Critical Analysis of Roland Barthes The Death of the Author

Roland Barthes says in his essay The Death of the Author, The birth of the reader must be
at the cost of the death of the Author. For the most part I agree with this statement. There can
be no real level of independent thinking achieved by the reader if their thoughts are dictated
by the Authors opinions and biases. For this reason there needs to be a distance between the
Author and those who read the work.
Barthes makes two main points as to why the death of the Author is an inevitable and
beneficial occurrence. To begin with Barthes states that the author is merely a way through
which a story is told. They neither create the story nor form it, these have already been done.
The author is merely retelling this story that has already been told many times. His argument
against original thought is very persuasive, especially considering the many ways stories have
been logically broken down into a predictable sequence of events. For instance, Vladimir
Propp (Literary Theory) a Russian Formalist used Formalist theories to determine thirty
one plot functions in Russian folk tales. Each folk tale has at least some, if not all, of these
functions, typically in the order which he has organized them but occasionally one or two will
be inverted. Most modern fairy tales are merely an adaptation of a classic fairy tale and they
follow the general functions that Propp outlined.
Even beyond fairy tales, most fiction stories fall into a typical patter with a beginning
problem, a training period, a set back of the hero, the hero overcoming the obstacle, the
conflict, and finally resolution. There are no original thoughts, just old thoughts combined in
different patterns or adjusted to fit the current society. Music, fashion, and movies are an
example of the never ending recycling of ideas. There are only so many musical
combinations or clothing styles that people find pleasing. It is inevitable that old styles will
be used to inspire new ones. It is easy to see in all different areas of society how there are
few no new ideas, merely old ideas being reused.
Barthes second point is that if the reader were to view the work through the Authors eyes
then they would gain no benefit from the reading. By associating the Author with the text, the
text is automatically limited. Instead of drawing their own meaning from the text using their
own experiences and therefore stimulating their own thoughts of their lives and how it
connects with the world around them the reader is then restricted to trying to guess what the
author meant. The reader focuses on understanding the Authors opinions and whether they
agree with the Author and dont focus on their own thoughts and opinions of the piece.
Barthes claims that it is the status of the reader that should be elevated, not the status of the
Author. If the reader gains any deep insight from a piece of writing it should not be
considered due to the Authors genius but instead to the personal experiences of the reader
providing them with an insightful interpretation. Barthes believes that if it is the reader who
brings meaning to the text then there can be no limit to the interpretations available because
everyone in the world has their own unique experiences that have shaped them.
For the independent thinking of readers and the growth of their skills of interpretation the
death of the Author is necessary, in most cases. The death of the Author is not always a
necessary occurrence however, in some cases the presence of the Author is needed for the
reader to achieve a greater understanding of what is being read. For instance, in the book
Slaughterhouse 5: A Childrens Crusade, Kurt Vonnegut went through great effort to make

himself known at the beginning of the book. The entire first chapter is told in first person
from the authors point of view as he rambles about how he wanted to write a book about the
bombing of Dresden. He was there when Dresden was bombed and was one of the only
survivors. The first chapter of the book he describes how he has wanted to write a book about
the bombing of Dresden for years but hes never been able to find the right words. Theres
nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Vonnegut said.
After spending the first chapter introducing the reader to himself Vonnegut then proceeds
to take himself out of the story (for the most part) and instead tell the story of Billy Pilgrim.
Pilgrim had also survived the bombing of Dresden but a head injury later in life combined
with post traumatic stress disorder caused Pilgrim to lose his grip on reality. Pilgrim becomes
unstuck in time and being unstuck causes him to flash back and forth from the past to the
future and back again. As a reader if I had not known Vonneguts background as one of the
few survivors of the bombing of Dresden then I would have not been able to understand the
book. I would have seen it as crazy and disjointed and not have been able to draw any
meaning out of it. However, looking through the eyes of the Author I got an understanding
and view of the events that was completely different from what I would have understood on
my own.
If the Author is writing on a topic of which the reader will have their own past experiences
to compare it to then the birth of the reader must come at the cost of the death of the Author.
However, if the reader has no experiences on which to base their judgments or to grasp the
meaning of the text with then it might be necessary for the Author to tell the reader of their
own experiences. I agree with Barthes when he says that the reader and the readers
interpretation and understanding of a text is what is important. However, sometimes the
understanding of the reader is best helped by the presence of the Author.
That being said, the Author should only make an appearance if it will help the
understanding of the reader. Here again, the focus is on the reader and their understanding,
not on the Author. It is inevitable though that some readers will have a certain mindset about
a book before they even buy it because of the authors name on the cover. The reader may
have liked a different book the author had written or had disliked it, but depending on which
it was before they pick the book up they will already have an idea of what it is going to be
like. Some readers have been known to buy entire series after reading the first book because
they know they like the Author so much. They are basing four or five books off of their
experience from one and the name of the Author. Should it be that way? Authors want to
claim credit for the work theyve done but Barthes says that where the work originated from
isnt whats important, its the destination that matters.
If we were to take Barthes statement that authors are not creating new material merely
meshing bits and pieces from previous writings together, then for the author to claim credit of
the piece would essentially be plagerism, for they would be taking credit for thoughts that
were not theirs. Putting their names on books could qualify for intellectual property theft as
well, according to Barthes. Unless, of course, the author is not seeking to take credit for the
story itself but instead wants to take credit for the order in which the words are put together to
form the story. So maybe the author is not dead at all. After all, if the author was completely
dead then there would be no names on the covers of books. Not only would they not be
allowed to take credit for a story that has already been told but they would not be allowed to
affect the readers interpretation of their story.

Even though Barthes thinks that knowing the Authors background would be detrimental to
the readers interpretation of the text I wonder if the public would really wish to know nothing
about the writer whose book they are reading. Is it possible that reading the book without the
name or basic information of the author could be like watching a movie without knowing
what the rating or the plot summary of the movie is? To what extent is it right to broaden the
readers horizons? Some people choose to live highly sheltered lives, only reading certain
things or watching specific t.v. shows. Anything that doesnt fall under their approved
categories is to be completely ignored. So if we were to take the Authors name off of books,
would going into a bookstore be akin to playing a game of Russian Roulette for them? Not
knowing the author means not knowing if there may be any hidden surprises in the book. So
aside from the Authors objections to not getting credit for their work, would the readers
object? In this way the Author isnt dead, for their reputation still affects the readers
choice and open mindedness to the book.
It seems that when Barthes says the birth of the reader must come at the cost of the death
of the Author, he is thinking idealistically, not realistically. It would help the interpretations
and understanding of the reader for there to be no connection between the Author and the
text, in that Barthes is correct. If the only focus was the individual interpretations of the
reader then the absolute disassociation of the Author with the text would be a beneficial thing.
However, I dont believe that the Author will ever be completely dead. Barthes said that the
Author should get neither praise for a good book not blamed for a bad one and yet this is
exactly why the Author will never be fully dead. Readers want heroes and villains, people to
look up to and people to despise. A good writer earns praise from the readers and social
status, but a controversial writer can draw just as much negative attention as an inspiring
writer can draw positive attention. In this way people seek to categorize their lives, and to
categorize books the readers need labels. Their favorite labels are the Authors who wrote the
books. I think that the readers are partially responsible for the continued presence of the
Author, as well as the Authors own interests in being involved. Is the Author fully dead? No,
but neither is he fully alive either. The Author is stuck somewhere between.