Historically, many readers point to writers as the source of the significance of most literary works. In addition, all representations and analyzes are considered to be based on the perspective of the scholar. However, readers are said to have formed close links with writers of different works; this relationship relates to authors’ knowledge as well as intuitive ideas of inscription techniques. However, most writers revoke such privileged positions because of the various sets of libraries that endorse those notions. Such studies are viewed by scholars and characters not as the holders of their papers, but as part of their understanding of the paper. Authors such as Burke (1998 p15) argues that authors should not be visualized as subjects of their works, because for one to acclaim subject of knowledge or text, he/she should presume a position preferably exterior to the language. This essay is refuting ideas supporting ‘The Death of the Author’ by authors such as Barthes, Jacques Derrica , and Foucault, etc. To accomplish the essay, first, I will highlight fundamental concepts supporting the subject, and then refuting notions, and lastly summarize the ideas with a conclusion.
Barthes essay (1977) criticizes the trend showcased by most readers of considering author aspects such as identity, political outlook, ethnicity, and historical perspective, biographical to extract the implication from it. This critic is a mere representation and serves as a perfect explanation of the author experiences and biases in the literary field. According to Barthes works, the orderly process of reading is sloppy and flaw, he refuted people notion of giving an author the text and consequent equivalent analysis to it i.e. imposing restrictions on the text. Barthes urges readers to detach authors from their literacy creations to release it from interpretive tyranny since each part of works hold numerous layers and meanings. His notable quotations depict a similarity between the text and textiles, for instance, his works declare that the display of text resembles [fabric] of citations imported from different hubs of culture as opposed to the individual experiences.
Barthes works to identify the author as the merely ‘ scriptor,’ who is limited to only create but not explain the work. He considers that every writer work is naturally done here and now since the origin of the meaning depends on specific language and the impressions viewed by the reader.
Barthes works agree with notions and critics of Yale school of the deconstructionist, where every individual perceives things in different forms due to their experiences which vary from one person to other. Moreover, Barthes (pg 147) argues that author’s works hypothetically hold nothing of the authors’ experiences or character, but it forms a greater part of the author anthologies thus holding no similitude to their traits. Nevertheless, Barthes argues that there is no exact origin to authors’ pieces of work as it broadens and expounds its influence across all of the time and is intricately associated with all literature so is in no way original. Barthes asserts that perpetually written texts lack attitude to the themes and characters of the author works; he further argued that authors do not speak, but their language does hence ‘The Death of the Author’ but on the other hand results to the dawn of the readers.
Despite Bathers efforts of rejecting the concepts that authorialism and text ownership, several scholars emerged to disprove this notion. Foucault (1982) as cited by Walker (1991 p 111) specifically explores other fascinatingly context. He pursued an unusual approach by focusing on the exploration of interconnections between the ‘scriptor’ and the text as termed in the essay. In the course of his essay, Foucault argues that individuals and readers bring back knowledge from memory into question the perfect character and the subject as the author. Furthermore, he adds that one might recall the issue, possibly not to re-establish ideas of the original subject but to get hold of the concepts points of insertion, function models and scheme of dependency. Foucault felt the possibility of extending the authorship to various topics whom for one reason or the other might suite with the text and as well as consider authors.
Wimsatt and Beardsley (1946) works, refutes ‘The Death of the Author’ by determining his/her intention. He argues that ‘intention’ propels apparent affinity for the writer attitudes towards his/her work hence penning down his feelings. Wimsatt and Beardsley further believed that at the point where author privileges end, marks the beginning of the readers. In liberating work to the public sphere, the author evades the responsibilities of any opportunities to perform as its most sapient reader. That is every word in authors works is hypothesized to disappear into it and constitutes the final intention. “The intentional fallacy” provides modern writers with a critical background that authors work is composite, irretraceable, and an independent entity which only speaks to itself. Moreover, Wimsatt and Beardsley (p 5) work argued that poem is a public entity. Therefore its publication represents a process of essential dispossession comparable to Barthes ideas of Derridean dissemination. However, other authors disagree with Wimsatt and Beardsley intention; they proposed to surmise series of propositions to support his fallacy. Firstly, they argued that Poems does not exist by misfortune neither does the words from the poet which I concur with, logically every poet usually pens down his experiences. Secondly, they argued that poem succeeds if it has a pertinent meaning i.e. what is irrelevant has been excluded. Therefore poetry differs from type texts and practical message if correctly inferred the intention. Lastly, they stated that authors revise their work to improve their former ‘intentions’; it means that the writer/author had a particular experience that he wanted to share with the reader.
Wimsatt and Beardsley biographical data and essay posed as the “New Critics”, are positing the “objective theory” that a literally work has an autonomous public existence, are encouraging inherited studies while discouraging extrinsic studies of literature, are replacing the system values such as fidelity, originality and spontaneity, with another system such as integrity, maturity and relevance, and are refuting the perception regarding romantic outlook of authors as meaningful source for works by opposing his/her intentions .
Burke works (1998), takes the apparently basic summary understanding of Barthes, Foucault and Jacque concepts and counters it through the following approach. One, not any of the three authors i.e. Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, held a firm position on their argument- that texts and authors are two different entities; therefore there is no substantial outside interpretation in social and historical correlation with the language formed by readers. Consequently, he urges that absurd notion of the enthused and authoritative author, in the postmodern era, should be categorized as deceased. Burke critique holds over the three authors since one can claim to be no author and then he accepts book royalties, quote other authors, scale reputation heights and critique someone’s oeuvre. According to Burkes, Barthes analysis portrays authors’ works as better non-literally understood, as a symbolic, examination of western vanity for their romantic writing format.
Secondly, Burkes (1998) book implies that the three authors i.e. Barthes, Foucault, and Jacques works points to the concepts of every author as significant but not all important. Meaning that biography of authors and their intentions are something to emphasize on as a reader, however, their significance does not hold on as well. Unfair enough, it is a slip to view an author as influential as well as refuting his concepts. In his book, Burkes summarizes the idea by suggesting that the (P 171)”…denial of complete authorial center implies not the necessary absence of the author, but the redistribution of authorial subjectivity within a textual mise en scene which it does not command entirely”.
Burkes points out to, Barthes, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida notions of removal authorialism as not justified. He stated that any affirmation of the authors’ death cannot hold up to scrutiny. Furthermore, Burkes criticize the argument view as neither important nor common sense to dispute for an authorized death of the author.
Camilie Pagnalia (1990), in his work, rejected Barthes concept completely, she refuted the notion of separating the author and their literary works. Camilie stated that “most pernicious of French imports is the idea that there is no person behind the text. Is there anything more affected, aggressive, and relentlessly concrete than a Parisian intellectual behind his/her turgid text? The Parisian is a provision when he pretends to speak for the universe” (p 34).Camilie works criticize the French scholar i.e. Barthes and Foucault; she termed Parisian works as metaphorical models with narrow English traditions. Camilie critique points out that Barthes points do not hold because he lacks a proper understanding of the language that is rich in emotion and allegory of explanation of the models.
Hart et., (pg 63), in his works argues by acknowledging that; people are not similar. Moreover, they endeavor so much to be one person. This argument provides an impression that authors are capable of changing their form and become different characters, which they then pen about by unavoidable in scripting portion of their character as well as experiences in their work. This argument contravenes Barthes argument of liberating authors from their authoralism and texts.
Literacy works should be separated from the author as argued by Barthes. Therefore, individuals should not admit that literacy works, readers and the author are trinities bound together by a connection and a common intent. Jacques Derrida positions support my argument by arguing that; first, the possibilities of inherited text from authors should be utilized by competent readers to produce their linguistic skills apart from the writers. Secondly, Historians should be capable of interpreting the meaning of literature they cite now as well as in the past about what the author intended. Meaning that historians’ interpretations are partially authors and partly readers hence sounding approximately close enough for the purpose at hand. Lastly liberation of the authors of the text, enable the literature owner to identify errors and if it is inadequate in scope, his work remains historical relevant but if the bulk is misread then his work becomes historical fiction.
Barthes, Roland. “The death of the author.” (1977).
Burke, Sean. “The death and return of the author: Criticism and subjectivity in Barthes,
Foucault and Derrida.” (1998).
Hart, John E. “Fitzgerald’s” The Last Tycoon”: A Search for Identity.” Modern Fiction
Studies 7.1 (1961): 63.
Jacques, Derrida. “Signature Event Context.”.” Limited Inc (1988): 1-23.
Paglia, Camille. Sexual personae: Art and decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson.
Vol. 1. Yale University Press, 1990.
Walker, Cheryl. “Persona Criticism and the Death of the Author.” Contesting the subject:
Essays in the postmodern theory and practice of biography and biographical criticism (1991): 109-121.
Wimsatt, William K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. “The intentional fallacy.” The Sewanee Review 54.3 (1946): 468-488.