[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 53 KB, 560x721, Seabie_Atlas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8685670 No.8685670 [Reply] [Original]

Is post-structuralism (specifically the idea of the death of the author) technically correct but, to a significant extent, practically incorrect, or atleast irrelevant?

>> No.8685676

Cultural Marxist hogwash.

>> No.8685677

>>8685670
irrelevant to whom?

>> No.8685750

>>8685670
Nice six-pack on Atlas there. 5/5, would smash his boi pussy.

>> No.8685863

>>8685670
I think there is a compromise, soft position on barthes' death of the author concept.

An author's identity can inform the meaning of what they've written. It'd be silly to read the bible and completely ignore the historical implications of what the book and religion has caused.

But it isn't the only way to read something. An author's intentions shouldn't be the primary explanation of the writing, but one possible interpretation. If Charles Manson listens to Helter Skelter and thinks there are secret messages prophesying a race war, he isn't necessarily wrong, he's just reading the text through his own interpretation. Which you may or may not find relevant, on its own merits. The fact that Manson did not write the music of the Beatles doesn't mean his interpretation is wrong.

Authorial intent isn't the end of the discussion. But I think it should be at least part of it. Barthes took too hard of a position.