Join the Discord →
Learn More →
See Project →
See About page
Death of the Author
Introduction
Death of the Author is a concept in literary criticism and philosophy of interpretation, first popularized by Roland Barthes in his 1967 essay of the same name. The core idea is that an author’s intentions, biography, or external statements about a work should not be given special authority in determining its meaning. Once a work is published, interpretation can come from the text itself and the audience engaging with it, rather than relying solely on the creator’s intentions.
The principle recognizes that:
- An author may be unavailable or unwilling to explain their work.
- Creative decisions are not always fully intentional, consistent, or logical.
- Readers can discover themes, patterns, and significance that the author may not have consciously intended.
Interpretive Nature
Death of the Author is not a rule or requirement. It is a philosophical lens for understanding texts. Editors and readers may choose to consider it when analyzing a work, but it is one perspective among many. It emphasizes that meaning can exist independently of the author’s statements or intentions. The wiki does not treat it as a requirement nor an absolute point.
Applications in Interpretation
- Prioritize the text itself: The story, dialogue, visuals, or gameplay in a work is the primary source of meaning.
- Consider external commentary as context, not authority: Interviews, tweets, or guides may provide insight but do not automatically redefine what the work shows.
- Recognize ambiguity: When the text is unclear, external statements can inform interpretation, but they do not overrule the narrative.
- Example: An author claims a character is “not superhuman,” but the text clearly shows feats like lifting cars or dodging bullets. Interpretation can rely on the text rather than the author’s comment.
- Example: A creator tweets that a scene was “just metaphor,” but the published story depicts consequences consistent with literal events. The text itself may be considered in interpretation.
Issues
- Author commentary is not automatically invalid: Statements can provide context, but they are not the sole determinant of meaning.
- Philosophical perspective, not prescriptive: Applying this concept does not mandate any particular interpretation; it is one tool among many for analysis.
- Revival of the Author: As one could take the perspective of Death of the Author, one could also by proxy revive the author as even this would fall as a valid interpretation in Death of the Author.
Common Misunderstandings
- "Death of the Author should be used."
- False: Death of the Author is an interpretation that is not required to be used, it can be something to support a point but never a major point.
- “Death of the Author means ignoring canon.”
- False: The concept emphasizes interpreting the text, not disregarding what is actually depicted in the work.
- “All external material is invalid.”
- False: Commentary or supplemental material may be useful if it clarifies ambiguity or is part of recognized canon; it is only discounted when it contradicts the text.
- “Fanon interpretations are equivalent to the text.”
- False: Reader-created interpretations or speculations are not substitutes for the work itself.
- “Author statements are always useless.”
- False: External statements can inform context or clarify ambiguous points but are not inherently authoritative over the text.
- “Death of the Author forces a single interpretation.”
- False: The concept does not require one “correct” reading; it simply highlights that meaning can emerge from the work itself, independent of the creator’s intended meaning.
