The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Fordim Hedgethistle · 07-31-2005, 09:03 PM

A very interesting point Squatter but I've seen that argument about A-S critics and the anonymous/dead author before, and I must say that I'm suspicious of it. When Barthes declared the author dead he was not, of course, claiming that there is no author, but that from the point of view of the reader the Author (as the locus of meaning) is entirely inaccessible and irrelevant. He completes his argument, remember, with the famous phrase that "the author has always been dead".

In the A-S criticism I've seen (and here I am wandering off my ground...) there is a great deal of emphasis placed on the idea of the author, even though the texts are anonymous. "The Beowulf poet" is as compelling and interesting a presence behind that text (in the minds of the critics) as Tolkien is in the mind of many of his readers -- just because these critics don't know the name and occupation of the writer does not mean that they aren't interested in him (and I'm assuming it's a him). Consistent attention to the absence of the writer -- like the article you cite -- is simply another form of authorial-centric reading; the fact of the author's inscrutibility becomes just another way of focusing the reader's desire toward the author once more.

Please note that I am not claiming that Barthes is right and that all A-S critics are dupes to think that they 'got there first' -- I do tend to give Barthes argument a lot of credit, but only when I remember the whole argument (that the text comes alive and gains meaning within a social/political/interpersonal context that far surpasses the limits of any one individuality) rather than the media-friendly soundbite that is too often given to undergrads and to/by credulous reporters ("the author is dead!"). I am only trying to explain why I think that it might be a bit off the mark to claim that Tolkien's own view might have been in line with more contemporary theory.

That having been said, I could not agree more with your lovely summation of the reading/meaning experience. Like you I have always seen it as the site of negotiation between text and reader, with the opinions and 'intent' of the first reader (the author) as a useful perspective that we can use, or not, in broadening and adding subtlty to our own understanding.

07-31-2005, 09:03 PM	#505
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	A very interesting point Squatter but I've seen that argument about A-S critics and the anonymous/dead author before, and I must say that I'm suspicious of it. When Barthes declared the author dead he was not, of course, claiming that there is no author, but that from the point of view of the reader the Author (as the locus of meaning) is entirely inaccessible and irrelevant. He completes his argument, remember, with the famous phrase that "the author has always been dead". In the A-S criticism I've seen (and here I am wandering off my ground...) there is a great deal of emphasis placed on the idea of the author, even though the texts are anonymous. "The Beowulf poet" is as compelling and interesting a presence behind that text (in the minds of the critics) as Tolkien is in the mind of many of his readers -- just because these critics don't know the name and occupation of the writer does not mean that they aren't interested in him (and I'm assuming it's a him). Consistent attention to the absence of the writer -- like the article you cite -- is simply another form of authorial-centric reading; the fact of the author's inscrutibility becomes just another way of focusing the reader's desire toward the author once more. Please note that I am not claiming that Barthes is right and that all A-S critics are dupes to think that they 'got there first' -- I do tend to give Barthes argument a lot of credit, but only when I remember the whole argument (that the text comes alive and gains meaning within a social/political/interpersonal context that far surpasses the limits of any one individuality) rather than the media-friendly soundbite that is too often given to undergrads and to/by credulous reporters ("the author is dead!"). I am only trying to explain why I think that it might be a bit off the mark to claim that Tolkien's own view might have been in line with more contemporary theory. That having been said, I could not agree more with your lovely summation of the reading/meaning experience. Like you I have always seen it as the site of negotiation between text and reader, with the opinions and 'intent' of the first reader (the author) as a useful perspective that we can use, or not, in broadening and adding subtlty to our own understanding. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.