The Bereaved Reader

Barthes ‘The Death of the Author’ calls for the elimination of the author from the processes of analysis present within critical reading. This suggests that the authors supposed death is orchestrated by a certain type of reader- the death of the author permits the rise of the critic. Barthes positions the text as an autotelic object that revels in its own meaning, meaning that ever-present. The now authorless text is divorced from the constraints of time and space, it exists beyond context. When we disregard the author we “impose a limit on the text” (p.223) and it is free to exert limitless meaning. Barthes also claims that on some level the author and the critic are very much the same figure- or maybe slightly different figures but nevertheless vying for the same role. I agree with this in that I too see many similarities between the two- but where Barthes argues that “the reign of the Author has also been that of the Critic” (p.223) I suggest that the death of the Author enables the unadulterated reign of the critic. It seems that killing the author is a graphic euphemism for the displacement of the author- the role usurped and fulfilled by a new literary player- the critic. Once the reader recognises the loss of the once omnipotent author, they recognise that they have a space to fill. Thus the Critic is not “undermined along with the Author” (p.223) rather the Critic acquires a position of supremacy- often postulating the supposed ‘meanings’ present within a text that transcends the immediate words on the page. Barthes expresses an anxiety about the role of the Critic hope for the reader- I find this conflicting as the critical reader is just a subcategory of the reader, and I’d argue that often the reader feels a schism between critic, spectator, browser- and whatever other categories of reader are in current circulation. Barthes glee in the repudiation of the critic and euphoric claim that espouses the birth of the reader is, therefore, somewhat incongruous. We may kill the author but critic and reader can not be mutually exclusive terms. He fears that the critic will only endeavour to ‘decipher’ (p.223) the text, but I think that this fear is unsubstantiated, as the critics aim is not unilateral. Critical interpretations are mutable and fluid capable of slipping between texts and fashioning a complex network of discourse around texts. I agree with Barthes- the explanation of a text should not be sought within the authors individualistic autobiographical details (p. 221) but the wider social context in which it was produced can not be disregarded. Likewise the reader/ critics context will also influence meaning- contexts (cultural, social and psychological) will all act and react together to inform meaning.         

I would I were a Reading.

The obsession, bordering on anxiety, which is present in the study of English re: ‘readings’ is something that interests me largely because I have somehow managed to evade it. What I, and Edmundson, define as reading are (put conveniently) the critical “isms” that distinguish one school of thought from another. To use his words readings are “the application of an analytical vocabulary” (p. 56) I am not naive enough to think that I have evaded them in terms of them having not impacted or influenced my thoughts at all, what I mean is the anxiety and need to attach a specific ‘ism’ to different methods and approaches to writing and analysis is not something that has confronted me. Edmundson expresses a wish to completely disregard distinguishing between the schools, and encourage students to do likewise- but I think, for the large part, at least in classes I have taken, this has been done. I have never encountered a lecturer or tutor who has gotten bogged down in deciphering the various isms, obsessed with cataloguing texts according to isms, or enforced the ideology of a certain ism on students. Isms are most definitely helpful, and to neglect them entirely would be, I feel, foolhardy. Being aware of isms is helpful in that they can help one navigate a text and discern meaning in ways that another vernacular would not allow. However the obsession Edmundson is wary of is also foolish, and he is right to be wary- asserting a belief in one type of ism would be constricting and most definitely encroach on fresh literary composition. Edmundson fears that readings can only be restrictive arguing “…then readings will only get in your way” (p.61), however I don’t find this particularly helpful as disregarding readings as an impediment is just as confining as the diligent, slavish use of them. The total neglect of reading denies the critic/ reader of a vast and often rich vocabulary that can be helpful. Instead of arguing for a repudiation of reading, I think there needs to be a revision of the faith placed in them- and perhaps considering them as textual constructs themselves (ones capable of illuminating and complementing a work of fiction) would be more useful. Edmundson’s snide comment about the ‘corrective’ application of readings is I suppose valid if that were the approach being taught, but I honestly can’t see that it is. Readings as a corrective method has fallen out of favour (his wish realised). Usurping its position is a more interpretive approach that considers readings but does not position them as an omniscient authority.         

Author and Context and Pease.

This explores the ideological shift that underpins the function and subject position of author, principally the tumultuous shift between idealist and pragmatist. The author seems to simultaneously be a part/ contributor to ‘free’ culture and ‘commodity’ culture- or perhaps somehow slips between the two, never being completely orientated to one particular mode of creative output. At first I thought Pease highlighted the frailty of the author- namely in the way it keeps going out of fashion in accordance to the whims of the society it inhabits. “Unlike other works referring to a writer’s activity- such as essayist, or poet, or dramatist- the term “author” raises questions about authority and whether the individual is the source or the effect of that authority.” (p.106) But perhaps change is the consistency that keeps the author strong- revisionism ensures constant relevance. When one mode expires it is replaced with another that answers to the demands of a new generation and thereby fills the gap in the cultural landscape so that there is never a literary void.

If this is how and why the author exists then it would appear that the archetype of the author-god has expired. The author is not the omniscient creator of culture, rather it is an interpreter of culture, it does not cultivate but explores and attempts to understand- such explorations become articulated through a literary response. Under this precedence it is impossible to have an autotelic text that is a wholly insular artifact. The separatist novel is replaced with one that is completely bound in contextual issues. In this way the schools of thought that are relevant to literary criticism the literary “isms” such as feminism, Marxism, new historicism are cultural anchors. As soon as we associate them with literary production the text is completely imbued with cultural nuances rendering it a literary manifestation of a cultural moment. The authors theoretical framework becomes the link to the ‘real world’, the thing that binds a text to its context. An author, I think, has two contexts the physical (tangible/ visible/ cultural/social) and metaphysical (intangible/ invisible/ psychological/ emotional). The latter would be particularly difficult to divorce from ones writings, and while authors have been known to construct a physical context I think it would be difficult to simulate a meta one. Filling the pages with ones thoughts immediately transports the facets of the metaphysical context into the work. Authors and books cannot evade or outrun their contexts, though they may be able to slip between different contexts and realities/ or fictions, a text will always have the trace of its origins upon it.  

Nancy Miller.

Miller is concerned with the female critic having to operate within a pre-established discourse that is fundamentally masculine and subsequently distinguished by patriarchal institutions notably the sandstone university (but it is equally arguable that historic cultural traditions also fuelled this system- coffee houses, public forums etc). With this precedence in place women could not articulate or compose but they could look upon, watch and read. The female author, therefore, emerged from the female reader and is in this sense is a product of literary evolution, a cultural response. Miller accordingly insists on the importance of both author and reader in the exchange of literary ideas.While Barthes argues the reader has usurped the authority of the author and effectively displaced the author, Miller argues that there is a mutual compatibility. Miller embraces the reader-author binary, whereas Barthes argues one inevitably destroys the other because both can not reign supreme in literary composition and competition. Is this in itself and inherently gendered interpretation of the position of the author? The feminine embraces the platform for dialogue and response vs. masculine indignation towards the eradication of his privileged position as didactic and omniscient speaker? Simplified further -> passive/aggressive binaries of gender.

This reading identity is problematic, however, and I found problems throughout Miller's piece in regards to the reading/writing identity. The masculine hegemony she discusses seems to have nuanced channels and lines of interpretation. That is the male identity is multifaceted and the multiple 'isms' present within literary criticism lend themselves easily to the male author. Her pervasive representation of feminist criticism creates an oddity in that she often conflates the 'femenist' with the 'feminine', which is problematic. It assumes that this is the principal, if not only, identity available for female critics. Moreover it suggests that because academic practices were largely inherited from a masculine tradition women are barred from accessing them fully. In searching for tropes of femininity within literature , and endeavouring to secure a separatist feminist tradition I think she places further limits on the woman author/reader.

The writing identity is tricky, especially when Miller argues that the writing two writing identities are "male and female, or perhaps more usefully, hegemonic and marginal" (p.22) But is this useful? Firstly employing the concept of identity implies a mode of socialisation- one must learn the patterns  and conventions of the identity in order to adopt it, they must identify with an identity and Miller seems to overlook this. Is the feminine always feminist and in turn is the feminist still marginal? In a privileged western context can we say the female author is still peripheral or suppressed? Moreover in a non anglophone context is the male writer always hegemonic. Is hegemony and marginality not further dissected by issues of class, race, sexuality and education-  as well as gender?

However if we maintain Millers alignment of masculine(hegemonic) and feminine(marginal) is it possible to have a gendered writing identity that is incongruous to ones biological sex?
Lastly is masculine and feminine reading and writing operating in isolation of one another? Are they mutually exclusive? Or playing of and feeding each other? Or is Miller's idea of the feminine having to navigate and insulate itself within a masculine inheritance the only valid option?