Hi all! Thanks for watching, I hope you found the video helpful in some way! If you'd like to support me to make more videos like this, and to influence what topics I cover next, then I've just launched a Patreon. I'd love it if you'd take the time to check it out and, if you're able, would really appreciate your support! Check it out here: www.patreon.com/tomnicholas
Hey Tom, great video! I did my own video essay about this topic, care to give it a watch! It would be amazing to hear your thoughts! ruclips.net/video/boWvRNCD7rE/видео.html
Your interpretation resonates to me: Age 79 I was TKO'd by a BMW and shouldn't have lived. To that point I'd tried futilely to grasp ALL THE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. Since, with reduced options available I can no longer try to account for every interpretive possibility. A tough lesson I DON'T RECOMMEND but reassuring nonetheless. Thanks, Amigo :)
I think you did a fantastic job in explaining Barthes' essay. I am always pleased to see very young people explaining such intricate ideas making the most difficult concepts seem easy and approacheable.
Hey Tom! Just wanted to let you know that you've saved my butt this entire academic year and I really wanted to tell you how much of a life saver you are! Thank you for your time and efforts! See you in the next video.
I was so confused while reading this essay. I almost cried because i couldn't understand this but you my friend are a god of explaining the most difficult topics! Thank you so much! and of course I definitely subscribed to your channel! you will be my lifesaver for my literary theory course!
four years later after you've posted this and just want you to know that I appreciate your work in this video. I'm taking my first university Book History class and struggling so much with feeling I'm not intelligent enough to understand these works. but this really helps me frame the passage better, thank you thank you thank you!!
It baffles me why people think that humans can't do two things. You can only find your interpretation of a story or you can search for the author’s intent but never shall you attempt to do both. Clearly, great authors have intent lest their works be on par to cheap pulp novels or a disjointed series of events that have the illusion of having relevance such as a Matthew Blarney film. Finding the message in fantastic works is enjoyable while allowing me to find my own personal interpretations. In cinema, David Lynch tells a story using metaphor and abstract imagery which lends itself to interpretation while seeking to know the author's intent. See, we can do two things. Not impossible unless you’re a lazy thinker.
I don't think it's about whether or not we can do both or that if we should do just one. The idea is that even if one as a writer comes to his narrative with an intention, he/she cannot deny or for that matter escape the effect of social constructs and conditioning on his/ ideas. In this very essay, Barthes for example repeatedly says that other than the author, it is the LANGUAGE which speaks. Language in itself is a politically constructed thing. In a way, the tool that I might use as a writer to write my INTENTION is already very much not so pure. It doesn't matter what I came to the text with, as Whimsat and Beardsley said , if the author intends it, it will be there. So when one analyses a text without considering the existence of the author, every single meaning is sought. The idea at large is to disregard the sense of A centre. An Author-God.
Lynch is the most abstract film maker with any clout and even he gets pissed when people misread his stuff. He wants people to feel specific things. It's a brand of story and he has intent on what he wants to convey. And his stories are notorious for having a huge range of fan theories that go completely against his intent.
@@asmafirdous1473 I think the main question here relates to how humans take possession of things or what ownership means. While it's completely legitimate to frame things as Barthes did, that the cultural context has a huge influence on your ideas, themes and methods, which thereby aren't your own, one could also argue that good authors actually take possession of those things, because they're not merely reproducing them but adding to them and by employing them as an instrument/tool to write the story with they take possession of them. An author that fails to take possession of these things on the other hand merely employs them in a sort of formulaic and normative way, not because he thinks they can serve him but because he thinks he has to, ultimately serving them.
Thanks for watching all! If you want more of that sweet sweet Roland Barthes content then I made a video a while back on his essay From Work To Text which might be of interest: ruclips.net/video/bMUDGRvVOLg/видео.html
I’m reading Mary Kate’s “The Art of Memoir” . Her approach is based on the relationship the writer has with h/er reader. All questions of structure and style are decided by what feelings the reader gets from the piece. In her memoirs she declares she revises her work ruthlessly ;dates places, all relevant data from the public record, and then shows the current draft of her memoir to the people mentioned.
You did a great explanation of this essay. I like how you give us the big picture of the essay (context) and you then delve into the vital parts. Thanks a lot!
Hello Tom! I’ve already liked and subscribed, but wanted to further reach out to express my gratitude for this channel. I’m an actor at drama school, so in purely vocational training. But I have a huge interest in the more academic side of theatre, literature, and culture. Your channel has helped enabled me to help educate myself outside of my training! Thank you so much!
Ah, cheers for saying so Maceo. Always nice to hear from a fellow theatre person too! Hope your training's going well. I'd certainly say that, if you want to make your own work on graduating, then a curiosity to learn is always a good thing!
Your videos are so, so helpful! This October I'll be starting my MA in English Lit after a 7 year break from university study and I'm trying to blow off the cobwebs. Thank you for all that you do, you're definitely helping me refresh my brain!
I wonder how Bart would've felt if he realized that his writings would be end up with as many different interpretations as the fiction he was talking about analyzing. I have seen the "death of the author" used by readers to explain their love of classic fiction; by filmmakers to justify completely ignoring the themes of an original work and to enforce their own world view on adaptation; and by the film industry in general to excuse reducing the input screenwriters have on a film to "somewhere below what test audiences have to say about it". Like all theories about interpretation, it can used constructively or destructively. The goal is not to let any one theory of literature adaptation dominate your thinking to the point that you close your mind to alternate interpretations of the text.
I really enjoyed this analysis, I'm currently studying Fine Art in college, and some of these readings can be really difficult to decipher upon first glance. Glad I have a literary pro to help me understand what I should be getting from these readings, really helps me put them in context for my courses.
Thank you so much for this! I found the text almost completely inaccessible. Barthes ought to have written his text as you explained it, with consumable language and examples. The entire time I was reading it I had to translate from a different kind of English before then trying to comprehend it, and it was far more laborious than it should/could have been.
Thank you very much. Very useful video. Some of my teachers have made the assumpation that Barthes was against authorship（authoritarian）... Glad I watched this one.
Thanks for saying so! I think there's a tendency to introduce it as a slightly more uncompromising text than it is in order to make it a bit more exciting. I can see why some do so and Barthes certaintly doesn't discourage that with his choice of language! But I actually think it's more useful to focus on its subtleties.
@@Tom_Nicholas Thanks for your kind reply. I have been following your channel for six months and I watched all your videos. What The theory, Politix and PhD vlogs are my favorites. Any chance for you to do a Scottish theatre intro? I am planning to do a reseach on Scottish theatre and I will be thrilled to get some advice from such knowledgeable person like you. Thanks again from China.
Thank you so much. I struggle with theory so much and this video puts things down so simply i can go back and read with all the important details in mind!!
if the author intends their work to primarily be subject to the interpretation of the reader, that's fine... but, if the author intended to express something complex, it's the reader's responsibility to make as much effort possible to understand and adhere to the author's vision... if a reader enjoys the way other people's words happen to coincide with what they're already comfortable and familiar with, they'll never be forced to see things from another point of view, i.e. a fundamental power of authorship
Why should it be the reader's responsibility to adhere to the author's vision. If the text tells me one thing but the author says another, the thing that's important is the text, right? If I write "I like blue" but when you ask me about it, I say "no, it actually means I like red", then what is anyone supposed to reasonably conclude?
@@edg4rallanbro753 you're performing the exact mistake I was speaking about. I said read the author's words like a complex math function, don't apply your own safe and comfortable beliefs to the text - then you did exactly that, you applied your safe belief that the author's vision and words must not match, which I never implied, in fact I said the opposite: read the words as though gospel, don't re-interpret them through your own vocabulary as much as possible
@@ytubeanon No, I'm responding specifically to "if the author intended to express something complex, it's the reader's responsibility to make as much effort possible to understand and adhere to the author's vision" If the author wants to express something complex, that's fine. Great even. But is it on the reader to understand the author's vision? By no means. It's on the author to use their words carefully to express those thoughts. The reader doesn't have the author's vision to work with, they only have the author's words.
@@edg4rallanbro753 if you're unwilling to learn something new without being perfectly spoonfed or incapable of expanding your mind that's up to you, people don't go far in life with that attitude
Thanks so much! I've just started uni and this has made my approach to Barthes much more comfortable. Last week's reading on Shakespeare took me four days to unpack- this is incredibly helpful. Thankyou- creator of AOQR, Mandy Connell.
I do so ever like it when influential text are short and simple, makes it easier for me XD. Really tho I do like the arguments, and you presented them well as always- thank you💜. I feel I have a much more solid grasp on structuralism now. Time to move to the next training arc that is post-structuralism~
Thank you very much for this. This theory is my main point of reference for my dissertation. Your video's really helped me get my head around the whole thing! X
This of course, can be generalized to other artforms such as music and painting. Many a wasted hour has a teenager spent trying to understand what their favorite singer meant in their favorite song.
As a writer of fiction and scholarship, that’s the beauty of literature and the three-way relationship between author, text, and reader. If we limit scholarship to the lens of the author’s beliefs then we cut short the opportunity of discovery with what the text says on its own. Ten people can read the same story and deliver ten meanings, all different from the author’s understanding of their own writing. Those ten meanings deserved to be investigated and understood for their individual significance and the significance they offer the wider world. Few authors who do or strive to write higher fiction ascribe a set meaning to their writing. It would be a fruitless attempt as others delve into their writing to uncover various meaning neither known or intentioned by the author.
@Mike Kane see you’re missing the point of Roland’s argument. In “Death of the Author,” the intention of the author is irrelevant. Take Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener.” If I wrote a paper saying that he was illiterate and his obstinacy is a manifestation of his poverty, as long as I have solid textual evidence, I can do that. Herman Melville could rise from the grave and tell me I’m entirely wrong, but with Roland’s ideas, it doesn’t matter what Melville says. The Tolkien Society recently had a conference with the theme of diversity. I’d look up those papers to see what we’re getting at. Also, a text rarely ever has one single meaning. There’s always something in there the author didn’t intend.
Your comment regarding ancient greece sprung to my mind as well. However, how does this states itself in regard to the authors of tragedy and comedy? They were widely celebrated for the masterpiece they created and the actors in the piece have a more comparable role as to being graced for their performance but not for their ''genius of creation''.
It's certainly ironic that although the audiences of Greek theater knew the stories through myth and legends, they nevertheless celebrated the skill of individual playwrights through annual contests and festivals which went on for days.
Thank you for such an excellent explanation! Would it be possible to give an example of a film, other than Martin McDonagh's 2017 'Three Billboards outside Ebbing Missouri' ?
Thank you for the explanation. As someone who enjoys writing about a world from her imagination and challenging herself to new writing techniques, I can now say I have no interest in ever publishing. This gives new meaning to writing just for me.
This is interesting, thank you for the video. I am currently doing an essay on a structuralist analysis to a poem. Can I still use this Barthes essay to support my structuralist points or will it contradict the whole point of structuralism? Also, how can I speak about context and the poets personal life without contradicting structuralism? Thanks!
There's a lot of crossover and discrepancy between the two (although we like to place these things on clear developmental lines, they rarely actually work that way). Although there is some recognition of the "intentional fallacy" among the New Critics, in practice there is a good deal of interest in authorial intent (TS Eliot's work being a good example of this). In fact, Barthes actively calls out the New Critics in The Death of the Author as having made the obsession over authorial authority worse.
Thanks Mr Moose! Really appreciate you saying so, I always have a moment of doubt the moment I upload so it's always great to get some positive feedback!
Two of the great lyricists of our era, Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, take a similar view as Barthes' (and to the ancients) in regard as to their claim on authorship of their creations.
Thanks! I do try to occasionally touch on visual art and am keen to do a set of videos on aesthetics in the near future which will likely look a lot at visual art. It's always something I've been a bit hesitant to do as I'm far less knowledgeable about visual art than narrative-based stuff. Certainly keen to give it a try in the future though!
Well, yes, these videos are always going to be incomplete in some way (and I would never encourage people to watch them instead of reading the original text(s)) but glad you found it a good summary!
You keep insisting Barthes was not trying to be fatalist with this, that it was not meant to be a downfall, but... he titled it "Death of the Author". It is kind of brutal in it's title ngl. I even wonder how many authors would oppose what this proposes, not so much cuz they disagree with it but cuz it's so aggresive and assaulting on the title alone, well I as an artist feel kinda attacked right now honestly.
" Yet his method is ingenious: by interpreting visual media and practical phenomena in terms of linguistics, he appropriates them for language itself; by making linguistics the basis of a sociopolitical analyses of the world, he defines the very production of analysis as a radically progressive act. The sublime arrogance-the reversal of roles, by which the makers of images and spectacles, of books and toys are turned, in effect, into passive vessels of implicit doctrine and their Barthesian analysts are the active revolutionaries-accounts for much of the book’s appeal."
Hi Tom, found this video really insightful! Your ideas on the importance of cultural context was particularly interesting - how big a part do you think cultural context plays a part in novels, poetry and other works? Another thought could perhaps be whether we should limit context to only the cultural side, or whether it should extend to society and background contextual factors as well. Would you also perhaps consider doing videos on eco-criticism and also different types of feminist criticism such as gynocriticism or phallocenticism? xx
Can a story be wrong? As opposed to having weak or ineffective elements such as its ending, or being perceived as having an immoral message? Or is a story simply what it is, and it's presumed to be on purpose, so it shouldn't change or have been different? I've been debating with a friend whether a certain story should have had a different ending.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi all! Thanks for watching, I hope you found the video helpful in some way! If you'd like to support me to make more videos like this, and to influence what topics I cover next, then I've just launched a Patreon. I'd love it if you'd take the time to check it out and, if you're able, would really appreciate your support! Check it out here: www.patreon.com/tomnicholas
Hey Tom, great video! I did my own video essay about this topic, care to give it a watch! It would be amazing to hear your thoughts! ruclips.net/video/boWvRNCD7rE/видео.html
Your interpretation resonates to me: Age 79 I was TKO'd by a BMW and shouldn't have lived. To that point I'd tried futilely to grasp ALL THE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. Since, with reduced options available I can no longer try to account for every interpretive possibility. A tough lesson I DON'T RECOMMEND but reassuring nonetheless. Thanks, Amigo :)
I thought my theory exam was going to be the death of me, not the author. But then I found your your videos. Thank you!!!!!!
🤣
This joke aged well hahahaha
Hey man just wanted to say I think it's great that you do this - there's literally no book reviewers or analysers on RUclips and this is amazing
Ah, thanks for dropping by to say so, really appreciate it! Really glad you get something out of them!
God bless you Tom. You've been helping me out through high school... Noww I'm in college.
5:23 barthes, importance of cultural context
9:13 aspect of the essay
9:27 Whimsatt and breadley intentional fallacy
11:28 Balzac sarrasine
I think you did a fantastic job in explaining Barthes' essay. I am always pleased to see very young people explaining such intricate ideas making the most difficult concepts seem easy and approacheable.
Hey Tom! Just wanted to let you know that you've saved my butt this entire academic year and I really wanted to tell you how much of a life saver you are! Thank you for your time and efforts! See you in the next video.
I was so confused while reading this essay. I almost cried because i couldn't understand this but you my friend are a god of explaining the most difficult topics! Thank you so much! and of course I definitely subscribed to your channel! you will be my lifesaver for my literary theory course!
four years later after you've posted this and just want you to know that I appreciate your work in this video. I'm taking my first university Book History class and struggling so much with feeling I'm not intelligent enough to understand these works. but this really helps me frame the passage better, thank you thank you thank you!!
You're the savior of my History of Literature exam.
I love you.
Thanks for the videos!
It baffles me why people think that humans can't do two things. You can only find your interpretation of a story or you can search for the author’s intent but never shall you attempt to do both. Clearly, great authors have intent lest their works be on par to cheap pulp novels or a disjointed series of events that have the illusion of having relevance such as a Matthew Blarney film. Finding the message in fantastic works is enjoyable while allowing me to find my own personal interpretations. In cinema, David Lynch tells a story using metaphor and abstract imagery which lends itself to interpretation while seeking to know the author's intent. See, we can do two things. Not impossible unless you’re a lazy thinker.
Absolutely, both approaches can be interesting.
I don't think it's about whether or not we can do both or that if we should do just one. The idea is that even if one as a writer comes to his narrative with an intention, he/she cannot deny or for that matter escape the effect of social constructs and conditioning on his/ ideas. In this very essay, Barthes for example repeatedly says that other than the author, it is the LANGUAGE which speaks. Language in itself is a politically constructed thing. In a way, the tool that I might use as a writer to write my INTENTION is already very much not so pure. It doesn't matter what I came to the text with, as Whimsat and Beardsley said , if the author intends it, it will be there. So when one analyses a text without considering the existence of the author, every single meaning is sought. The idea at large is to disregard the sense of A centre. An Author-God.
Lynch is the most abstract film maker with any clout and even he gets pissed when people misread his stuff. He wants people to feel specific things. It's a brand of story and he has intent on what he wants to convey. And his stories are notorious for having a huge range of fan theories that go completely against his intent.
@@asmafirdous1473 I think the main question here relates to how humans take possession of things or what ownership means.
While it's completely legitimate to frame things as Barthes did, that the cultural context has a huge influence on your ideas, themes and methods, which thereby aren't your own, one could also argue that good authors actually take possession of those things, because they're not merely reproducing them but adding to them and by employing them as an instrument/tool to write the story with they take possession of them.
An author that fails to take possession of these things on the other hand merely employs them in a sort of formulaic and normative way, not because he thinks they can serve him but because he thinks he has to, ultimately serving them.
Thanks for watching all! If you want more of that sweet sweet Roland Barthes content then I made a video a while back on his essay From Work To Text which might be of interest: ruclips.net/video/bMUDGRvVOLg/видео.html
So funny that you said. Sweet sweet Roland barthe.but thanks to you, I start to understand a little of him and regard him cute:D
I’m reading Mary Kate’s “The Art of Memoir” . Her approach is based on the relationship the writer has with h/er reader. All questions of structure and style are decided by what feelings the reader gets from the piece. In her memoirs she declares she revises her work ruthlessly ;dates places, all relevant data from the public record, and then shows the current draft of her memoir to the people mentioned.
This must be one of your best explanatory videos. Every comment you made was to the point!
You did a great explanation of this essay. I like how you give us the big picture of the essay (context) and you then delve into the vital parts. Thanks a lot!
Hello Tom! I’ve already liked and subscribed, but wanted to further reach out to express my gratitude for this channel. I’m an actor at drama school, so in purely vocational training. But I have a huge interest in the more academic side of theatre, literature, and culture. Your channel has helped enabled me to help educate myself outside of my training! Thank you so much!
Ah, cheers for saying so Maceo. Always nice to hear from a fellow theatre person too! Hope your training's going well. I'd certainly say that, if you want to make your own work on graduating, then a curiosity to learn is always a good thing!
Your videos are so, so helpful! This October I'll be starting my MA in English Lit after a 7 year break from university study and I'm trying to blow off the cobwebs. Thank you for all that you do, you're definitely helping me refresh my brain!
Thanks!
I wonder how Bart would've felt if he realized that his writings would be end up with as many different interpretations as the fiction he was talking about analyzing. I have seen the "death of the author" used by readers to explain their love of classic fiction; by filmmakers to justify completely ignoring the themes of an original work and to enforce their own world view on adaptation; and by the film industry in general to excuse reducing the input screenwriters have on a film to "somewhere below what test audiences have to say about it". Like all theories about interpretation, it can used constructively or destructively. The goal is not to let any one theory of literature adaptation dominate your thinking to the point that you close your mind to alternate interpretations of the text.
I really enjoyed this analysis, I'm currently studying Fine Art in college, and some of these readings can be really difficult to decipher upon first glance. Glad I have a literary pro to help me understand what I should be getting from these readings, really helps me put them in context for my courses.
Thank you so much for this! I found the text almost completely inaccessible. Barthes ought to have written his text as you explained it, with consumable language and examples. The entire time I was reading it I had to translate from a different kind of English before then trying to comprehend it, and it was far more laborious than it should/could have been.
Dude wrote it in French. I know there's a lot of loan words, but no wonder you had to translate.
A very clear and well-organised summary, besides, your language and accent are wonderful. A valuable contribution to youtube! Thanks a lot Tom!
Thanks for your kind words, I'm glad you liked the video!
Thank you Tom! This video was really helpful. Your use of hand gestures while explaining the text is really impressive.
Thank you. Your analysis is clear, succinct and intelligent. I needed this video in order to understand my homework this week.
Thank you very much. Very useful video. Some of my teachers have made the assumpation that Barthes was against authorship（authoritarian）... Glad I watched this one.
Thanks for saying so! I think there's a tendency to introduce it as a slightly more uncompromising text than it is in order to make it a bit more exciting. I can see why some do so and Barthes certaintly doesn't discourage that with his choice of language! But I actually think it's more useful to focus on its subtleties.
@@Tom_Nicholas Thanks for your kind reply. I have been following your channel for six months and I watched all your videos. What The theory, Politix and PhD vlogs are my favorites. Any chance for you to do a Scottish theatre intro? I am planning to do a reseach on Scottish theatre and I will be thrilled to get some advice from such knowledgeable person like you. Thanks again from China.
Danke!
Learned a hell of a lot binge watching Tom's channel
Thank you so much. I struggle with theory so much and this video puts things down so simply i can go back and read with all the important details in mind!!
Thank you, Tom. I've heard the term before but now for the first time understand what it means. It's a fascinating concept and makes a lot of sence.
Great video. Just watched Mulholland Drive last night and your video very much helped me make sense of it all. Keep up the good work
I've never actually seen Mullholland Drive. It's been on my to-be-watched list for a long time but I'm yet to get round to it. Perhaps I should!
Please never stop making this videos
Excellent concise and clear deconstruction of the meaning of deconstructionism.
if the author intends their work to primarily be subject to the interpretation of the reader, that's fine... but, if the author intended to express something complex, it's the reader's responsibility to make as much effort possible to understand and adhere to the author's vision... if a reader enjoys the way other people's words happen to coincide with what they're already comfortable and familiar with, they'll never be forced to see things from another point of view, i.e. a fundamental power of authorship
Why should it be the reader's responsibility to adhere to the author's vision. If the text tells me one thing but the author says another, the thing that's important is the text, right? If I write "I like blue" but when you ask me about it, I say "no, it actually means I like red", then what is anyone supposed to reasonably conclude?
@@edg4rallanbro753 you're performing the exact mistake I was speaking about. I said read the author's words like a complex math function, don't apply your own safe and comfortable beliefs to the text - then you did exactly that, you applied your safe belief that the author's vision and words must not match, which I never implied, in fact I said the opposite: read the words as though gospel, don't re-interpret them through your own vocabulary as much as possible
@@ytubeanon No, I'm responding specifically to "if the author intended to express something complex, it's the reader's responsibility to make as much effort possible to understand and adhere to the author's vision"
If the author wants to express something complex, that's fine. Great even. But is it on the reader to understand the author's vision? By no means. It's on the author to use their words carefully to express those thoughts. The reader doesn't have the author's vision to work with, they only have the author's words.
@@edg4rallanbro753 if you're unwilling to learn something new without being perfectly spoonfed or incapable of expanding your mind that's up to you, people don't go far in life with that attitude
Nice work, my teacher showed us this video today
This is so concise and clear thank you so much Tom!!!
I really appreciate this video. I have to write a paper on this theory and now I feel ready to ace it. Thanks for the help.
Thanks so much! I've just started uni and this has made my approach to Barthes much more comfortable. Last week's reading on Shakespeare took me four days to unpack- this is incredibly helpful. Thankyou- creator of AOQR, Mandy Connell.
The video was incredibly helpful! Thank you for this!
Your explanation is very clear and understandable. Thank you very much!
I do so ever like it when influential text are short and simple, makes it easier for me XD. Really tho I do like the arguments, and you presented them well as always- thank you💜. I feel I have a much more solid grasp on structuralism now. Time to move to the next training arc that is post-structuralism~
Thank you very much for this. This theory is my main point of reference for my dissertation. Your video's really helped me get my head around the whole thing! X
You are amazingg!! Thank you so much for these videos, they are literally helping me through my literary theory course :'(
Love your interpretations Tom, great work
Thanks Adam, really appreciate you saying so!
Very concise and comprehensive! Thank you!
I really appreciate your efforts. the video was a very useful, well-formulated one. thanks and create more . Fingers crossed
Thank you so much for making this. It's been a great help!
I’m so glad Joanne! Thanks for saying so!
omg thank you! you explained this way better in 15 minutes than my professor attempted to in 2 hours
This of course, can be generalized to other artforms such as music and painting. Many a wasted hour has a teenager spent trying to understand what their favorite singer meant in their favorite song.
My God. You really know what you’re talking about. Thanks for making this video!
Awesome intro to a key text. Good one. Thumbs up for you!
Ah, thank you, appreciate you saying so! And thanks for the thumbs up!
Imagine spending months to years of blood, sweat, time, and work onto a piece of fictional brilliance only to have no say in what it means to you.
You already spend years, blood, sweat, time, and work doing just that. Suck it.
As a writer of fiction and scholarship, that’s the beauty of literature and the three-way relationship between author, text, and reader. If we limit scholarship to the lens of the author’s beliefs then we cut short the opportunity of discovery with what the text says on its own. Ten people can read the same story and deliver ten meanings, all different from the author’s understanding of their own writing. Those ten meanings deserved to be investigated and understood for their individual significance and the significance they offer the wider world. Few authors who do or strive to write higher fiction ascribe a set meaning to their writing. It would be a fruitless attempt as others delve into their writing to uncover various meaning neither known or intentioned by the author.
@Mike Kane see you’re missing the point of Roland’s argument. In “Death of the Author,” the intention of the author is irrelevant. Take Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener.” If I wrote a paper saying that he was illiterate and his obstinacy is a manifestation of his poverty, as long as I have solid textual evidence, I can do that. Herman Melville could rise from the grave and tell me I’m entirely wrong, but with Roland’s ideas, it doesn’t matter what Melville says. The Tolkien Society recently had a conference with the theme of diversity. I’d look up those papers to see what we’re getting at. Also, a text rarely ever has one single meaning. There’s always something in there the author didn’t intend.
This is why contextualizing the content is highly crucial for a clear and precise message if that is what the author wants to do.
Imagine spending months to years of blood, sweat, time, and work onto a creation only to be pissed off that people are celebrating a creation as-is?
I found this presentation useful and interesting and followed every word. Thank you.
I'm very glad Narasimhan, thanks for taking the time to say so!
Tom, you remind me of Iwan Rheon (Ramsay Bolton)
Haha, I get that a lot on here! Never in real like though so I think it might be a case of vague vague similarity plus British accent...
@@Tom_Nicholas people are much more frank online haha, sorry. don't flay me!
@@Tom_Nicholas Yeah..You exactly look like Bolton!
Have you watched GoT?
Domeric Bolton fancast
I needed this for a uni essay. Thank you Tom!
THANK YOU TOM. Very well explained!
excellent analysis and interpretation👍
I love your videos and analysis Tom, greetings from Mexico!
Thanks Hector, really glad you've got something out of my videos!
My master's exams are from 13 Feb.... And here I am.... Very helpful 👍
Fascinating and insightful review.
Thank you for the clear explanation.
Your comment regarding ancient greece sprung to my mind as well. However, how does this states itself in regard to the authors of tragedy and comedy? They were widely celebrated for the masterpiece they created and the actors in the piece have a more comparable role as to being graced for their performance but not for their ''genius of creation''.
clearly explained and perfect lecture
Thank you Tom 😊
It's really helpful. Thank you❤
It's certainly ironic that although the audiences of Greek theater knew the stories through myth and legends, they nevertheless celebrated the skill of individual playwrights through annual contests and festivals which went on for days.
That was great help! Thank you so much!!
Thanks for posting!
Thank you for such an excellent explanation! Would it be possible to give an example of a film, other than Martin McDonagh's 2017 'Three Billboards outside Ebbing Missouri' ?
Thank you for the explanation. As someone who enjoys writing about a world from her imagination and challenging herself to new writing techniques, I can now say I have no interest in ever publishing. This gives new meaning to writing just for me.
I think I understand but can you explain a little?
Thank you so much!! Do you have a video on Wolfgang Iser's Reader-Response Theory?
No worries at all! And I don’t yet but it’s very likely something I’ll make in the future!
I give you a first class for this presentation. Excellent! you will make a fantastic teacher
What about intransitive writing please?
This is interesting, thank you for the video. I am currently doing an essay on a structuralist analysis to a poem. Can I still use this Barthes essay to support my structuralist points or will it contradict the whole point of structuralism? Also, how can I speak about context and the poets personal life without contradicting structuralism? Thanks!
This was an excellent analysis and explanation. Thank you!
Cheers for saying so Jonathan!
Hello thank you for all ,I have a question can I analyse a film using only the five rules of Ronald barth or should I use cinematography
This was awesome! Thanks so much
You’ve made an impossible essay more digestible, thanks
What is the difference between Death of the Author and New Criticism?. Is there a crucial difference that separates them?.
There's a lot of crossover and discrepancy between the two (although we like to place these things on clear developmental lines, they rarely actually work that way). Although there is some recognition of the "intentional fallacy" among the New Critics, in practice there is a good deal of interest in authorial intent (TS Eliot's work being a good example of this). In fact, Barthes actively calls out the New Critics in The Death of the Author as having made the obsession over authorial authority worse.
Thanks Tom. Greatings from Brazil.
No worries Rafael, hope you found it interesting!
Just to echo the comments of others ... fab stuff: clear, knowledgable, accessible. Thanks.
Thanks Mr Moose! Really appreciate you saying so, I always have a moment of doubt the moment I upload so it's always great to get some positive feedback!
Hey, can you suggest some critical reading with regard to Death of the Author?
Two of the great lyricists of our era, Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, take a similar view as Barthes' (and to the ancients) in regard as to their claim on authorship of their creations.
Very helpful, thank you! 💗
Wonderful video. I would love to see an art theory video at some point (preferably on an affective theory of art like tolstoy's).
Thanks! I do try to occasionally touch on visual art and am keen to do a set of videos on aesthetics in the near future which will likely look a lot at visual art. It's always something I've been a bit hesitant to do as I'm far less knowledgeable about visual art than narrative-based stuff. Certainly keen to give it a try in the future though!
Very nice intro ❤
Very helpful, thanks so much
My uni have thrown a cultural analysis module at me (even though i'm a business student) and this channel has been my saviour. Thanks dude!!
That's very essential; very useful, and, so I think, the best one can do in twenty minutes, but incomplete on the other side.
Well, yes, these videos are always going to be incomplete in some way (and I would never encourage people to watch them instead of reading the original text(s)) but glad you found it a good summary!
You keep insisting Barthes was not trying to be fatalist with this, that it was not meant to be a downfall, but... he titled it "Death of the Author". It is kind of brutal in it's title ngl.
I even wonder how many authors would oppose what this proposes, not so much cuz they disagree with it but cuz it's so aggresive and assaulting on the title alone, well I as an artist feel kinda attacked right now honestly.
" Yet his method is ingenious: by interpreting visual media and practical phenomena in terms of linguistics, he appropriates them for language itself; by making linguistics the basis of a sociopolitical analyses of the world, he defines the very production of analysis as a radically progressive act. The sublime arrogance-the reversal of roles, by which the makers of images and spectacles, of books and toys are turned, in effect, into passive vessels of implicit doctrine and their Barthesian analysts are the active revolutionaries-accounts for much of the book’s appeal."
Very good video good concise explanation
YOU ARE AMAZING THANK YOU
Thanks a lot for this video!
Hi Tom, found this video really insightful! Your ideas on the importance of cultural context was particularly interesting - how big a part do you think cultural context plays a part in novels, poetry and other works? Another thought could perhaps be whether we should limit context to only the cultural side, or whether it should extend to society and background contextual factors as well.
Would you also perhaps consider doing videos on eco-criticism and also different types of feminist criticism such as gynocriticism or phallocenticism? xx
Hello Tom, do you have anything about Metamodernism?
You are the best! Keep it up
Thank you very much for saying so, hope you found it interesting!
thank you c: this was a great help!!
No worries, glad it helped!
Thanks! Useful vid
Very interesting, 😊 thank you
Thank you, mate!!
Can a story be wrong? As opposed to having weak or ineffective elements such as its ending, or being perceived as having an immoral message? Or is a story simply what it is, and it's presumed to be on purpose, so it shouldn't change or have been different? I've been debating with a friend whether a certain story should have had a different ending.