In the lecture, I did not comment on Roland Barthes' argument, but explained his central point. To repeat, Barthes iterated that the text, not the author, refers to pre- existing texts for unraveling its intent. But you are right in thinking that a writer has a role to play in the making of the text, his version being one version that the reader struggles to interpret, to unmake, or replace with his/her own. Thus, the author is not dead or irrelevant to the reader/interpreter.
"Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself". It is Historiography's strong defence.
Roland Barthes, as you mentioned, talked about the death of the author and that the text is a tissue of quotations taken from different sources, thus negating any significance of the author. My question is that even though a text may contain things that were already said by someone somewhere, still the way these pre existing ideas are represented in a text and the perspective that emerges thereof, is author's own. So don't you think that completely wiping out an author's authority in a text is slightly problematic ?
In the lecture, I did not comment on Roland Barthes' argument, but explained his central point. To repeat, Barthes iterated that the text, not the author, refers to pre- existing texts for unraveling its intent. But you are right in thinking that a writer has a role to play in the making of the text, his version being one version that the reader struggles to interpret, to unmake, or replace with his/her own. Thus, the author is not dead or irrelevant to the reader/interpreter.
Nicely explained and I would like to thank the people associated with such programs .
He explained post structuralism and deconstruction in a very nice way
In the lecture, I did not comment on Roland Barthes' argument, but explained his central point. To repeat, Barthes iterated that the text, not the author, refers to pre- existing texts for unraveling its intent. But you are right in thinking that a writer has a role to play in the making of the text, his version being one version that the reader struggles to interpret, to unmake, or replace with his/her own. Thus, the author is not dead or irrelevant to the reader/interpreter.
anand prakash The notes help the viewer in following the exposition. You have ably tackled the issues.
Thanks for responding. This answers my query completely.
The day this videos will gain millions of videos The World will change.
Thank you for this lecture. It is most helpful! The young lady asked very good questions too. Thank you!
"Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself". It is Historiography's strong defence.
As awesome as all other lectures... But a few topics are missing... For example, I couldn't find a video on Structuralism separately or Formalism.
Nice explaination of complex topics.
sign substitution- concept of difference by Derrida
Mam ur usage of word "probably" is what Post-Structuralism signifies :)
Thanks a lot.
thanks for uploading
Was very helpful
Roland Barthes, as you mentioned, talked about the death of the author and that the text is a tissue of quotations taken from different sources, thus negating any significance of the author.
My question is that even though a text may contain things that were already said by someone somewhere, still the way these pre existing ideas are represented in a text and the perspective that emerges thereof, is author's own. So don't you think that completely wiping out an author's authority in a text is slightly problematic ?
thank you
pls upload or send me the link of structuralism and formalism...
pls send me the link of structuralism
مكملين
In the lecture, I did not comment on Roland Barthes' argument, but explained his central point. To repeat, Barthes iterated that the text, not the author, refers to pre- existing texts for unraveling its intent. But you are right in thinking that a writer has a role to play in the making of the text, his version being one version that the reader struggles to interpret, to unmake, or replace with his/her own. Thus, the author is not dead or irrelevant to the reader/interpreter.