‘The Death of the Author’ is an essay that was written by Roland Barthes in 1967, which is one of the most important texts in the discourse of post-structuralism. In his essay, Roland Barthes argues against the traditional custom of taking into consideration the intention of the author when interpreting a text. This essay will be an attempt to paraphrase the main themes that have been voiced in ‘The Death of the Author’.

Barthes examines the relationship between the author and their text and claims that the biographical factors surrounding the author, such as his personality, his passions etc, should not be relevant when interpreting a text. In fact, he says that the author should dissociate from the text completely as it would only be possible then, for the text to create an identity of its own, and for it to flourish-

Writing is that neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body writing. ( page 142)

He uses the example of a storyteller or a narrator, in relation to an author, and informs us on how the storyteller would only be commended on their performance and not their personal genius, the latter being the case for an author. Barthes claims that the ‘author’ was a relatively contemporary concept, which developed due to the oncoming of capitalist principles. Thus, the greater emphasis on the ‘individual’ aspect of the author can be credited to western influence.

The metaphorical ‘death of the author’ occurs when the author starts to write the text, as that is the moment where he loses all control on how he intended his text to be read. It is now up to the reader to interpret it in their own way. Thus, with the removal of the author, the text is exempted from the context or the intention of the author and is granted independence. Due to this, there are not one, but many interpretations to the same text-

We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. ( page 146)

Barthes also uses an example of an abstract from Balzac’s story ‘Sarrasine’, in which there is a male protagonist who has mistaken a castrato as a woman. The character then commented on the apparent inherent qualities of a woman. Through this Barthes challenges us, being the reader, to determine whose voice is being portrayed here and in what context. It could be interpreted as being the voice of the character in the plot, or the voice of Balzac himself. Thus, the true meaning of the text does not reside in the author but resides in the reader and the language itself.

Throughout the essay, he uses examples and works of other authors to support his argument of how a separation must be made between language and the author. He takes the work of Stephane Mallarme and states that he also saw the importance of detaching language from the author as he feels that the author, in many ways, restricts language from achieving its full potential-

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. ( page 147)

Proust, on the other hand, uses the unorthodox method of “radical reversal”. Through this method, Proust manages to use his writings and his works to build a foundation for his future self, which is contrary to the commonality of previous authors who use their own lives as a foundation for their works.

He also used surrealism as a method for the removal of the author. The engagement of surrealism with “automatic writing” or writing as quickly as possible, void of any meaning, which could be perceived as several people writing together, helped with the de-escalation of the predominant image of the author. Linguistics also played a part in the eradication of the prevalent author by explaining that the role of a dialogist is irrelevant in the entire practice of enunciation and that the entire process would still remain perfectly operational without the presence of an author

Roland Barthes also attempts to form an alternative to the author by explaining the importance of modern scriptor. The influence of the author, in relation to his text/book, would be considered substantial. That is because when an author is trusted, he is not only seen as belonging to the history of the book, but he is also seen as the origin for the “nourishment” for the book. In contrast, a modern scriptor would exist not before or after the book, but would only be present during the writing of the text. As the modern scriptor would not exist prior to the writing of the text, he will not have any experiences and thus will be able to write a new work which would have the potential to be eternal and timeless.

In conclusion, the focal point of this essay was to paraphrase the essay-‘The death of the author’ by Roland Barthes. His claim was that the intention or the context of the author should not be taken into consideration while attempting to decipher or interpret a text. He then perceives the metaphoric death of the author as emancipatory, as due to this the reader will be able to interpret the text in his own way and would not have to comply with the apparent intentions of the author. He also backed up his arguments by giving instances from the works of Mallarme and Proust. He also gave examples of how the surreal movement and linguistics also helped in the removal of the author. In the end, he offered an alternative to the author by stating how a modern scripture would be a much more appropriate mediator than an author.

REFERENCES-

Barthes, Roland. 1977. Image Music Texts. Fontana Press: London