After reading “The Death of an Author”, I found that one point that Barthes brings up that is of great interest to me is that language itself speaks, not the author. Rather than have the author speak to the readers and more or less tell them what to think or understand, the language itself has the capability to sway the perceptions of the readers by allowing them to interpret it in whatever way seems appropriate. Removing the author enables the readers to feel more in tune with what language is dictating, and therefore supports the readers being able to think for themselves. Barthes also suggests that the author is not the source of meaning in the text; but rather the reader is the source of meaning for the text. With the death of the author, the reader is born.

This link speaks of the impact of the death of the author. One post on the blog brings up Focault's statements that the author's remarks are still valid and should be considered, however it also touches on the fact that with the death of the author, the opportunities for the readers to live with the text are present. Another post in response to the original comments on the blog suggests that perhaps Barthes is attempting to decenter the author of the language by installing the readers to interpret that language.

Between the blog posts that I stumbled upon and my own thoughts on Barthes and his comments in "The Death of an Author", I feel that the opinions on allowing the reader to get the most out of a text through personal interpretation of that text is empowering to the reader. The author can be thought of as a catalyst of sorts for motivating readers to interpret their text however they wish. If that comes at the death of the author, at least the readers can experience a sense of rebirth through texts.

Hasta Luego,
La Sonrisita