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.