"Death of the Author" Explained.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- In the course of studying for the terror-inducing comprehensive exams (that he must pass if he hopes to graduate), Ryan does his best to explain a little bit of literary theory. Specifically, poststructuralism and the "Death of the Author" or "Birth of the Reader".
Ha, NERRRRRRRD.
In all reality, making this video was actually fairly helpful in the studying process. Who would have thunk it: teaching material to others helps you internalize said material.
YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL THINGS!
twitter: / ftloryan
tumblr: www.tumblr.com...
youtube: / ryanrabid
♬♬♬
Thanks for the thorough, yet accessible, explanation, Ryan. Now I shall to continue writing my story, dead to those who read it.
Explaining the death of the author with HP books in the background. Nice touchz
Just because the reader writes doesn’t mean the author is dead. It means there is a symbiotic relationship between author and reader.
I wish there was a video on how this essay has affected postmodern art. Barthes did so many things to art, it's absolutely fascinating stuff.
this video helped me IMMENSELY in understanding the text. thank you thank you thank you I hope you're out there teaching right now!
Well explained! This helped a lot!!
+Raquel Rodriguez thank you!!
I find it a little creepy and disgusting that the Death of The Author is expressed as a truth rather than another method for discussing texts. The ability of many readers to form opinions about a text does not change the fact that the author had a specific intent, thought or feeling as they wrote it. There is nothing about the theory that conclusively proves that what a reader perceives matters more than what an Author intends. It only insists that it is the case.
So even the name, "Death of the Author" is something I would dispute with. The author lives on through their text, even if a reader would dispute or ignore them. It might sound strident for me to say, but there is something very wrong with approaching everything in life subjectively and without any logic or desire for research and information. A cultural capacity for analysis is what is being dying.
i agree. However it was a useful concept in the democratisation of the teaching of art, a move away from elitist culture, an appropriation of text
The original French title is "Le Morte De L'Auteur", which is a pun based off of "Le Morte D'Arthur". But it's not a literal death of the author, more a symbol for taking control away from them.
That said I do agree that Death Of The Author being expressed as an absolute truth is a bit off putting, it should be a tool to further enrich our critical analysis of art.
There is no insistence that the readers interpretation is more important than the authors, nothing of this theory is about the importance of anyone's interpretation... that's sort of the point.
It was just introduced to elevate the status of reader .Barthes critiques that too much praise to author is not good .He(writer)isn't something divine who creates masterpieces.He just wanted readers to never look for what author meant and nerve find certain ' true meaning'.
man comprehensive exams really are going to be the death of this comment's author HAHAHA i'm so glad i found your video, i need to study the work for my pre-midterm essay and while i do understand what barthes is trying to say, i'm having a hard time grasping his ideas completely hshsh thank you so much!
When you said mug I imagined a person's face. Oops.
Thanks! This was extremely helpful for my essay! Its too late to say good luck but I hope you did well! Also I just happened to see your Inheritance series behind you. That's my absolute favorite series. Anyway have a nice day!
really enjoyed this - I think you did a great job. I'm trying to get an understanding of Paul de Man at the moment (not doing very well) but this and Tim Nance's videos have been really helpful in taking me forward on it
Just a thought experiment, or, comparison: Could we talk about the death of the person that writes letters? There seems to be a presupposition that the author only intends to talk to himself, and that is it. We could be that exhaustive with the latter example to see if they, philosophers, could more accurately pinpoint what they mean. Take the Hemmingway example. We are just adding extra detail to the set of significations of the text, but it does not turn it into an incomprehensible mess it rather adds another dimension that concatenates well with the text like adding an extra spatial dimension to a two-dimensional geometrical object. Just, because you can add something of the same kind, meanings, into a set of signification does not erase the author it might give you a more complete picture of who he is: like conveying a surplus. But they do not have to cancel each other out by strict necessity it seems. So, we could have two sets of infinities: those set s of signification that cancel one another like matter, and anti-matter, and another infinite set where we add extra spatial dimensions to what Garcia Marquez called "The Carpentry" of the text.
thank you! I have a seminar on death of the author tomorrow and this video really helped clarify some things for me!
+Alice Parr glad to hear it! :)
This helped so much - struggled with the reading for a doc class. Thank youuuu!
Ryan, thank you for posting. It seems to me - and I say "seems" in the context of your summary of Barthes's concept - that the pontification of the "Death of the Author" arises out of the impreciseness of the language used by the author and therefore the reader has room to fill in the blanks with their own associations. Sure, all ideas and ideologies arrive from somewhere else, and whether consciously or unconsciously we are interpellated as subjects, create new things, new combinations, and hopefully the subject becomes conscious of the concept of interpellation themselves and can really break free of any ideological shackles. But, as for the mug example where it draws various associations for people that is just the impreciseness of a description because it is a single word and it is really a lot of pontificating and relativism nonsense - "everything is subjective blah blah blah".
Yes, "mug" will draw different associations if Donna Tartt wrote the sentence: "Mug." What a great sentence. Awesome, Donna. But, if Ms. Tartt were to write: "A white Herd mug with the black italics logo and here's a picture of it [picture] and a link to that same exact image (www.google.com/search?q=mug+buy&biw=1024&bih=604&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI7PG0xuyVyQIVjJIeCh3qTQFs#imgrc=E-q1xhoNwYN8oM%3A)," then there is no subjectivity about it; it's a precise transmission of the intended image from the writer to the reader. So all those subjective associations drawn - in this case for an object - are proportional to the impreciseness of the description; this goes the same for an abstract concept such as "love" because once it is defined by the author it is no longer an abstract idea. If Tartt wrote, "He loved her - and what I mean mean by "love," reader, is that he kissed her on the lips at least once per day." Many would likely think that Tartt's definition is stupid, but hey, that's the author's description and the author, the consciousness, has successfully conveyed the author's definition of love - though in general the reader and others would certainly have their own definitions of the word/concept of "love". So, your articulation is verbose pontification. The author - though certainly a composite of other ideas, ideologies, and experiences (though hopefully self-aware of their interpellation as a subject) - nevertheless created intention, in this case my consciousness talking through an imaginary Tartt (because you used her book in the video) - often referred to by people through the legal name of MICHAEL P REID - to you, Ryan, the reader of this comment.
The more words the more likely the failure to communicate the author's intention becomes. Whereas people can argue and argue, essay after essay, book after book, what the meaning of Melville's novel "Moby-Dick..." is, if I were to write a one page book entitled "This is the Mug I Want You to See" and it only had one sentence - "This is the mug I want you to see [image is on the page]; it's a white mug from Herd with the logo written in black letters and this is the link online where I found it and so can you (www.google.com/search?q=mug+buy&biw=1024&bih=604&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI7PG0xuyVyQIVjJIeCh3qTQFs#imgrc=E-q1xhoNwYN8oM%3A) and here's a picture of it too! [picture of mug below sentence]." - I, the author, have successfully conveyed my message to the reader.
The author is certainly not dead, but common sense in the majority of homo sapiens - and especially 21st century literary graduate programs (not you as an individual) which read late 20th century French philosophers - certainly is. I certainly love Barthes's "Mythologies" which has so much there, as does his other works, but your secondhand translation of this text that I have not read (and possibly the original text itself) is making a relativistic embrace of language that is so silly and verbose. Do you agree with the argument that you are making (possibly Barthes's intended argument) or are you merely summarizing Barthes's argument as you perceived it without a value judgment on its validity in our intersubjective reality? Surely intention from a writer to a reader can be exactly, 100%, communicated to a reader as demonstrated in the above example with the one page book with intention? While the concept is cute and dramatic - "Death of the Author!" - everything is not nihilistically relative and subjective, as meaning, as intended by a text, can be conveyed if so desired.
ADDED TO LAST SENTENCE FOR CLARITY:
can be conveyed if so desired... by the writer and reader of a text, as my example demonstrates through my wanting you, Ryan, to see exactly the cup that I, the author, am referring to with the link and your willingness (I hope) to participate by going to that link in the text (my comment and the hypothetical one page novel) and viewing the exact image as intended.
+ForTheLoveOfRyan Hey Ryan, thank you for making the time to read my comment and then get back to me. Greatly appreciated, and I am glad that you don't agree with Barthes's concept, for it's so nihilistic and relativistic. I wanted to shut this idea down with logic because I know it's a maze that leads nowhere and damages the human psyche and stifles human potential, and I hope it did not seem that I was attacking you rather than the idea (or [mis]translation of the concept). Thank you for your patience on your reply to me and for writing and creating and adding to the human imagination as another writer. Please feel free to share any of your writing and I'll definitely read up when I can: reid.patrick.michael@gmail.com
Thanks, Ryan!
Lol the author dies as in, their job is finished. The text has become an independent object which is open for interpretation. If I'd see your paper which says "This is the mug I want you to see." and the picture below it, I'd be like "hmm, ok." and just leave it there.
BUT we aren't talking about some stupid pieces of paper with photos, nor are we talking about text but language and even more specific, poetry and literature. There are many, many books out there that people will say "only have one meaning" yet it is the very nature of language that allows you to imagine something differently than I do. Even a main character can look different in my head than yours, no matter what the author intended. They'd have to be absolutely precise about what it is you are supposed to imagine and even then, part of the art is exactly that it allows some space for your imagination. If there is nothing to imagine, it just gets dull. I might even start wondering why you'd be such a nutmeg for telling me that this is the one and only mug I should see while there are millions of mugs out there in the world! If you are being specific it requires reason, art more often than not is devoid of reason. So when people start asking "why is this so?" to an author it really does not matter and it should not matter.
So thankful that you uploaded this.
A while ago now I ended up typing up a move by move guide to the entire Yang Style 108 form of Tai Chi. It covered 30 pages and 15,000 words with a total of over 400 individual movements. Literally you could do the whole thing blind with someone just reading out each part of the movement. The only assumptions were directions such as north and south etc and left and right and so on (and that the person has a body). So it was just a framework for a person to practice and build their own movements.
Thank you for this video! It is the first one I've seen from your series, and It was clear and concise. Love it!
Another great video Ryan! Other than the redundant part where you said that Ernest Hemingway committed suicide at the end of his life. As opposed to the individuals who commit suicide in the middle of their lives?
Patrick Carter I don't know why I'm just now seeing this comment, but I'll add that to the list of embarrassing things I've slipped up on in videos haha
All good points. But how would you clarify the difference between structuralism and post-structuralism and what evidence is there in the text to prove these differences?
Thank you for this video, it really helped me for my seminar :)
+Elīna Rudzīte Thank you!
"He commits suicide at the end of his life" Damn i thought he commit suicide at the beginning of his like lol
Death followed his oeuvre
Beautifully simple and lucid. Perry Marrs
+Perry Marrs thank you!
Could someone just explain the plot and who the characters are in Death of an Author
best explanation. saving my procrastinating self from bombing an 10 page paper on this. thank you so much!!!
+Lo Rainey good luck on the paper! Reading the material can't hurt either :) haha
A great modern example of this is "The Beginners Guide". A game on Steam, I won't tell you what it's necessarily as that sort of ruins the point of it, however I will say that if you are interested in this philosophy you'll really enjoy this weird ass game.
+MrCheeselover88 little do you know I love love love that game already :) and you're right, it's an interesting example!
When the author writes "mug", the reader may think of a variant of mug but never a "goblet". So meaning doesn't vary arbitrarily. The set of all possible mugs is much smaller than the set of all possible objects. The author cannot always fix a meaning singularly but always can narrow it down to much smaller sets. And that's why we are able to communicate. I would say the author is only half dead!
This is actually good. I am also studying for my comprehensive exam. I hope to pass!!!
an F grade from my Theory and Criticism professor got me here. and just one question really, why we make things complicated? :') we can jst say ''the meaning of every art works are whatever you think it is, you're the boss''
right, imma just be back to my F grade :')
You don't really believe what you say. Otherwise, you wouldn't enjoy reading author A over author B. Post-modernism raises some valid points, but it's more a matter of the blind men describing an elephant. When all is said (though that can never be), the fact remains that the author has written about an elephant, not a donkey.
God if I could kiss this man I would thank you I have been struggling with my essay
Thank you Ryan this is really helpful!
thnk u so much! I read so many pages of his and understood nothing! it seemed weird and flawed. this makes so much sense! thnk u!!!
5 minutes of your video has been more helpful than all the 8 hours bloody reading I have just crammed into my brain. Dont suppose you have a 5 min video on Foucault :D
studdying foucault for my art history masters, found this very helpful thankyou
thank you for this, I was very confused with barthes to be honest
Very good explanation, thankyou.
+fatboi99 thank you!!
That's helpful, so what you're trying to say is that there is no unified meaning to any text? and is the author also influenced by his/her beliefs, culture ..etc?
So helpful!!! I can't put enough exclamations!!!!!
+666scarlett666 haha thank you :)
Thank you so much... Have an exam on Tuesday and this was really helpful.. Regards from Germany... :)
very good! how about the difference between the "Death of the author"" by Barthes, and Umberto Eco's "the open work"?
So what happens to the meaning the autor wanted to give to his text?
Thanks man... Hope that exam went well 🙂
Another comment. So Death of an Author doesn't really have a Plot or meaning. It's just random occurrences
This was awesome dude.
good job[now] ha,ha.looking forward to more chat.....
This helped me so much!!! AWESOME!
helped me alot.thank u
Thanks for this! Now I finally got it :)
+XcalithraX awww thank you :)
ty for helping with my year 12 studies
noognig Thank you! I hope the studies went well.
Fabulous! ❤️
hey thanx a lot for the wonderful explaintion. .. could you please explain what BArthes ment by "the tissue of quotations "
What do you research and also how's that degree coming?
Thank you, I'm glad I found you! :)
Devils' advocate here. Trying to understand. I acknowledge that 100 people will find 100 different nuances of meaning from the same work of art. That's beyond obvious. Now let's consider what's at the heart of the matter. An artist creates a work of art to communicate his/her view of the world. Correct? The artist wants others to see the world through his/her eyes. If that is true, isn't it imperative and central to search for author intent?
Ok but question: What if the meaning of the art object that I'm analyzing is suppose to have no meaning? How can I argue that?
+Nina Stamina So "Death of the Author" can be re-stated as "Death of the author's intentions". If the artist has intentions for his/her art object, you get to ignore those and look for meaning that comes from other directions than the creator. Does that help?
+ForTheLoveOfRyan Yes but what if the art it self is ment to have no meaning? like the artist said in an interview that it was ment to have no general meaning, it was more "art for the sake of art". In "Death of the Author" the text has a general meaning and it's the viewer that deconstruct that meaning to get more personalized meanings. But what if it never had a general meaning?
Nina Stamina If the artist said something in an interview, "Death of the Author" means you get to ignore whatever the artist said and find meaning for yourself. EVEN IF the artist says there's no meaning, you get to metaphorically say "screw you" to the artist and find your own, or not.
If the artist calls it "art for the sake of art" that is the artist limiting the number of ways that the piece of art can be read. For the sake of "Death of the author", you can ignore that and ask questions like "if i didn't know that the artist had said that, would I find meaning or significance here?"
That said, Death of the Author is just one tool in a big toolbox of reading texts or pieces of art. It's not the answer. It's just a useful way of thinking about a text.
ForTheLoveOfRyan OMG THANKS!!! you just saved me!!!
Ryan thank you for the excellent explanation. I was really battling to understand the 'Death of the Author" but now I do!
Great vid mate
Thank you! This video is great.
Great video!
+Anabella Gallardo Berg Thank you :)
Dude thanks. I actually understand this now. Next step write an essay :D
+Jase Stewart good luck :)
Glad I found you, Thankss !!!
Good insight buddy
Thank You......so very much
Come back man!
No thankYOU for helping ME study.
thank youu, it was really helpful (:
+Nina Mitova glad to hear it! :)
This is awesome well explained
+Dorcus Hwengwere thank you!
thank you much!
+Leda Balch no thank you :)
Excellent
Thank You for this video! LIKE! You are the best!
Tip: If you are supposed to explain something, never mention how complex it is
Otherwise, amazing video, I hope you do... o-oh wait shit, well I... I guess I hope you _did_ great on the test.
Lol I thought he said 'grand mal' test.
Yessss
Did you pass
+Richard Rawlings sure did!
Very helpful!
OK.
thank yu pls. we r welcomed . thanx allah ...
strangely you are cute ,okay back to studying :(
f
Wow I like you.
This is actually good. I am also studying for my comprehensive exam. I hope to pass!!!
Thank you!!