When Barthes says “Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes futile” (page 147), is he considering lyrical texts that are, as I understand, always open to interpretation isolated from the conditions of the author.
In the same paragraph, when he mentions the “Critic”, is he saying that there is no longer a need for such an occupation?
Does his characterization of the reader increase the latter’s responsibility? In other words, do the changes in the author’s role mean that we, as readers, need to relearn how to read?
Does the death of the author remove life from the story?
He mentions an Author limits the text. How is the text limited?
If the text’s unity lies in the destination (the reader), how can an Author be the God? Shouldn’t the Author be responsible for the interpretation of the text?
What does Barthes mean he says “ yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology” ( 148).
Does he mean that the author’s text is going to be interpreted differently by the reader than what the author is actually wanting to convey?
When he mentions classic criticism is he implying that the reader should also be critiqued not only the author?
Why is it that the birth of the reader comes at the cost of the death of the author? does it have to with the same idea of the reader’s different interpretations to those of the author’s?
Why should the readers get to decide how to interpret something that was written by the author?
Barthes states that “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing.” (147) In what ways does this act close the writing?
When Barthes stipulates that “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original.”, does this imply the readers would be incapable of deciphering an original interpretation of an unoriginal text?
When Bartes says “once an author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quiet futile” (147), then why would he even write this since we cannot directly reference him?
The voice being “[confided] in us” (143) is the explanation of the work. When the author is removed, is the voice and meaning also removed?
Barthes claims that “the reader is without history” (148), but often an author’s writing style is known, so can the reader have this preconceived notion? Or is even this notion flawed?
“The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through the more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author ‘confiding’ in us.” (143). Is he saying that the author just writes the words, but the ‘author’ in us determines the meaning?
“The writer can only imitate a gesture that its always anterior, never original.”
(146) Is he saying here that all original writing has already been written and now there are only copycats?
“When the Author has been found, the text is ‘explained'” (147). Is he saying here that before an author is linked to the story that the story makes no sense?
1. How does the removal of the author help transform the text? Does removing the author also mean removing the meaning or “life” of the event?
2. “life never does more than imitate the book, and the book itself is only a tissue of signs, an imitation that is lost, indefinitely deferred” (147) What is he trying to say?
3. “A text’s unity lies not on its origin but its destination.” (148) Does this mean that we should just completely ignore the meaning of the text that the author is trying to conduct and focus solely on the reader’s perspective?
“To give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text..” p.147
Is Barthes saying that stories are complete and then the teller of that story limits it by forgetting and mistelling details?
“We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning, but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.” p.146
I think Barthes is saying that someone has already written every sentence we will all write. We are basically just using a infinitely-long running list of cliches.
“The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost.” p.148
I wonder if Barthes is saying that everyone interprets words and quotes differently. And that each word changes the perception of an entire statement.
Why is it important to think of the narrative in the here and now, and not in some future or past tense?
When Barthes says, “Having buried the Author, the modern scriptor can thus no longer believe, as according to the pathetic view of his predecessors, that the hand is too slow for his thought or passion…” what makes the predecessors pathetic? Why is eliminating the Author such a noble step forward in literature and narrative?
What is accomplished by removing the Author’s ability to assign a singular ‘ultimate meaning’?
During the first paragraph on page 143, Barthes discusses a change that occurred in literature where the emphasis was placed entirely on the author. “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” (page 143). Barthes says that everything about the author is now part of his writing. To what extent is this true? In my experience, without taking the time to learn about the author my experience reading something does not change.
On the middle of page 144, Barthes talks about Proust who “made of his very life a work for which his own book was the model.” Did this author write a story based on his own life in a more fictitious style than that of a biography? It was unclear to me what point Barthes was trying to make here.
The second paragraph on page 147 starts out with “once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile.” To me, this implies that Barthes is implying that he doesn’t believe in analyzing texts written by authors who have passed away. Is he simply referring to trying to make a connection between the text and the author of that text or is he speaking about analyzing past texts in general?
Why is a limit imposed on the text when a piece has an Author? How do you think the work changes after the Author is removed?
“A text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination” (148). What do you think they mean by stating this line? That it will be different for every reader due to individual interpretations?
Why do you think that “Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader” but rather only focused on the writer? (148)
In the opening paragraphs of the reading, Barthes says that “the sway of the Author is powerful,”but then continues to say “it is language which speaks, not the author,” (147)- is this not contradicting?
Barthes also claims that the “Author is thought to nourish the book […] he exists before it, thinks, suffers, lives for it,” (145) but how can they effectively tell their story so that the reader views it the same way? He later also notes that “[the text] cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history,” (148) Everyone has different views and experiences that can cause them to read the story differently from what the author had intended to tell. If the reading isn’t personal and the reader has no history, how can the reader feel what the author is expressing.
Lastly, Barthes also points out that “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to mix writings,” (146) if this is the case, do you think that authors can completely express themselves and be satisfied with their work knowing that it is not original? Something that they experienced could have felt unique to them but is still not original.
On page 147, Barthes says “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text…” Does he mean that writing becomes more limited with the presence of an author? Why does he believe it “suits criticism very well”?
Does he believe the reader even holds the utmost power in works without an explicit author?
How does he distinguish a difference from literature and writing? What defines them as so? (147)
1- After an author is removed, does a book really still have an actual author?
2- “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original” (page 146) does this mean that after the author is removed, all will write based on the same things?
3- “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author” (page 148) does this mean that classical criticism will only pay attention to the interpretation of the reader?
Why does Barthes think that the author and the text are unrelated?
Conventionally, many reader have read essays to explore others’ thoughts on certain subjects through writings, but Barthe states ”
To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text.”(147)
Is he saying that interpreting a writing has to remain as objective as possible by separating the author and the text?
Moreover, what does Barthes mean by saying, “Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader.”(148)
1. How does removing the author take away the writers “past”? In other words, how is that possible? (145)
2. Why is it a bad thing to “explain” a work by “explaining” an author and his/her context? (147)
3. I get the idea that the reader is the destination; he gives the piece his own meaning. But how is it fair to say the reader has no past or history? (148) My main question is how Barthes justifies taking away outside context when writing/reading.
What do you think they mean by stating this line? “His taste for classicism leading him to turn to lessons of rhetoric”
“The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost.” Barthes is trying to say that people can look at quotes and have a different meaning just by personal experience or past relationships.
“To give a text an author is to impose a limit on text, to furnish it with a final signified to close the writing” This is saying the shorter and more clear the text, the better because if gets to the point.
1. On page 145, what exactly happens to a text when the author is removed? Barthes says “It utterly transforms the text,” but in what way?
2. On page 147, Barthes states that “When the author has been found, the text is explained.” I don’t understand how a text can be understood simply by finding the author.
3. I found the statement “The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author,” on page 148 interesting. I’m not quite sure what this saying means, but thought it was a powerful closing statement by Barthes.
“…the writer is the only person in literature.” p.148
Are the writer and the author synonymous, or is the writer the “only person” because the author is dead?
If the writer is the only person, then who is receiving what is written?
Does not the writer need a reader, who then will place meaning to his/her work?
When Barthes says “Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes futile” (page 147), is he considering lyrical texts that are, as I understand, always open to interpretation isolated from the conditions of the author.
In the same paragraph, when he mentions the “Critic”, is he saying that there is no longer a need for such an occupation?
Does his characterization of the reader increase the latter’s responsibility? In other words, do the changes in the author’s role mean that we, as readers, need to relearn how to read?
Does the death of the author remove life from the story?
He mentions an Author limits the text. How is the text limited?
If the text’s unity lies in the destination (the reader), how can an Author be the God? Shouldn’t the Author be responsible for the interpretation of the text?
What does Barthes mean he says “ yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology” ( 148).
Does he mean that the author’s text is going to be interpreted differently by the reader than what the author is actually wanting to convey?
When he mentions classic criticism is he implying that the reader should also be critiqued not only the author?
Why is it that the birth of the reader comes at the cost of the death of the author? does it have to with the same idea of the reader’s different interpretations to those of the author’s?
Why should the readers get to decide how to interpret something that was written by the author?
Barthes states that “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing.” (147) In what ways does this act close the writing?
When Barthes stipulates that “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original.”, does this imply the readers would be incapable of deciphering an original interpretation of an unoriginal text?
When Bartes says “once an author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quiet futile” (147), then why would he even write this since we cannot directly reference him?
The voice being “[confided] in us” (143) is the explanation of the work. When the author is removed, is the voice and meaning also removed?
Barthes claims that “the reader is without history” (148), but often an author’s writing style is known, so can the reader have this preconceived notion? Or is even this notion flawed?
“The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through the more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author ‘confiding’ in us.” (143). Is he saying that the author just writes the words, but the ‘author’ in us determines the meaning?
“The writer can only imitate a gesture that its always anterior, never original.”
(146) Is he saying here that all original writing has already been written and now there are only copycats?
“When the Author has been found, the text is ‘explained'” (147). Is he saying here that before an author is linked to the story that the story makes no sense?
1. How does the removal of the author help transform the text? Does removing the author also mean removing the meaning or “life” of the event?
2. “life never does more than imitate the book, and the book itself is only a tissue of signs, an imitation that is lost, indefinitely deferred” (147) What is he trying to say?
3. “A text’s unity lies not on its origin but its destination.” (148) Does this mean that we should just completely ignore the meaning of the text that the author is trying to conduct and focus solely on the reader’s perspective?
“To give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text..” p.147
Is Barthes saying that stories are complete and then the teller of that story limits it by forgetting and mistelling details?
“We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning, but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.” p.146
I think Barthes is saying that someone has already written every sentence we will all write. We are basically just using a infinitely-long running list of cliches.
“The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost.” p.148
I wonder if Barthes is saying that everyone interprets words and quotes differently. And that each word changes the perception of an entire statement.
Why is it important to think of the narrative in the here and now, and not in some future or past tense?
When Barthes says, “Having buried the Author, the modern scriptor can thus no longer believe, as according to the pathetic view of his predecessors, that the hand is too slow for his thought or passion…” what makes the predecessors pathetic? Why is eliminating the Author such a noble step forward in literature and narrative?
What is accomplished by removing the Author’s ability to assign a singular ‘ultimate meaning’?
During the first paragraph on page 143, Barthes discusses a change that occurred in literature where the emphasis was placed entirely on the author. “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” (page 143). Barthes says that everything about the author is now part of his writing. To what extent is this true? In my experience, without taking the time to learn about the author my experience reading something does not change.
On the middle of page 144, Barthes talks about Proust who “made of his very life a work for which his own book was the model.” Did this author write a story based on his own life in a more fictitious style than that of a biography? It was unclear to me what point Barthes was trying to make here.
The second paragraph on page 147 starts out with “once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile.” To me, this implies that Barthes is implying that he doesn’t believe in analyzing texts written by authors who have passed away. Is he simply referring to trying to make a connection between the text and the author of that text or is he speaking about analyzing past texts in general?
Why is a limit imposed on the text when a piece has an Author? How do you think the work changes after the Author is removed?
“A text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination” (148). What do you think they mean by stating this line? That it will be different for every reader due to individual interpretations?
Why do you think that “Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader” but rather only focused on the writer? (148)
In the opening paragraphs of the reading, Barthes says that “the sway of the Author is powerful,”but then continues to say “it is language which speaks, not the author,” (147)- is this not contradicting?
Barthes also claims that the “Author is thought to nourish the book […] he exists before it, thinks, suffers, lives for it,” (145) but how can they effectively tell their story so that the reader views it the same way? He later also notes that “[the text] cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history,” (148) Everyone has different views and experiences that can cause them to read the story differently from what the author had intended to tell. If the reading isn’t personal and the reader has no history, how can the reader feel what the author is expressing.
Lastly, Barthes also points out that “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to mix writings,” (146) if this is the case, do you think that authors can completely express themselves and be satisfied with their work knowing that it is not original? Something that they experienced could have felt unique to them but is still not original.
On page 147, Barthes says “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text…” Does he mean that writing becomes more limited with the presence of an author? Why does he believe it “suits criticism very well”?
Does he believe the reader even holds the utmost power in works without an explicit author?
How does he distinguish a difference from literature and writing? What defines them as so? (147)
1- After an author is removed, does a book really still have an actual author?
2- “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original” (page 146) does this mean that after the author is removed, all will write based on the same things?
3- “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author” (page 148) does this mean that classical criticism will only pay attention to the interpretation of the reader?
Why does Barthes think that the author and the text are unrelated?
Conventionally, many reader have read essays to explore others’ thoughts on certain subjects through writings, but Barthe states ”
To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text.”(147)
Is he saying that interpreting a writing has to remain as objective as possible by separating the author and the text?
Moreover, what does Barthes mean by saying, “Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader.”(148)
1. How does removing the author take away the writers “past”? In other words, how is that possible? (145)
2. Why is it a bad thing to “explain” a work by “explaining” an author and his/her context? (147)
3. I get the idea that the reader is the destination; he gives the piece his own meaning. But how is it fair to say the reader has no past or history? (148) My main question is how Barthes justifies taking away outside context when writing/reading.
What do you think they mean by stating this line? “His taste for classicism leading him to turn to lessons of rhetoric”
“The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost.” Barthes is trying to say that people can look at quotes and have a different meaning just by personal experience or past relationships.
“To give a text an author is to impose a limit on text, to furnish it with a final signified to close the writing” This is saying the shorter and more clear the text, the better because if gets to the point.
1. On page 145, what exactly happens to a text when the author is removed? Barthes says “It utterly transforms the text,” but in what way?
2. On page 147, Barthes states that “When the author has been found, the text is explained.” I don’t understand how a text can be understood simply by finding the author.
3. I found the statement “The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author,” on page 148 interesting. I’m not quite sure what this saying means, but thought it was a powerful closing statement by Barthes.
“…the writer is the only person in literature.” p.148
Are the writer and the author synonymous, or is the writer the “only person” because the author is dead?
If the writer is the only person, then who is receiving what is written?
Does not the writer need a reader, who then will place meaning to his/her work?