Death Of The Author English Literature Essay

Death Of The Author English Literature try outThe word Author is broadly defined by the OED as, the person who originates or gives existence to anything, tho does this mean that a schoolbook is produced solely by a single author? It is go off that the author of a textbookual matter will discombobulate a defined head of what they would like their text to achieve, but can we be sure that an author is capable of producing a text that is uninfluenced by external sources? In this quiz I will examine the mean of a text and distinguish whether it is produced solely by its author or if it is a complex quislingism of the author, text and the referees own subconscious understanding.New Criticism argued that authorial intent was remote to understanding a wear round of literature. In their essay The Intentional F eitheracy, W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley wrote that the endeavor or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art1. They argued that an author could non be reconstructed from a piece of writing and that the only source of nub came from the text itself, with any exposit of the authors desires or life being purely extraneous.Critics such as Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault have scrutinized the role of authorship to the substance and interpretation of a text. In Barthes essay Death of the Author, he criticizes the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the authors identity to distil meat from the authors work. This death is directed at the author expressing an midland vision, non at the idea of writing. He is opposing a guess of texts as expressing a distinct personality of the author and despises the idea that they consciously cause masterpieces. Barthes states the idea that the explanation and meaning of a work does not have to be sought in the unrivalled who produced it, as if it were always in the end, with the more or less transp at omic number 18nt illustration of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author confiding in us2. The author can be disregarded when interpreting a text, because it is voice communication which speaks, not the author the words atomic number 18 rich enough themselves with all of the traditions of language. The words and language of a text itself de considerationine and expose meaning for Barthes, and not someone possessing legal responsibility for the process of its production. The author is provided a scriptor. The scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work, the origin of meaning lies exclusively in language itself and its impressions on the lecturer. Barthes notes that the traditional critical advance to literature raises a problem of which we cannot detect precisely what the writer intended.Julia Kristeva invented the term intertextuality, suggesting that no text is free of other texts. Intertextuality leads to speculations astir(predicate) the idea of a text guaranteeing stability and identity. If a text is partly explained by a whole series of other texts, then its meaning clearly does not reside wholly inside it, but is also produced by its affinity with other texts. Every reader may have a different understanding of the meaning of a text depending on the external texts they think with it.Looking at William Shakespeares incline intertextually, Romeo and Juliet prompts literary criticism as the quicken shares a relationship with other literary texts. Romeo and Juliets plot is based nigh more than one different source, making the audience question the originality of the head for the hills itself. Shakespeare based his play on an Italian tale, translated into verse as The tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562. Romeo and Juliet is a dramatisation of Brookes translation, which Shakespeare has followed closely. We see this through Romeos dialogue as he says, Is she a Capulet? / O dear answer for my lif e is my foes debt.3Shakespeare literally mirrors the plot of Brookes tale in his own So hath he learned her name, and knowth she is no geast, / Her pose was a Capulet,4It is hard to bring that Shakespeare has ownership of this play on with the idea that this is not an original idea and the content of his play has come from influences around him.Shakespeare was also heavily influenced by Ovids Metamorphoses, taking inspiration from the tragic love story of Pyramus and Thisbe. In Ted Hughes translation, it is clear to see that Shakespeare has been influenced by Ovid, The parents of each forbade their child / To marry the other. That was that. / But prohibition feeds love, mirroring the exact same family feud and passion in Romeo and Juliet5, Deny thy father and refuse thy name / Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, / And Ill no longer be a Capulet (Act 2, Scene II ll 34-36). There are rumoured to be so umpteen sources base one of Shakespeares most long-familiar masterpiec es, this certainly begs the question of whether Shakespeare was original and if he gave meaning to his own work.It is appropriate to approach an Elizabethan play as a collaborative work, given the amount of people used to successfully create a play. A piece of drama is inevitably constructed by many hands, adding to the meaning of the play. Romeo and Juliet would not just be defined by William Shakespeare, but how the play was performed would have enormous effect on its meaning along with those involved in the making of it. Romeo and Juliet was arguably not written by Shakespeare, he took influences from many different texts, collaborating with many other writers. The writing behind Romeo and Juliet does not define the play, but it is the staging and performance that steel the play what it is. Performance adds to the text in the sense of connecting to it gestures, symbols and staging, these all produce a definition not in the text itself. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, the text is a tissue of quotations cadaverous from the innumerable centres of culture (pp. 142-48) meaning that one persons work is never original. It is the reader/viewer that makes a piece of literature what it is, whether that is personal or not.It is touchy to judge whether a piece of literature successfully carries out what it promoter to attempt because we can never be certain of the writers intent in the first place. For example Robert Frosts The Silken Tent opened up to more than debate about whether the poem was really symbolising a fair sex and questioned the possibility of its supporting central cedar pole (l. 5) actually re maping a boat with language rich in relatable words, for example, guy ropes and compass. It should not be wrong to have a different opinion of a text, decision meaning in literature is all about your personal tastes and experiences allowing you to occupy to texts. Literature is all about what you as a reader m ake of a text in your own personal way.There seems to be no guarantee in this process that the origins of the text, the conventions of the message and the readers opinion are identical in any way. A piece of literature depends on the words and contexts which surround it, but these contexts are not always crucial when looking for meaning in a text. The language of textuality itself will present an argument that is potentially counter to the authors conscious intent.The meaning of a text is not produced solely by an author it is a complex collaboration between author, text and reader. Shakespeare did not give Romeo and Juliet meaning, meaning was created through the text and performance of the play and by the viewer creating their own personal opinions about it. Shakespeare may have been the origin behind Romeo and Juliet but there are many different sources that could have been seen to be used, questioning the originality of the play. The essential meaning of a piece of literature depends on the impression it has made on the reader, the writers passions and tastes do not come into it. Meaning is a collaboration of all these different factors, it cannot be gathered purely from just the author because there may have been no authorial intent behind that text and literature is all about your own personal opinion and where you transport that text in your mind. Barthes makes an important point saying, a texts unity lies not in its origins but in its destination, (pp. 142-48) meaning that it all comes down to the reader and society, a piece of texts origins are unimportant.Word Count 1560