There are always some exceptions, however I believe that majority of people like to get some information about the author of the book they're about to read. If we read a book purely for entertainment purposes, we may take a quick look at author's previous works, maybe reviews and critic's notes. However, if we need to deeply analyze certain individual's works to support our own opinion on a certain phenomenon, we run straight to the author's biography and check its background. Is it because we were always taught to do so, or is there actually a valuable source of information, hidden in the author's life. I am wondering, whether the piece of art, let it be a book, a sculpture or a painting, is a reflection of an author and what is the bonding connection between the creature and the creation...
A french literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes argues the prevailing opinion, and states that, for instance, writing and creator are unrelated. In his well known essay, named "Death of the Author" (1967), Barthes contradicts the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity — their political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes — to distill meaning from the author's work.
According to Barthes, this type of reading and analysis may be convenient and reasonable, however it is incorrect and even inappropriate. Readers must separate a literary work from its creator in order to liberate the text from the interpretative bias.
To be honest, this has never crossed my mind, since all my previous academic research on essays contained of analyzation of aspects of the author's identity, interpreting its life peripeteia and thus supporting my arguments.
All my life I have been taught to understand certain works only one way and not the other. I remember asking why, however tutors just smiled and used to say that it is just the way it is, that all the times, earlier and now, written pieces were explained and interpreted this way and we (students) are not competitive enough to argue this "ancient, sacred and inviolable" truth. Yet now I feel like I have been living the lie, since I completely agree with Barthes. He thinks, that the scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work and "is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate." Every work is "eternally written here and now," with each re-reading, because the "origin" of meaning lies exclusively in "language itself" and its impressions on the reader.
From now, my perception of interpretation and analysis has been changed forever.
A french literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes argues the prevailing opinion, and states that, for instance, writing and creator are unrelated. In his well known essay, named "Death of the Author" (1967), Barthes contradicts the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity — their political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes — to distill meaning from the author's work.
According to Barthes, this type of reading and analysis may be convenient and reasonable, however it is incorrect and even inappropriate. Readers must separate a literary work from its creator in order to liberate the text from the interpretative bias.
To be honest, this has never crossed my mind, since all my previous academic research on essays contained of analyzation of aspects of the author's identity, interpreting its life peripeteia and thus supporting my arguments.
All my life I have been taught to understand certain works only one way and not the other. I remember asking why, however tutors just smiled and used to say that it is just the way it is, that all the times, earlier and now, written pieces were explained and interpreted this way and we (students) are not competitive enough to argue this "ancient, sacred and inviolable" truth. Yet now I feel like I have been living the lie, since I completely agree with Barthes. He thinks, that the scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work and "is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate." Every work is "eternally written here and now," with each re-reading, because the "origin" of meaning lies exclusively in "language itself" and its impressions on the reader.
From now, my perception of interpretation and analysis has been changed forever.