Death Of The Author English Literature Essay

Death Of The Author English Literature Essay The word Author is broadly defined by the OED as, the person who originates or gives existence to anything, but does this mean that a text is produced solely by a single author? It is clear that the author of a text will have a defined idea of what they would like their text to achieve, but can we be sure that an author is capable of producing a text that is uninfluenced by external sources? In this essay I will examine the meaning of a text and distinguish whether it is produced solely by its author or if it is a complex collaboration of the author, text and the readers own subconscious understanding. New Criticism argued that authorial intent was irrelevant to understanding a piece of literature. In their essay The Intentional Fallacy, W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley wrote that the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art  [1]  . They argued that an author could not be reconstructed from a piece of writing and that the only source of meaning came from the text itself, with any details of the authors desires or life being purely extraneous. Critics such as Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault have scrutinized the role of authorship to the meaning and interpretation of a text. In Barthes essay Death of the Author, he criticizes the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the authors identity to distil meaning from the authors work. This death is directed at the author expressing an inner vision, not at the idea of writing. He is opposing a view of texts as expressing a distinct personality of the author and despises the idea that they consciously create masterpieces. Barthes states the idea that the explanation and meaning of a work does not have to be sought in the one who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through the more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author confiding in us  [2]  . The author can be disregarded when interpreting a text, because it is language which speaks, not the author; the words are rich enough themselves with all of th e traditions of language. The words and language of a text itself determine and expose meaning for Barthes, and not someone possessing legal responsibility for the process of its production. The author is merely a scriptor. The scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work, the origin of meaning lies exclusively in language itself and its impressions on the reader. Barthes notes that the traditional critical approach to literature raises a problem of which we cannot detect precisely what the writer intended. Julia Kristeva invented the term intertextuality, suggesting that no text is free of other texts. Intertextuality leads to speculations about the idea of a text guaranteeing stability and identity. If a text is partly explained by a whole series of other texts, then its meaning clearly does not reside wholly inside it, but is also produced by its relation with other texts. Every reader may have a different understanding of the meaning of a text depending on the external texts they associate with it. Looking at William Shakespeares play intertextually, Romeo and Juliet prompts literary criticism as the play shares a relationship with other literary texts. Romeo and Juliets plot is based around more than one different source, making the audience question the originality of the play itself. Shakespeare based his play on an Italian tale, translated into verse as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562. Romeo and Juliet is a dramatisation of Brookes translation, which Shakespeare has followed closely. We see this through Romeos dialogue as he says, Is she a Capulet? / O dear account! my life is my foes debt.  [3]  Shakespeare literally mirrors the plot of Brookes tale in his own So hath he learned her name, and knowth she is no geast, / Her father was a Capulet,  [4]  It is hard to claim that Shakespeare has ownership of this play along with the idea that this is not an original idea and the content of his play has come from influences around him. Shakespeare was also heavily influenced by Ovids Metamorphoses, taking inspiration from the tragic love story of Pyramus and Thisbe. In Ted Hughes translation, it is clear to see that Shakespeare has been influenced by Ovid, The parents of each forbade their child / To marry the other. That was that. / But prohibition feeds love, mirroring the exact same family feud and passion in Romeo and Juliet  [5]  , Deny thy father and refuse thy name; / Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, / And Ill no longer be a Capulet (Act 2, Scene II; ll 34-36). There are rumoured to be so many sources behind one of Shakespeares most well-known masterpieces, this certainly begs the question of whether Shakespeare was original and if he gave meaning to his own work. It is appropriate to approach an Elizabethan play as a collaborative work, given the amount of people used to successfully create a play. A piece of drama is inevitably constructed by many hands, adding to the meaning of the play. Romeo and Juliet would not just be defined by William Shakespeare, but how the play was performed would have enormous effect on its meaning along with those involved in the making of it. Romeo and Juliet was arguably not written by Shakespeare, he took influences from many different texts, collaborating with many other writers. The writing behind Romeo and Juliet does not define the play, but it is the staging and performance that make the play what it is. Performance adds to the text in the sense of connecting to it gestures, symbols and staging, these all produce a definition not in the text itself. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, the text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of cultur e (pp. 142-48) meaning that one persons work is never original. It is the reader/viewer that makes a piece of literature what it is, whether that is personal or not. It is difficult to judge whether a piece of literature successfully carries out what it means to attempt because we can never be certain of the writers intent in the first place. For example Robert Frosts The Silken Tent opened up to much debate about whether the poem was really symbolising a woman and questioned the possibility of its supporting central cedar pole (l. 5) actually representing a boat with language rich in relatable words, for example, guy ropes and compass. It should not be wrong to have a different opinion of a text, finding meaning in literature is all about your personal tastes and experiences allowing you to relate to texts. Literature is all about what you as a reader make of a text in your own personal way. There seems to be no guarantee in this process that the origins of the text, the conventions of the message and the readers opinion are identical in any way. A piece of literature depends on the words and contexts which surround it, but these contexts are not always significant when looking for meaning in a text. The language of textuality itself will present an argument that is potentially counter to the authors conscious intent. The meaning of a text is not produced solely by an author; it is a complex collaboration between author, text and reader. Shakespeare did not give Romeo and Juliet meaning, meaning was created through the text and performance of the play and by the viewer creating their own personal opinions about it. Shakespeare may have been the origin behind Romeo and Juliet but there are many different sources that could have been seen to be used, questioning the originality of the play. The essential meaning of a piece of literature depends on the impression it has made on the reader, the writers passions and tastes do not come into it. Meaning is a collaboration of all these different factors, it cannot be gathered purely from just the author because there may have been no authorial intent behind that text and literature is all about your own personal opinion and where you take that text in your mind. Barthes makes an important point saying, a texts unity lies not in its origins [] but in its d estination, (pp. 142-48) meaning that it all comes down to the reader and society, a piece of texts origins are unimportant. Word Count: 1560

Poem Explication: “The Dance” by William Carlos Williams Essay

William Carlos Williams’s â€Å"The Dance† (1944) illustrates the joyous, lively atmosphere of a fair. It also uses textual patterns to represent the dance depicted in Brueghel’s great painting, The Kermess. The speaker, who is describing the painting, uses the poem’s tempo, rhymes, and repetitions to accomplish this effect. â€Å"The Dance† stands out from some of Williams’s more famous poems. â€Å"The Red Wheelbarrow† (1923) and â€Å"This Is Just To Say† (1934) are both entirely motionless and describe specific moments in time. While â€Å"The Danse† address a single moment as well, it is full of motion. This obvious difference comes to life in the first line when the poem begins to describe Brueghel’s painting, The Kermess. â€Å"Kermess† literally means peasant dance. It depicts men and women dancing in celebration of the founding of a church. The speaker makes it clear that the dancers are not professionals with his description of their bodies, â€Å"their hips and their bellies off balance to turn them†¦swinging those butts† (7-9). These are evidently ordinary people dancing for joy. Williams’s text is overwhelmingly joyful. â€Å"The squeal and the blare and tweedle of bagpipes, a bugle and fiddles tipping their bellies† (3-5). These peasants are happy and lost in the â€Å"squeal† of music. One can almost hear the upbeat rhythm of bagpipes, bugles, and fiddles as they read the poem’s words. Just as the speaker describes the specific moment, the crowd is lost in this moment. They are not thinking of debt or financial problems, only the ever-moving dance. The dance becomes more wild and out of tune. The dancers never loose their love or passion, only their rhythm. They are fat and off balance, but they keep on dancing. â€Å"Those shanks must be sound to bear up under such rollicking measures† (10-11). Williams’s poem shows us that life is beautiful in the most ordinary ways. The speaker depicts ordinary people dancing in great detail. We see the splendor of a simple event. We see the life worth living. This parallels Williams’s belief that poetry is â€Å"equipment for living.† The speaker actually advises readers to live with the same enthusiasm as the dancers in Brueghel’s painting. â€Å"Prance as the dance in Brueghel’s great picture, The Kermess† (11-12). Repetition of the first line of the poem also adds to the sudden sentimental feeling. Williams mirrors the joyous rhythm of the fair with the words on the page. The poem opens with a sense of interlacing movement. â€Å"The dancers go round, they go round, and around† (2-3). At the same time that the speaker repeats the word â€Å"round,† he opens the rhyming pattern, beginning with â€Å"round.† Throughout the poem, we hear the same rhyming scheme: â€Å"round†¦around†¦round†¦impound†¦Fair Grounds†¦sound.† Like the dancers, the words bring the interlacing feel round and round through the poem. The twisting feel and movement of the poem goes very fast. There is only one full stop in the poem, which is on line eight. Additionally, the fist letter of each line remains lower case, increasing the velocity at which one reads. The reader moves with the same force and enthusiasm as the joyous dancers in Brueghel’s painting. The text moves with circular motion in two ways. First, it moves round and round with the rhyme scheme. Then, it finishes with the same line as it began, again suggesting circularity. Williams echoes the tone of a Brueghel’s painting, The Kermess, in his poem â€Å"The Dance.† The poem was written towards the end of his career, almost 20 years after he famously wrote â€Å"The Red Wheelbarrow.† â€Å"The Dance† is appropriately written in open form, as it captures the painting to words translation. The words dance like the peasants in the painting. Williams’s speaker touches on the simple life of love and dance – the life of the moment. View as multi-pages

Valence Electron Definition in Chemistry

A valence electron is an electron that is the most likely to be involved in a chemical reaction. They are typically the electrons with the highest value of the principal quantum number, n. Another way to think of valence electrons is that they are the outermost electrons in an atom, so they are the most susceptible to participation in chemical bond formation or ionization. The simplest way to identify the valence electrons is to look for the highest number in the electron configuration of an atom (the principal quantum number). Its worth noting the IUPAC definition of valence is for the single highest valence value that is displayed by an atom of an element. However, in practical use, main group elements of the periodic table may display any valence from 1 to 7 (since 8 is a complete octet). Most elements have preferred values of valence electrons. The alkali metals, for example, almost always display a valence of 1. The alkaline earths tend to display a valence of 2. The halogens usually have a valence of 1, yet may sometimes display a valence of 7. The transition metals may display a range of valence values because the highest energy electron subshell is only partially filled. Those atoms become more stable by emptying the shell, half-filling it, or completely filling it. Examples Magnesiums ground state electron configuration is 1s22s2p63s2, the valence electrons would be the 3s electrons because 3 is the highest principal quantum number.Bromines ground state electron configuration is 1s22s2p63s2p6d104s2p5, the valence electrons would be the 4s and 4p electrons.

`` Araby `` And Bambara s `` Lesson `` - 1541 Words

Joyce’s â€Å"Araby† and Bambara’s â€Å"Lesson† pose surprising similarities to each other. Despite the narrators’ strikingly clear differences, such as time period, ethnicity, social class, and gender the characters have important similarities. Both narrators are at crucial developmental stages in their lives, are faced with severe adversities, and have a point of clarity that affects their future. The narrators of â€Å"Araby† and â€Å"The Lesson† live in a cloud of youthful naivety. Despite being faced with very real challenges, they continue to be blissfully ignorant of pressing adult issues on the horizon. Both characters are faced with disappointment and life’s reality in supposedly magical places. The experiences the characters are faced with, and the lessons they learn, are representative of Piaget’s theory. The narrator â€Å"Araby†, an unnamed young Irish boy, living with his aunt and uncle on North Ric hmond Street, residing in a house once occupied by a now-dead priest. The narrator, an orphan, spends his days attending school, spending time with his friend Mangan, and pining after Mangan’s sister. The narrator lives a relatively normal live, although he gradually becomes more consumed with the idea of Mangan’s sister, â€Å"I could not call my wandering thoughts together. I had hardly any patience with the serious work of life which, now that it stood between me and my desire, seemed to me child’s play† (Joyce, 124. The narrator idealizes Mangan’s sister, barely speaking to her, yet heShow MoreRelatedBusiness and Management2600 Words   |  11 Pagesat the beginning of each class. Policies may be slightly different depending on the modality in which you attend class. If you have recently changed modalities, read the policies governing your current class modality. Course Materials Barnet, S., Cain, W.E., Burto, W. (2011). Literature for composition: Essays, stories, poems, and plays (9th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. All electronic materials are available on the student website. |Week One: Elements of Literature—Stories