The immaculate conception

I am a little unsure why Barthes inspires such passionate reactions to his writings on The Death of The Author. That is not to say that I agree with the eradication of the author from literary readings, but I find it fascinating to consider a world where this is so. Barthes writes in opposition to the idea that textual meaning should be “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”. He replaces this notion with a more complex conceptualisation, whereby on completion, an authors work is released from the restrictions of its conception into the greater world to be rewritten by the reader. So in order to embrace Barthes, we must accept a kind of hyper-subjectivity in which the same text is remoulded infinite times in accordance with the values and experiences of each reader. There are obviously problematic implications of this theory, at least in terms of knowledge. It would be pointless and quite impossible to say anything about any text, or at least anything factual, which seems a rather sad state to be in for all us prospective academics (Although on the plus side any comment we make on a text would be irrefutable and thus worthy of a HD). Luckily Barthes does make some critiques on the author that do not require us to accept such extreme subjectivity. He argues 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”. I find this to be quite intuitive, as it is foolish to suggest a reading with knowledge of the author’s background and intentions would provoke the same intellectual response as a reading independent of context. The issue then moves away from whether or not the author exists, because this is more a failing than a strength of Barthes theory. It would seem as though authors write with at least some kind of intention, some idea or emotion they wish to express to the reader. If this is in fact the case then the author is entitled to share owner ship with the greater realm of readers, as there would be an inherent objective aspect to be expressed by the text. Rather it becomes a question of what the author brings to a valuation of literary works. On the one hand removing the author from critical reading results in an individualised reception of a text based on the readers experiences, broadening the possibilities of the literary realm and develops a sense of personal truth. On the other hand to refute the authors influence on the text is to ignore possible insights into social and ethical commentaries, which may work to strengthen the response and knowledge of readers own individual interpretations.Perhaps the author also offers a more concrete connection between a fictional work and the real world, which is both comforting and confronting knowing that fiction can reflect reality