The Death of the Author??

[Louanne Learning]

In the words of Mark Twain - 'The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

I began reading an essay by literature critic Roland Barnes, entitled, “The Death of the Author” (published 1967)

Apparently, it’s an influential essay, and what he basically does is replace the author with the reader.

His theory is this: the meaning of any work of literature is produced in the reading of it, and not by the author. Authorial intention is entirely rejected.

I admit, I didn’t read the whole thing. The language was convoluted and pretentious.

Yep, I didn’t like what he was saying. I checked. He’d never written a fiction piece in his life.

My first question was this: Is it even possible to write a POV without authorial influence? If you and I created a character with the same basic stats, would we write the character exactly the same?

How characters are drawn depend on the writer.

Writers decide what they want to write and invariably it reflects what they want to say. To reject that out-of-hand seems to me like saying I can see a lilac bush where there is an elderberry. Is there that much at play in what we write?

 

[RadiantGold]

I read the essay and can agree that the language is tough. However, it is translated from French so I can forgive it in that sense.

Anyway, to the point of the essay and the question you asked - I think it's a little more nuanced than you make it out to be. To me, Barnes is not outright rejecting the influence of authorial intent. He is instead arguing that despite what an author may intend, the final effect a piece of writing has on a reader is what matters more. Early on in the essay he talks about different orators performing the same text in different ways:

...in primitive societies, narrative is never undertaken by a person, but by a mediator, shaman or speaker, whose “performance” may be admired (that is, his mastery of the narrative code), but not his “genius."

Enlightenment-era, Eurocentric crap about 'primitive' vs 'modern' societies aside, his point here resonates. Even though the 'modern' author has more control over their work, according to Barnes, they are still engaging in a kind of performance. He is arguing against centralizing the author as the ultimate authority on their own work and is advocating for the reader to take center-stage - like how a play's audience reaction is extremely important. Essentially, Barnes wants to take final power away from the author and give it to the reader.

 

[Louanne Learning]

@RadiantGold - thank you so much for the insightful response

that's an interesting dichotomy - performance vs. genius - and giving "authority" on the work to the reader

perhaps writers need to be less possessive of their work?

 

[Rigor Mortis]

I only realised it was a comedy when the audience started laughing...

A few of us around here have been saying something close to what's in that article for a while now. Of course the author chooses the words but once that piece of writing is put out to the world, the author loses control (authorship?). Reading is not a passive activity. The author, having put it out there, is then just another reader whose opinion as to meaning is only as valid as that of any other reader. As author, you let it go, throw it out there and hope the second part of the trajectory goes according to plan, that what you've launched will land well with a bounce, or on both feet, or at least some way intact and not splattered like broken eggs or shards of glass.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Reading is not a passive activity.

It suddenly occurred to me the different reactions I get from different members of my family when they read the same story of mine

 

[Homer Potvin]

His theory is this: the meaning of any work of literature is produced in the reading of it, and not by the author. Authorial intention is entirely rejected.

That's one they mention a lot in writing courses. Like others have already said, the author's intention is basically meaningless and can't override what a reader thinks or experiences. Like when I burst out laughing every time Keanu Reaves attempts to display genuine emotion. I don't think the writers intended that for Trinity's death scene at the end of the Matrix, but I still laughed. They can't cut away fast enough either, which makes it even funnier.

 

[Louanne Learning]

It is still a little bit difficult for me to completely dismiss the intentions of the writer, at least in a broad sense.

The last novel I read was Split Tooth by Tanya Tagaq, an Inuit writer. Her personal experiences colour the entire narrative. I'm not sure that her novel can be taken as anything other than a revelation of her particular point-of-view.

 

[Stuart Dren]

Writers decide what they want to write and invariably it reflects what they want to say. To reject that out-of-hand seems to me like saying I can see a lilac bush where there is an elderberry. Is there that much at play in what we write?

Sort of. I'm not reading the essay either, but I'm assuming it's the progenitor (or one of them) of the death of the author phrase we're always using. The author of course controls intent, which usually affects output, but not always successfully. In the end, audience interpretation is the resulting effect whether the author is happy about it or not.

At the bones, authors use many symbols of varying complexity (the most basic being single words), and the implications of which aren't universally or temporally consistent. You can use the word 'child,' but you cannot control what that word means or will mean, and to who.

It is still a little bit difficult for me to completely dismiss the intentions of the writer, at least in a broad sense.

The last novel I read was Split Tooth by Tanya Tagac, an Inuit writer. Her personal experiences colour the entire narrative. I'm not sure that her novel can be taken as anything other than a revelation of her particular point-of-view.

Here's a line from a 1-star review of Split Tooth on Goodreads:

I honestly felt like this book was a shock porn horror novel masquerading as something deep...

 

[Homer Potvin]

It is still a little bit difficult for me to completely dismiss the intentions of the writer, at least in a broad sense.

The last novel I read was Split Tooth by Tanya Tagac, an Inuit writer. Her personal experiences colour the entire narrative. I'm not sure that her novel can be taken as anything other than a revelation of her particular point-of-view.

I wouldn't say it's a dismissal necessary, just that there's no defense if a reader chooses to interpret it as something else. The subtext isn't explicit by definition, so whatever they take from it is whatever they take from it. Readers may not necessarily "get it," to which, there's nothing the author can do. I think you see this a lot with satire or absurdist humor. Half the population can't get through Catch-22 because they don't understand the joke.

I haven't read Split Tooth but there are 2500 reviews on Goodreads that are all over the place, I'm sure. Just skimming through it looks like a few peeople didn't understand it at all.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Here's a line from a 1-star review of Split Tooth on Goodreads:

I had a look at the Goodreads reviews, too, after I read it, and saw a few (such as this one) which to me seem to represent the views of people who "didn't get it." It may have been readers who have no insight into the indigenous experience. There was a lot of meaning in the novel, and when I read those particular reviews my first thought was to wonder how Tagaq felt about being so misrepresented.

So this raises the prospect of another reader experience - those that "don't get it."

 

[Stuart Dren]

I had a look at the Goodreads reviews, too, after I read it, and saw a few (such as this one) which to me seem to represent the views of people who "didn't get it." It may have been readers who have no insight into the indigenous experience. There was a lot of meaning in the novel, and when I read those particular reviews my first thought was to wonder how Tagaq felt about being so misrepresented.

The "didn't get it" is not necessarily about the meaning, though it commonly is. It can also be with regard to the execution not conveying meaning effectively to that reader. In that case, who's misrepresenting who?

 

[Rigor Mortis]

I had a look at the Goodreads reviews, too, after I read it, and saw a few (such as this one) which to me seem to represent the views of people who "didn't get it." It may have been readers who have no insight into the indigenous experience. There was a lot of meaning in the novel, and when I read those particular reviews my first thought was to wonder how Tagaq felt about being so misrepresented.

So this raises the prospect of another reader experience - those that "don't get it."

I say the following without having read the book or even the reviews.

If I wrote a book that met with some kind of negative response, or people didn't get it, or didn't find whatever merit in what I'd written, and if I then responded to that reception by accusing the readers of lacking insight, sensitivity and misrepresenting me and my writing, then I'd properly be told that I'm presumptuous, precious and condescending to the opinions of others.

There are many books that are cherished by some and leave others indifferent. That, thankfully, is the nature of this beast. Else we may as well hand it over to the machines. By all means, defend the merit of those things you like but it's not wise to dismiss differing opinions or cast aspersions on those holding those opinions (casting asparagus is equally unwise).

 

[Louanne Learning]

It can also be with regard to the execution not conveying meaning effectively to that reader. In that case, who's misrepresenting who?

This is a good observation, and probably there are cases of poor writing that fit that, but that is not the case in Tagaq’s book. Her voice is different, yes, because it is not “Western,” and the book is very allegorical.

The book does not contain “porn.” Yes, that is a misrepresentation. Anyone who called it that is probably referring to the narrator getting impregnated by the Northern Lights. But interpreting it as “porn” requires a lack of awareness of the spirituality and symbolism in the Northern Lights to the Inuit, as well as what colonialism has meant for Indigenous peoples. The twins she gives birth to tell the rest of the story.

It’s not necessary to go into the details of the book to make this point – reading/interpretation can sometimes be influenced by cultural factors.

 

[Louanne Learning]

If I wrote a book that met with some kind of negative response,

She's got around 2,400 reviews, and the majority of them are 4 and 5 - around 70%

by accusing the readers of lacking insight, sensitivity and misrepresenting me and my writing, then I'd properly be told that I'm presumptuous, precious and condescending to the opinions of others.

I think the readers who did not appreciate what Tagaq had created lacked knowledge about the Indigenous experience. They might be the most insightful and sensitive people in the world - in their world - but have not really been exposed to Tagaq's world.

I'd properly be told that I'm presumptuous, precious and condescending to the opinions of others.

I have no knowledge that Tagaq's responded to any of the negative reviews. I had a thought - that she purposefully left the book open to multiple readings - maybe that was the only way she could stay true to her voice.

 

[Stuart Dren]

The book does not contain “porn.” Yes, that is a misrepresentation.

Oh that's just a transient lexical usage. If something seems excessive and/or perhaps only present for vapid reasons, it gets called ____ porn. Earliest I can recall hearing this is "torture porn" when referring to a Saw movie for example, where there is of course no actual pornography.

This gets extended into other terms, like design porn, tragedy porn, etc. Those aren't describing adult entertainment. Well, I guess those could be categories of adult flicks, but uh, hopefully/probably not.

In this case "shock porn" is the reviewer having the minority opinion that the devices employed were for creating superficial effect much more so than communicating themes.

She's got around 2,400 reviews, and the majority of them are 4 and 5 - around 70%

It's evidently a good book. The more polar reactions make it seem even better, in opinion.

I think the readers who did not appreciate what Tagaq had created lacked knowledge about the Indigenous experience. They might be the most insightful and sensitive people in the world - in their world - but have not really been exposed to Tagaq's world.

Tagaq's world, yes, that's quite apt. Hers, in particular. Tagaq doesn't speak for all Inuit just like you don't speak for all Canadians. She is not necessarily even an accurate cultural representation of a collection of peoples. She is one voice, which is important, but still one voice. In other words, I don't think disliking her book must imply ignorance of her culture. It's her book.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

Tagaq's world, yes, that's quite apt. Hers, in particular. Tagaq doesn't speak for all Inuit just like you don't speak for all Canadians. She is not necessarily even an accurate cultural representation of a collection of peoples. She is one voice, which is important, but still one voice. In other words, I don't think disliking her book must imply ignorance of her culture. It's her book.

Very well said. This was a point I was going to attempt but instead got wrapped up in other things and figured I'd confused myself enough.

I think the readers who did not appreciate what Tagaq had created lacked knowledge about the Indigenous experience. They might be the most insightful and sensitive people in the world - in their world - but have not really been exposed to Tagaq's world.

I think, regardless of familiarity with Innuit or First People's experiences, no-one has exposure to Tagaq's world until they read her book and can then decide on its merits, based on whatever criteria that reader uses to judge a book: its cover! the prose! the plot progression! the character development! the challenge! the surprise! I could keep going!

I have no knowledge that Tagaq's responded to any of the negative reviews. I had a thought - that she purposefully left the book open to multiple readings - maybe that was the only way she could stay true to her voice.

I didn't mean to suggest she had. What I do know is anything worth reading will mean different things to different readers. Homogenising the correct response is not conducive to broadening the discussion on complex matters. And then what @Stuart Dren said.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

Book reviews offer interesting insights into the reviewers. I sometimes wonder if they realize how much of themselves they give away.

 

[Louanne Learning]

If something seems excessive and/or perhaps only present for vapid reasons

Well, then for sure the word is a misrepresentation of Tagaq's work

Hers, in particular. Tagaq doesn't speak for all Inuit just like you don't speak for all Canadians. She is not necessarily even an accurate cultural representation of a collection of peoples. She is one voice, which is important, but still one voice. In other words, I don't think disliking her book must imply ignorance of her culture. It's her book.

Her book is more than a personal story, it is a cultural story. She never would have been able to write this book had she not had a good understanding of her culture, if it did not reflect her experience (and spirituality) as an Inuit

no-one has exposure to Tagaq's world until they read her book and can then decide on its merits, based on whatever criteria that reader uses to judge a book: its cover! the prose! the plot progression! the character development! the challenge! the surprise! I could keep going!

Just to mention first - the reviews with low scores - several said they loved the writing, but that they didn't understand the story.

I think it would take more than exposure to her book to gain some understanding into her Indigenous world. Below are several books that provide insight into it - just a short list -

History, Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and Neighbouring States (1818), by John Heckewelder
Into the American Woods: Negotiations on the Pennsylvania (2000) by James H. Merrell (really good for understanding the cultural differences)
The Divided Ground (2007), by Alan Taylor
George Washington's War on Native America (2005) by Barbara Alice Mann
White Savage: William Johnson and the Invention of America (2009) by Fintan O'Toole

I was thrilled to recently come across a novel, written in the 1950s, but not published until 1987, written by an Inuit woman named Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk, about the daily life of the Inuit - Sanaaq

But, your point is taken - that had she followed more of a conventional format, she may have appealed to a larger audience.

I suppose being true to her own vision superseded that.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I think it is important to note that Roland Barnes was a literature critic, and his essay “The Death of the Author” (I finished reading it) was written from that frame of reference. His exhortations are to the critic – he’s basically telling them that “there is not only one right way to read a book.”

Something else occurred to me – that when we are speaking of writers and readers – it is not an “either/or” situation. Barnes writes – “the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author” – but that does not fit with my understanding of the writer-reader union. And it is a union, to me, a union between the artist and the receiver of the art. The final destination cannot exist with the origin. Art is in the connection. To imagine that where the story begins does not impact on how it is received flies in the face of logic.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

What happens when we die? It's not that everything we touched also ceases to be, more that it continues without our agency. We leave our goods and properties to someone of our choosing and may attach conditions to the inheritance. The conditons may not be legally binding, or just ignored, and the house we built for all our lives may be sold, or torn down, or fall into ruin, or turn into a crack house whore house.

At point of publication/dispersal into the world, the author/artist ceases to have agency over the art. Figuratively, they are dead to it in the same way that the actual dead don't control what their kids do with their legacy.

The conundrum is where ghost writers fit in all of this.

I don't mean to be picky argumentative and am enjoying the over and back. Whatever else @Louanne Learning, you've done a good job of selling Tagaq's book as something well worth the read.