History Main / DeathOfTheAuthor

Needless to say, many writers as well as many other critics, don't like this or believe that this view holds true for all authors and all works. Creator/MargaretAtwood famously remarked that if the Death of the Author theory became prevalent, then "we [writers] are all in trouble". They also disagree with the implication that the Death of the Author/Birth of the Reader means that all interpretations are equally valid or that a reader's creative sensibility (whether it exists) is equal to that of a writer. Obviously some writers are more talented and capable than others, and certain works can only be written by certain individuals. The notion also offends writers since it potentially leads to an overvaluing of the intellectual property of their works rather than the creative/legal rights of the author which has a contentious history in much legal and copyright disputes between creators and publishers. Creator/JRRTolkien acknowledged the influence of his experiences on his works (''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings''), he denied that he had written allegory, insisting that his works simply had {{Applicability}}; this arguably makes him an early supporter of the Death of the Author, since [[FauxSymbolism pointless speculations]] about an author's allegorical ''intent'' are exactly what the concept seeks to avoid, favoring an analysis of the "applicability" of the text itself. On the other hand, Tolkien and his estate are quite protective of his works to ensure that it respects the overall basic intent of his work and restrictive over what filters in adaptations. In his essay "Creative Writing and Daydreaming" UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud broached on the concept by noting that writers who work in popular genres tend to create works more reflective of the tensions and desires of the society as a whole than more artistic writers whose works mainly reflect their own sentiments and desires, which was an early attempt at qualifying intentionality in a work of art while also providing nuanced views on which kinds of works and authors display stronger intent than others.

Some people have noted that Creator/RolandBarthes, who actually wrote the {{trope nam|ers}}ing essay, probably had to say "No, that's not what I meant at all!" at least ''once'' in his lifetime while discussing it. They have a point. In that essay, Barthes discussing a story by Creator/HonoreDeBalzac in a very close reading simply noted how in the act of writing a complex work, Balzac's voice as author diffuses into multiple planes where one cannot know from reading closely if the narrative voice, character voice and plot voice truly expresses the author's perspective. By trying to do so, one cannot find it possible to extricate from these works some insight into Balzac's own thoughts, viewpoints and beliefs. For Barthes, the act of writing (and he meant writing only, with no hint as to how this trope applies to other media), allows the author to lose some of his conscious self and that for a work to be enjoyed, a reader has to project some of his own thoughts and views. Barthes' argument was based on close-reading i.e. the scattered random sentences in a story and other bits of detail, RewatchBonus and so on, not, as this trope is usually applied, on basic fundamental story beats and major plot points, in which the author's intent is far more conscious and clear. For Barthes, the idea that the author had clear and conscious intentions about ''every'' part of his work was dubious but ''not'' that the author had no intentions at all.

In the case of non-literary mediums, some note that the material nature of the mediums and the logistics of production often require some amount of clarity of intent. For instance, for a film to be made, in most cases the director, the cast, and the crew have to know beforehand what the story is, what a scene does, and what choices have to be made in terms of costumes, lighting, and special effects. Producers and others also need to get permissions to shoot scenes in locations and in many cases and oftentimes such permissions depends on approval of the scene by the location hosts. In such cases, there is less room for the author to be ignorant of the overall intent of their work than in writing and Death of the Author defenses in such cases can be disingenuous, and at times dangerous. For instance the Nazi film-maker Leni Reifenstahl in the post-war era claimed that her propaganda film ''Film/TriumphOfTheWill'' should be celebrated as a pure work of art independent of its politics, and that she didn't really have political intentions in making it. This claim is belied by the obvious logistics of the entire production, and the level of state backing needed for the shooting of many scenes, and the fact that it was obviously intended for propaganda purposes. The level of documentation during production, from screenplay drafts to shooting script, to the different stages of production and editing are also often documented publicly with much information on multiple productions noting the variety of subtle and major changes made at different stages, and as such it's quite possible to really arrive at what the intent really is by noting the changes and shifts at multiple stages of productions.

An author at a later moment, may come around to [[CreatorBacklash rejecting their own work]], or express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts and not others]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (i.e., "coulda, woulda, shoulda"). This is why some, but not all, [[AuteurLicense auteur filmmakers]] oppose the notion of a [[{{Recut}} Director's Cut]] or in some cases, [[GeorgeLucasAlteredVersion further alterations]] of a film after production even by creators, on the grounds that the "real" film will always be the one people saw in cinemas in the year of release, not the ideal film in the director's head. Others note that this is largely a fait accompli since directors in the vast majority of instances do not have choice in the matter since very few of them have the legal and fiscal resources to actually do this. This is a given in works where the authors don't hold copyright and can be replaced, especially {{Shared Universe}}s; if a writer is fired and replaced by another, anything the old writer has stated in interviews can be (and often is) freely {{Jossed}} by the new writer.

There is an OlderThanFeudalism example about some Jewish sages having an argument about their law...and ignoring God's interpretation in favor of their own. Because, you see, the Torah is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven not in Heaven.]] There is another in the Literature/ApologyOfSocrates: Socrates testifies that in his search for a wiser man than himself, he listened to the great poets. He thought their works very fine, but when they tried to explain them, he thought they were hopeless--and that the dumbest spectators around would do a better job. (He took this as proof that their poetic skills were a divine gift rather than an exercise of intellect.) It could be argued, however, that this hypothesis removes the only objective standard by which a text can be said to have a given meaning, or even any meaning ''at all''. For since there are few times one could back up their ''interpretation of a poem'' with evidence, this hypothesis reduces all possible interpretations to mere subjective opinions (or at best, educated guesses). It might also be asked that, if it is meaningless for someone to say "That's not what I meant" when talking about any literature they might have written, then how can it be meaningful for any other situation where one might say that? How, for example, could a general criticize an underling for getting something absurd out of a set of instructions he or she may have given them? "Sir/ma'am, what makes you think you know what the orders meant just because you wrote them?"

[[caption-width-right:350:[[IncrediblyLamePun Death reborn as a reader.]]]]

[[quoteright:350:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/death_of_the_author_7.jpg]]

Death of the Author is a concept from mid-20th Century literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no special weight in determining an interpretation of their writing. This is usually understood as meaning that a writer's views about their own work are no more or less valid than the interpretations of [[EpilepticTrees any given reader]]. Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different. The logic behind the concept is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, so the ways readers interpret them are as important and "real" as the author's intention. On the flip side, a lot of authors are [[AuthorExistenceFailure unavailable]] or [[ShrugOfGod unwilling]] to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, they don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explainable to others (or sometimes [[TheWalrusWasPaul even to themselves]]).

[[caption-width-right:350:[[IncrediblyLamePun Death reborn as a reader]]]]

Barthes was also discussing a 19th Century author who while certainly popular did not write in genres with a vocal fanbase who had questions about everything and a medium to transmit those discussions and views to a wider medium. In modern times, on account of the growth of fandom and other conventions, some authors tend to be interviewed far more often than in the past, putting greater pressure on them to stay consistent. Some authors, such as Creator/RayBradbury and Creator/WilliamGibson can't be bothered to [[FlipFlopOfGod stay consistent]] when talking about the major themes or concepts in their books for more than a few years at a time. An author at a later moment, may come around to [[CreatorBacklash rejecting their own work]], or express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts and not others]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (i.e., "coulda, woulda, shoulda"). This is why some, but not all, [[AuteurLicense auteur filmmakers]] oppose the notion of a [[{{Recut}} Director's Cut]] on the grounds that the "real" film will always be the one people saw in cinemas in the year of release, not the ideal film in the director's head. This is a given in works where the authors don't hold copyright and can be replaced, especially {{Shared Universe}}s; if a writer is fired and replaced by another, anything the old writer has stated in interviews can be (and often is) freely {{Jossed}} by the new writer.

Needless to say, many writers as well as many other critics, don't like this or feel that this view holds true for all authors and all works. Creator/MargaretAtwood famously remarked that if the Death of the Author theory became prevalent, then "we [writers] are all in trouble". They also disagree with the implication that the Death of the Author/Birth of the Reader means that all interpretations are equally valid or that a reader's creative sensibility (whether it exists) is equal to that of a writer. Obviously some writers are more talented and capable than others, and certain works can only be written by some individuals. The notion also offends writers since it potentially leads to an overvaluing of the intellectual property of their works rather than the creative/legal rights of the author which has a contentious history in much legal and copyright disputes between creators and publishers. Creator/JRRTolkien acknowledged the influence of his experiences on his works (''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings''), he denied that he had written allegory, insisting that his works simply had {{Applicability}}; this arguably makes him an early supporter of the Death of the Author, since [[FauxSymbolism pointless speculations]] about an author's allegorical ''intent'' are exactly what the concept seeks to avoid, favoring an analysis of the "applicability" of the text itself. On the other hand, Tolkien and his estate are quite protective of his works to ensure that it respects the overall basic intent of his work and restrictive over what filters in adaptations. In his essay "Creative Writing and Daydreaming" UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud broached on the concept by noting that writers who work in popular genres tend to create works more reflective of the tensions and desires of the society as a whole than more artistic writers whose works mainly reflect their own sentiments and desires, which was an early attempt at qualifying intentionality in a work of art while also providing nuanced views on which kinds of works and authors display stronger intent than others.

'''This trope does ''not'' mean "there is no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this theory used to justify CanonDefilement. We are completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just [[SturgeonsLaw generally a bad idea]].''' Compare this trope with {{Applicability}} and the SugarWiki/FictionIdentityPostulate. A somewhat related trope is WordOfDante. ''Do not confuse this trope with AuthorExistenceFailure, a literal death of the author.''

'''This trope does ''not'' mean "there is no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this theory used to justify CanonDefilement. We are completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just [[SturgeonsLaw generally a bad idea]].''' Compare this trope with {{Applicability}} and the FictionIdentityPostulate. A somewhat related trope is WordOfDante. ''Do not confuse this trope with AuthorExistenceFailure, a literal death of the author.''

Death of the Author is a concept from mid-20th Century literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight in determining an interpretation of their writing. This is usually understood as meaning that a writer's views about their own work are no more or less valid than the interpretations of [[EpilepticTrees any given reader]]. Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different. The logic behind the concept is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, so the ways readers interpret them are as important and "real" as the author's intention. On the flip side, a lot of authors are [[AuthorExistenceFailure unavailable]] or [[ShrugOfGod unwilling]] to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, they don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explainable to others (or sometimes [[TheWalrusWasPaul even to themselves]]).

Likewise, as some critics note, it is elitist to assume that all artists are intellectuals or they have to be intellectuals i.e. that a work with deep meaning and ideas only comes from people who are culturally and philosophically learned, rather than deriving from instinct, observation, creative inspiration, and artistic genius. Many consider this the Shakespeare authorship fallacy, i.e. that because Shakespeare was unlikely to possess the intellectual wherewithal to write his plays, the alderman's son from Stratford cannot have been the author of deep philosophical plays with dazzlingly complex characters. The academic consensus and textual studies overwhelmingly support Creator/WilliamShakespeare as the author and they note that whatever makes the plays deep comes entirely from command of language, stagecraft, and dramatic intuition, and while these skills can be intellectualized they are not innately intellectual, and while there's great depth, power, and meaning to a number of scenes in his plays the reasons for such meaning can vary between appealing to [[MultipleDemographicAppeal different kinds of audiences]], subverting or parodying a convention that had already gotten stale way back then, or simple playfulness.

'''This trope does ''not'' mean "there is no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this theory used to justify CanonDefilement. We are completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just [[SturgeonsLaw generally a bad idea]].'''Compare this trope with {{Applicability}} and the FictionIdentityPostulate. A somewhat related trope is WordOfDante. ''Do not confuse this trope with AuthorExistenceFailure, a literal death of the author.''

Death of the Author is a concept from mid-20th Century literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight in regards to an interpretation of their writing. This is usually understood as meaning that a writer's views about their own work are no more or less valid than the interpretations of [[EpilepticTrees any given reader]].

Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different. The logic behind the concept is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, so the ways readers interpret them are as important and "real" as the author's intention. On the flip side, a lot of authors are [[AuthorExistenceFailure unavailable]] or [[ShrugOfGod unwilling]] to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, they don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explainable to others (or sometimes [[TheWalrusWasPaul even to themselves]]).

Some people have noted that Creator/RolandBarthes, who actually wrote the {{trope nam|ers}}ing essay, probably had to say "No, that's not what I meant at all!" at least ''once'' in his lifetime while discussing it. They have a point. In that essay, Barthes discussing a story by Creator/HonoreDeBalzac in a very close reading simply noted how in the act of writing a complex work, Balzac's voice as author diffuses into multiple planes of narrative voice, character voice and plot voice, and that it would be impossible to extricate from these works some insight into Balzac's own thoughts, viewpoints and beliefs. For Barthes, the act of writing (and he meant writing only, with no hint as to how this trope applies to other media), allows the author to lose some of his conscious self and that for a work to be enjoyed, a reader has to project some of his own thoughts and views. Barthes' argument was based on close-reading i.e. the scattered random sentences in a story and other bits of detail, RewatchBonus and so on, not, as this trope is usually applied, on basic fundamental story beats and major plot points, in which the author's intent is far more conscious and clear. For Barthes, the idea that the author had clear and conscious intentions about every part of his work was dubious but not that the author had no intentions at all.

Creator/IsaacAsimov often repeated an anecdote based on this: He once sat in on a class where the topic of discussion was one of his own works. (He did this in the back of a large lecture hall so he could remain semi-anonymous). After the class ended, he went up and introduced himself to the teacher, saying that he had found the teacher's interpretation of the story interesting, though it really wasn't what he had meant at all. The teacher's response: "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it's about?" There is an echo of this concept in Asimov's short-short story "The Immortal Bard", in which Creator/WilliamShakespeare is brought into the present day and takes a college course about his writings. He flunks.

There is an OlderThanFeudalism example about some Jewish sages having an argument about their law...and ignoring God's interpretation in favor of their own. Because, you see, the Torah is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven not in Heaven.]] There is another in the Literature/ApologyOfSocrates: Socrates testifies that in his search for a wiser man than himself, he listened to the great poets. He thought their works very fine, but when they tried to explain them, he thought they were hopeless--and that the dumbest spectators around would do a better job. (He took this as proof that their poetic skills were a divine gift rather than an exercise of intellect.)

A concrete dramatization of this theme appears in Creator/JorgeLuisBorges' story ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text [[TheAllConcealingI is a literary essay written by an unnamed critic]] about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes' ''Quixote.''[[note]]Menard explained in a letter to the critic that he had read ''Don Quixote'' when he was ten or twelve years old and later he only reread closely certain chapters, so his general recollection of the story, simplified by forgetfulness and indifference, could equal the imprecise and prior image of a book not yet written. Then, he could write his own variations of ''Don Quixote'' that would be sacrificed to the one, "original" text.[[/note]] The narrator compares both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to seemingly absurd but perfectly consistent claims, such as the identification of [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]]'s influence on ''Quixote'', or that Cervantes in [[TheCavalierYears the 17th century]] clumsily opposes to the fictions of chivalry [[WriteWhatYouKnow the tawdry provincial reality of his country]] and [[BeigeProse easily handles the current Spanish of his time]], while Menard writing in the [[TheGreatDepression 20th century]] deserves praise for eluding the [[TheThemeParkVersion “spagnolades” (local color) of the]] [[TheCavalierYears seventeen century Spain]]: ([[UsefulNotes/{{Romani}} gypsies]], [[DashingHispanic conquistadors]], [[ReligionIsMagic mystics]], [[HistoricalDomainCharacter Philip the Seconds]], or [[ComeToGawk Autos]] [[ColdBloodedTorture de]] [[BurnTheWitch Fe]]), but he is obliged to write [[YeOldeButcheredeEnglishe in an archaic]] and [[PurpleProse affected style]]. The short story ends with a proposal that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with [[InTheOriginalKlingon new significance]]. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's willingness to attribute ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' [[MindScrew to Borges]]. This is subverted by Creator/PabloPicasso; when asked how to distinguish between his genuine works and the numerous fakes that were circulating, he answered simply, "If it's good, it's mine. If it's bad, it's a fake."

It could be argued, however, that this hypothesis removes the only objective standard by which a text can be said to have a given meaning, or even any meaning ''at all''. For since there are few times one could back up their ''interpretation of a poem'' with evidence, this hypothesis reduces all possible interpretations to mere subjective opinions (or at best, educated guesses).
It might also be asked that, if it is meaningless for someone to say "That's not what I meant" when talking about any literature they might have written, then how can it be meaningful for any other situation where one might say that? How, for example, could a general criticize an underling for getting something absurd out of a set of instructions he or she may have given them? "Sir/ma'am, what makes you think you know what the orders meant just because you wrote them?"

'''This trope does ''not'' mean "there is no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this theory used to justify CanonDefilement. We are completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just [[SturgeonsLaw generally a bad idea]].'''

Compare this trope with {{Applicability}} and the FictionIdentityPostulate. A somewhat related trope is WordOfDante. ''Do not confuse this trope with AuthorExistenceFailure, a literal death of the author.''

Death of the Author is a concept from literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight in regards to an interpretation of their writing. In other words, a writer's interpretation of his own work is no more or less valid than the interpretations of [[EpilepticTrees any given reader]].

Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different.

The logic behind the concept is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, so the ways readers interpret them are as important and "real" as the author's intention. On the flip side, a lot of authors are [[AuthorExistenceFailure unavailable]] or [[ShrugOfGod unwilling]] to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, they don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explainable to others (or sometimes [[TheWalrusWasPaul even to themselves]]).

Although popular amongst {{postmodern|ism}} critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author (hence the concept's name) and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions about their work are themselves a form of criticism and analysis, and therefore are not necessarily consistent with what's written unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon actively goes back and changes it]]--and it can still be argued that, since the original work still exists, the author has merely created a different version of it. One critic's understanding of the author's background and opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an [[MadArtist idiosyncratic]] or even [[ValuesDissonance anachronistic]] perspective on their own work. Modernists are more likely to appeal to the similar-yet-different concept of the Intentional Fallacy, which does not discount biographical information or other works by the same author.

Needless to say, many writers don't especially like this. Creator/MargaretAtwood famously remarked that if the Death of the Author theory became prevalent, then "we [writers] are all in trouble". However, while Creator/JRRTolkien acknowledged the influence of his experiences on his works (''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings''), he denied that he had written allegory, insisting that his works simply had {{Applicability}}; this arguably makes him an early supporter of the Death of the Author, since [[FauxSymbolism pointless speculations]] about an author's allegorical ''intent'' are exactly what the concept seeks to avoid, favoring an analysis of the "applicability" of the text itself. Some people have joked (with delicious {{irony}}) that Creator/RolandBarthes, who actually wrote the {{trope nam|ers}}ing essay, probably had to say "No, that's not what I meant at all!" at least ''once'' in his lifetime while discussing it. Playwright Creator/AlanBennett claims he responded to students asking for assistance on analyzing his works as part of their A-Levels to "treat [him] like a dead author, who [is] thus unavailable for comment".

Of course, numerous authors including the likes of Creator/RayBradbury and Creator/WilliamGibson can't be bothered to [[FlipFlopOfGod stay consistent]] when talking about the major themes or concepts in their books for more than a few years at a time.

Worse yet, if the author comes to [[CreatorBacklash reject their own work]], they may express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts and not others]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (i.e., "coulda, woulda, shoulda"). This is why some [[AuteurLicense auteur filmmakers]] oppose the notion of a [[{{Recut}} Director's Cut]] on the grounds that the "real" film will always be the one people saw in cinemas in the year of release, not the ideal film in the director's head.

This is a given in works where the authors don't hold copyright and can be replaced, especially {{Shared Universe}}s; if a writer is fired and replaced by another, anything the old writer has stated in interviews can be (and often is) freely {{Jossed}} by the new writer.

Creator/IsaacAsimov often repeated an anecdote based on this: He once sat in on a class where the topic of discussion was one of his own works. (He did this in the back of a large lecture hall so he could remain semi-anonymous). After the class ended, he went up and introduced himself to the teacher, saying that he had found the teacher's interpretation of the story interesting, though it really wasn't what he had meant at all. The teacher's response: "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it's about?"

There is an echo of this concept in Asimov's short-short story "The Immortal Bard", in which Creator/WilliamShakespeare is brought into the present day and takes a college course about his writings. He flunks.

A concrete dramatization of this theme appears in Creator/JorgeLuisBorges' story ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text [[TheAllConcealingI is a literary essay written by an unnamed critic]] about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes' ''Quixote.''[[note]]Menard explained in a letter to the critic that he had read ''Don Quixote'' when he was ten or twelve years old and later he only reread closely certain chapters, so his general recollection of the story, simplified by forgetfulness and indifference, could equal the imprecise and prior image of a book not yet written. Then, he could write his own variations of ''Don Quixote'' that would be sacrificed to the one, "original" text.[[/note]] The narrator compares both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to seemingly absurd but perfectly consistent claims, such as the identification of [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]]'s influence on ''Quixote'', or that Cervantes in [[TheCavalierYears the 17th century]] clumsily opposes to the fictions of chivalry [[WriteWhatYouKnow the tawdry provincial reality of his country]] and [[BeigeProse easily handles the current Spanish of his time]], while Menard writing in the [[TheGreatDepression 20th century]] deserves praise for eluding the [[TheThemeParkVersion “spagnolades” (local color) of the]] [[TheCavalierYears seventeen century Spain]]: ([[UsefulNotes/{{Romani}} gypsies]], [[DashingHispanic conquistadors]], [[ReligionIsMagic mystics]], [[HistoricalDomainCharacter Philip the Seconds]], or [[ComeToGawk Autos]] [[ColdBloodedTorture de]] [[BurnTheWitch Fe]]), but he is obliged to write [[YeOldeButcheredeEnglishe in an archaic]] and [[PurpleProse affected style]]. The short story ends with a proposal that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with [[InTheOriginalKlingon new significance]]. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's willingness to attribute ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' [[MindScrew to Borges]].

This is subverted by Creator/PabloPicasso; when asked how to distinguish between his genuine works and the numerous fakes that were circulating, he answered simply, "If it's good, it's mine. If it's bad, it's a fake."

Despite the theory's title, Barthes never says that the author's own interpretation is completely ''un''important--just that it is only one of many possible interpretations. This also does not necessarily mean that every interpretation is equally ''valid''; an interpretation that is based on a [[MisaimedFandom flawed, incomplete, and confused]] reading of the text will always be flawed, incomplete, and confused regardless of how much Barthes' essay is raised in protest.

'''This trope does ''not'' mean "there is no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this theory used to justify CanonDefilement. We are completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just [[SturgeonsLaw generally a bad idea]].'''

It could be argued, however, that this hypothesis removes the only objective standard by which a text can be said to have a given meaning, or even any meaning ''at all''. For since there are few times one could back up their ''interpretation of a poem'' with evidence, this hypothesis reduces all possible interpretations to mere subjective opinions (or at best, educated guesses).
It might also be asked that, if it is meaningless for someone to say "That's not what I meant" when talking about any literature they might have written, then how can it be meaningful for any other situation where one might say that? How, for example, could a general criticize an underling for getting something absurd out of a set of instructions he or she may have given them? "Sir/ma'am, what makes you think you know what the orders meant just because you wrote them?"

This is subverted by Creator/PabloPicasso; when asked how to distinguish between his genuine works and the numerous fakes that were circulating, he answered simply, "If it's good, it's mine. If it's bad, it's a fake."[[note]]Picasso also said "Good artists copy, great artists steal."[[/note]]

A concrete dramatization of this theme appears in Creator/JorgeLuisBorges' story ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text [[TheAllConcealingI is a literary essay written by an unnamed critic]] about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes' ''Quixote''[[note]]Menard explained in a letter to the critic that he had read ''Don Quixote'' when he was ten or twelve years old and later he only reread closely certain chapters, so his general recollection of the story, simplified by forgetfulness and indifference, could equal the imprecise and prior image of a book not yet written. Then, he could write his own variations of ''Don Quixote'' that would be sacrificed to the one, "original" text[[/note]]. The narrator compares both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to seemingly absurd but perfectly consistent claims, such as the identification of [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]]'s influence on ''Quixote'', or that Cervantes in [[TheCavalierYears the 17th century]] clumsily opposes to the fictions of chivalry [[WriteWhatYouKnow the tawdry provincial reality of his country]] and [[BeigeProse easily handles the current Spanish of his time]], while Menard writing in the [[TheGreatDepression 20th century]] deserves praise for eluding the [[TheThemeParkVersion “spagnolades” (local color) of the]] [[TheCavalierYears seventeen century Spain]]: ([[UsefulNotes/{{Romani}} gypsies]], [[DashingHispanic conquistadors]], [[ReligionIsMagic mystics]], [[HistoricalDomainCharacter Philip the Seconds]], or [[ComeToGawk Autos]] [[ColdBloodedTorture de]] [[BurnTheWitch Fe]]), but he is obliged to write [[YeOldeButcheredeEnglishe in an archaic]] and [[PurpleProse affected style]]. The short story ends with a proposal that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with [[InTheOriginalKlingon new significance]]. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's willingness to attribute ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' [[MindScrew to Borges]].

There is an OlderThanFeudalism example about some Jewish sages having an argument about their law...and ignoring God's interpretation in favor of their own. Because, you see, the Torah is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven not in Heaven]]. There is another in the Literature/ApologyOfSocrates: Socrates testifies that in his search for a wiser man than himself, he listened to the great poets. He thought their works very fine, but when they tried to explain them, he thought they were hopeless--and that the dumbest spectators around would do a better job. (He took this as proof that their poetic skills were a divine gift rather than an exercise of intellect.)

Related tropes include ShrugOfGod, TheWalrusWasPaul (when the author encourages fans and critics to find their own interpretations), FanonDiscontinuity (where the fans dislike the author's interpretation to the point of ignoring it), and MisaimedFandom (which is what can happen when they do so). This trope can be particularly useful and sometimes even encouraged in regard to tropes like AccidentalAesop, BrokenAesop, UnfortunateImplications, and others; see DarthWiki/WarpThatAesop.

Related tropes include ShrugOfGod, TheWalrusWasPaul (when the author encourages fans and critics to find their own interpretations), and MisaimedFandom (which is what can happen when they do so). This trope can be particularly useful and sometimes even encouraged in regard to tropes like AccidentalAesop, BrokenAesop, UnfortunateImplications, and others; see DarthWiki/WarpThatAesop.

Death of the Author is a concept from literary criticism which holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight when coming to an interpretation of their writing; that is, that a writer's interpretation of his own work is no more valid than the interpretations of any of [[EpilepticTrees the readers]].

The logic is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are as important and "real" than what the author's intention was. There is also the practical facts that a lot of authors are [[AuthorExistenceFailure unavailable]] or [[ShrugOfGod unwilling]] to comment on their intentions; and even when they are, authors don't always make choices for reasons that make sense, or are easily explained to others -- or, in some cases, [[TheWalrusWasPaul even to themselves]].

Although popular amongst {{postmodern|ism}} critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author (hence the name) and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions about their work are themselves a form of criticism and analysis, and therefore are not necessarily consistent with what's written unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon actively goes back and changes it]] (and even then it can be argued that, since the original work still exists, the author has merely created a different version of it). One critic's understanding of the author's background and opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an [[MadArtist idiosyncratic]] or even [[ValuesDissonance anachronistic]] perspective on their own work. Modernists are more likely to appeal to the similar but not identical concept of the Intentional Fallacy, which does not discount biographical information or other works by the same author.

Needless to say, many writers don't especially like this. Creator/MargaretAtwood famously remarked that if the Death of the Author theory became prevalent, then "we [writers] are all in trouble". However, while Creator/JRRTolkien acknowledged the influence of his experiences on his works (''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings''), he denied that he had written allegory, insisting that his works simply had {{Applicability}}; this arguably makes him an early supporter of the Death of the Author, since [[FauxSymbolism pointless speculations]] about an author's allegorical ''intent'' are exactly what the concept seeks to avoid, in favor of analyzing the "applicability" of the text itself. It has been joked (with delicious {{irony}}) that Creator/RolandBarthes, who actually wrote the {{trope nam|ers}}ing essay, probably had to say "No, that's not what I meant at all!" at least ''once'' in his lifetime while discussing it. Playwright Creator/AlanBennett claims he responded to students asking for assistance on analyzing his works as part of their A-Levels to "treat [him] like a dead author, who [is] thus unavailable for comment".

Or worse, if the author comes to [[CreatorBacklash reject their own work]], they may express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts and not others]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (Translation: "coulda, woulda, shoulda"). This is why some [[AuteurLicense auteur filmmakers]] oppose the notion of a [[{{Recut}} Director's Cut]] on the grounds that the "real" film will always be the one people saw in cinemas in the year of release, not the ideal film in one's head.

Creator/IsaacAsimov repeated in several places an anecdote based on this: He once sat in (in the back of a large lecture hall, so semi-anonymously) on a class where the topic of discussion was one of his own works. Afterward, he went up and introduced himself to the teacher, saying that he had found the teacher's interpretation of the story interesting, though it really wasn't what he had meant at all. The teacher's response was "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it's about?"

There is an OlderThanFeudalism example about some Jewish sages having an argument about their law...and ignoring God's interpretation in favor of their own. Because, you see, the Torah is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven not in Heaven]]. There is another in the Literature/ApologyOfSocrates. Socrates testifies that in his search for a wiser man than himself, he listened to the great poets. He thought their works very fine, but when they tried to explain them, he thought they were hopeless -- and that the dumbest spectators around would do a better job. (He took this as proof that their poetic skills were a divine gift rather than an exercise of intellect.)

A concrete dramatization of this theme appears in Creator/JorgeLuisBorges' story ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text [[TheAllConcealingI is a literary essay written by an unnamed critic]] about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes ''Quixote''[[note]] (Menard explained in a letter to the critic that he had read Don Quixote when he was ten or twelve years old and later he only reread closely certain chapters, so his general recollection of the Quixote, simplified by forgetfulness and indifference, could equal the imprecise and prior image of a book not yet written. Then, he could write his own variations of Don Quixote that would be sacrificed to the one, “original” text)[[/note]]. The narrator compares both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to seemingly absurd but perfectly consistent claims, such as the identification of [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]]'s influence on the ''Quixote'', or that Cervantes in [[TheCavalierYears the 17th century]] clumsily opposes to the fictions of chivalry [[WriteWhatYouKnow the tawdry provincial reality of his country]] and [[BeigeProse easily handles the current Spanish of his time]], while Menard writing in the [[TheGreatDepression 20th century]] deserves praise for eluding the [[TheThemeParkVersion “spagnolades” (local color) of the]] [[TheCavalierYears seventeen century Spain]]: ([[UsefulNotes/{{Romani}} gypsies]], [[DashingHispanic conquistadors]], [[ReligionIsMagic mystics]], [[HistoricalDomainCharacter Philip the Seconds]] or [[ComeToGawk Autos]] [[ColdBloodedTorture de]] [[BurnTheWitch Fe]]), but he is obliged to write [[YeOldeButcheredeEnglishe in an archaic]] and [[PurpleProse affected style]]. The short story ends proposing that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with [[InTheOriginalKlingon new significance]]. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's willingness to attribute ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' [[MindScrew to Borges]].

Subverted by Creator/PabloPicasso who, when asked how to distinguish between his genuine works and the numerous fakes that were circulating, he answered simply, "If it's good, it's mine. If it's bad, it's a fake."[[note]]Makes you wonder since Picasso ''also'' said "Good artists copy, great artists steal."[[/note]]

It is important to note that, despite the title, Barthes never says that the author's own interpretation is completely ''un''important: just that the author's interpretation is only one of many possible interpretations. This also does not necessarily mean that every interpretation is equally ''valid'' -- an interpretation that is based on a [[MisaimedFandom flawed, incomplete and confused]] reading of the text is always going to be flawed, incomplete and confused no matter how much this essay is raised in protest.

See also ShrugOfGod and TheWalrusWasPaul, when the author encourages fans and critics to find their own interpretations, and MisaimedFandom, which is what can happen when they do so. This trope can be particularly useful and sometimes even encouraged in regard to tropes like AccidentalAesop, BrokenAesop, UnfortunateImplications, and others; see DarthWiki/WarpThatAesop.

'''It's important to note that this does ''not'' mean "there's no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this used to justify CanonDefilement. We're completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just [[SturgeonsLaw generally a bad idea]].'''

Compare with {{Applicability}} and the FictionIdentityPostulate. Somewhat related is WordOfDante. ''Not to be confused with AuthorExistenceFailure, a literal death of the author.''

The logic is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are more important and "real" than the ways writers write them. There are also the more practical facts that a lot of authors are [[AuthorExistenceFailure not available]] or [[ShrugOfGod not willing]] to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, artists don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explained to others -- or, in some cases, [[TheWalrusWasPaul even to themselves]].

Although popular amongst {{postmodern|ism}} critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author (hence the name) and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions about their work are a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and therefore are not necessarily consistent with what's written unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon actively goes back and changes it]] (and even then it can be argued that, since the original work still exists, the author has merely created a different version of it). One critic's understanding of the author's background and opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an [[MadArtist idiosyncratic]] or even [[ValuesDissonance anachronistic]] perspective on their own work. Modernists are more likely to appeal to the similar but not identical concept of the Intentional Fallacy, which does not discount biographical information or other works by the same author.

There is an OlderThanFeudalism example about some Jewish sages having an argument about their law... and ignoring God's interpretation in favor of their own. Because, you see, the Torah is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven not in Heaven]]. There is another in the Literature/ApologyOfSocrates. Socrates testifies that in his search for a wiser man than himself, he listened to the great poets. He thought their works very fine, but when they tried to explain them, he thought they were hopeless -- and that the dumbest spectators around would do a better job. (He took this as proof that their poetic skills were a divine gift rather than an exercise of intellect.)

This theme also appears in Creator/JorgeLuisBorges' ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text [[TheAllConcealingI is a literary essay written by an unnamed critic]] about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes ''Quixote''[[note]] (Menard explained in a letter to the critic that he had read Don Quixote when he was ten or twelve years old and later he only reread closely certain chapters, so his general recollection of the Quixote, simplified by forgetfulness and indifference, could equal the imprecise and prior image of a book not yet written. Then, he could write his own variations of Don Quixote that would be sacrificed to the one, “original” text)[[/note]]. The narrator compares both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to absurd claims such as the identification of [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]]'s influence on the ''Quixote'', or that Cervantes in [[TheCavalierYears the 17th century]] clumsily opposes to the fictions of chivalry [[WriteWhatYouKnow the tawdry provincial reality of his country]] and [[BeigeProse easily handles the current Spanish of his time]], while Menard writing in the [[TheGreatDepression 20th century]] deserves praise for eluding the [[TheThemeParkVersion “spagnolades” (local color) of the]] [[TheCavalierYears seventeen century Spain]]: ([[UsefulNotes/{{Romani}} gypsies]], [[DashingHispanic conquistadors]], [[ReligionIsMagic mystics]], [[HistoricalDomainCharacter Philip the Seconds]] or [[ComeToGawk Autos]] [[ColdBloodedTorture de]] [[BurnTheWitch Fe]]), but he is obliged to write [[YeOldeButcheredeEnglishe in an archaic]] and [[PurpleProse affected style]]. The short story ends proposing that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with [[InTheOriginalKlingon new significance]]. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's willingness to attribute ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' [[MindScrew to Borges]].

It is important to note that, despite the title, Barthes never says that the author's own interpretation is completely '''un'''important; just that the author's interpretation is only one of many possible interpretations. This also does not necessarily mean that every interpretation is equally ''valid'' -- an interpretation that is based on a [[MisaimedFandom flawed, incomplete and confused]] reading of the text is always going to be flawed, incomplete and confused no matter how much this essay is raised in protest.

See also ShrugOfGod and TheWalrusWasPaul, when the author encourages fans and critics to find their own interpretations, and MisaimedFandom, what can happen when they do so. This trope can be particularly useful and sometimes even encouraged in regard to tropes like AccidentalAesop, BrokenAesop, UnfortunateImplications, and others; see DarthWiki/WarpThatAesop.

The logic is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are more important and "real" than the ways writers write them. There are also the more practical facts that a lot of authors are [[AuthorExistenceFailure not available]] or [[ShrugOfGod not willing]] to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, artists don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explained to others -- or, in some cases, even to themselves.