Thoughts On "The Death Of The Author"

Very much in favor of it. The art is the art and should speak for itself, not have its creator step in and say, "No, you're misinterpreting it!" or renege on it later on if their worldview has changed. Once an author has released it into the world, that's it.

Now with that said, you've had a few cases where authors have revised their works (Stephen King did so with The Stand and the first Dark Tower book). I consider those to be different beasts than their originals, and while they might be improved (or not, considering your opinion), I do think of them as two different works, and if an author feels the need to "correct" something, just do that. But I don't believe they should ever step in to tell people they are interpreting their works wrong (well, unless they're being used as a weapon of some sort against a group of people; at that point, it becomes less about artistic integrity and more about saving one's image).

This is a provocative post, but I would say that for me the opposite is true - ie sometimes, the written word can be used merely to provoke or manipulate the reader where honesty itself could be seen as mundane.

In the old Oscar Buzz days I'd often talk of Jerzy Kosinski's Steps - one of my favorite books and one that completely divides readers because it takes a POV of something that seems honest or believable on the surface and then just adds one element that makes it seems utterly false yet deeper (a very typical characteristic of Polish or Czech books/films too).

Kosinski would very much be a test case for this sort of thing - a well known outright liar, fabulist, exaggerator, heck at times a plagiarist even - his The Painted Bird was seen as a great work of Art at first by those who believed it at first to be true and his own story........when it was mostly shown not to be, that dropped the novels stature - even though Kosinski had great fun about "playing with the truth" in that and many other cases........both those novels predate the Death Of An Author essay - yet backs it up - Kosinski would consider honesty in his writing or in his actual life to be the first thing to avoid - so why he'd likely argue to judge the text, the more you know him, the more it could actually help (or hurt) the text.
 

Could you be clearer? I'm not understanding what you're saying at all, and I have no knowledge of the book itself. Is this a "fictional nonfiction" book, or something along the lines of C.S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces (his masterwork imo), which is a story that rewrites itself as it goes along because the narrator finds herself revisiting her version of events and reinterpreting what happened.

While I have little to say about the death of the author (the author's words can inform a story, but unless it is a part of the story itself I don't see why something as interactive as art should have a single "author" that is the end-all be-all of how a story is viewed), I am interested in two other things: author's biographies and intertextual links between seemingly unrelated works.

First off, the biography bit is pretty simple. I have heard Till We Have Faces described as Lewis's "unofficial autobiography" due to the way it incorporates his worldviews as seen through his sermons and books (it's impossible to read TWHF and not be reminded of Lewis's philosophical/theological book The Four Loves). While one can certainly read and enjoy the book without any knowledge of Lewis's life (he does a wonderful job of getting his views through in the novel itself), it can enhance the experience to see Lewis's own struggles and worldviews and how these affected his writing of the book. To say that this tool can't be used is ultimately something I disagree with, as seeing how a man's experiences shape a novel's creation is, at the very least, academically valuable.

The intertextual bit is also very interesting. The 2013 film Madoka Magica: Rebellion (sorry for once again not shutting up about this movie) straight up references authors from Freud, Nietzsche, Lewis Carroll, Goethe, and others in its telling of the story, having characters quote or enact passages from their works; the story is relying on its audience understanding the references to different authors to enrich the themes present. But just as importantly, I find it fascinating as a sort of adaptation of Till We Have Faces, telling a similar story of a character twisting her "love" for something pure and good, turning it into something impure and vile.

As far as I know, writer Gen Urobuchi had never read Lewis's books (although I can't be sure of that, as he has shown himself to be a philosophy geek, and has used a lot of imagery from Christian writers in Madoka Magica). Taking the philosophy of C.S. Lewis and applying it to a work that likely had no conscious connection to him is something I find deeply rewarding to contrast and compare the two different "takes" on the story. If the author were to say that he never intended this, I would understand, but... I wouldn't care. Because I find Madoka richer for the way it incorporates Lewis's ideas into the story, whether intentional or not. If Urobuchi said that he intended for something else entirely and that something else just isn't as complex or enjoyable for me, I'll just keep my personal headcanon intact.

Martin Stett - Steps by Kosinski isn't "fictional nonfiction" - The Painted Bird is maybe closer to that but rather they are fictional works which some took to be truth and which the author a known provocateur clearly exploited (rightfully so imo). I mentioned that because Kosinski os specifically outside of literature in a way - he wrote (or made up or stole) simply to cause a reaction.

Good post and Madoka Magica: Rebellion - sounds fascinating. You may enjoy the Youtube post stephen posted - where for example how much is the historical context for Shakespeare "necessary" for understanding his plays.

mikediastavrone96 - Good post as well, I think regarding "sole authorship" for film that is a misunderstanding of "separating the artist from the art" and how that ties into Auteur theory - ie its a collaborative medium but relative to Me Too the layers that go into the creation are meaningless because the fish is rotting at the head.

To me, the fact that say James Toback's new film (he's more a writer but to avoid the beaten to death Polanski example) might be a creep is utterly meaningless to his film (to me) - so it isn't finding a balance of good and bad, it's a separrate question - in the film's creation it's rather "separating the artist from Art" (the director, writer, actors) 100% all the time no exceptions (which I do, ymmv); a closer example for film to books for me for Death of the Author would be the points made in the Youtube video about JK Rowling and social media, life of characters and their worldview/viewpoints that are completely outside the text. When film starts doing that it's more rather than artists personal lives, it's more like when there are wild assumptions made on a film's content, like Room 237 (lol).

Right, exactly.  The lie becomes part of the Art. The closest I can think of today to him is maybe like Lars Von Trier (who I am not a fan of) with a hint of Werner Herzog's craziness.

Kosinski's reputation has fallen over the years but I think he was a great and unique figure - misunderstood too - and I'm quite a fan of some of his stuff (and he has connections to many things besides this Death Of An Author stuff - for movie fans, he acted in Reds, wrote the screenplay to his novel Being There, etc). He was great friends with Roman Polanski for a time until (Polanski felt) he told a lie to the press that he was supposed to be at Tate's house for drinks on the night of the murder (Kosinski insisted this was not a lie)

I think this story that best explains him is this - once he taught a class (I think at NYU?) on Death and on the first day told the students that they would examine Death  in all its forms and travel to morgues, cemataries, etc.......and then at the end of the semester one student will be selected and killed and so of course would have to sign a waiver.  

That weeded out the people who weren't serious about the class.