Industry service in holes at describing a constructive disguises a woman but the following sentence: this was woman herself with her sudden fears for rational wins her instinctive worries for impetuous boldness for frostings and her delicate sensibilities. Who's speaking us? Is it the year of the story bent on remain ignorant of the strata hidden beneath the woman? Is it polls that the individual, furnished by his personal experience with philosophy of a woman? This of balls at the altar professing literary ideas and femininity? Is universal wisdom? Breakfasts psychology? We shall never know, for the good reason that writing is the destruction of their frivolous, of every point of origin. Writing is that neutral, said the week's base our subjects such a way, the negative or all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body writing.
No doubt is always been that way. As soon as the fact is narrative no longer with of Utah acting directly on reality but in transitive flee, that is to say, finely outside of any function other than that of a very practice the symbol itself, this this connection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins. The sense of this phenomenon, however, has varied; in ethnographic see society's responsibility for narrative is never seen by percent of by mediator, shame and or later whose performance-the mastery of the narrative code-may possibly be admired but never his genius. The authors of modern figure, a product of our society in so far as, emerging from the Middle Ages with English empiricism, French rationalism and the personal faith of the Reformation, it discovered the prestige of the individual, of, as is more nobly put, the human person. It is thus logical that in literature it should be this positivism, the epitome and culmination of capitalist theology, which is attached the greatest importance to the person of the altar. The other still reigns in histories of literature, biographies of writers, interviews, magazines, as in the very consciousness of men and letters anxious unite the person and their work retirees and memoirs. The image of literature to be founded or their cultures to radically centered on the author, his person, his life, his face, his passions, what criticism still consists of the most part insane the blares work is the failure of total remand, then goes his madness, Tchaikovsky's his vice. The explanation of a work is always sought in the manner woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, after the more less transparent allegory the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author confiding in this.
This way the offer remains powerful parentheses the new criticism has often done no more than consolidated parentheses, it goes without saying that certain writers have long since attempted to lease it. France, Maude may whisked stove was the first to see and to foresee in its full extent the necessity to substitute language itself a person who until then had been supposed to be its owner. For him, for us to, it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through freed requisite impersonality parentheses not all to be confused with the castrating objectivity of the realist novelist parentheses, to reach the point where only language ax, performs, and not me. The entire politics consists in suppressing the author in the interests of writing (which is, as will be seen, to restore the place of the reader). Valerie, and converted by psychology of the ego, considerably deleted now remains theory but, his taste for classicism leading him to turn to the lessons of rhetoric, he never stop calling into question the underwriting the author; he stressed the linguistic and, as it were, hazardous nature of the activity, and throughout his prose works he militating favor of the essentially verbal condition of literature, in the face of which zero recourse to the writer's superiority seem to Hampshire superstition. Pressed himself, despite the pair with psychological character of order called his analyses, was visibly concerned with the task of inexorably blurting, by an extreme civilization, the relation between the writer and his character; the making of inheritor not he who has seen and felt or even he was writing, but he who is going to write (young men in and of all-but, in fact, hold the sea and who is he?-once to write but cannot; the novel ends when writing at last becomes possible), Post gave modern writing its epic. By radical reversal, instead of putting his life into novel, as is so often maintained, he made his very life work for which is owned book was the model; so that it is clear to us that Charles's does not imitate contest cute but the month S U-in his anecdotal, historical reality-is no more than a secondary fragment, derive from Charles's. Lastly, to go no further than this pre history of modernity, sir realism, though unable to cord language a Supreme place (a language being system and the of the movement being, romantically, a directs a version of codes-itself moreover illusory: A code cannot be destroyed, only played off), contributed to the decentralization of the image of the author by ceaseless you recommending the brought disappointment of expectations of meeting (the famous for realist jolt), by entrusting the hand with the task with the had itself is unaware of (automatic writing), by accepting the principle in the experience of several people writing together. Leaving aside literature itself (such distinctions really becoming invalid) linguistics has recently provided the destruction of the author with the valuable analytical tool by showing that the whole of denunciation is an empty process, functioning perfectly without there being any need for to be filled with a person of the interlocutors. Linguistically, the author is never more than the instance writing, just as I is nothing other than that in some say not i: language known as subjects, not a person, and the subjects, and he had said it very enunciation was to find sit, suffices to make language hold together, suffices, that is to say, too exhausted.
The removal of the author (one could talk here with draft of a veritable distancing, the author diminishing like a figure seemed at the far end of literary States) is not merely in historical fact act of writing; an utterly transformed some modern text (or-which is the same thing-the text is henceforth made in red in such a way that at all levels the author is absent). The temporarily is different the author, when believed in, is always conceived of as the past is on book: book authors tend automatically a single line divided into before and after. The author is thought to endorse the book, which is to say that exist before it, thinks, suffers, leaves Ford, using the same relation of and antecedents to his work as a father to his child. In complete contrast, the moderns corrector is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way a quick with the been preceded it for acceding to writing, is not the subject of the book is predicate; there's no other kind of act enunciation and every tax is a trolley written here and now. The fax (or, it follows) that writing can no longer designate an operation of recording notation representation depiction (as the classics would say); rather it, it designates exactly what linguists, referring to Oxford philosophy, call performer in exclusively for content (contains no other Proposition) and the act by which is under-something like the I declare of kings and I seen a very ancient poets. Having buried the author, the modern scripture can thus no longer believe, is according to the pathetic few of his predecessors, that this hand is too slow for his fault or passion and consequently making a lot of necessity he must emphasize this delay in indefinitely polishes for. For him, on the contrary, the hand, cut off many voice, borne by pure gesture conscription (and not the expression) traces a field without origin which at least has no other origins that language itself, When which ceases the calls a question of origins.
We know now that the Texas nonaligned of porch releasing a single theological meeting (the message of the author-thought) but a multi dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of the original, blend in class. The text is a tissue quotations from for the innumerable centers of culture. Similar to Boulevard and taking shape, those eternal copyist, and once of Lyman, and his profound ridiculousness indicates precisely the truth of writing, the writer can mottling imitated gesture that is always and tear, never original. His only power is a mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them. He wished to express himself, he of the lease to know that the interests in he thinks to translate is itself only are ready for a dictionary, its words only its level through other words, and so on indefinitely; something experience and exemplary fashion by the young Thomas to Quincy, he lists so good it agreed to that in order to translate absolutely modern ideas and images into that dead language, he had, So Blair tells us (in Paris in artifice yet), " created for himself and on failing dictionary, vastly more extensive and complex than those resulting from the ordinary patients a purely literary themes ". Succeeding the author, the stricter no longer bears within his passions, humors, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws of writing it can note no Holt: wife never does more than imitate the book, and the book itself is only a tissue of signs, an indication that is lost, if it we deferred.
Once the author is removed, the Clean to decipher tax becomes quite futile. To give the text and authors to impose a limit of the text, to furnish it with the final signified, to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter than allotting itself important task of discovering the author (for its hypotheses: Society, history, psyche, Liberty) beneath the work: when the author has been found, the text is explained-factory to the critic. Hence there is surprising fact that, historically, the rate of the author has also been that of the critic, nor again in fact that criticism (b it knew) is today undermined along with the author. In a multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered; the structure can be followed, which Ron (like the thread of stopping) every point at every level, but there's nothing but me: this piece of writing his few rains over, not pierced; writing ceaselessly posits meeting ceaselessly to evaporate its, caring and a systematic exemption of meeting. In precisely this way literature (it would be better for now on to say writing) by refusing to sign a secret, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), literates what may be called an anti theological activity, activity that is truly revolutionary since refused to fix meeting is, in the end, it refuse got and as hypotheses-reason, science, wall.
S come back to the balls that sentence. No, no person, says it: its source, its voice, is not the true place of the right, which is reading. And other-very precise-example helped make this clear: fees and Research (J chief of furniture) has demonstrated that constitute of Lee ambiguous nature of creaks tragedy, its tax unilaterally (this perpetual misunderstanding is exactly the tragic); there is, however, someone who understands each word in its two top city and who, in addition, here's the very deftness of the characters speaking in front of him-this someone being precisely the reader (or here, the listener). Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parity, contests station, but there is one place which this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. The readers this base on which all the quotations that make up for writing inscribe the without any of them being lost; the texts unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the readers without history, biography, psychology; he simply that someone who holds together a single field all the trees is by which the written text is constituted. Which is why it is to rise three to condemn the new writing in the name of humanism hypocritically turned champion of the reader's rights. Caustic criticism has never been detached the reader; for it, the writer is the only person in literature. We now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant and faster " recriminations of good society in favor of the very thing its set-aside, ignores, smothers, or destroy; we know the to give writing its future, the bursts of the reader must be the cost of the death of the author.
Ruling that bars, 1968