Re: Salinger and Barthes

Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:36:40 +1000

> 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