[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: images (68).jpg (11 KB, 262x400)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>your book is actually mine because ownership is a Capitalist construct and people that you don't know and never talk to are actually your co-writers.
>>
>>19747391
If you actually read it, you are a retard. Not at all what it says.
>>
why do people seethe so hard at a work they don't even bother reading
>>
>>19747401
>>19747403
Have you read it?
>>
>>19747391
Barthes was refuted by Jesús G. Maestro.
>>
>>19747414
Yes. I doubt you have.
>>
>>19747461
Then you are just a retard.
>>
>>19747414
what Barthes says is that there's no point in trying to subject text to a single interpretation derived entirely from outside sources like psychoanalysis/author's biography/cultural context/whatever, because what the author truly wanted to say is, well, his text in its wholeness. that opinion isn't even really controversial unless you believe the author to write 100% consciously of his own work at any given moment without intuitively integrating additional layers of meaning.
>>
>>19747470
No, that would be you. If the book was "The Death of the Author as well as Criticism and Theory," then you might be able to make your case, but you would not be able to defend it against anyone but a literal retard. He only makes the case for (really just codifies developing practices) removing one vestigial aspect of Criticism, not the entire practice, ignoring the context of the work itself is misinterpretation.
>>
The ironic thing about this book is that the right (especially on this board) love to call it leftist bullshit when it really is more in line with their views than the lefts. What it ultimately says is using external contexts is a cheat, it is not understanding the work but those larger contexts; to call a work such and such propaganda or advocating for something because the author had those views is wrong unless you can demonstrate and defend it from the context of the work itself. It makes those sorts of games much more difficult and makes the field more rigorous.
>>
>>19747477
>what Barthes says is that there's no point in trying to subject text to a single interpretation derived entirely from outside sources like psychoanalysis/author's biography/cultural context/whatever, because what the author truly wanted to say is, well, his text in its wholeness.
It tries to make argument against authorial intent but fails to provide any viable alternatives.
>that opinion isn't even really controversial unless you believe the author to write 100% consciously of his own work at any given moment without intuitively integrating additional layers of meaning.
That idea isn't controversial because that isn't what the essay was about. Death of the Author isn't controversial but it is wrong and retarded.
>>
>>19747837
Death of the Author is saying that a story is an allegory for something that happened 20 years after the book was published.
>>
>>19747391
shit bait
>>
>>19748343
>>19748451
Are you both trying to be funny and "interpret?" Or are you just that retarded?
>>
>>19747837
>What it ultimately says is using external contexts is a cheat, it is not understanding the work but those larger contexts; to call a work such and such propaganda or advocating for something because the author had those views is wrong unless you can demonstrate and defend it from the context of the work itself. It makes those sorts of games much more difficult and makes the field more rigorous.
It does not make the field more rigorous, it is actually the opposite by a mile. Excluding the author and their context (about which we can know a lot of factual information, and can examine primary evidence, etc ) enables the reader (and the critic) to use whatever methods they wish to interpret texts instead of showing allegiance to boring but excruciatingly obvious and fruitful endeavours like examining the life and times of an author. The Death of the Author is pure critic seething and power grabbing because they wanted to be interviewed on prime time TV instead of authors.
>>
What Barthes meant by the death of the author is that while the author may be physically dead, he is resurrected every time a reader consumes the book, thereby retroactively busting a fat nut in a future reader's mind.
>>
>>19748698
>does not address the example given
Ok. Far from a power grab, it limits power for the reasons I gave and you neglected. Also, you seem to think that there is no such thing as misinterpretation by his view, there is, same as it was before.
>>
>>19748920
>Also, you seem to think that there is no such thing as misinterpretation by his view, there is, same as it was before.
Not him but there isn't. You are trading imprecision for fortune telling.
>>
>>19749113
Great points, you must be a professional arguer.
>>
>>19747837
>What it ultimately says is using external contexts is a cheat,
Cheating in what sense. Identifying a message in a story is not the same as agreeing with it or saying that it was executed well.
>it is not understanding the work but those larger contexts; to call a work such and such propaganda or advocating for something because the author had those views is wrong unless you can demonstrate and defend it from the context of the work itself.
More information is better than no information. A story that was translated into a different language doesn't become a different story because things got lost in translation.
>It makes those sorts of games much more difficult and makes the field more rigorous.
It really fucking doesn't. It is quite the opposite really. It is the complete rejections of any standards.
>>
File: Bejeweled-Skeleton1.jpg (632 KB, 800x1200)
632 KB
632 KB JPG
>>19749996
In art, it is called letting the work speak for itself. It rejects modern and postmodern biographical narratives tacked on next to the painting, vapid identity politics, the context of some movement or theory behind the art, and pretty much everything that isn't to be found in the work itself. This is a bejewelled skellington, these expensive aesthetic adornments must signify that the person or what remains of one after death are somehow important to who created, hosts, and views it.
>>
>>19750031
>In art, it is called letting the work speak for itself. It rejects modern and postmodern biographical narratives tacked on next to the painting, vapid identity politics, the context of some movement or theory behind the art, and pretty much everything that isn't to be found in the work itself.
That great in all but that doesn't refute the importance or existence of authorial intent.
>>
>>19750057
This image, I think, is universal to the human condition and has endured because of what it depicts and the aesthetic beauty of the painting itself independent of an outside narrative. DotA is a literary criticism along these lines. Fiction is a work of art and trying to use it to derive some historical or anthropological speculation from it is fucking retarded. If the author isn't clear on his intent (because that is ultimately impossible), it is either intentional and open to interpretation or a gross oversight that opens up a new interpretation.
>>
Contrast with this.
>>
>>19747391
The phenomenological experience of reading the book is different for every reader of the book, every time they read it; memory and "conscious" experience occur in space as well as time. Even if the book is the same that experience of reading it is generated by the reader through the act of reading, and thus unique
>>
>>19750110
There is also the issue of "perfect" context. Just as you can experience a book differently over time, you can overreach the bounds of a historical context or authorial intent and read into it what was never intended to be there. Clearly because Japan was known to exist in Dickens' time and he saw an art exhibit in Paris, Oliver Twist is thus a western view of Heian court life. The kind of retards who spout that do so with absolute conviction.
>>
File: E4JLlxxVkAIz01M.jpg (143 KB, 1345x1082)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>19750074
>If the author isn't clear on his intent (because that is ultimately impossible), it is either intentional and open to interpretation or a gross oversight that opens up a new interpretation.
Tolkien shitting on allegories is the non-retarded take what you are trying to push. He made a setting and stories that stands on their own. This is because of Tolkien himself choose to write universal themes and write a setting that is independent of the real world. He could write a story that can only be understood with knowledge of the political climate at the time but he didn't. All that Death of the Author has to offer to the Lord of the Rings is this gay shit.
>>
>>19750133
It nullifies allegorical works on the grounds that there is nothing outside the work itself. You have to read them straight and any interpretation is your own regardless of intent. It's a sword of Damocles and an inkblot test.
>>
>>19749996
If you viewed what I said as a single idea and left everything in context of the rest instead of viewing it as three separate points it may have made sense. Literary criticism is beyond you.
>>
File: dota_author.png (120 KB, 697x866)
120 KB
120 KB PNG
>>19750158
>It nullifies allegorical works on the grounds that there is nothing outside the work itself.
And why is that necessary or desirable? Tolkien made the choice for himself. It doesn't work for everyone.
>You have to read them straight and any interpretation is your own regardless of intent.
Not according to the essay.

>It's a sword of Damocles and an inkblot test.
Based purely on current political climate. This is why everyone is so explicit about their message now.
>>
>>19750218
>If you viewed what I said as a single idea and left everything in context of the rest instead of viewing it as three separate points it may have made sense. Literary criticism is beyond you.
What you said as a whole is retarded. Better?
>>
>>19750284
So you can not deal with the context of a short post and you think having more context will help you? Good luck.
>>
>>19750274
It's extremely disingenuous to cite a background of what Barthes saw as the state of contemporary criticism found on PAGE ONE instead of his argument that follows from it. I'm starting to believe you have some kind of learning disability or communication disorder as you lack any good faith or intellectual honesty. As you're unable to parse even simple sentences or subtext, yes, I'm saying you have autism.
>>
File: e61.jpg (42 KB, 680x834)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>19750312
>>19750293
How about you make an actual argument instead of being a pretentious homo?
>>
>>19747391
OP why are you so dumb
>>
>>19747391
how do you miss the message of a book this bad lmao
>>
>>19750761
>>19751841
>Midwits are smug about being midwits.
>>
>>19750460
Why would I argue against a strawman? If that anon wants to address the point properly instead of pulling it apart into bite sized pieces which lack all semblance of the whole than I will respond in kind.
>>
>>19752971
>Why would I argue against a strawman?
Because you just want to make arguments without substance to obfuscate any point vulnerable to criticism. It is Brandolini's law also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle.
>>
it's really weird the way that reactionary bots have these canned lines of something something "capitalist construct" to parody anything they've been conditioned to dislike. Because in this way they begin to see everything as a construct of these theories, doing exactly what they intended to avoid in the first place; vulgar constructivism
>>
>>19753437
If I just wanted to make arguments I would happily argue against a strawman.

What Barthes was actually advocating for was a return to something more in line with tradition. When the modernist showed up and brought things like psychoanalysis into the field they essentially said it was ok to view an authors work from the standpoint of mommy issues because he was abandoned by his mom at 3 months old, even if you have nothing to back that up with beyond the fact that his mom left when he was 3 years old. It created an endless array of interpretations which could not be debated to any real extent because the critic was now able to bring in any aspect of the authors life into the equation and before you could even question their interpretation you have to wade through their interpretation of the auther, which was almost always impossible because it was so removed from anything concrete. These sorts of games allowed the critics to control interpretation and push their own agenda, the author was a nazi so we have to view his works through the lens of a nazi which means these books need to be removed from the library because nazi bad. Barthes largely failed and the field continued to split, those not interested in autistic games and agendas moved to the more comparative or theoretical branches of the field and the more modernist sect with their attention grabbing tactics took the lime light.

You are a literal brainlet who is arguing for Brandolini's law and does not even realize it, you know nothing of the field and if you read any criticism it is so you can spew smug pedantries on command.
>>
>>19748920
>Ok. Far from a power grab, it limits power for the reasons I gave and you neglected.
It doesn't add limitations, it removes limitations. Barthes was explicit about this. The point was to clear away the burden of expectation (or the delusion of hermeneutic triumph) of using the author as basically the key to explaining a text, and empowering the reader instead. Removing the author from the interpretation of a text is a way of liberating the reader. Certainly you can claim that Barthes saw using external contexts such as the author and their culture, historical context, etc. as a cheat... a sort of lazy and convenient and reductive form of criticism. But I'm not seeing how you jump from that to making the field more rigorous or limited, if anything it was a call to expand the field by removing limits - which seems more likely to require less rigor, but enable more diversity in criticism and scholarship. When I read DotA I am struck by the current of envy and agitation in the text. The Author is basically still at the apex of his cultural powers when Barthes is writing this, and has long been solidified up there by Romantic era notions of creativity, the institution of copyright, the rise of mass literacy, mass media, and is only some years into the gradual comedown from the pre-television, pre-internet golden age of print culture. What is striking today is just how pitiful authors are now in the proliferation of meaning, and how ridiculous some of Barthes writing sounds now in its revolutionary pitch.

>Also, you seem to think that there is no such thing as misinterpretation by his view, there is, same as it was before.
???
>>
>>19753776
We are clearly using "limitations" to refer to different things, see above, should be clear.

How can you not know what misinterpretation is in the context of criticism?
>>
>>19753754
>What Barthes was actually advocating for was a return to something more in line with tradition. When the modernist showed up and brought things like psychoanalysis into the field they essentially said it was ok to view an authors work from the standpoint of mommy issues because he was abandoned by his mom at 3 months old, even if you have nothing to back that up with beyond the fact that his mom left when he was 3 years old. It created an endless array of interpretations which could not be debated to any real extent because the critic was now able to bring in any aspect of the authors life into the equation and before you could even question their interpretation you have to wade through their interpretation of the auther, which was almost always impossible because it was so removed from anything concrete. These sorts of games allowed the critics to control interpretation and push their own agenda, the author was a nazi so we have to view his works through the lens of a nazi which means these books need to be removed from the library because nazi bad. Barthes largely failed and the field continued to split, those not interested in autistic games and agendas moved to the more comparative or theoretical branches of the field and the more modernist sect with their attention grabbing tactics took the lime light.
You are living in a fantasy. This is the same brainlet logic that commies use to justify taking people's (negative) rights in the name of other people's (positive) rights. Yes, people change but "Death of the Author" is more often than not a tool to pervert and corrupt. It definitely more destructive than its absence. People nowadays call people Nazis and White Supremacists because they "perceived" the writing to be racist without any tangible evidence.

>>19753794
>How can you not know what misinterpretation is in the context of criticism?
Probably because no one has define it in the context of Death of the Author.
>>
>>19754132
>Probably because no one has define it in the context of Death of the Author.
Literally in the post that one replied too and at least one other time in the thread. This combined with your response completely ignoring what was said to say "I'm right" pretty much proves you have no real knowledge of criticism or theory, just an ideology which you blindly force everything through.
>People nowadays call people
So? That has nothing to do with criticism or theory, in the field they do it as I outlined. I suspect you are confusing news paper reviews with academic literary criticism, even ardent supporters of the more modernist methods would not allow that.
>>
>>19754254
>Literally in the post that one replied too and at least one other time in the thread. This combined with your response completely ignoring what was said to say "I'm right" pretty much proves you have no real knowledge of criticism or theory, just an ideology which you blindly force everything through.
No. Wrong.

>So? That has nothing to do with criticism or theory, in the field they do it as I outlined.
How? And you did the same by insinuating that the absence of the concept of Death of the Author somehow leads to this imaginary outcome.
>>
>>19753754
>When the modernist showed up and brought things like psychoanalysis into the field they essentially said it was ok to view an authors work from the standpoint of mommy issues because he was abandoned by his mom at 3 months old, even if you have nothing to back that up with beyond the fact that his mom left when he was 3 years old.
>even if you have nothing to back that up with beyond the fact that his mom left when he was 3 years old.
And you decided that there is no evidence to back up such claims using what metric? What if it was literally just mommy issues?
>It created an endless array of interpretations which could not be debated to any real extent because the critic was now able to bring in any aspect of the authors life into the equation and before you could even question their interpretation you have to wade through their interpretation of the auther, which was almost always impossible because it was so removed from anything concrete. These sorts of games allowed the critics to control interpretation and push their own agenda, the author was a nazi so we have to view his works through the lens of a nazi which means these books need to be removed from the library because nazi bad.
There is no reason to dismiss the idea that there is Nazi messages in the story. At least, Death of the Author provides no tools to dismiss it. In fact, Death of the Author allows and encourages people to fabricate evidence to Nazi messaging in a story with its dismissal of authorial intent.
>>
>>19754443
>No. Wrong.
Then why do you show no knowledge of the field?
>How?
Do you have any reading comprehension?
>And you did the same
No, I even said that Barthes largely failed, the outcome is not imaginary, it is what happened.

>>19754492
>And you decided that there is no evidence to back up such claims using what metric? What if it was literally just mommy issues?
That is the point, these things more often than not can not be proven in anyway, who decides? In practice it turned into the person deciding was who ever was the biggest autist, it fostered things like the whole Gabler/Kidd fiasco where they both were arguing about Joyce's intent about changes which had no substantial effect on the text itself and they both even admitted such. But that all pretty much died out on its own, Death of the Author did not change the course of criticism and it continued on moving more towards the comparative which just removes the issue completely.
>Death of the Author provides no tools to dismiss it
Yes it does, the work itself. If you can not back it up with what is actually in the text and defend it, which pretty much means being able to show how every aspect of the text supports your conclusion, than it will be rejected by the community.
>encourages people to fabricate evidence to Nazi messaging in a story with its dismissal of authorial intent.
You can not fabricate using this method as you can only use what is in the text to support your conclusion. As I already said, Barthes was not advocating throwing out the standards and practices of the field, just limiting the context to the text itself. To fabricate ideas which can not be supported by the text is willful misinterpretation.
>>
>>19754687
>Yes it does, the work itself. If you can not back it up with what is actually in the text and defend it, which pretty much means being able to show how every aspect of the text supports your conclusion, than it will be rejected by the community.
>You can not fabricate using this method as you can only use what is in the text to support your conclusion. As I already said, Barthes was not advocating throwing out the standards and practices of the field, just limiting the context to the text itself. To fabricate ideas which can not be supported by the text is willful misinterpretation.
Both painfully wrong. You are basically using a metric based purely on consensus not facts.

>No, I even said that Barthes largely failed, the outcome is not imaginary, it is what happened.
Barthes succeed in birthing a movement of perverters and deconstructors.
>>
>>19754763
The text contained in a book is a consensus? Psychoanalysis of a dead person is fact?
>>
>>19754687
Friendly piece of advice: don't waste your time arguing with dumb teenagers.
>>
>>19754808
It has just been a way to take a break from a project, I have no expectations on convincing anyone of anything but I find their mental gymnastics interesting. It is the only thread that has both been slow enough and had enough activity to serve as a good quick break but not eat up much time/distract me from what I want to do. I have mostly been trying to figure out who is trolling and who is serious.
>>
Isn’t it essentially a protection so the author can’t add meaning after it got printed?
Like dumbledore was gay the whole time, even if there’s no textual hints about it
>>
>>19752848
>>Midwit is smug about agreeing with a lazy bait thread
>>
>>19754778
>The text contained in a book is a consensus?
Text can be interpreted any way people want.
>Psychoanalysis of a dead person is fact?
Writers can't see into the future. The undeniable fact is someone wrote it thus there is an intent, an authorial intent. Stories aren't pulled from the aether.

>>19754954
No. Read the essay. It is a misconception based on intuitive knowledge because it is a lot less retarded than the actual concept. It is like how people assume that a steep learning curve means "really hard to learn" when it means the opposite.
>>
Please stop replying to the turbo autist in this thread. Yes, I'm talking to you.
>>
>>19747391
this is /pol/-tier reasoning
>>
>>19747403
>why do people who can't be assed to sit down for literally hours and focus on (at least an attempt of) self improvement and high effort thought come onto mothr fucking 4chan and shittalk random shit for ego validity?
you new to the internet?
>>
>>19755164
So what do we call the impotency of the author of trying to change what was already printed?
>>
>>19755164
Ok, give me a few examples of criticism using the method outlined in Death of the Author to pervert meaning, actual works of literary criticism published in proper journals.
>>
>>19747417
Based and Maestro-pilled
>>
>>19747417
His opinion is just as bad as OP's
>>
>>19747391
Come stop me faggot. Your post is my property, come take it away from me right now. Little faggot.
>>
>>19756201
It doesn't happen enough times, for the same reason, with the same pattern of detections to warrant a special name for the concept. It is like how not every social program is Socialism.

>>19756203
The second result for "gender lord of the rings" is a paper called "Gender Identities Explored: The Lord of the Rings as a Text of Alternative Ways of Being". That is the most that I willingly to do, I have work.
>>
>>19758986
That is not explaining The Lord of the Rings through gender, it is a method of using literature to explore gender using The Lord of the Rings as an example, has nothing to do with Death of the Author and is a practice which goes back to at least the modernists. You are showing your ignorance of the field and Death of the Author.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.