Where Is The Meaning: The Author, or The Words

            I was sitting in my class today and it started off like any other class day.  My professor walked into class ready to deliver a lecture.  She claims that her lectures “are really good”.  By really good, I believe that she means speaking so fast that it is hard for anyone in the class to digest her words.  Half the class does not even get a chance to participate because she is looking only to one section of the class at the time.  I forgot to mention the fact that we hardly have time to copy all the notes before she moves onto the next topic of discussion.  There was one thing that caught my attention as I packed my notebook into my backpack.  With my undivided attention, I straightened up in my seat to hear her say, “Theologians try to determine the intention of the author” (when referring to the Bible).  I remember thinking to myself that has to be the most pointless thing for a theologian to do.  Class was dismissed before I could raise my hand and  pose my inquiry but then my thoughts wandered to what was spoken in my Literary Theory and Criticism class about Roland Barthes’ essay, The Death of the Author, and Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Custom-House".

            In The Death of the Author, Roland Barthes discusses the role that the author plays in the meaning of the literature.  Barthes believes in New Criticism, which is to say that it does not matter who wrote the work.  Barthes states in his essay, “linguistics has recently provided the destruction of the Author with a valuable analytical tool by showing that the whole of the enunciation is an empty process, functioning perfectly without there being any need for it to be filled with the person of the interlocutors” (Barthes 145).  In this statement, Barthes is declaring that there need not be any consideration of the author upon reading the text.  The language itself projects its own meaning rather than the life story of the author.  Barthes furthermore states that, “The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination” (Barthes 148). This is very crucial to Barthes’ argument. The last line of the previous quote is saying that the text’s meaning does not lie with the author rather it lies in the readers.  It is up to the reader to determine the meaning of the work.  In a sense, it is a matter of individual perception because there may be two different interpretations for the same quote.  To end his essay, Barthes claims, “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” (Barthes 148).  Barthes uses figurative language to express his desires.  The author must not be taken into consideration when trying to decipher the true meaning of a work.

            Roland Barthes’ point is further enforced by Nathaniel Hawthorne in his preface to The Scarlet Letter.  Hawthorne’s preface, “The Custom-House”, emulates his reality. However Hawthorne uses a more sarcastic approach. Hawthorne was in the middle of the spot light when he wrote “The Custom-House”.  He had just been fired from his job by President Zachary Taylor.  Hawthorne proceeds to write The Scarlet Letter and its preface supports Roland Barthes’ “death to the Author” essay.  Hawthorne writes, “But, as thoughts are frozen and utterance benumbed, unless the speaker stand in some true relation with his audience… to imagine that a friend… is listening to our talk… we may prate of the circumstances that lie around us, and even of ourself, but still keep the inmost Me behind its veil” (Hawthorne 7).  In this statement, Hawthorne is taunting his audience because of the controversy that surrounds his expulsion from his job.  The reader wants to know about Hawthorne because they believe Hawthorne is writing about his reaction and his own experience.  Hawthorne responds by provoking the audience by the previous quote.  He is saying that authors may write about what surrounds them however they may not even be considering their true self.  They remain hidden behind a veil.  Hawthorne continues to support the idea that a should be “dead” when reading the work when he states, “Keeping up the metaphor of the political guillotine the whole may be considered as the POSTHUMOUS PAPERS OF A DECAPITATED SURVEYOR; and the sketch which I am now bringing to a close, if too autobiographical for a modest person to publish in his lifetime will readily be excused in a gentlemen that writes from beyond the grave” (Hawthorne 34). Hawthorne is joking about his firing from his job and he is saying that he is writing from beyond the grave.  This is to say that he is writing and that the literature should not be compared to his real life scenario.  The meaning of the literature is independent from the author’s jurisdiction. 

            This leads into my own personal take on the issue.  I agree with Hawthorne and Barthes that the author should not be considered when referring to the meaning of the work.  There are many interpretations to the simplest of things in the world.  When thinking about complex literature, there will be many different interpretations.  It is not the author’s interpretation that should take precedence.  It should be the reader’s own personal interpretation because it is what the reader believes.  The author is merely the instrument in which language conveys its meaning.  That is to say that the language has its own meaning that is independent of the author’s intention.  If the language is what is speaking, then the author is like a messenger.  The messenger delivers the message but the meaning comes from the words that are presented.  Therefore, I believe that the author should not be considered when talking about the meaning of a work for it is the words that provide the true meaning to what is being presented.

The video below is an illustration of Roland Barthes' essay, The Death of the Author

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Roland Barthes