The "Shortcut" of Barthes' "Victorious" Critic

Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author was most definitely an interesting read for me, mainly because I have previously been inclined to disagree with the idea that the author and the text should be separated, one from the other. Barthes mentions the attempts of New Criticism to remove the idea that studying the author is imperative to a study of the work (Barthes 875). My notion, prior to reading Barthes, was that knowing biographical details about the author is generally an important tool when approaching, or attempting to analyze a text. However, Barthes argument is impressive, and I have to agree with him when he says, "To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing...when the Author has been found, the text is "explained"- victory to the critic." (877) It makes sense that once an author's name is attached to something, it is difficult to conceive much else of it other than what is within the realm of that author's "work." But what interests me most is the idea that this constant need to relate everything back to the higher authority of some author, is actually imposed on us by the critic.

Is it true that the ever present association is simply a critic's means to prove something, or be "victorious?" I think it's actually them being a little guilty of the sin we like to call "laziness." If we consider the question on the board in Friday's class (Does the author really experience death, and how can they be reborn...or something close to that), I would argue this question leads to what should be the critic's proper approach, which is ultimately what Barthes is trying to convey, I think.

Of course, in order to understand what I mean by all of this, my answer to that question needs to be clearly stated. So, I believe the author doesn't really experience a death, merely the reader's priorities must be reorganized, and the author's position must be compromised. Then the way they are "reborn" is through the text; the text should be used to interpret the author, not the other way around, as is the critic's way. The "laziness"comes into play when we consider the fact that an Author's nuances and life story are easily accessible. Using the Author to interpret the text means less work and an advantageous starting point. In order to discover the author through the text, one must dig a little deeper, and really take a stab at the analyzing process instead of merely slapping a label on it.