Overkill, Literally

With Barthes, Foucault, Nesbit, and now Marchessault, we have extensively discussed authorship in terms of life and death. For me, this is slightly dramatic and very dichotomous. It’s overkill. I really appreciated that Marchessault pointed out the need to move beyond such black-and-white thinking. She writes that confronting the exclusionary role of the Author “might be done by exploring alternative notions of subjectivity not bound to a dialectic of masters and slaves or life and death” (89). She suggests a way to break this dichotomy that is actually in direct opposition to Barthes’ call for the death of the author. Based on the ideas of Felski, she explains the possibility of “a sphere that would bring together both the author and the reader…as a discursive political community” (87) through a shared identity, here gender. This is an issue of collective representation. She continues, “The affirmation of female authorial voices can be understood as widening the political scope to take account of differences between women (class, race, nationality and sexuality) with the view towards larger political coalitions” (89). The patterns of individual recognition lead to large-scale group power dynamics, and are therefore crucial to societal democracy. To bring “death” to the author in order to bring “life” to the reader makes no sense when you consider how the two are inextricably bound together, especially among minority groups.

Being a media studies-psychology dual major is difficult. In one major i am forced to learn the intricacies of freudean theory; in my other major, i am forced to laugh at practically anything he ever said. Anyways...

After reading Marchessault's thoughts regarding the gender (not sex, gender is cultural, or?) of the dead author The Acadamy has been presented with, i must say i am intrigued. Her detective work in the bathroom stall was logical. A man would not sneak into a woman's stall simply to theorize on the gender of The Dead Author. But, is she saying that the dead author is a woman, or that the dead author is a genderswapping zombie?

I agree completely with msblogger, who says, “I do believe it is important to acknowledge that there is never a single author of a work (society, surroundings, family, etc. all influence an author).” If Barthes is saying that an author pens nothing that has not been taught to him by his external surroundings, I could not agree more. Still, his thesis can’t accurately be labeled “the death of the author,” since it seems the author never really existed with this train of thought. Also, if no person exists outside her influences, why distinguish between the author and the scriptor (if we are equal to the sum our influences, and so is our writing)? I don’t see why Barthes should mix his philosophy and the everyday functionality of conventions, acting as if we should rebel against the ever-evil “Author’s empire”: “The author still reigns in manuals of literary history, in biographies of writers, magazine interviews, and in the very consciousness of litterateurs eager to unite…their person and their work; the image of literature to be found in contemporary culture is tyrannically centered on the author…” (50).

"...the birth of the reader must be requited by the death of the Author" (Barthes 55). I believe that Barthes is being way too naive here with this statement. The truth death of an author figuratively speaking is when they are censored and literally speaking when they are put to death for what they write. When an author is censored, they die for their authorship which exists and is created for the sake of their readership in the hopes and dreams that what the author writes can plant seeds of new ideas and truths for the readership. It is a delicate and a beautiful relationship that has endured history and which has allowed for the creation of countless books. To say that "the birth of the reader must be requited by the death of the Author" is denying the menacingly reality of censorship and punishment by governing bodies who will do what it takes to control what the reader reads.