> I think Camille brought up some fascinating points about the author's > intention and Roland Barthes. Lately, I've been playing around with the > question of "reader-as-writer," which is what I think Barthes had in > mind with "Death of the Author." Basically, as soon as words hit paper, > the author is no longer the "author" of the work. Each reader puts his > or her thoughts into the reading of the text, and these ideas actually > change the meaning of the text itself. The author's intention becomes > irrelevant. YES! This is *almost* exactly what I was trying to say (I'm glad someone else was reading those posts (: ) The only thing I'm of two minds about is whether or not the author's intention becomes irrelevant. The way I was trying to frame it was that the author's intention is kind out of the reader's hands; that it's just something the author tries to put in there to steer them in what he or she sees as the `right' direction. So in a way, yes, it's irrelevant to the reader in the end, but only in the way a motor is to a beautiful car (a '59 Chevrolet Impala say (: ). I can drive around in a car and enjoy it without thinking about the motor, and the motor still goes whether I think about it or not, but the thing is, the motor has to be there or it wouldn't be a car. > My main question here is, where does that leave Salinger's unread > manuscripts? Can a text truly be "written" if no one is around to read > it (kind of a spin on the tree-falling-in-the-woods question)? That's an extremely interesting question. I've just finished writing a speech I'm delivering at a high school tomorrow and I had this to say on the topic (which has been very much in my mind lately) : `A lot of people keep a diary and never show it to anyone. This is a good thing in some ways; there is nothing better than simply picking up a pen and writing without self censorship. But when you write you've also got to think about who you're writing for. Some writers write for others. Some write as an exercise for themselves only and see the reader as incidental.But to me, writing is a communication, which means there is both a broadcaster and a receiver. The wonderful thing about this is that there is an exchange - you soon find the situations and characters in your stories or plays becoming larger than the sum of their parts.' So I guess what I'm saying is whether or not the communication reaches the intended receiver determines whether a text is `written' or not. Seeing Salinger's current writings are obviously written to and for Salinger, you could say that that justifies them within their own means. Salinger is the reader who gives them life. As far as we are concerned though, sure, in some ways they may as well not exist. It's just the fact that we know that they *do* exist that makes me try to speculate on their nature; to try and complete the other side of the communication. Thank goodness, I was starting to think I must have been writing crazy talk because no one else seemed to be understanding what I was trying to say! (: Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest