In 1967, the French literary critic and theorist, Roland Barthes, came up with a theory that argued against the tradition of incorporating the intentions of a creator and their biographical context into the interpretations of their texts. This encourages the consumer to divorce the literary work from its creator. He posits “to give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text.” Barthes calls this theory “La Mort de l’auteur” or “Death of the Author.”
I think that there are some important questions that we must ask ourselves when considering this theory such as whether it is possible to fully divorce a work of art from the person that created it, if it isn’t, should this line of thinking be ignored entirely and is this line of thinking actually helpful when it comes to analysis. I also think that it is important to recognize that this theory of literary analysis is not interchangeable with the argument that many people use to allow them to consume media without having to think critically about the creator.
So often when I see Death of the Author raised as a potential theory of media analysis or criticism it is being used to defend works from those with who the analyst does not agree on a moral or personal level. For example, Annie Hall is #31 on the AFI’s “100 years…100 movies” list which is a list of the top 100 American films of all time. “Annie Hall” was directed by Woody Allen who, most would agree, sucks really bad. While I do think that there is a discussion to be had about how we consume this kind of media, I don’t think that Death of the Author applies especially because, as a literary analysis tool, it is rarely ever possible.
When creating something, be it a book, a painting or a film, a creator’s perspective and implicit biases are embedded into the work. Even if you know nothing more than their name, you often will come away from a reading or a viewing with some idea of who the author is, whether intentional or not. When we talk about a great American novel like Moby Dick, we talk about the whale as a metaphor for the all-consuming nature of revenge and we are left wondering how the author came to this realization. Did he have a personal white whale? You can see the Christian allegory in the Chronicles of Narnia without knowing that C.S. Lewis’ religious beliefs.
However, when a creator makes the decision to be the masters of the universes that they have created, you run into a different set of problems. In the case of someone like J.K. Rowling, you get a situation where she is very forthcoming about events that happened outside of her book series and she’s more than willing to share it with her audience, despite the fact that sometimes we really wish that she would not. However, this results in situations where you have an author claiming representation of minority groups without having to do any of the actual work that comes along with representing them. J.K Rowling gets props for claiming that Dumbledore is gay after the release of the final book in the series and then denies multiple opportunities to actually codify that fact. She is, after all, the only credited writer on the Fantastic Beasts films.
Before this becomes a rant about J.K. Rowling and her many, many flaws I’ll return to the initial point of this post. Is it possible to fully divorce a work of art from its creator? Not really. The personal context of the creator will always affect the creation in the very same way that a viewer’s personal context will affect their analysis. Now, should we simply succumb to the will of the author and treat their word as gospel? Probably not. A creator may have had a specific intention in mind when they were making their creation but to believe that we all approach media from the same angle is foolish. Personal context affects analysis in the same way that personal context affects creation. Who says that a scriptwriter or director or actor knows what happens to a character after the movie ends any better than the viewer does?
Lastly, is this line of thinking actually helpful when it comes to analysis?
I don’t know.
It’s certainly interesting. There are certainly flaws with the theory, especially now when every author can have a very public life and can just tweet amendments to a book that was published 23 years ago. It’s difficult not to look at a creator as some kind of authority about their creations but I think that it is important to take their opinions with a grain of salt.
Hi Ally!
It made me think a lot as I read your post. I really agree with the part where you said ” Even if you know nothing more than their name, you often will come away from a reading or a viewing with some idea of who the author is, whether intentional or not.”
The product of artist or author still describes who they are no matter the audience tries to understand without any stereotype. It was frustrating how J.K. Rowling dealt with her issue and tried to sneak out from the situation but Harry Potter series still carried her thoughts, minds and essential factors that she considers.
I never took any art interpretation classes but I enjoy going to museums and galleries. Everytime I go there and see the pieces, I try to read the description of authors and their intention, purpose of their work. It gives differ understanding and make me observe more about their aim. I am going bio but I love art 😆 Keep up with your great posts!