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