The reading that most resonated with me this week was Barthe’s “ The Death of the Author,” mainly because I could clearly understand what he saying, or I think I could. I think it is hard to dissociate a piece of work from the author. Barthe wants the reader to not think about the author, their background, history, or psychology. By doing this, I think the reader is missing many things that the author intended. Contrary to what Barthe says, that an author puts limits on the text, I think it does the exact opposite. It not only allows the reader to better understand the author’s intentions but also provides them with knowledge to draw their own conclusions.
A perfect example for me would be when I read “A Streetcar Named Desire” by Tennessee Williams. I read about half the play before I started wondering about Williams. After reading a little about Williams and his family and what was going on at the time of the book, I could see so many relevant connections that brought the play to life for me. For instance, that Williams had a sister who suffered schizophrenia or that he was an alcoholic. Just those two facts helped me better understand that characters of Stanley and Blanche. Without knowing William’s background and what was historically going on at the time the play was written does the author and the play a disadvantage. I do not think this means that we can assume an author’s intentions or draw conclusions on a text because of an authors history or background, but I also don’t think we should completely ignore it.
