, ο θάνατος του έθνους, ο θάνατος του συγγραφέα, ο θάνατος του υποκειμένου,ο θάνατος του εμποράκου. Ειδικά εδώ ο Barthes κάνει έναν διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στον Συγγραφέα (Author) και τον συγγραφέα (writer). Είναι, κατά την άποψή του, η γλώσσα αυτή που δρα και παριστάνει και όχι το άτομο καθεαυτό:
"Η εικόνα της λογοτεχνίας που συναντούμε στη σημερινή εποχή επικεντρώνεται τυραννικά στον συγγραφέα, στο πρόσωπό του, την ιστορία του, τα γούστα του, τα πάθη του. Η κριτική περιορίζεται, συνήθως, στο να λέμε πως το έργο του Baudelaire προκύπτει από την αποτυχία του ως άνθρωπος, του Van Gogh από τη ψυχική νόσο του, του Tchaikovsky από το βίτσιο του. Αναζητούμε διαρκώς την ερμηνεία του έργου στον άνθρωπο που το παρήγαγε, λες και μέσα από την περισσότερο ή λιγότερο διαφανή αλληγορία της μυθοπλασίας, να υπάρχει μονάχα η φωνή του ενός και ιδίου προσώπου, του Συγγραφέα, που κατέθεσε τις εκμυστηρεύσεις του".
"the image of literature to be found in contemporary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his history, his tastes, his passions; criticism still consists, most of the time, in saying that Baudelaire's work is the failure of the man Baudelaire, Van Gogh's work his madness, Tchaikovsky's his vice: the explanation of the work is always sought in the man who has produced it, as if, through the more or less transparent allegory of fiction, it was always finally the voice of one and the same person, the author, which delivered his "confidence".
Αυτήν την καθιερωμένη αντίληψη επιθυμεί να ανατρέψει ο Barthes προτάσσοντας τη σημασία της ερμηνείας του κειμένου, έξω και πέρα από το δημιουργό του:
"Γνωρίζουμε πως ένα κείμενο δεν αποτελείται από μια σειρά λέξεων που αποκαλύπτει ένα μονοδιάστατο "θεολογικό" νόημα (το μήνυμα του Συγγραφέα - Θεού), αλλά είναι ένα πεδίο με πολλές διαστάσεις, στο οποίο συζευγνύονται και αντιπαρατίθενται διάφορα είδη γραφής, κανένα από τα οποία δεν είναι πρωτότυπο: Το κείμενα είναι ένας ιστός αναφορών, που προκύπτουν από τις χιλιάδες πηγές του πολιτισμού".
"We know that a text does not consist of a line of words, releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author-God), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original: the text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture".
Αν βγάλουμε τον Συγγραφέα από την εξίσωση παύει η ανάγκη να αποκρυπτογραφήσουμε (decipher) ένα κείμενο. Οπότε πλέον η κριτική μπορεί να κάνει μια περιδιάβαση ακολουθώντας και ξετυλίγοντας τα νήματα της αφήγησης, βρίσκοντας το νόημα προκειμένου να το απολέσει στη συνέχεια:
"Η συγγραφή προϋποθέτει αδιάκοπα το νόημα, αλλά πάντα προκειμένου να το εξαϋλώσει. Προχωρεί σε μια συστηματική απαλλαγή από το νόημα. Έτσι η λογοτεχνία (θα ήταν καλύτερο, από εδώ και πέρα να λέμε η συγγραφή), αρνούμενη να αποδώσει στο κείμενο (και στο κόσμο ως κείμενο) ένα "μυστικό", δηλαδή ένα απόλυτο νόημα, απελευθερώνει μια δραστηριότητα την οποία θα μπορούσαμε να χαρακτηρίσουμε ως αντιθεολογική, δεόντως επαναστατική, γιατί αρνούμενοι να συλλάβουμε το νόημα σημαίνει τελικά την άρνηση του Θεού και των υποστάσεών του, της λογικής, της επιστήμης, του νόμου".
"writing ceaselessly posits meaning but always in order to evaporate it: it proceeds to a systematic exemption of meaning. Thus literature (it would be better, henceforth, to say writing), by refusing to assign to the text (and to the world as text) a "secret" that is, an ultimate meaning, liberates an activity which we might call counter-theological, properly revolutionary, for to refuse to arrest meaning is finally to refuse God and his hypostases, reason, science, the law".
Αυτό έχει ως αποτέλεσμα τον θάνατο του Συγγραφέα αφενός, αλλά και τη γέννηση του αναγνώστη (reader) αφετέρου:
The birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author.
Στην ουσία ο Barthes μας λέει, σε εμάς τους αναγνώστες, να είμαστε κύριοι του εαυτού μας, να μην υποκύπτουμε σε αυθεντίες και θέσφατα, αλλά να διαμορφώνουμε την προσωπική μας γνώμη ελεύθερα και πως μια πληθώρα απόψεων και ερμηνειών μπορεί να προκύψει από το ένα και αυτό κείμενο, έξω και πέρα από την προθέσεις του συγγραφέα του.
Υπέροχος ο Barthes και εξαιρετικά χρήσιμος για την δική μου θλιβερή περίπτωση. Η ερμηνευτική μου μέθοδος (σσ. Method killed Marilyn), προκειμένου να κατανοήσω το κείμενο συνίσταται κυρίως στη γνώση και τη κατανόηση της βιογραφίας ενός συγγραφέα. Θεωρώ πως προδίδω το κείμενο, τον δημιουργό, τον εαυτό μου, αν πράξω διαφορετικά. Έχω καταντήσει τόσο υπερβολική που ώρες και φορές θα ήθελα να ήξερα τι είχε φάει για πρωινό ο συγγραφέας όταν έγραφε ετούτο ή εκείνο. O Barthes υψώνει ένα τείχος προστασίας γύρω από τους συγγραφείς γιατί κατά μία έννοια τους σώζει από την υπερέκθεση. Μας ενθαρρύνει να εστιάσουμε στο έργο καθεαυτό, να βρούμε εκεί τις απαντήσεις και όχι στην προσωπικότητα, τα γούστα, τις συνήθειες, τα ελαττώματα και τις αρετές του συγγράφοντος. Δεν είναι απαγορευτικό�� ως προς την εύρεση του νοήματος, θεωρώ πως απλώς πιστεύει πως ούτε μια οριστική ερμηνεία υπάρχει, ούτε υπάρχει λόγος να πελαγοδρομούμε προκειμένου να καταλήξουμε σε ένα τελικό συμπέρασμα. Όλα είναι ανοιχτά και διαπραγματεύσιμα.
Αυτό με σκοτώνει. Έχουν υπάρξει περιπτώσεις που έχω γίνει δυστυχισμένη γιατί δεν μπορούσα να καταλάβω κάτι που διάβασα. Ντρέπομαι που το ομολογώ αλλά έχω βάλει μέχρι τους συναδέλφους μου στη δουλειά να κάνουν brainstorming μέχρι να βρω μια ικανοποιητική απάντηση για ένα αναγνωστικό μου ζήτημα. Και τώρα που το σκέφτομαι αυτό ακριβώς που με κάνει τόσο κακή αναγνώστρια είναι εκείνο που με κάνει καλή στη δουλειά μου, το γεγονός δηλαδή πως αν δεν βρω μια λύση στα προβλήματα των πελατών μου θα σκάσω. Είμαι τόσο επίμονη που θα συνεχίσω να ψάχνω και να ψάχνω και να ψάχνω μέχρι να καταλήξω κάπου. Ζω για εκείνο το "Εύρηκα" που θα με κάνει να ξεκολλήσω και να προχωρήσω παρακάτω. Είναι αυτή η θριαμβευτική αίσθηση του αθλητή που σκοράρει, μια νίκη που εξουδετερώνει προσωρινά τις αδυναμίες, τις ατέλειες, τις ανασφάλειες και τις αποτυχίες που κουβαλάω.
Όμως, κι εδώ φτάνω στην αιτία που αναζήτησα και διάβασα το άρθρο του Roland Barthes, τι γίνεται στην περίπτωση όπου η ταύτιση του συγγραφέα με το κείμενό του, καταλήγει να μας κάνει να απορρίψουμε ένα βιβλίο εξαιτίας της αρνητικής άποψης που έχουμε γι' αυτόν που το έγραψε; Και δεν εννοώ να μη μας αρέσει αυτό που διαβάζουμε αλλά να μην μπορούμε να διαβάσουμε κάτι που μας αρέσει, γιατί ξέρουμε τι έκανε στη ζωή του ο συγγραφέας. Και δεν μπορούμε να διαχωρίσουμε αυτά τα δύο. Και καταδικάζουμε το ένα εξαιτίας του άλλου.
Ας μιλήσω με παραδείγματα από την προσωπική μου εμπειρία. Το πιο αγαπημένο μου παραμύθι υπήρξε πάντα "Ο Εγωιστής γίγαντας" του Oscar Wilde. Μεγαλώνοντας αγάπησα με πάθος τη Σαλώμη του και τα άλλα θεατρικά του. Ένιωθα βαθύτατη συμπόνια για τις διώξεις που υπέστη εξαιτίας της σεξουαλικότητάς του. Μέχρι που διαβάζοντας περισσότερα γι' αυτόν, διαπίστωσα πως έκανε αυτό που σήμερα θα χαρακτηρίζαμε ως σεξοτουρισμό, στην Αφρική, και αγόραζε με τα χρήματά του τις υπηρεσίες νεαρών, ανήλικων αγοριών, τα οποία ενίοτε κακοποιούσε. Ξαφνικά είδα τον γίγαντα σαν μια φαντασίωση ενός παιδόφιλου κι ο κήπος του μεταμορφώθηκε από έναν ασφαλή παράδεισο σε μια καλοστημένη παγίδα. Το ίδιο συνέβη και με τον Thomas Mann, όταν διάβασα τις σεξουαλικές φαντασιώσεις που κατέγραφε στα ημερολόγιά του, για τον ίδιο του το γιο.
Αφορμή για να ξαναπιάσω πάλι αυτό το ζήτημα, ήταν μια βιβλιοφιλική είδηση σχετικά με την έκδοση του νέου βιβλίου της J. K. Rowling, η οποία έκανε κάτι ηλίθιες, τρανσφοβικές δηλώσεις και τώρα φαίνεται πως γίνεται μια εκστρατεία εναντίον του καινούργιου της βιβλίου, από άτομα που δεν το έχουν διαβάσει. Άκουσαν την περίληψη και έβγαλαν αρνητικά συμπεράσματα μέσα από έμμεσες αναφορές σχετικά με αυτό. Μπορεί όντως να είναι ένα κακό βιβλίο. Αλλά αν είναι κακό, είναι κακό αυτό καθεαυτό το έργο ή κρίνεται ως τέτοιο εξαιτίας της απύθμενης ηλιθιότητας αυτής που το έγραψε;
Εδώ είναι ένα παράδειγμα όπου η ανάγκη του διαχωρισμού ανάμεσα στο δημιούργημα και τον δημιουργό του μπορεί να μας βοηθήσει να δούμε τα πράγματα με μεγαλύτερη ψυχραιμία, να ζυγίσουμε τις καταστάσεις με ακριβέστερα μέτρα και σταθμά. Πολλοί άνθρωποι μεγάλωσαν και ενηλικιώθηκαν με τον Harry Potter, δεν υπάρχει λόγος να αισθάνονται εξαπατημένοι. Τα βιβλία που διάβασαν είναι η δική τους ιστορία, όχι η ιστορία της J. K. Rowling και της κάθε J. K. Rowling. Αν πήραν από αυτά πράγματα, σκέψεις, ιδέες, συναισθήματα που τους βοήθησαν να γίνουν καλύτεροι τότε οι προθέσεις και οι απόψεις της συγγραφέως δεν ακυρώνουν το κείμενό της.
Κι αυτό ακριβώς προτίθεμαι να κάνω κι εγώ από εδώ και στο εξής. Εννοείται πως δεν θα αλλάξω τη μέθοδό μου άρδην (πρώτα βγαίνει η ψυχή και μετά το χούι) αλλά θα την προσαρμόσω έτσι ώστε να μη στερούμαι τις αναγνωστικές μου απολαύσεις επειδή ένας απαίσιος άνθρωπος έτυχε να γράψει εξαίσια βιβλία. Θα τα ερμηνεύσω όπως εγώ θέλω. Αν ένα βιβλίο μου αρέσει δεν είναι υποχρεωτικό να μου αρέσει και ο συγγραφέας και δεν χρειάζεται πλέον να αισθάνομαι ούτε θυμό, ούτε απώλεια, ούτε προδοσία. Στο μέτρο του δυνατού τουλάχιστον. Υπέροχος ο Roland Barthesο οποίος για πρωινό έτρωγε δυο μελάτα αυγά, μια φέτα ψωμί και έπινε μαύρο καφέ, χωρίς ζάχαρη (Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes εκδ. University of California Press, 1994, σελ. 81).
Ο Roland Barthes, Γάλλος φιλόσοφος και κριτικός λογοτεχνίας (1915 – 1980) καταπιάνεται με ένα ζήτημα θεμελιώδους σημασίας που αφορά τη συγγραφή, την ανάγνωση και τον τρόπο πρόσληψής τους. Το κείμενό του δημοσιεύτηκε στα 1967 στο Αμερικανικό περιοδικό Aspen, αρ. 5–6. Γενικά, κάθε φορά που κάποιος φιλόσοφος θέλει να διαφοροποιηθεί από τους προγενέστερούς του, κάνει και μια κηδεία πχ ο θάνατος του θεού, ο θάνατος του έθνους, ο θάνατος του συγγραφέα, ο θάνατος του υποκειμένου,
"Η εικόνα της λογοτεχνίας που συναντούμε στη σημερινή εποχή επικεντρώνεται τυραννικά στον συγγραφέα, στο πρόσωπό του, την ιστορία του, τα γούστα του, τα πάθη του. Η κριτική περιορίζεται, συνήθως, στο να λέμε πως το έργο του Baudelaire προκύπτει από την αποτυχία του ως άνθρωπος, του Van Gogh από τη ψυχική νόσο του, του Tchaikovsky από το βίτσιο του. Αναζητούμε διαρκώς την ερμηνεία του έργου στον άνθρωπο που το παρήγαγε, λες και μέσα από την περισσότερο ή λιγότερο διαφανή αλληγορία της μυθοπλασίας, να υπάρχει μονάχα η φωνή του ενός και ιδίου προσώπου, του Συγγραφέα, που κατέθεσε τις εκμυστηρεύσεις του".
"the image of literature to be found in contemporary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his history, his tastes, his passions; criticism still consists, most of the time, in saying that Baudelaire's work is the failure of the man Baudelaire, Van Gogh's work his madness, Tchaikovsky's his vice: the explanation of the work is always sought in the man who has produced it, as if, through the more or less transparent allegory of fiction, it was always finally the voice of one and the same person, the author, which delivered his "confidence".
Αυτήν την καθιερωμένη αντίληψη επιθυμεί να ανατρέψει ο Barthes προτάσσοντας τη σημασία της ερμηνείας του κειμένου, έξω και πέρα από το δημιουργό του:
"Γνωρίζουμε πως ένα κείμενο δεν αποτελείται από μια σειρά λέξεων που αποκαλύπτει ένα μονοδιάστατο "θεολογικό" νόημα (το μήνυμα του Συγγραφέα - Θεού), αλλά είναι ένα πεδίο με πολλές διαστάσεις, στο οποίο συζευγνύονται και αντιπαρατίθενται διάφορα είδη γραφής, κανένα από τα οποία δεν είναι πρωτότυπο: Το κείμενα είναι ένας ιστός αναφορών, που προκύπτουν από τις χιλιάδες πηγές του πολιτισμού".
"We know that a text does not consist of a line of words, releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author-God), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original: the text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture".
Αν βγάλουμε τον Συγγραφέα από την εξίσωση παύει η ανάγκη να αποκρυπτογραφήσουμε (decipher) ένα κείμενο. Οπότε πλέον η κριτική μπορεί να κάνει μια περιδιάβαση ακολουθώντας και ξετυλίγοντας τα νήματα της αφήγησης, βρίσκοντας το νόημα προκειμένου να το απολέσει στη συνέχεια:
"Η συγγραφή προϋποθέτει αδιάκοπα το νόημα, αλλά πάντα προκειμένου να το εξαϋλώσει. Προχωρεί σε μια συστηματική απαλλαγή από το νόημα. Έτσι η λογοτεχνία (θα ήταν καλύτερο, από εδώ και πέρα να λέμε η συγγραφή), αρνούμενη να αποδώσει στο κείμενο (και στο κόσμο ως κείμενο) ένα "μυστικό", δηλαδή ένα απόλυτο νόημα, απελευθερώνει μια δραστηριότητα την οποία θα μπορούσαμε να χαρακτηρίσουμε ως αντιθεολογική, δεόντως επαναστατική, γιατί αρνούμενοι να συλλάβουμε το νόημα σημαίνει τελικά την άρνηση του Θεού και των υποστάσεών του, της λογικής, της επιστήμης, του νόμου".
"writing ceaselessly posits meaning but always in order to evaporate it: it proceeds to a systematic exemption of meaning. Thus literature (it would be better, henceforth, to say writing), by refusing to assign to the text (and to the world as text) a "secret" that is, an ultimate meaning, liberates an activity which we might call counter-theological, properly revolutionary, for to refuse to arrest meaning is finally to refuse God and his hypostases, reason, science, the law".
Αυτό έχει ως αποτέλεσμα τον θάνατο του Συγγραφέα αφενός, αλλά και τη γέννηση του αναγνώστη (reader) αφετέρου:
The birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author.
Στην ουσία ο Barthes μας λέει, σε εμάς τους αναγνώστες, να είμαστε κύριοι του εαυτού μας, να μην υποκύπτουμε σε αυθεντίες και θέσφατα, αλλά να διαμορφώνουμε την προσωπική μας γνώμη ελεύθερα και πως μια πληθώρα απόψεων και ερμηνειών μπορεί να προκύψει από το ένα και αυτό κείμενο, έξω και πέρα από την προθέσεις του συγγραφέα του.
Υπέροχος ο Barthes και εξαιρετικά χρήσιμος για την δική μου θλιβερή περίπτωση. Η ερμηνευτική μου μέθοδος (σσ. Method killed Marilyn), προκειμένου να κατανοήσω το κείμενο συνίσταται κυρίως στη γνώση και τη κατανόηση της βιογραφίας ενός συγγραφέα. Θεωρώ πως προδίδω το κείμενο, τον δημιουργό, τον εαυτό μου, αν πράξω διαφορετικά. Έχω καταντήσει τόσο υπερβολική που ώρες και φορές θα ήθελα να ήξερα τι είχε φάει για πρωινό ο συγγραφέας όταν έγραφε ετούτο ή εκείνο. O Barthes υψώνει ένα τείχος προστασίας γύρω από τους συγγραφείς γιατί κατά μία έννοια τους σώζει από την υπερέκθεση. Μας ενθαρρύνει να εστιάσουμε στο έργο καθεαυτό, να βρούμε εκεί τις απαντήσεις και όχι στην προσωπικότητα, τα γούστα, τις συνήθειες, τα ελαττώματα και τις αρετές του συγγράφοντος. Δεν είναι απαγορευτικό�� ως προς την εύρεση του νοήματος, θεωρώ πως απλώς πιστεύει πως ούτε μια οριστική ερμηνεία υπάρχει, ούτε υπάρχει λόγος να πελαγοδρομούμε προκειμένου να καταλήξουμε σε ένα τελικό συμπέρασμα. Όλα είναι ανοιχτά και διαπραγματεύσιμα.
Αυτό με σκοτώνει. Έχουν υπάρξει περιπτώσεις που έχω γίνει δυστυχισμένη γιατί δεν μπορούσα να καταλάβω κάτι που διάβασα. Ντρέπομαι που το ομολογώ αλλά έχω βάλει μέχρι τους συναδέλφους μου στη δουλειά να κάνουν brainstorming μέχρι να βρω μια ικανοποιητική απάντηση για ένα αναγνωστικό μου ζήτημα. Και τώρα που το σκέφτομαι αυτό ακριβώς που με κάνει τόσο κακή αναγνώστρια είναι εκείνο που με κάνει καλή στη δουλειά μου, το γεγονός δηλαδή πως αν δεν βρω μια λύση στα προβλήματα των πελατών μου θα σκάσω. Είμαι τόσο επίμονη που θα συνεχίσω να ψάχνω και να ψάχνω και να ψάχνω μέχρι να καταλήξω κάπου. Ζω για εκείνο το "Εύρηκα" που θα με κάνει να ξεκολλήσω και να προχωρήσω παρακάτω. Είναι αυτή η θριαμβευτική αίσθηση του αθλητή που σκοράρει, μια νίκη που εξουδετερώνει προσωρινά τις αδυναμίες, τις ατέλειες, τις ανασφάλειες και τις αποτυχίες που κουβαλάω.
Όμως, κι εδώ φτάνω στην αιτία που αναζήτησα και διάβασα το άρθρο του Roland Barthes, τι γίνεται στην περίπτωση όπου η ταύτιση του συγγραφέα με το κείμενό του, καταλήγει να μας κάνει να απορρίψουμε ένα βιβλίο εξαιτίας της αρνητικής άποψης που έχουμε γι' αυτόν που το έγραψε; Και δεν εννοώ να μη μας αρέσει αυτό που διαβάζουμε αλλά να μην μπορούμε να διαβάσουμε κάτι που μας αρέσει, γιατί ξέρουμε τι έκανε στη ζωή του ο συγγραφέας. Και δεν μπορούμε να διαχωρίσουμε αυτά τα δύο. Και καταδικάζουμε το ένα εξαιτίας του άλλου.
Ας μιλήσω με παραδείγματα από την προσωπική μου εμπειρία. Το πιο αγαπημένο μου παραμύθι υπήρξε πάντα "Ο Εγωιστής γίγαντας" του Oscar Wilde. Μεγαλώνοντας αγάπησα με πάθος τη Σαλώμη του και τα άλλα θεατρικά του. Ένιωθα βαθύτατη συμπόνια για τις διώξεις που υπέστη εξαιτίας της σεξουαλικότητάς του. Μέχρι που διαβάζοντας περισσότερα γι' αυτόν, διαπίστωσα πως έκανε αυτό που σήμερα θα χαρακτηρίζαμε ως σεξοτουρισμό, στην Αφρική, και αγόραζε με τα χρήματά του τις υπηρεσίες νεαρών, ανήλικων αγοριών, τα οποία ενίοτε κακοποιούσε. Ξαφνικά είδα τον γίγαντα σαν μια φαντασίωση ενός παιδόφιλου κι ο κήπος του μεταμορφώθηκε από έναν ασφαλή παράδεισο σε μια καλοστημένη παγίδα. Το ίδιο συνέβη και με τον Thomas Mann, όταν διάβασα τις σεξουαλικές φαντασιώσεις που κατέγραφε στα ημερολόγιά του, για τον ίδιο του το γιο.
Αφορμή για να ξαναπιάσω πάλι αυτό το ζήτημα, ήταν μια βιβλιοφιλική είδηση σχετικά με την έκδοση του νέου βιβλίου της J. K. Rowling, η οποία έκανε κάτι ηλίθιες, τρανσφοβικές δηλώσεις και τώρα φαίνεται πως γίνεται μια εκστρατεία εναντίον του καινούργιου της βιβλίου, από άτομα που δεν το έχουν διαβάσει. Άκουσαν την περίληψη και έβγαλαν αρνητικά συμπεράσματα μέσα από έμμεσες αναφορές σχετικά με αυτό. Μπορεί όντως να είναι ένα κακό βιβλίο. Αλλά αν είναι κακό, είναι κακό αυτό καθεαυτό το έργο ή κρίνεται ως τέτοιο εξαιτίας της απύθμενης ηλιθιότητας αυτής που το έγραψε;
Εδώ είναι ένα παράδειγμα όπου η ανάγκη του διαχωρισμού ανάμεσα στο δημιούργημα και τον δημιουργό του μπορεί να μας βοηθήσει να δούμε τα πράγματα με μεγαλύτερη ψυχραιμία, να ζυγίσουμε τις καταστάσεις με ακριβέστερα μέτρα και σταθμά. Πολλοί άνθρωποι μεγάλωσαν και ενηλικιώθηκαν με τον Harry Potter, δεν υπάρχει λόγος να αισθάνονται εξαπατημένοι. Τα βιβλία που διάβασαν είναι η δική τους ιστορία, όχι η ιστορία της J. K. Rowling και της κάθε J. K. Rowling. Αν πήραν από αυτά πράγματα, σκέψεις, ιδέες, συναισθήματα που τους βοήθησαν να γίνουν καλύτεροι τότε οι προθέσεις και οι απόψεις της συγγραφέως δεν ακυρώνουν το κείμενό της.
Κι αυτό ακριβώς προτίθεμαι να κάνω κι εγώ από εδώ και στο εξής. Εννοείται πως δεν θα αλλάξω τη μέθοδό μου άρδην (πρώτα βγαίνει η ψυχή και μετά το χούι) αλλά θα την προσαρμόσω έτσι ώστε να μη στερούμαι τις αναγνωστικές μου απολαύσεις επειδή ένας απαίσιος άνθρωπος έτυχε να γράψει εξαίσια βιβλία. Θα τα ερμηνεύσω όπως εγώ θέλω. Αν ένα βιβλίο μου αρέσει δεν είναι υποχρεωτικό να μου αρέσει και ο συγγραφέας και δεν χρειάζεται πλέον να αισθάνομαι ούτε θυμό, ούτε απώλεια, ούτε προδοσία. Στο μέτρο του δυνατού τουλάχιστον. Υπέροχος ο Roland Barthes
March 8, 2014
The more i understood the essay, the more i gained respect for it. I am happily convinced that to understand life is to understand language. This fact has probably been staring me since childhood. That time when I had a sinking feeling when the teacher went “What the poet wants to show is....” when in my heart I had very different picture the words of the poem created. The essay has not only overthrown the hegemony of the institution of the author but has for me given a new birth to the very paradigm of reading and interpreting.
At what point did man unawares to himself use language as if he owned it?It is in fact language which owns man.
I love this revelation. Revelation of language as a field, a space of innumerable dimensions. Language is that neuter he says, in which meaning is systematically, relentlessly being extinguished.
Once studying theory and characters heavily influenced by theory, consequently paralyzed by analysis, i thought why is it so hard for theory to be put into practice?
Because language. It evades all our attempts at structuring meaning.
The author is a cultural and social construct. If he is god then the critic is the priest who claims privileged access to a secret meaning. Our virgin impressions of language are invalid they say. Barthes says both the god and the priest ought to be overthrown. Writing is the simplest anti-theological activity.
In a movie or novel or real life i love it when one is confronted with meaninglessness. You peel the onion long enough to find that there wasn’t anything under it all. All of the onion is about the peels.
Barthes says that none of the text is about penetration to reach some ultimate meaning. There is nothing to penetrate. Only various surfaces to be traversed.
That moment when one is robbed of what is inside of him. My pain, my suffering, my joys and ecstasy. Confrontation of the cold indifference of the universe, human destiny, the absurd.
His sentiments and passions were a performance of language and signs. Endless network of the signifier and signified. It has been the same inside of him as it was outside. There is no claim to originality. That which the author claims to have produced is nothing but joining of dots in the field of language.
We collect impressions of the outer world. We express ourselves in language. Somewhere we see that our sorrows and sufferings are the same as those of other people. If we are lucky we confront the absurd. If we are lucky the frozen sea inside of us is struck by an axe (My favorite Kafka notion). Perhaps we see how we share our individual identity with humanity. One comes to see after reading this essay that language pervades both spheres. To understand life is to learn the play of language and signs.
I find tremendous satisfaction in knowing that the author has been overthrown from his high ground. They don’t hold the license to the ultimate truth, meaning and interpretation. There is hope and joy in this meaninglessness. Is this what Meursault felt when he said “I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe.” ?
I remember that delightful time when films like Dev D., American Beauty, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and many more, made me feel I will discover something new and exciting and heartfelt with every viewing. The Catcher in the rye does that for me too. The reader is now the focus of flourish of new meanings.
The reader is now a person without a past, psychology and bias. In his power is to wade multiple writings, voices, worlds and identities. Even a child knows that he is free to make whatever he wants of the book he read. But this essay has to be read to understand how the child has to be saved from the author- god and the priests (and education overall if i can chip in). To understand how language furnishes the death of the author. How the author, if seen as an undeniable source of meaning is harmful to our thinking process. To learn that wading through surfaces is really more fulfilling than penetrating hard enough to read a safe and stable meaning.
"The hand of the writer/ poet only traces in a field. The name of the field is language."
At what point did man unawares to himself use language as if he owned it?It is in fact language which owns man.
I love this revelation. Revelation of language as a field, a space of innumerable dimensions. Language is that neuter he says, in which meaning is systematically, relentlessly being extinguished.
Once studying theory and characters heavily influenced by theory, consequently paralyzed by analysis, i thought why is it so hard for theory to be put into practice?
Because language. It evades all our attempts at structuring meaning.
The author is a cultural and social construct. If he is god then the critic is the priest who claims privileged access to a secret meaning. Our virgin impressions of language are invalid they say. Barthes says both the god and the priest ought to be overthrown. Writing is the simplest anti-theological activity.
In a movie or novel or real life i love it when one is confronted with meaninglessness. You peel the onion long enough to find that there wasn’t anything under it all. All of the onion is about the peels.
Barthes says that none of the text is about penetration to reach some ultimate meaning. There is nothing to penetrate. Only various surfaces to be traversed.
That moment when one is robbed of what is inside of him. My pain, my suffering, my joys and ecstasy. Confrontation of the cold indifference of the universe, human destiny, the absurd.
“The author who claims to express what is inside of him, to translate into text, should know that that something is nothing but a ready-made dictionary whose words can only be defined by other words.”
His sentiments and passions were a performance of language and signs. Endless network of the signifier and signified. It has been the same inside of him as it was outside. There is no claim to originality. That which the author claims to have produced is nothing but joining of dots in the field of language.
We collect impressions of the outer world. We express ourselves in language. Somewhere we see that our sorrows and sufferings are the same as those of other people. If we are lucky we confront the absurd. If we are lucky the frozen sea inside of us is struck by an axe (My favorite Kafka notion). Perhaps we see how we share our individual identity with humanity. One comes to see after reading this essay that language pervades both spheres. To understand life is to learn the play of language and signs.
I find tremendous satisfaction in knowing that the author has been overthrown from his high ground. They don’t hold the license to the ultimate truth, meaning and interpretation. There is hope and joy in this meaninglessness. Is this what Meursault felt when he said “I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe.” ?
I remember that delightful time when films like Dev D., American Beauty, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and many more, made me feel I will discover something new and exciting and heartfelt with every viewing. The Catcher in the rye does that for me too. The reader is now the focus of flourish of new meanings.
The reader is now a person without a past, psychology and bias. In his power is to wade multiple writings, voices, worlds and identities. Even a child knows that he is free to make whatever he wants of the book he read. But this essay has to be read to understand how the child has to be saved from the author- god and the priests (and education overall if i can chip in). To understand how language furnishes the death of the author. How the author, if seen as an undeniable source of meaning is harmful to our thinking process. To learn that wading through surfaces is really more fulfilling than penetrating hard enough to read a safe and stable meaning.
June 29, 2022
This is quite provocative; I have contradictory thoughts about this essay.
Let's put them into words!
Basically, Roland Barthes argues that the meaning of a literary work is not created by the author rather by the destination (reader). For him, the author is the one who re-combines pre-existing things s/he was previously aware of from different cultures and did not come up with something new. He also argues that the author only exists at the time of writing; after that, s/he is dead. The author, he asserts, has no power over the text beyond that.
The reader is the one who decides what the text means. Therefore, the birth of the reader is at the cost of the death of the author. This leads us to the reader-response criticism where the reader is actively part of the interpretation and analysis process.
So, if the author is not responsible for the text, whose intentions, conventions, passions, tastes, and feelings we are reading about?
Let's put them into words!
Basically, Roland Barthes argues that the meaning of a literary work is not created by the author rather by the destination (reader). For him, the author is the one who re-combines pre-existing things s/he was previously aware of from different cultures and did not come up with something new. He also argues that the author only exists at the time of writing; after that, s/he is dead. The author, he asserts, has no power over the text beyond that.
The reader is the one who decides what the text means. Therefore, the birth of the reader is at the cost of the death of the author. This leads us to the reader-response criticism where the reader is actively part of the interpretation and analysis process.
So, if the author is not responsible for the text, whose intentions, conventions, passions, tastes, and feelings we are reading about?
February 6, 2021
fair enough
September 16, 2020
Man!!! laughing at my FOOLISH freshman self
I first read this for a really awful Greek Cinema course my first semester of college and was clearly not ready... I remember getting mad because I thought Barthes was suggesting authors are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is what the critics and academics say..... which is not even close to being the thesis lol
and then I think it was assigned in a few other classes and I just never read it because I held a stupid stupid grudge & I thought he was pompous
what strikes me now is the clarity of the writing
+ thinking about what he would make of contemporary autofiction
re: tons of autofiction, I am really interested in this reading of Proust:
"...instead of putting his life into his novel, as we say so often, he makes his very life into a work for which his own book was in a sense the model"
so this inversion is how I understand the difference between memoir & autofiction
re: "the author, his person, his history, his tastes, his passions"
writing autofiction, the trick seems to be to acknowledge that history/taste/passions will be a part of the novel no matter what - that there is no way to really cut these things out - but these things are taken as the banal foundation. The focus, then, is on something else - frequently, on questions of narrative integrity. RATHER THAN person-hood/personality. THANKS BARTHES.
it really is so well-written
free of academic jargon
only using academic terms for historical movements/periods
maybe like one mention of "language as symbol" but it's ok
***
okay, I really don't think the essay is about "author as social construct" which is what other reviewers have said (+must have been what my Greek Cinema prof said when lecturing)
as I understand the essay, the person writing the text is still the most central figure shaping the product. The idea that critics/academics/readers/etc. will interpret the text however they like is not that interesting imo, and also not what Barthes is writing about (ironic). The author's "death" does not mean the writer is powerless or irrelevant. What it means is that the writer is free. This is what brings me joy, reading the essay now. Thinking of the text as something that doesn't trap the writer on the page. That's the issue with criticism that focuses too much on "the author" - it confines all the conclusions/ideas in the text to things that the writer could have "concluded" or "seen" or "thought." And I spend plenty of time concluding and seeing and thinking. This is what gets so damn depressing. How it never stops and a lot of the thoughts and conclusions are just repeating endlessly. So to write and believe that I can write something which includes my thoughts but the thoughts form only some of the substance/matter, just as narrated events and recounted memories are part of the substance... is a relief. I don't know why THOUGHTS and CONCLUSIONS and REFLECTIONS are frequently given such weight (still) in contemporary culture. Like. Some thoughts are more interesting than others. But the same can be said for events/memories. Most books include a range of banal to exceptional for those two things. Not clear why thoughts get treated differently. I am, generally, very interested in the label "DEEP" & what we apply it to.
Returning to Barthes & his introduction... "Who is speaking in this way? Is it the story's hero? Is it the man Balzac? Is it the author Balzac? Is it universal wisdom? or romantic psychology? It will always be impossible to know, for the good reason that all writing is itself this special voice, consisting of several indiscernible voices, and that literature is precisely the invention of this voice, to which we cannot assign a specific origin: literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes."
THANK GOD FOR LITERATURE, THE NEUTER!!!!
this is my reaction to reading more academic/argumentative writing over the past few years. it is simply so tiring to read the product of a discernible voice. so I suppose I disagree w/ Barthes that "all writing is itself this special voice" - I think there are plenty of texts (this review included) that choose to earnestly put forth A SINGLE VOICE. even if I step into "universal wisdom," it's done playfully, and I think it is always clearly demarcated. So I really do believe that literature is the escape out of that political SELF that must always be embroiled in a struggle between what it naturally thinks (i.e. mostly banal and basic thoughts) and what it wants to narrate it thinks (i.e. deep thoughts).
I first read this for a really awful Greek Cinema course my first semester of college and was clearly not ready... I remember getting mad because I thought Barthes was suggesting authors are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is what the critics and academics say..... which is not even close to being the thesis lol
and then I think it was assigned in a few other classes and I just never read it because I held a stupid stupid grudge & I thought he was pompous
what strikes me now is the clarity of the writing
+ thinking about what he would make of contemporary autofiction
re: tons of autofiction, I am really interested in this reading of Proust:
"...instead of putting his life into his novel, as we say so often, he makes his very life into a work for which his own book was in a sense the model"
so this inversion is how I understand the difference between memoir & autofiction
re: "the author, his person, his history, his tastes, his passions"
writing autofiction, the trick seems to be to acknowledge that history/taste/passions will be a part of the novel no matter what - that there is no way to really cut these things out - but these things are taken as the banal foundation. The focus, then, is on something else - frequently, on questions of narrative integrity. RATHER THAN person-hood/personality. THANKS BARTHES.
it really is so well-written
free of academic jargon
only using academic terms for historical movements/periods
maybe like one mention of "language as symbol" but it's ok
***
okay, I really don't think the essay is about "author as social construct" which is what other reviewers have said (+must have been what my Greek Cinema prof said when lecturing)
as I understand the essay, the person writing the text is still the most central figure shaping the product. The idea that critics/academics/readers/etc. will interpret the text however they like is not that interesting imo, and also not what Barthes is writing about (ironic). The author's "death" does not mean the writer is powerless or irrelevant. What it means is that the writer is free. This is what brings me joy, reading the essay now. Thinking of the text as something that doesn't trap the writer on the page. That's the issue with criticism that focuses too much on "the author" - it confines all the conclusions/ideas in the text to things that the writer could have "concluded" or "seen" or "thought." And I spend plenty of time concluding and seeing and thinking. This is what gets so damn depressing. How it never stops and a lot of the thoughts and conclusions are just repeating endlessly. So to write and believe that I can write something which includes my thoughts but the thoughts form only some of the substance/matter, just as narrated events and recounted memories are part of the substance... is a relief. I don't know why THOUGHTS and CONCLUSIONS and REFLECTIONS are frequently given such weight (still) in contemporary culture. Like. Some thoughts are more interesting than others. But the same can be said for events/memories. Most books include a range of banal to exceptional for those two things. Not clear why thoughts get treated differently. I am, generally, very interested in the label "DEEP" & what we apply it to.
Returning to Barthes & his introduction... "Who is speaking in this way? Is it the story's hero? Is it the man Balzac? Is it the author Balzac? Is it universal wisdom? or romantic psychology? It will always be impossible to know, for the good reason that all writing is itself this special voice, consisting of several indiscernible voices, and that literature is precisely the invention of this voice, to which we cannot assign a specific origin: literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes."
THANK GOD FOR LITERATURE, THE NEUTER!!!!
this is my reaction to reading more academic/argumentative writing over the past few years. it is simply so tiring to read the product of a discernible voice. so I suppose I disagree w/ Barthes that "all writing is itself this special voice" - I think there are plenty of texts (this review included) that choose to earnestly put forth A SINGLE VOICE. even if I step into "universal wisdom," it's done playfully, and I think it is always clearly demarcated. So I really do believe that literature is the escape out of that political SELF that must always be embroiled in a struggle between what it naturally thinks (i.e. mostly banal and basic thoughts) and what it wants to narrate it thinks (i.e. deep thoughts).
October 22, 2023
مرد من تو رو روی چشمام میذارم. تو و نظرات رادیکالت رو. ولی خیلی باهات مخالفم :)) تو کل این ۷ صفحهی ناقابل هی خطخطی میکردم و اون کنار کاغذ مینوشتم چرا با جملاتت مخالفم.
میفهممت عمیقا. ولی نمیپذیرمت. و حداقل فعلا، بنده ناباکوفی ام.
میفهممت عمیقا. ولی نمیپذیرمت. و حداقل فعلا، بنده ناباکوفی ام.
October 11, 2012
The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.
دي مش عايزة تتقرى كذا مرة دي عايزة تتحفظ !
دي مش عايزة تتقرى كذا مرة دي عايزة تتحفظ !
September 22, 2019
I'd give this 5 stars but i have a headache after reading it
February 14, 2022
I did not write this review
November 4, 2019
'The text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture.'
Instills you with immense faith in your own ability to be original, doesn't it?
Agonisingly androcentric and rather condescending, The Death of the Author for me undermines the pleasure of English Literature as a discipline. Of course you can't aim to arrive at a holistic meaning of a text - it's hubristic to think you can. Authorship is indeed partially an artifice, but to dismiss the author entirely as a tool to suit a critic seals off an infinite number of avenues of potential interest and methods by which to extrapolate meaning. Such is the nature of inspiration and collective consciousness that no writing can be entirely original, but it's ridiculous to ignore the fact that any number of unique influences manifest themselves in the author. I do believe in the primacy of a reader as opposed to the author, but it is better to consider a text as a product of social discourse as opposed to a time or one voice - whether that be consumer or producer.
Thankfully, this has been one of the lighter essays assigned for university reading. Thank you Richard Howard for a clear and accessible translation - many critics could learn a lesson or two from your example. Right, I'm done now.
Instills you with immense faith in your own ability to be original, doesn't it?
Agonisingly androcentric and rather condescending, The Death of the Author for me undermines the pleasure of English Literature as a discipline. Of course you can't aim to arrive at a holistic meaning of a text - it's hubristic to think you can. Authorship is indeed partially an artifice, but to dismiss the author entirely as a tool to suit a critic seals off an infinite number of avenues of potential interest and methods by which to extrapolate meaning. Such is the nature of inspiration and collective consciousness that no writing can be entirely original, but it's ridiculous to ignore the fact that any number of unique influences manifest themselves in the author. I do believe in the primacy of a reader as opposed to the author, but it is better to consider a text as a product of social discourse as opposed to a time or one voice - whether that be consumer or producer.
Thankfully, this has been one of the lighter essays assigned for university reading. Thank you Richard Howard for a clear and accessible translation - many critics could learn a lesson or two from your example. Right, I'm done now.
January 16, 2017
Ролан Барт трябва да се чете, затова пък давам няколко цитата, които намирам за подходящ в контекста на университетските ми неволи.
"вместо да описва живота си в своя роман, както често се твърди, той превръща самия си живот в творба"
"модерният пишещ се ражда едновременно със своя текст; по никакъв начин той няма битие, което би могло да предхожда или да следва неговото писане, в нищо той не е субект, чийто предикат би могла да бъде книгата му; няма друго време освен това на акта на изказването и всеки текст вечно се пише тук и сега "
"животът вечно само подражава на книгата, а самата тази книга не е нищо друго освен тъкан от знаци, изгубено, безкрайно отлагано подражание"
"читателят е човек без история, без биография, без психология; той е просто този някой, който удържа съвместни в едно и също поле всички следи, от които е съставено писането"
От днес обявявам официално търсене на повече Ролан Барт в своето ежедневие.
"вместо да описва живота си в своя роман, както често се твърди, той превръща самия си живот в творба"
"модерният пишещ се ражда едновременно със своя текст; по никакъв начин той няма битие, което би могло да предхожда или да следва неговото писане, в нищо той не е субект, чийто предикат би могла да бъде книгата му; няма друго време освен това на акта на изказването и всеки текст вечно се пише тук и сега "
"животът вечно само подражава на книгата, а самата тази книга не е нищо друго освен тъкан от знаци, изгубено, безкрайно отлагано подражание"
"читателят е човек без история, без биография, без психология; той е просто този някой, който удържа съвместни в едно и също поле всички следи, от които е съставено писането"
От днес обявявам официално търсене на повече Ролан Барт в своето ежедневие.
August 1, 2023
"No sé citar en APA". El ensayo.
June 2, 2018
I pretty much accepted most of his arguments without ever really reading this text before, but it didn't go to this depth. I have thought for a little bit there is ultimate meaning to a text but a multiplicity, as Barthes asserts: "Refusing to assign a 'secret,' ultimate meaning" to text "liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law." I agree with this and think its incendiary but insightful as well.
What is interesting is how the author seems to be a historical thus contingent aspect of writing, according to Barthes.
With the death of author he says comes the birth of the reader...it is interesting how he puts an annihilatory primacy of the reader over the writer. I'm not sure if I really agree that you can't know an author's intentions either, at least in all cases. I think generally speaking he is correct about "classic" literature, but what about contemporary literature where you can just ask what the author's intention was with this paragraph or phrase or plot, etc.? Perhaps I'm missing something here. I think he's right if you are working just within the text, but if you go outside it you could find it (there is nothing outside the text, hardy har...). Anyway i think im not quite getting his argument there.
other than that it's a short read and it influenced my way of thinking about texts and their meanings for a while despite me not having read it until now.
What is interesting is how the author seems to be a historical thus contingent aspect of writing, according to Barthes.
With the death of author he says comes the birth of the reader...it is interesting how he puts an annihilatory primacy of the reader over the writer. I'm not sure if I really agree that you can't know an author's intentions either, at least in all cases. I think generally speaking he is correct about "classic" literature, but what about contemporary literature where you can just ask what the author's intention was with this paragraph or phrase or plot, etc.? Perhaps I'm missing something here. I think he's right if you are working just within the text, but if you go outside it you could find it (there is nothing outside the text, hardy har...). Anyway i think im not quite getting his argument there.
other than that it's a short read and it influenced my way of thinking about texts and their meanings for a while despite me not having read it until now.
December 10, 2015
An inevitable conclusion made by Barthes. With the beginnings of Burke, to the progression in Philosophy of inaesthetics, and their abandonment of universal ideals, replacing it with the idea that a persons' experience of it [a piece of art] decides what an art piece is.
Still, I enjoyed it. I liked the focus on how language is for the reader to decide. The author merely scribes what is to be written. We, the readers, decide what the words mean. I could not help to think of Wittgenstein.
my only qualm is that the essay is too academic for my liking. Insightful, yes, but lacks true clarity.
Whilst reading, I did think about how the ideas presented are a continuation of previous thoughts. Made me chuckle.
Still, I enjoyed it. I liked the focus on how language is for the reader to decide. The author merely scribes what is to be written. We, the readers, decide what the words mean. I could not help to think of Wittgenstein.
my only qualm is that the essay is too academic for my liking. Insightful, yes, but lacks true clarity.
Whilst reading, I did think about how the ideas presented are a continuation of previous thoughts. Made me chuckle.
December 16, 2024
Omg nenna bókmenntafræðimenn (aðallega kallar) að hætta með þessa endalausu fæðingar-orðræðu! Þetta er minnst original blæti sem ég get ímyndað mér í fari ciskarla bókmenntafræðinnar- ég er svo over it, annars var þetta flott, mikilvægt sögulega og það sést afhverju en come on!
December 31, 2020
It's a great idea and a great way of trying to read texts. It can really be freeing. It also maybe leads to a better understanding of cultural texts in the world and of their function.
But I doubt that it is really possible or always helpful in this real world. How can you separate a work from the (personal) brand when it was clearly produced and distributed with an intended and seemingly immanent connection to an author? Isn't the parasocial relationship to a youtuber a big reason (not the only one of course) to engage with their work like maybe John Green's and aren't people always going to engage with the work from the point of view of this author? How is it possible to ignore J.K.Rowling's transphobia when reading Harry Potter, wouldn't a person who interprets the Harry Potter series as sympathetic towards trans people be just seen as wrong? Should we just ignore the fact that an American superhero movie is partly designed with the intent to serve as an advertisement for the American military?
Another problem might be that removing the author possibly removes some intimacy from the act of reading. While reading the essay I thought of Holden Caulfield who thinks that good books are ones that make you want to be friends with the author and talk to them on the phone. Such an intimate experience of self-discovery seems impossible if one makes reading so "lonely" like Bartes seems to.
In fairness though: Bartes isn't as radical as the title suggests. Maybe there is some little space left for some voice like an Author, just not an Author-God. I don't know.
But I doubt that it is really possible or always helpful in this real world. How can you separate a work from the (personal) brand when it was clearly produced and distributed with an intended and seemingly immanent connection to an author? Isn't the parasocial relationship to a youtuber a big reason (not the only one of course) to engage with their work like maybe John Green's and aren't people always going to engage with the work from the point of view of this author? How is it possible to ignore J.K.Rowling's transphobia when reading Harry Potter, wouldn't a person who interprets the Harry Potter series as sympathetic towards trans people be just seen as wrong? Should we just ignore the fact that an American superhero movie is partly designed with the intent to serve as an advertisement for the American military?
Another problem might be that removing the author possibly removes some intimacy from the act of reading. While reading the essay I thought of Holden Caulfield who thinks that good books are ones that make you want to be friends with the author and talk to them on the phone. Such an intimate experience of self-discovery seems impossible if one makes reading so "lonely" like Bartes seems to.
In fairness though: Bartes isn't as radical as the title suggests. Maybe there is some little space left for some voice like an Author, just not an Author-God. I don't know.
April 24, 2024
no sorry i will never get behind the thesis of this essay 😭😭 in my opinionnnn , the intent of a writer is inextricable from their output because itll reflect directly on what they made ! art is not reticent , esp literature of all things 😭 readers may interpret things to whatever degree they desire ( esp in poetry when lack of context is the norm ) , but it can very easily cross into dangerous territory when the art is more mainstream , which is why i can never be on board w the death of the author . think of music . we all know who chapell roan is now bc her song ‘casual’ is trending on tiktok . chapell is a sapphic woman ! she wrote that song about a girl ! is it not dangerous for people to parade around saying that that song was written particularly for them and their male partner who treats them like dog shit ? esp in a world where ppl would never superimpose their experiences on Men like troye sivan but would do it on women like chapell , clairo , renee , etc . interpret and relate to things all u want — as a reader i do that , too — but its important to remember that all your feelings are merely projections on existing art made by people who extracted parts of themselves and contorted it into something digestible not for you , but for themselves .
June 9, 2024
Everytime I hear about this text I think of that tumblr post that's like, 'kitten your misunderstanding of what death of the author means is really embarrassing daddy' or whatever... but now I know. I am immune to internet discourse
(Also Barthes can't keep getting away with this he slayed so much..)
(Also Barthes can't keep getting away with this he slayed so much..)
October 26, 2022
I enjoyed this essay very much. I completely agree with Barthes when he argues against this cultural obsession with interpreting the one truth of a work based on our view of the life of the author or the author's declared intentions when writing. Who can forget the frantic hunt to unmask the identity of Elena Ferrante, and what a ridiculously shameful and ultimately useless frenzy that was revealed to be, once achieved? Or the new consensus that we can separate Wagner's production from National Socialism and appreciate the works on their own terms?
Charting the emergence of the author as a modern figure, a product of English empiricism, French rationalism and the Reformation, "it is thus logical that in literature it should be this positivism, the epitome and culmination of capitalist ideology, which has attached the greatest importance to the 'person' of the author." How prescient. Enter the society of spectacle, social media, Ted talks, self-branding, author interviews on podcasts and on and on.
And I adore him when he identifies works of literature as belonging to the social system of the time and place in which it was produced. Fed up of biking for one hour to a nearby neighbourhood I finally decided after many years to open my own specialty coffee shop next to my house in Madrid. I thought I was unique and special. While we were under construction, five other people who had the same idea at the same time opened their own nearby. Anyone who has ever spent any time in any field from journalism to academia also knows that, apart from rampant mediocrity, thinking people generally have access to much of the same information and new ideas that are a product of these are available to anybody with the intelligence to look thoughtfully at those sources together. In Darwin's time there were a number of authors arguing for some concept of natural selection at the same time. He just happens to be the one we remember. We speak of global ideological tendencies and their spread as organic and with momentum and drive of their own. Virology and non-conspiracy-theory analysis of capitalism have much in common in that an uncoordinated non-sentient system still has a tendency of adaptation such that it reproduces, expands and strengthens. There is no reason not to look at cultural production, including literature, from that same systems-analysis lens. "We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.... [the writer's] only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on anyone of them." As they say in Spanish 'brutal.'
He understands, as Oscar Wilde did, that life imitates art, more than art imitating life. "Charlus does not imitate Montesquiou but that Montesquiou - in his anecdotal, historical reality - is no more than a secondary fragment, derived from Charlus." And he refers to "the castrating objectivity of the realist novelist." This attack on realism, of course, is where Barthes and I begin to part ways. [I don't mind embracing subjectivity (without taking it to an extreme where everything becomes meaningless contestable perception) but one ought to be able to separate the uses and indeed importance of realism as a style from the objectivity/subjectivity debate]
You see, just as Barthe's essay was born of his time, a reaction against the over determinism of the personal life of the author on a text, we are now in what Mark McGurl has called The Programme Era, discussed in elucidating detail by Elif Batuman in the 23 September 2010 edition of the LRB. (Twelve years ago now, it feels like I read that essay only yesterday.) This has introduced us to the ridiculous notion of the characters writing themselves, producing my instant allergy to authors like Hanya Yanagihara who speak in these absurd responsibility-denying authorship-denying terms. George Monbiot (Out of the Wreckage) and David Graeber (the Dawn of Everything), just to name two authors that I know although surely there are others, convincingly argue for the importance of choosing the stories we tell ourselves. Humans shape our culture and our culture shapes us. This gives the stories we choose to tell ourselves great power. And this is why this contemporary over-extrapolation of Barthes' argument is beyond nonsensical - it is also dangerous. If Disney is held accountable for the inclusion/lack of inclusion of gay or black characters in its movies, if we can question the story arch choices of screenwriters when evaluating their work, then surely we can also ask questions about the choices authors make when constructing narrative, instead of pretending that narrative just self-produces.
Barthes seems to generalise his concept of the reader when he argues that "...a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone...." I disagree with Barthes here. Speaking in realist terms, to pick a word he and I can fight over, we can name the reader. In my case, the reader is me. This is also why I have begun over time to make my book reviews more about my personal interaction with the text, including information about my personal life that was awakened by something I read. Because if we are going to go all post-modern and argue that the audience completes the artwork, then in each individual case the audience member has a name, history, biography, psychology.
If I agree with Barthes that we cannot unlock a single true meaning of a text by reading it through the biography or intentions of its author; then what I can unlock - beyond mere disentangling - is the meaning of a text to me personally, by reading it through my own life and my intentions.
"Never trust the teller. Trust the tale." - D.H. Lawrence ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... )
Charting the emergence of the author as a modern figure, a product of English empiricism, French rationalism and the Reformation, "it is thus logical that in literature it should be this positivism, the epitome and culmination of capitalist ideology, which has attached the greatest importance to the 'person' of the author." How prescient. Enter the society of spectacle, social media, Ted talks, self-branding, author interviews on podcasts and on and on.
And I adore him when he identifies works of literature as belonging to the social system of the time and place in which it was produced. Fed up of biking for one hour to a nearby neighbourhood I finally decided after many years to open my own specialty coffee shop next to my house in Madrid. I thought I was unique and special. While we were under construction, five other people who had the same idea at the same time opened their own nearby. Anyone who has ever spent any time in any field from journalism to academia also knows that, apart from rampant mediocrity, thinking people generally have access to much of the same information and new ideas that are a product of these are available to anybody with the intelligence to look thoughtfully at those sources together. In Darwin's time there were a number of authors arguing for some concept of natural selection at the same time. He just happens to be the one we remember. We speak of global ideological tendencies and their spread as organic and with momentum and drive of their own. Virology and non-conspiracy-theory analysis of capitalism have much in common in that an uncoordinated non-sentient system still has a tendency of adaptation such that it reproduces, expands and strengthens. There is no reason not to look at cultural production, including literature, from that same systems-analysis lens. "We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.... [the writer's] only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on anyone of them." As they say in Spanish 'brutal.'
He understands, as Oscar Wilde did, that life imitates art, more than art imitating life. "Charlus does not imitate Montesquiou but that Montesquiou - in his anecdotal, historical reality - is no more than a secondary fragment, derived from Charlus." And he refers to "the castrating objectivity of the realist novelist." This attack on realism, of course, is where Barthes and I begin to part ways. [I don't mind embracing subjectivity (without taking it to an extreme where everything becomes meaningless contestable perception) but one ought to be able to separate the uses and indeed importance of realism as a style from the objectivity/subjectivity debate]
You see, just as Barthe's essay was born of his time, a reaction against the over determinism of the personal life of the author on a text, we are now in what Mark McGurl has called The Programme Era, discussed in elucidating detail by Elif Batuman in the 23 September 2010 edition of the LRB. (Twelve years ago now, it feels like I read that essay only yesterday.) This has introduced us to the ridiculous notion of the characters writing themselves, producing my instant allergy to authors like Hanya Yanagihara who speak in these absurd responsibility-denying authorship-denying terms. George Monbiot (Out of the Wreckage) and David Graeber (the Dawn of Everything), just to name two authors that I know although surely there are others, convincingly argue for the importance of choosing the stories we tell ourselves. Humans shape our culture and our culture shapes us. This gives the stories we choose to tell ourselves great power. And this is why this contemporary over-extrapolation of Barthes' argument is beyond nonsensical - it is also dangerous. If Disney is held accountable for the inclusion/lack of inclusion of gay or black characters in its movies, if we can question the story arch choices of screenwriters when evaluating their work, then surely we can also ask questions about the choices authors make when constructing narrative, instead of pretending that narrative just self-produces.
Barthes seems to generalise his concept of the reader when he argues that "...a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone...." I disagree with Barthes here. Speaking in realist terms, to pick a word he and I can fight over, we can name the reader. In my case, the reader is me. This is also why I have begun over time to make my book reviews more about my personal interaction with the text, including information about my personal life that was awakened by something I read. Because if we are going to go all post-modern and argue that the audience completes the artwork, then in each individual case the audience member has a name, history, biography, psychology.
If I agree with Barthes that we cannot unlock a single true meaning of a text by reading it through the biography or intentions of its author; then what I can unlock - beyond mere disentangling - is the meaning of a text to me personally, by reading it through my own life and my intentions.
"Never trust the teller. Trust the tale." - D.H. Lawrence ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... )
February 13, 2024
- The author is a modern concept that emerged with English empiricism and French rationalism in the early modern period which emphasized the importance of the individual.
- Writing is the destruction of every voice and point of origin as the author's identity is lost in the neutral space of writing. The author enters their own death through writing.
- Narratives in oral societies were never attributed to individuals but to mediators like shamans. Modern society places more importance on the author/genius.
- Language speaks, not the author. Writing reaches the point where only language acts and performs, not the author. Mallarme sought to suppress the author in favour of writing.
- Valery, Proust, and Surrealism all contributed to desacralizing the image of the Author. Linguistics shows the author is the empty instance of writing/speaking.
- Removing the Author transforms the modern text. The author is conceived as the past of the book but the modern writer is born simultaneously with the text.
- A text does not release a single meaning but is a multi-dimensional space where various writings blend and clash, like a 'tissue of quotations'. The writer can only imitate and mix writings.
- The writer imitates an anterior gesture, is cut off from any voice, and traces a field without origin in a pure gesture of inscription.
- Writing is the destruction of every voice and point of origin as the author's identity is lost in the neutral space of writing. The author enters their own death through writing.
- Narratives in oral societies were never attributed to individuals but to mediators like shamans. Modern society places more importance on the author/genius.
- Language speaks, not the author. Writing reaches the point where only language acts and performs, not the author. Mallarme sought to suppress the author in favour of writing.
- Valery, Proust, and Surrealism all contributed to desacralizing the image of the Author. Linguistics shows the author is the empty instance of writing/speaking.
- Removing the Author transforms the modern text. The author is conceived as the past of the book but the modern writer is born simultaneously with the text.
- A text does not release a single meaning but is a multi-dimensional space where various writings blend and clash, like a 'tissue of quotations'. The writer can only imitate and mix writings.
- The writer imitates an anterior gesture, is cut off from any voice, and traces a field without origin in a pure gesture of inscription.
January 25, 2023
This was good! Although something about the author's writing is super pretentious. But, he makes some particularly compelling points, especially the one about how as soon the author separates from reality in their writing, they also in a sense kill themselves off. There's a neat line like "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author"
I didn't sum it up well at all but it's worth a read if you have an interest in this debate.
I didn't sum it up well at all but it's worth a read if you have an interest in this debate.
November 12, 2022
Randomly had the sudden urge to tackle this essay. It’s short but packed with things to discuss in a classroom which is where I’d prefer to discuss it.
I wonder to what extent this type of thinking has its limitations. I can already think of a couple but am afraid there’s background theory here that I’m not privy to.
Still, a really thought provoking and accessible essay.
I wonder to what extent this type of thinking has its limitations. I can already think of a couple but am afraid there’s background theory here that I’m not privy to.
Still, a really thought provoking and accessible essay.
September 29, 2020
ترجمهی نیمهدشواری بود...
«ما میدانیم برای آنکه آینده را از آنِ نوشتن کنیم باید اسطوره را واژگون سازیم: تولد خواننده باید به بهای مرگ نویسنده به انجام برسد..»
«ما میدانیم برای آنکه آینده را از آنِ نوشتن کنیم باید اسطوره را واژگون سازیم: تولد خواننده باید به بهای مرگ نویسنده به انجام برسد..»
Read
December 7, 2020I’m not rating this because i read it for school and honestly i hope to never think about it after this semester, but i’m counting it in my goodreads yearly count because i’ve spent so much time on it that i could have spend reading actual books, so.
December 23, 2020
Interesantes puntos de vista de Barthes para simplificar el papel del Autor y el lector en la literatura.
Read
December 4, 2024"...we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author."
May 17, 2022
লেখকের মৃত্যু।
এই প্রবন্ধ লেখার পেছনে বার্থের উদ্দেশ্যটা বেশ ভালো ছিল, কিন্তু বর্তমানের হিসেবে প্রবন্ধটা পুরোপুরি ব্যর্থ।
বার্থের বক্তব্য এখানে বেশ পরিষ্কার। কোনো গল্প বা লেখায় যে বক্তব্য, অথবা মতামত দেখা যায়—সেই মতামতটা আসলে কার, তা পুরোপুরি নিশ্চিত করে বলা অসম্ভব। গল্পের অর্থ আসলে কে ঠিক করে? ইমতিয়াজ মাহমুদের ‘ঈদ’ কবিতা থেকে একটা লাইন ধার করে উদাহরণ দিই। লাইনটা হচ্ছে: ‘আমার কোন ঈদ নাই।‘
প্রশ্ন হচ্ছে, এই লাইনটা কে বলছে? কবি ইমতিয়াজ মাহমুদ? ইমতিয়াজ মাহমুদ���র সৃষ্টি করা কোনো চরিত্র, যার দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি থেকে কবিতাটা লেখা হয়েছে? বাংলাদেশের যেকোনো মানুষ, যার একই ধরনের অনুভূতির সম্মুখীন হতে হয়েছে?
বার্থের উত্তর হচ্ছে: কেউ না। আসলে ‘সাহিত্যিক’ নামের যে ধোঁয়াটে মূর্তি আমাদের অবচেতনে জায়গা দখল করে আছে, সেই মূর্তির বয়স বেশি না। কয়েকশ’ বছর। রেনেসাঁ আমলে এর উৎপত্তি। তার আগে গল্পটা কীভাবে লেখা হয়েছে বা বলা হয়েছে তা নিয়ে মানুষ মাথা ঘামাতো। কে লিখেছে তা নিয়ে নয়। তাই সাহিত্যিকের মানসিকতা বুঝে, তার মাধ্যমে গল্পের ব্যাখ্যা দেওয়ার চেষ্টা করা বৃথা। সাহিত্যিকের থেকে পাঠক-পাঠিকা বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। সাহিত্যিকের থেকে সাহিত্য এবং ভাষা বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ।
প্রবন্ধটা যদিও কয়েক দশক ভীষণ জনপ্রিয় ছিল, ইন্টারনেট যুগে এসে অনেকখানি দম হারিয়েছে। বর্তমান সময়ে সাহিত্যিক বা শিল্পীর ব্যক্তিগত বিশ্বাস ভীষণ গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। শিল্প থেকে শিল্পীকে আলাদা করা এখন খুবই কঠিন। বিশেষ করে যখন নতুন গবেষণায় আগেকার আমলের ‘ক্লাসিক’ সাহিত্যিকদের বর্ণবাদ, নারীবিদ্বেষ, গোঁড়ামী এবং শ্রেণিবিদ্বেষ নতুন করে ধরা পড়ছে (হেমিংওয়ে, বুকোওস্কি—এরা বিশেষ করে বেশ শুওর টাইপের মানুষ ছিলেন, শ্বেতাঙ্গ পুরুষ হবার কারণে তাদের প্রচুর অপরাধ মাফ পেয়ে গেছে), তখন প্রশ্ন জাগে: সত্যিই কি শিল্প আর শিল্পীকে আলাদা করা উচিৎ? যে সাহিত্যিকদের যশ-খ্যাতি এসেছিল অন্যদের প্রতি অবিচারের সুযোগ নিয়ে, প্রজাদের অত্যাচার এবং নিজের চামড়ার অন্যায় সুবিধায়, তাদের কি এখনও আগের মতো পূজো করা উচিৎ? শুধু ক্লাসিক নয়, বর্তমান শিল্পী-সাহিত্যিকদের জন্যেও প্রশ্নগুলো প্রযোজ্য। কোনটা বেশি জরুরি—অসাধারণ শিল্প, না সৎ চরিত্র? ইতিহাস লেখককে মরতে দেয়নি, বরং সাহিত্য নিয়ে সব আলোচনার কেন্দ্রবিন্দু করে তুলেছে। সাহিত্যিক এখন তার সৃষ্ট চরিত্রের মতোই জটিল—পূজনীয় দেবতা নয়, ভুলে ভরা মানুষ।
বার্থের উদ্দেশ্য মহৎ ছিল বলছি এই কারণে, যে তিনি সৃষ্টিশীলতার নতুন এক ধরনের জায়গা তৈরি করতে চেয়েছিলেন। চেয়েছিলেন সব গল্প-কবিতা-শিল্পের জন্য প্রতি পাঠক নিজেও একজন স্রষ্টা হবে। সে প্রতি গল্পের জন্য নিজস্ব অর্থ তৈরি করবে, ব্যক্তিগত অভিজ্ঞতা দিয়ে গল্পকে অনুবাদ করবে। সব লেখার প্রাণ তখন হবে অফুরান, প্রত্যেক কবিতা হবে নতুন কাব্যের জননী।
তবে আপাতত এই প্রবন্ধের ব্যর্থতার হয়তো প্রয়োজন আছে। যে রাজা-জমিদার-দার্শনিকেরা দাসেদের পিঠে খাতা রেখে মহাকাব্য লিখেছে, হয়তো তাদের কিছু সময় সমালোচনা এবং জবাবদিহিতার আতস কাঁচের নিচে থাকা উচিৎ। শান্তির মৃত্যুর আগে লেখক কাঠগড়ায় দাঁড়াক, তার বিচার হোক।
সাড়ে তিন তারা।
এই প্রবন্ধ লেখার পেছনে বার্থের উদ্দেশ্যটা বেশ ভালো ছিল, কিন্তু বর্তমানের হিসেবে প্রবন্ধটা পুরোপুরি ব্যর্থ।
বার্থের বক্তব্য এখানে বেশ পরিষ্কার। কোনো গল্প বা লেখায় যে বক্তব্য, অথবা মতামত দেখা যায়—সেই মতামতটা আসলে কার, তা পুরোপুরি নিশ্চিত করে বলা অসম্ভব। গল্পের অর্থ আসলে কে ঠিক করে? ইমতিয়াজ মাহমুদের ‘ঈদ’ কবিতা থেকে একটা লাইন ধার করে উদাহরণ দিই। লাইনটা হচ্ছে: ‘আমার কোন ঈদ নাই।‘
প্রশ্ন হচ্ছে, এই লাইনটা কে বলছে? কবি ইমতিয়াজ মাহমুদ? ইমতিয়াজ মাহমুদ���র সৃষ্টি করা কোনো চরিত্র, যার দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি থেকে কবিতাটা লেখা হয়েছে? বাংলাদেশের যেকোনো মানুষ, যার একই ধরনের অনুভূতির সম্মুখীন হতে হয়েছে?
বার্থের উত্তর হচ্ছে: কেউ না। আসলে ‘সাহিত্যিক’ নামের যে ধোঁয়াটে মূর্তি আমাদের অবচেতনে জায়গা দখল করে আছে, সেই মূর্তির বয়স বেশি না। কয়েকশ’ বছর। রেনেসাঁ আমলে এর উৎপত্তি। তার আগে গল্পটা কীভাবে লেখা হয়েছে বা বলা হয়েছে তা নিয়ে মানুষ মাথা ঘামাতো। কে লিখেছে তা নিয়ে নয়। তাই সাহিত্যিকের মানসিকতা বুঝে, তার মাধ্যমে গল্পের ব্যাখ্যা দেওয়ার চেষ্টা করা বৃথা। সাহিত্যিকের থেকে পাঠক-পাঠিকা বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। সাহিত্যিকের থেকে সাহিত্য এবং ভাষা বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ।
প্রবন্ধটা যদিও কয়েক দশক ভীষণ জনপ্রিয় ছিল, ইন্টারনেট যুগে এসে অনেকখানি দম হারিয়েছে। বর্তমান সময়ে সাহিত্যিক বা শিল্পীর ব্যক্তিগত বিশ্বাস ভীষণ গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। শিল্প থেকে শিল্পীকে আলাদা করা এখন খুবই কঠিন। বিশেষ করে যখন নতুন গবেষণায় আগেকার আমলের ‘ক্লাসিক’ সাহিত্যিকদের বর্ণবাদ, নারীবিদ্বেষ, গোঁড়ামী এবং শ্রেণিবিদ্বেষ নতুন করে ধরা পড়ছে (হেমিংওয়ে, বুকোওস্কি—এরা বিশেষ করে বেশ শুওর টাইপের মানুষ ছিলেন, শ্বেতাঙ্গ পুরুষ হবার কারণে তাদের প্রচুর অপরাধ মাফ পেয়ে গেছে), তখন প্রশ্ন জাগে: সত্যিই কি শিল্প আর শিল্পীকে আলাদা করা উচিৎ? যে সাহিত্যিকদের যশ-খ্যাতি এসেছিল অন্যদের প্রতি অবিচারের সুযোগ নিয়ে, প্রজাদের অত্যাচার এবং নিজের চামড়ার অন্যায় সুবিধায়, তাদের কি এখনও আগের মতো পূজো করা উচিৎ? শুধু ক্লাসিক নয়, বর্তমান শিল্পী-সাহিত্যিকদের জন্যেও প্রশ্নগুলো প্রযোজ্য। কোনটা বেশি জরুরি—অসাধারণ শিল্প, না সৎ চরিত্র? ইতিহাস লেখককে মরতে দেয়নি, বরং সাহিত্য নিয়ে সব আলোচনার কেন্দ্রবিন্দু করে তুলেছে। সাহিত্যিক এখন তার সৃষ্ট চরিত্রের মতোই জটিল—পূজনীয় দেবতা নয়, ভুলে ভরা মানুষ।
বার্থের উদ্দেশ্য মহৎ ছিল বলছি এই কারণে, যে তিনি সৃষ্টিশীলতার নতুন এক ধরনের জায়গা তৈরি করতে চেয়েছিলেন। চেয়েছিলেন সব গল্প-কবিতা-শিল্পের জন্য প্রতি পাঠক নিজেও একজন স্রষ্টা হবে। সে প্রতি গল্পের জন্য নিজস্ব অর্থ তৈরি করবে, ব্যক্তিগত অভিজ্ঞতা দিয়ে গল্পকে অনুবাদ করবে। সব লেখার প্রাণ তখন হবে অফুরান, প্রত্যেক কবিতা হবে নতুন কাব্যের জননী।
তবে আপাতত এই প্রবন্ধের ব্যর্থতার হয়তো প্রয়োজন আছে। যে রাজা-জমিদার-দার্শনিকেরা দাসেদের পিঠে খাতা রেখে মহাকাব্য লিখেছে, হয়তো তাদের কিছু সময় সমালোচনা এবং জবাবদিহিতার আতস কাঁচের নিচে থাকা উচিৎ। শান্তির মৃত্যুর আগে লেখক কাঠগড়ায় দাঁড়াক, তার বিচার হোক।
সাড়ে তিন তারা।
Displaying 1 - 30 of 335 reviews