After reading Roland Barthes’ The Death of the Author I was confused. After hearing Band three’s presentation I was slightly less confused. Finally after reading Bridget’s post I feel I have a firm grasp on not only this section but Barthes’ text overall. I think her point that if the author was truly dead why put a name on the book is especially clarifying of Barthes’ intentions. I believe although Barthes’ assertions are significant in their depth it is far more important to realize Barthes’ tone. As Kate said it was and is “revolutionary.” Barthes would like to screw with our heads, attack our personal status quo in an effort to question our traditional ideas of language and literature. I think that so far it has worked. My previous ideas and beliefs seem superficial and translucent in comparison to my new attitude of accepting the Text as alive and in constant fluctuation. I think this idea of the Text being alive can be useful in understanding Barthes’ claim of the death of the author because what Barthes really means is that the author has changed. Now instead of the author being independent and original, with our explosion of information the author today is more of a historical character. He or she expands ideas instead of creating them. Now I completely disagree that the author has lost his or her ability to create because I feel as though we daily see new ideas coming in the form of art and science. However to say that Barthes doesn’t believe artists today can create original and unique works is cutting his argument short. I feel Barthes is using a relative tone to say that in comparison to authors of past history today’s artists borrow and to some extent steal too often from those of previous generations. Again I point to Barthes’ contradictions as evidence that he aims not at converting the reader but instead challenge him or her to think beyond even the most in depth reading to a kind impossible perfect understanding of the Text at any given instance. Barthes’ imperfections here only enhance his point that although we can never have a perfect understanding it should be our ultimate goal in any reading. My explanation still leaves something to be desired which is where perhaps we can attain a kind of momentary knowledge because Barthes seems to believe that focusing on that which we can never know is the first step towards this kind of perfect knowledge.

-Jordan Diaz

Bridget Post 4: Am I, too, Dead??

This week’s discussion on Barthes’ The Death of the Author, was one that I found to be really interesting yet questionable. In class, during Band 3’s presentation, all the talk of the author having to be separated from the text caused me to pose the question of how are we supposed to truly know what Barthes meant in his writings if we are supposed treat the text as if it’s author is dead? I mean, how are we truly supposed to know that the way we are interpreting the text is the right way, or even the way he wanted it?

Perhaps, the key to understanding this section is to think of it in terms of the author not being able to own the text once he or she has produced it. I think I sort of tackled this in a previous blog when I was discussing how I even though I am sitting here documenting my thoughts on a topic as I type these words, once I press the post button, I no longer exist in relation to it. Because of the context of this writing, most people who read this are going to have no clue who I am, what I believe, or even what kind of experiences I’ve had to make me view the world the way I do. So, in this case, I would truly be dead to the reader because they would have no reason to associate me as the author, and my life experiences, with the text.

I completely agreed with and understood where Barthes’ was coming from when Elena explained the theory of surrealism and how a single text does not truly belong to the person who wrote it because it is influenced by the ideas of many, similar to how many people are involved in the production of a film. However, if the author is not able to lay claim to a text because of that reason, why even put a name on a text at all? Why not attribute every text to entire societies, rather than one person? Perhaps the answer to that last question is because people obviously want recognition for their work. Even though their theories, ideas, and views of the world may be based on ideas stemming from the society around them, in some cases it still was that one person who chose to take the time to document it. Therefore, now that I think about it, I think it is appropriate to say that the author is dead because death symbolizes something that was once there has been completely removed, never to return again. This is essentially what the author is to the text, an entity that was once there, living, breathing with the text as he or she created it, but then died when the text was released in to the world and became an entity of its own.

Chase's Blog

This viewing of The Shining was different from my past viewings. As I watched it and thought about all the cinematography techniques that were used, the film changed for me completely.  I agree with Jordan about the camera angles used throughout the movie, without the creative positioning I feel the movie would lose a lot of character and suspense.  The angles do form some sort of language or code, a certain mood is transferred while watching the movie.  I never noticed the redness before we talked about it in class, but going back and looking at the movie now, it is so noticeable.  Jack Nicholson was the perfect choice for his character, his facial expressions are dead on for every mood he is supposed to be portraying.  When I think about the spacial cinematography in this movie I think of really wide shots. The landscape where the hotel is and the magnitude of the hotel itself come to mind.  On the other hand, close up shots like the one of Jack putting his head through the door are ingrained in my mind.  Although the wife is a victim in this movie, I always feel so annoyed with her every time I view the film.  I cannot pinpoint exactly what makes me dislike her, but unfortunately I can't stand her.  One of the most interesting parts of the movie is the Gold Room, especially when you get to the end of the movie and see the photograph with a young jack standing in the center.  I find the movie very predictable, but the way it was shot creates a suspenseful mood that pulls me into the movie completely. When Danny and Jack are in the maze, the lighting obviously becomes more dark and sinister and you really get a cold, horrible, scary feeling as you watch the two work through the maze.

This was perhaps my fifth or sixth viewing of Stanley Kubrick’s haunting vision of Stephen King’s classic tale of a hotel caretaker gone cuckoo, The Shining. This viewing was every bit as chilling as my previous. The film is so well edited and timed, especially for something from the horror genre. Kubrick’s ability to create tension is one of a kind. It starts from the opening curtain with the revolutionary long shots of the Colorado mountainside and continues through to the use of off screen space in the later parts of the film. Kubrick also employs different lighting techniques to accentuate his film. In class we discussed the redness of not only the scenery but the red light that often floods the lens. The film also is very well focused, especially the long open shots inside the hotel. I think of Jack throwing the tennis ball and the boy riding around on the tricycle. Kubrick truly has a knack for keeping tracking shots in line and well focused. Even in stationary shots Kubrick’s uses different angles to add tension and drama. I think of when Jack is in the freezer and the camera is on the ground angled up towards him. The scene that most impresses me is when the young boy sees the door to room two-thirty-seven open and Kubrick uses a mirror to show that the room is most certainly not empty. Although we never see the boy enter the room we can infer by Kubrick’s cinematography that he does enter and encounters some evil inside. This is a crucial point because the film is able to tell a story without language, only image and sound. My previous sentence got me thinking though, is cinematography not a form of language? Just by how a camera is angled we can tell a lot about the story a film is telling. Perhaps the difficulty in understanding language is that too often we believe it to be only the spoken language and not the signs we see in other aspects of communication.