The-Death-of-the-Author-by-Roland-Barthes

TheDeathoftheAuthorbyRolandBarthes(fromImage,Music,Text,1977)InhisstorySarrasineBalzac,describingacastratodisguisedasawoman,writesthefollowingsentence:‘Thiswaswomanherself,withhersuddenfears,herirrationalwhims,herinstinctiveworries,herimpetuousboldness,herfussings,andherdelicioussensibility.’Whoisspeakingthus?Isittheheroofthestorybentonremainingignorantofthecastratohiddenbeneaththewoman?IsitBalzactheindividual,furnishedbyhispersonalexperiencewithaphilosophyofWoman?IsitBalzactheauthorprofessing‘literary’ideasonfemininity?Isituniversalwisdom?Romanticpsychology?Weshallneverknow,forthegoodreasonthatwritingisthedestructionofeveryvoice,ofeverypointoforigin.Writingisthatneutral,composite,obliquespacewhereoursubjectslipsaway,thenegativewhereallidentityislost,startingwiththeveryidentityofthebodywriting.Nodoubtithasalwaysbeenthatway.Assoonasafactisnarratednolongerwithaviewtoactingdirectlyonrealitybutintransitively,thatistosay,finallyoutsideofanyfunctionotherthanthatoftheverypracticeofthesymbolitself,thisdisconnectionoccurs,thevoicelosesitsorigin,theauthorentersintohisowndeath,writingbegins.Thesenseofthisphenomenon,however,hasvaried;inethnographicsocietiestheresponsibilityforanarrativeisneverassumedbyapersonbutbyamediator,shamanorrelatorwhose‘performance’—themasteryofthenarrativecode—maypossiblybeadmiredbutneverhis‘genius’.Theauthorisamodernfigure,aproductofoursocietyinsofaras,emergingfromtheMiddleAgeswithEnglishempiricism,FrenchrationalismandthepersonalfaithoftheReformation,itdiscoveredtheprestigeoftheindividual,of,asitismorenoblyput,the‘humanperson’.Itisthuslogicalthatinliteratureitshouldbethispositivism,theepitomeandculminationofcapitalistideology,whichhasattachedthegreatestimportancetothe‘person’oftheauthor.Theauthorstillreignsinhistoriesofliterature,biographiesofwriters,interviews,magazines,asintheveryconsciousnessofmenoflettersanxioustounitetheirpersonandtheirworkthroughdiariesandmemoirs.Theimageofliteraturetobefoundinordinarycultureistyrannicallycentredontheauthor,hisperson,hislife,histastes,hispassions,whilecriticismstillconsistsforthemostpartinsayingthatBaudelaire’sworkisthefailureofBaudelairetheman,VanGogh’shismadness,Tchaikovsky’shisvice.Theexplanationofaworkisalwayssoughtinthemanorwomanwhoproducedit,asifitwerealwaysintheend,throughthemoreorlesstransparentallegoryofthefiction,thevoiceofasingleperson,theauthor‘confiding’inus.ThoughtheswayoftheAuthorremainspowerful(thenewcriticismhasoftendonenomorethanconsolidateit),itgoeswithoutsayingthatcertainwritershavelongsinceattemptedtoloosenit.InFrance,Mallarmewasdoubtlessthefirsttoseeandtoforeseeinitsfullextentthenecessitytosubstitutelanguageitselfforthepersonwhountilthenhadbeensupposedtobeitsowner.Forhim,forustoo,itislanguagewhichspeaks,nottheauthor;towriteis,throughaprerequisiteimpersonality(notatalltobeconfusedwiththecastratingobjectivityoftherealistnovelist),toreachthatpointwhereonlylanguageacts,‘performs’,andnot‘me’.Mallarme’sentirepoeticsconsistsinsuppressingtheauthorintheinterestsofwriting(whichis,aswillbeseen,torestoretheplaceofthereader).Valery,encumberedbyapsychologyoftheEgo,considerablydilutedMallarme’stheorybut,histasteforclassicismleadinghimtoturntothelessonsofrhetoric,heneverstoppedcallingintoquestionandderidingtheAuthor;hestressedthelinguisticand,asitwere,‘hazardous’natureofhisactivity,andthroughouthisproseworkshemilitatedinfavouroftheessentiallyverbalconditionofliterature,inthefaceofwhichallrecoursetothewriter’sinteriorityseemedtohimpuresuperstition.Prousthimself,despitetheapparentlypsychologicalcharacterofwhatarecalledhisanalyses,wasvisiblyconcernedwiththetaskofinexorablyblurring,byanextremesubtilization,therelationbetweenthewriterandhischaracters;bymakingofthenarratornothewhohasseenandfeltnorevenhewhoiswriting,buthewhoisgoingtowrite(theyoungmaninthenovel—but,infact,howoldisheandwhoishe?—wantstowritebutcannot;thenovelendswhenwritingatlastbecomespossible),Proustgavemodernwritingitsepic.Byaradicalreversal,insteadofputtinghislifeintohisnovel,asissooftenmaintained,hemadeofhisverylifeaworkforwhichhisownbookwasthemodel;sothatitiscleartousthatCharlusdoesnotimitateMontesquioubutthatMontesquiou—inhisanecdotal,historicalreality—isnomorethanasecondaryfragment,derivedfromCharlus.Lastly,togonofurtherthanthisprehistoryofmodernity,Surrealism,thoughunabletoaccordlanguageasupremeplace(languagebeingsystemandtheaimofthemovementbeing,romantically,adirectsubversionofcodes—itselfmoreoverillusory:acodecannotbedestroyed,only‘playedoff’),contributedtothedesacrilizationoftheimageoftheAuthorbyceaselesslyrecommendingtheabruptdisappointmentofexpectationsofmeaning(thefamoussurrealist‘jolt’),byentrustingthehandwiththetaskofwritingasquicklyaspossiblewhattheheaditselfisunawareof(automaticwriting),byacceptingtheprincipleandtheexperienceofseveralpeoplewritingtogether.Leavingasideliteratureitself(suchdistinctionsreallybecominginvalid),linguisticshasrecentlyprovidedthedestructionoftheAuthorwithavaluableanalyticaltoolbyshowingthatthewholeoftheenunciationisanemptyfunctioningperfectlywitho