Jessica Hamilton
English 307
1/11/12
Response Essay
“ Roland Barthes' “The Death of the Author” In his essay, “ The Death of the Author”, Roland Barthes argues against the classic criticism. He argues that classic criticism imposes limits upon the text itself by focusing on the author rather than the text. He argues that writing is the “ destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.” (Barthes 185) Barthes argues that there is no such thing as an author. He believes that there is only a scriptor whose ideas are not entirely original. Barthes also argues that because the author has numerous influences, we as readers and critics can never know the true influences. Barthes argues that it is necessary to analysis the linguistics of the text because it is not a voice that speaks but the language. He goes further to point out that it is only in the reader that the text has any meaning and because of this the presence of the author is minimized because the text becomes open to numerous interpretations that the author may not have originally intended. Barthes also implies that the death of the author makes the reader more significant because they become the creative force of the text rather than the author. Barthes also argues that the moment “ the author enters into his own death, writing begins.” (Barthes 185) Within “ The Death of the Author”, Barthes issues the question of “who is speaking”. (Barthes 185) He highlights his theory with his example of Sarrasine by Baltac. Barthes uses this example to illustrate that writing is the deconstruction of every point of origin. He includes an except from Sarrasine: “This was woman, herself, with her sudden fears, her irrational whims, her instinctive worries, her impetuous boldness, her fussings and her delicious sensibility.” (Barthes 185) Barthes includes this to beg the question is this statement known knowledge, an expression of Baltac, or simply romantic psychology. Barthes furthers his argument by presenting Mallarme and his assertion that linguistic analysis is necessary. Barthes also uses Greek tragedies as examples of why the author is dead in this work. He points out that in many Greek tragedies there are many instances of words with double meanings. This leaves the text more open to various interpretation from the readers, reinforcing Barthes belief that the author is dead. Barthes fits within the unit of deconstruction largely because he focuses primarily on the text rather than the history of the author or the time period. Within deconstruction there is nothing outside of the text which makes Barthes focus fit very well within deconstruction. He focuses on the linguistics of a text rather than the author. This point highlights Barthes own statement that “ it is language that speaks, not the author.” (Barthes 186) In “ The Death of the Author” , Barthes focuses on the linguistic value of a text, which is very much in line with deconstructionist thinking, Barthes asserts that language speaks and builds upon this in his argument. Barthes, like other deconstructionist critics, believes in the disjointed nature of texts. their fissures of meaning and their incongruities, interruptions, and breaks. Barthes view that the author is dead fits in well with the deconstructionist views in that he wishes to cast aside the details of the author in exchange for the life of the reader. Barthes implies that Classic criticism gave no thought to the reader. He believed that in Classic Criticism the only figure in literature was the author. Barthes quickly refutes the Classic criticism way of thinking saying “ it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.” (Barthes 189)