Barthes, "The death of the author" (BHR 277)
277
- writing is the destruction of every voice . . . all identity is lost
- narration is intransitive
- the author is a modern figure; product of capitalism
278
- language speaks, not the author
- no recourse to interiority of writer
- that language speaks, Modernism
- language knows a subject [proper name or pronoun] not a person
- Scriptor weaves the text in the present, reader performs it
279
- the text is a tissue of quotations
- to ascribe a text to an Author is to limit it
- writing is disentangled not deciphered [no "depth"]
- no final meaning
280
- multiplicity of writing is focused on the reader, who has no history, memory
Summary, points made by previous students:
Reader interaction:
- When a reader acknowledges the Author they think about where the book is from
- The book and the author before and after the text are tied together
- The reader needs to ignore the writer to make the text his/her own
Author vs. scriptor:
- An author nourishes the book. He exists before it, thinks it, suffers for it
- Essentially is what you would call a father or mother to the text
- The Scriptor however is born simultaneously with the text
- The Scriptor has no attachment to the text emotionally or physically
The article references the idea that the work produced is influenced by the knowledge of the author (ex. Van Gogh and his madness)
The ‘Close reading’ that is expected . . . is based on the experience that the author went through in order to create that text. Influences themes studied, such as Post-colonial writing.
-- further points for discussion --
277
- Who is speaking? || Balzac: response of Sarrasine to La Zambinella: ". . . a host of incidents which revealed to him the coquetry, the weakness, and the delicacy of this soft and enervated being. This was woman herself, with her sudden fears, her irrational whims, her instinctive worries, her impetuous boldness, her fussings, and her delicious sensibility" (S/Z 248); > third-person omniscient (but framed by first-person narrator: he is telling Sarrasine's story; ironic, because Sarrasine's knowledge of women is limited and highly idealistic
- writing is the destruction of every voice . . . all identity is lost || personality of narrator, e.g., Austen, Collins; stylistic fingerprints, idiolect; we infer author?
- narration is intransitive || narration acts on the mind; changes minds; person of narrator when present vs. absent (inferred; cf. Bortolussi & Dixon, below; conversational model)
- the author is a modern figure; product of capitalism || veneration of classical authors, e.g., Plato, Cicero, Horace
- The explanation of a work sought in the man or woman who produced it || New Critics' intentional fallacy, follows impersonality theory of T. S. Eliot (and cf. Joyce in Portrait)
278
- language speaks, not the author || differentiated language by tone, prosody, personality (cf. Austen, Collins)
- that language speaks; Modernism, beginning with Mallarmé || a Modernist indifference toward the author (Eliot, Joyce)
- recourse to the writer's interiority || via feelings: writing evokes complexes of feeling, tendency to attribute to author
- Leaving literature itself aside || has become an "invalid distinction" (Eagleton)
- language embodies a subject [proper name or pronoun] not a person || beyond linguistics . . . counting on what we know (given-new contract, etc.)
- scriptor weaves the text in the present, reader performs it || enlivening or realization of text by reader; language as if active, in the "here and now" (Zwaan's "immersed experiencer)
- performative aspect, enunciation as declarative || in the beginning was the word! -- power of literary, as if always born anew for reader (278-9)
279
- language itself is the origin of language || thought beyond language (prior to: prehistoric; baby)
- the text is a tissue of quotations, a ready-formed dictionary || as if each word a quotation; denies originality of expression (cf. Chomsky); cf. Swift's writing machine, Lagado, Gulliver's Travels
- to give a text to an Author is to limit it, a final signified || assumes interpretation hypothesis; cf. de Certeau's "strong box"
- writing is disentangled not deciphered [no "depth"] || vs. indeterminacy of literary meaning, polyvalence (Schmidt)
- no secret, final meaning || as if logocentrism the only alternative; but liberates reader (not in thrall to author)
280
- multiplicity of writing is focused on the reader || without psychology or history, no schemata by which to comprehend; quotation, as if from a dictionary (279): literary makes it specific, alive
Bortolussi, M., & Dixon, P. (2003). Psychonarratology: Foundations for the empirical study of literary response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Our fundamental departure from the earlier scholarship is to treat the narrator not as a logical or abstract characteristic of the text but as a mental representation in the mind of the reader. In other words, the narrator should be viewed as a reader construction. Moreover, we hypothesize that the reader's representation of the narrator is similar in many respects to that which one would construct of a conversational participant. This idea capitalizes on the intuition that communicative processing is central to the processing of narrative without being encumbered by the conceptual difficulties that an assumption of real communication entails. Although the narrator is in the mind of the reader, it is based on identifiable features of the text. (72)
Two assumptions: 1) that the narrator shares "perceptual ground, language, and culture with the reader" (72); and 2) that the narrator is cooperating with the reader, but if this appears not to be the case, "readers are invited to make inferences about the narrator's knowledge and beliefs that would render the narrator cooperative" (72-3). Cf. Grice's (1975) implicatures: Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. (But cf. Teun A. van Dijk, 1976.)
Grice, H. P. 1975. "Logic and Conversation." Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press), pp. 41-58.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1976. "Pragmatics and Poetics." Pragmatics of Language and Literature, ed. Teun A. van Dijk (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 23-57.
Foucault, "What is an author?" (BHR 281)
281
- author concept creates individualization
- author figure is apparently outside, antecedent to the text
- what does it matter who is speaking?
- writing now is free of expression; an arrangement of signifiers
282
- writing's relationship with death, as postponement
- (modernist) writer cancels sign of individuality
- problems over what is a "work," intrinsic form, unity; what should be included consistent with being an author
283
- notion of writing: has circumvented reference to the author
- primal status of writing: only transposes author into transcendental anonymity, and writing's enigmatic excess
- problems distinctive to the proper name of the author, beyond ordinary names
284
- author name: classificatory function, a set of works
- author's function signifies a certain mode of discourse, confers status
- author function characterizes mode of existence and circulation of texts
285-6
- how to characterize discourse containing the author function:
- 1. author as owner, penal responsibility for texts
- 2. narrative as anonymous, science as authored -- reversal in 17th or 18th C
- 3. author as a critical projection, a set of traits
- 4. as marking a consistent, unified body of work
287
- deictic pointers function differently in fiction
- different selves in discourse, e.g., a treatise: introduction; proofs; conclusions
287-8
- author can be transdiscursive, as origin of a discourse stream (e.g., Marx, Freud; not Radcliffe)
289
- transdiscursive amenable to modifying of paradigm, not possible in science
- a typology of discourse categories envisaged, beyond formal features, including author function (genres?)
290
- study of texts according to their modes of existence in relation to the author function
- replace person of author as originator with appearance of subject in, and as part of, discourse
- author not the source of proliferation of meaning but its delimitation, the principle of thrift
291
- author function will disappear
- questions, such as the mode of existence of a discourse, who can use it, etc.
Without a reader, text and author role are nugatory, mere illusions of communication sequestered and forgotten in a drawer. Interrogate Foucault's remarks in relation to the necessary presence of a reader. What is the reader's relation to the author function or the text (or "work") of which Foucault speaks? What historical changes in the role of the reader do you detect?
-- further points for discussion --
281: individualized || when? e.g., Johnson’s Lives of the Poets (1779-81); but also Roman authors (Augustan period), valued for their insights, political wisdom; that in their writing something more always glimpsed;
281: indifference to author, from writing becoming a language game || words as counters, prototypes; writing as authenticating the experience of the writer, approximating the ineffable
282: effacement of writer || T. S. Eliot’s impersonality theory (again), how regarded now
282: modern notions: idea of the work || work implies coherence, not laundry lists
284: author’s name groups his work || represents attribution of a vision to an author, whole more than the sum of its parts
284: writer vs. author || writer as private, limited; author as published participant in wider discourse, shaping culture
285: author as penally responsible || systematically transgressive, i.e., defamiliarizing (penal: e.g., Montgomery, in Colclough discussion)
288: founders of discursivity || not Radcliffe; but Wordsworth (cf. “Tintern”)
290: modes of existence of discourses || e.g., historicity of our case studies of Wordsworth, Austen, Collins, and role of author function
290: subject as a function of discourse || as enabler of aesthetic, formal structure of work, which demands its own form; how characters develop a life of their own (one example)
291: author function will disappear || not yet? e.g., who wrote Shakespeare; biographies; as defining agents of culture, e.g., Margaret Atwood
Review course readings in light of Foucault:
How much did these foreground the author?
-- Rousseau’s readers of Julie, according to Darnton; Austen on “the labour of the novelist . . . performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them,” displaying “the greatest powers of the mind” (Northanger 23-4)
-- where not? E.g., Rose: Patrick Macgill picking up paper with verses on it, Richard Hillyer’s pleasure in sounds of words; Austen’s novels listed by title not author until 1830s; cf. list of Gothics titles in Northanger (25)
-- anonymous authorship, especially of women; name not available to “characterize a certain mode of being of discourse” (284); perhaps not to classify works (unless “author of…” on title page)
-- where is authorship now no longer significant? E.g., in writing for television, video games (multiple authorship)
Presence of author? – to different degrees:
-- “Tintern Abbey”: first person lyrical voice, experiential; guarantees authenticity of account (narrator and author appear to be one)
-- Northanger, p. 24 opening para of Chapter VI. (the analysis of opening of Chapter III: “Every morning now brought its regular duties . . .” (14): ironic, attributes power to environment)
-- Woman in White, narrative consists entirely of participant narrators. Are there any signs of an author?
-- voice of reviewers, e.g., in Austen Northanger reviews of 1818; anonymous; any personality? -- or "of no character at all"
Critical attitudes:
-- contemporary reviewers of Gothic fiction, Austen, etc.: emphasis on moral effects of reading; social responsibility of author (Foucault’s “penal” responsibility)
-- interpretation now under the sign of the “hermeneutics of suspicion” (problematize in terms of race, gender, class, etc.); the canon a construct of powerful interests; an end to aesthetic judgement; moral criteria?
-- de Certeau on the “strong box” of critical interpretation, available only to privileged;
-- example: “the discourses and institutions of literary criticism, which support and make possible individual critical works, permit and condition our reading” McCabe (1978)-- ordinary reader neglected, thought to be “whimsical” (Hirsch)
-- what does the common reader think about the author? -- what did you, prior to your academic experience?
Document created December 5th 2006 / Updated April 10th 2011