Analysis of The Death of the Author

In his essay The Death of the Author, Roland Barthes attacks the tradition of Classic
criticism (which he describes as being tyrannically centred on the author ), presenting the
argument that there is no such thing as the Author of a text, but merely a scriptor whose
ideas are not entirely original; the author is subject to several influences when writing, and as
Barthes says we can never know the true influence because writing destructs every point of
origin . It is not the author (whose voice vanishes at the point of writing), but language that
speaks, therefore, the text requires an analysis of language and linguistics, rather than a
speaking voice. Barthes emphasises that once the author is removed, it is within the reader of
the text that any meaning lies, as the text is open to multiple interpretations by the reader, that
the author may not have originally intended (deeming the reader as the more creative force),
making
the
author
seem
an
insignificant
figure
in
literature.
Barthes enhances his theory by presenting several examples to illustrate his reasons for
believing that the author is dead, before finally delivering his main declaration. Beginning
the essay by pointing out the disappearance of the narrator in modern literature, Barthes uses
the example of the story Sarrasine by Balzac to illustrate the claim that the author disappears
at the point of writing, for the reader is able to distinguish more than just a solitary voice in
the lines of the text. The notion of the author being merely the medium through which
writing is presented (it is not the authors genius but mastery of narration which is
admired) is first examined in the following paragraph, as well as the conflicting Classic
criticism - The explanation is always sought in the person who produced the text where
the belief has always been that the work is the sole responsibility of the author.
Barthes then goes on to refute this by presenting the example of Mallarme, who stressed the
importance of linguistic analysis (it is language that speaks, not the author) , as well as
Prousts contribution to modern writing, showing the reversal of the roles of author and
writing; author creates text becomes text creates author. The lack of meaning in a text (found
in Surrealist works, which Barthes mentions) also emphasizes the degradation of the Classic
concept of author. He states that Surrealism, along with the study of linguistics of a given
text, helped contribute to the death of the author. He claims that language knows a subject not
a person. So the person studying the language of a text will concern themselves more with the
subject
and
less
with
the
person
behind
the
words.
His definition of the word text a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings,
none of them original, blend and clash. - emphasizes that the writer of such text is never
completely original (demoting the God-like Author to a modern scriptor ). Bathes is saying
that the author or narrator who is really the voice of the author himself is becoming less of an
entity within the text itself. By drawing a contrast between the author and the narrative voice
and language he succeeds in distancing the author from his work and adding to his
disappearance. Barthes stresses that the author is the past to his own book. These things have
already happened to the author therefore creating a gap between the author now and the
narrator of the text as it occurs (the scriptor). Therefore, the difference between the text and
the work itself becomes an issue. The text would be what would be happening to the author
right then and there, as the work as a whole would be associated with the author. The
distancing between the author and the narrator grows because of this and adds to Barthes
argument.

The final paragraph states that reading is the true place of writing , using the example of the
Greek tragedies with texts that contain words with double meanings that appear one-sided to
the characters. However, the reader (the audience) is aware of the double meanings, implying
the multiplicity of writing rests on the reader for open interpretation. A texts unity lies not
on its origin but on its destination. Pointing out the importance of the reader in literary
analysis, Barthes shows that Classic criticism was imposing a limit on texts by only
focusing on the author themselves.