I, the Origin, is the Original Fallacy
(December 11, 2017)
The notion that there is a set definition or a universally confirmed meaning to words is, itself, a fallacy. Words, particularly in a text, do not have a unique set of one definition, rather, it is unique because the text creates the meaning as perceived and experienced. In this essay I will briefly discuss Roland Barthes’ assertion – “that a text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning (the message of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash” (146)– and of which I do agree on and wish to expound further.
Firstly, Barthes explains that the author is an aggregation of various factors such as previous writings, previous writers, previous cultures, that in one way or another, shapes the author’s writing style, thus making him a point of resistance. This is to say, that in order for the author not to be pinned down as “similar to another”, his only option is to mix and match, to innovate. Unless properly wrestled with, Barthes cautions the writer that “succeeding the Author (previous generation), the scriptor (the current generation) no longer bears within him passions, humours, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt: life never does more than imitate the book… it can only draw signs, an imitation that is lost..” (147). However, this should not be treated as the only conclusion that an author culminates into. Because the author is the result of previous generation’s influence, he cannot escape the modern trappings of categorization, thus relying on stylization for an identity solely his.
In the work “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger, we see the similar idea– that the image represented is not at all what the image alone means. It needs a caption, a form of presentation, in order to be properly received. This creates the question of “is an image similar to a text?” which can be answer with “yes”. An image is a text, even if the form is different, for there is a message being conveyed. In the same manner that cinema, visual arts and relic artifacts can be considered a text, the image is representative of a culture or a society of which it has been part or exhibited in. And it is through this knowledge that outside factors (outside, in the sense that they are sometimes not, at once, seen in the depiction of the image) can shape– narrow down or broadly define– an image in comparison with social context. It is, then, society which gives the meaning to a text. In conjunction, Barthes also explains that “it is precisely this way [that] literature […] by refusing to assign a ‘secret’, an ultimate meaning, to the text […] liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases– reason, science, law” (147).
To better understand this, we can look at how the modern day world assigns temporal meanings, that which changes per place, per generation, and per context. Galleries curate artifacts, paintings, and other visual arts through thematic exhibition, pre-determined allocation and designs. This is one form of mediating the meanings wished to be expressed. In the same manner, new technology has allowed for new ways of curating, allowing the audience or the viewer to become the shaper of meanings. The idea that one can curate in the internet, through social media, online galleries, or even the chance to organize specific information of which is based on their interest, allows new meanings to be formed, and most of the time, the reason for these new meanings rely on socio-economic factors (that which is desired, aspired, lacking of, and the niche). Through this, one can see that the original meaning is disturbed, reshaped, creating a reification of the subject.
This can also be seen in the contemporary niche of adaptations of text to film, film to text, translations that go beyond medium and language. For every adaptation we see a change, omission and re-visualization which requires social understanding and conformity. Borges once wrote about the evolutionary shaping of translation of the text in a chapter dedicated to “Narrative Art” in his book regarding his earlier writings, “On Writing1” in 1973 (republished in 1994 and 2010). He discusses here that the immediate effect of a translation can be seen on the narrative art, taking shape of what must be in conformity of the receiving society, and that each succeeding dissemination creates another layer of meaning that relies on the given cultural socio-economics of the society. This idea permeates the conception of an evolving meaning and the Author losing its initial role as sole contributor of meaning. Barthes also makes a similar judgement stating that “the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, […] and the one place where this multiplicity is focused […] is the reader, not the author.”(148).
This brings about the idea of “reader-authorship”, that which relies on the pre-existing knowledge of the reader to create the ideal effect of receiving the text. In turn, it relies on the cultural socio-econimic factors that shape the reading experience. Fan Culture as an area study of Cultural Studies discusses the importance of the role of the fans (readers/audience) in shaping the existing text for validation and economical success. In this way, the Author no longer holds the universal power of shaping the text, but relies on more social forces outside of his/her initial reach. Thus goes the saying “Death of the Author is the Birth of the Reader” for what, then, constitutes to the composition of the text is not so much focused on the Author, but on the receiving interpretation of the Reader. And each time there is reinterpretation, re-exhibition, reification, re-objectification, reorganization, all the re- (that is, to create a new of something that was in order to reflect a social norm that is accepted, appreciated and can be in dialogue with) furthers the distance of the Author’s influence to the text. Now the author is a mere reader in his/her own interpretation of the text, and contributes to the same cycle of re-signification of the text. We see much of this in contemporary fiction dealing with reimagined histories, heroes and conquest, and mostly on mainstream young adult genre that grapples on the concept of “accepted and acquired norms and knowledge, upon which world-building takes place.” Thus we see, exploits of the old gods, the dystopian future, the classics turned accessible and acceptable in modern times, for there is now a re-introduction of what the original had meant. And even then, what may be considered “original” is up for debate, for there is no originality unless, as seen in the sense of viewing it in the concept of godly formation.
The text is an interpretation. The Author is an interpretation. And the Reader is the interpreter. This is the original narrative of the text.
Works Cited:
1. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author” (1989). University of California Press.
2. Berger, John. “Ways of Seeing” (1972). Penguin.
3. Borges, Jorge Luis. “On Writing” (2010). Penguin Classics.
Comments
Post a Comment