Death of the Author, Roland Barthes 1977,he Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism BY: Jonathan Lethem

“Writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin. Writing is that neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body of the writing.”

It is through “capitalist ideology” where the reoccurrence of placing emphasis within the power of the author, almost “tyrannically” occurs, asserts Roland Barthes in “Death of the Author”. Authors have always been viewed as creators, “persons” with identity whose presence was felt within their work, Barthes thinks differently of this initiative. Instead he breaks down these ideologies, to allow for a different look at the past belief system, the same system that has been is use for many years, mostly pre-modern texts. He cites that the relationship of the author to his text is like placing them side, by side on a bookshelf, the author is to the text as a father is to his son. It is before, and during the writing process the author is dead and has no identity within the writings he/she writes. The writing of the author has nothing to do with what he/she is writing, it is the writing that is the performance it is the language, which conveys the meaning.

With the author dead, and his identity superfluous this gives great power to the audience, to the reader, to those for whom the piece is written for. “The birth of the reader must be the at the cost of the death of the author”. This power is asserted through the plethora of meaning found within and or through language, linguistics, and vocabulary. “Language being system and the aim of the movement being, romantically, a direct subversion of codes- itself moreover illusory: a code cannot be destroyed, only played ‘off’” Barthes insinuates that “code” is language, and the author merely chooses the code to be deciphered by the audience. Each audience member could interpret the code differently, allowing for many flowing, perhaps unintentional meanings to occur within one piece. It is because of this multi-reading that allows each audience member to take away something differently from the exact same text and the other.

Barthes believes that the diminishing influence of the author to the text will correlate into writing and reading modern texts differently. For if the author is dead, then perhaps the text will expand, the reader will be the emphasis for the purpose of writing and the audience’s perception will be taken into account more so. This demotion of power comes from Barthes belief that there is nothing original. Language, text, ideas are not original, they have all been used before, they will continue to be used, it is through the use that makes text, language and ideas so meaningful. Opening his essay, Barthes cites correlations between past authorships, which have taken from others and expounded. He notices the absence of the narrator within modern texts, and the mentions the double meanings used within Greek tragedy. It is this multiplicity that gives the reader the power to take away which ever personal emphasis they choose from their perspective. “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.”

The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism BY: Jonathan Lethem

In an attempt to claim creative ideas, copyright laws are now in place to transfer art into property. Jonathan Lethem sees this as an unnecessary need to monopolize on what should be part of the “commons”. “Commons”, Lethem explains are everyone’s “right” he connects this “right” through the writings of Thomas Jefferson and in connection to the Constitution. An authority given to congress through “the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries”, a power which ideally should be used to allow artists and scientist to have free range over expanding upon ideas, concepts, information, etc, from the past. Lethem cites that this discourse effects such work as medicine, finding cures for diseases which are obstructed because of genetic patents, through copyright laws securing ownership over scientific findings. Findings, with which if shared could further medical discoveries at a much faster rate. Our American tradition is held within the Constitution of the United States, which was written on the premise that it should and could always be amended. With such current copyright laws there will never be a possibility of drawing upon new ideas from the old without the use of such social “sharing”. To monopolize solely off of the rights of artistic creativity enables a generation to then rage against the machine, and work illegally to acquire information and art that should be a freedom to us all. How are we supposed to learn? How are we supposed to grow as a nation without such a freedom? Lethem even asks him readers to take advantage of his work after he has profited enough throughout the years, that’s how all-creative beings should be. For we would not be able to add to our own creativity without building upon the framework from the past, at least that what Barthes says.