/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20672172]

Why does marxist literary theory hold "the author" in such contempt?

[Anonymous No.20672177]

>>20672172
Because they were all pedophiles and murderers, how else are they gunna walk away unscathed without killing the author as an idea

[Anonymous No.20672181]

An author owning his work is antithetical to Marxism, probably

[Anonymous No.20672193]

It’s because in the power dynamics of writing the traditionally conceived author is adjacant to people’s concept of God. Marxists, anarchists, etc all believe that the created is inferior to the creator, and that something’s quality of being created, contextual, or imbued with essential characteristics makes the thing unfree and oppressed. Basically if man/society/the world has inborn or inbuilt limitations, “Liberation” is impossible. The author is a limiting check on interpretive freedom, so the author is Evil

[Anonymous No.20672223]

>>20672172
>marxist literary theory
what's next? marxist ballet?

[Anonymous No.20672240]

>>20672172
Whenever the author is not a communist or his words cannot be twisted to fit into some simil-communist narrative, there is contempt

[Anonymous No.20672793]

>>20672172
Because Barthes is not marxist literary theory, you illiterate nigger.

[Anonymous No.20672835]

>>20672172
Because you ignore reader-as-actor. Simply put, to kill the author is to write in such a way as to eliminate the need to actually espouse a viewpoint and instead put for a verbal concoction so potent, so ironic, and so virulent, that the reader -- in order to maintain his or her vitality -- must be forced to draw a conclusion on his or her own.

By saying nothing, it forces us, as readers, to say something. By blatantly stating falsehoods in a casual and somewhat condescending manner as this post is doing right now in your thread, we invite you, the hitherto flabby meatbag of a reader, to step forward into ownership of our own thoughts. By saying nothing, we open up words of possibilities. It is truly the magic of the modern word, by the work of the pen, man can make into a Titan which was heretofore a piece of shit decadent who went to a masked orgy and tried to pass it off as cool.

[Anonymous No.20672918]

>>20672172
Technically it’s because they want the author’s work to be read on its own terms and not bring in their personal life. This is because they don’t like ad hominems since they’re all degenerates, so they don’t want you to be able to say “why should I take you seriously if you’re just a loser irl”

Pseudo Marxists (Frenchmen) wanted to kill the author because they hate “the Subject” (ie the individual) and want to render everyone into a mere participant in their giant universal gay orgy. So giving one author kudos and criticizing another won’t due (because it makes the heap of homosexual short and “darkhaired” frogs resentful of the better writer’s success).

But of course this is all contradictory because they themselves pride their own work and seek to become famous.

[Anonymous No.20673733]

>>20672835
what if the readers are wrong though? Or are you a liberal who believes "discussion" will bring the truth to light?

[Anonymous No.20673747]

>The phantoms formed in the brains of men are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, and all the rest of ideology as well as the forms of consciousness corresponding to these, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no [internal or independent] history, no development; rather men, developing their material production and their material exchange, alter, along with this their actual world, also their thinking and the products of their thinking.
- Marx/Engels, The German Ideology

It's not a long way from this radical subordination of all human culture and thought to material relations of production to the "author function" of a Foucault or analogous concepts in other post-Marxist structuralists

This is partly why Marxists drove away so many romantic and idealistic socialists too