Rereading Meaning

An elaboration
By: Luuk olde Boerrigter Student 3509672, University Utrecht Course: Kaleidoscope in Western Literature. In Reading Meaning: A view on Borges messages behind Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote (2011) I focused on Jorge Luis Borges Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote (1939), linking it with Roland Barthes The Death of the Author (1967). I stated that Borges and Barthes theory on reading were almost the same, focusing mainly on different readings of a text, but in the end I asked How important is the reflection of a ghost? With this question I meant to ask about the functionality of a certain distilled meaning in a text that couldn t have been put in there by the author. In this essay I would like to elaborate about that question and give an impression on to which degree I agree with Barthes and Borges, and to which degree I do not. Firstly I would like to state the differences between Borges and Barthes theories and explain them further. Secondly I would like to focus on the opinion of critics and on that of my own. In Reading Meaning I mistakenly stated Borges actually writes about reading. Though this statement is almost true, it differs slightly from what Borges tries to explain. The main point he is trying to make is really about authors and their context. Brandon Moores explains that: [Borges] implies that the meaning of a given passage [ ] is determined by its context (of which the author is a key part), and not by the passage or word itself. [ T]he meaning of literary works is entirely dependent on the varying historical and social contexts in which they are read 1 2. Therefore Borges does cling to the concept of authorial intent, because authors willfully project the ideas of their time onto their texts. However, he also explains that it is allowed and even an enrichment to interpret a certain text as if it was written by someone, even anyone, else. This last statement approaches Barthes theory on the death of the author. Barthes does not take the author in consideration when giving meaning to a text. The only role of the author is being the scriptor of a text. The idea that an author would be an all-knowing authority whose judgments were always final was disliked by Barthes. The meaning of a text is construed by readers. A text, Barthes argues, consists of multiple writings that are eternally written here and now.3 The reader is the only one to bring to multicity of meanings together. This is so because no text is original, but always a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture. 4 An author can t intentionally insert all the meanings of the texts he quoted in his (new) text.5 Readers, if united, can gather many of the references that are inherent to texts. Next to that, they can project their own experiences onto texts, which results in the same effect as Borges describes; texts become richer depending on the experiences and context of the reader (or supposed alternative author). Both theorists differ slightly from each other. For Barthes the great amount of readers experiences is most important, while Borges focuses on the experiences of the proposed author that would dominate a/our reading.6 Both Borges and Barthes come with a respectable theory with solid arguments to underpin their statements. In Reading Meaning I paraphrased their theories: Not what is written in the text is

Moores is citing Howard Giskin in the last part of my quotation. Moores, Whose Words?: Text and Authorship in Pierre Menard, Autor del Quijote (2011) p. 110 3 Barthes, The Death of the Author (1967) 4 Idem. 5 Intertextuality was coined, one year before the publication of The Death of the Author. 6 Moores, Whose Words?: Text and Authorship in Pierre Menard, Autor del Quijote (2011) p. 116
2

important but what is read into the text has a big share in the meaning as well. Therefore, having more historical baggage, texts are richer for modern readers, because we can make associations that couldn t be made [at] the time of writing certain stories. I followed with a critical note, mainly aimed at Borges: However, does this not also work the other way around? We may be able to associate texts with other texts better, but [for readers in those times it] would [be easy to make connections] between recognizable subjects in a text as Quixote [or any other (old) text]. They are most [likely] much more capable of placing the story in [its] context and filter jokes from the text that we can t read (anymore). 7 Clinging to my last argument it could be said that I agree with Barthes, since I plea for different readings done by different readers. My opinion on authors and their intention doesn t correspond with Barthes opinion, though. There are more people who do not fully agree with Barthes. Patrick Horn, Ph.D. candidate at the University of North Carolina has noticed an increase in students asking specifically about biographical details of authors. According to Horn [w]e acknowledge the power dynamics of reading and interpretation (implicitly or explicitly) in every class we teach, in every paper we assign. But [...] the local extreme of these essays is to ignore the author completely, to shrug and conclude [ ] What matter who s speaking? 8 9 Horn argues that is actually does matter. 10 He gives an example from his own department (African American and (U.S.) southern literature). It comes down to this: Beloved by Toni Morrison would ve been a completely different novel had it been written by Margaret Garner herself or a contemporary author.11 Biographical details as well as experiences of the author do actually matter. Had Borges lived under the same circumstances as Barthes, perhaps he had written a theory similar to The Death of the Author. No one would argue that texts have just a single meaning, to that degree we agree with Barthes, but what about intentions of authors? As long as it s accepted that biographical experiences influence texts the author is not really dead and thus the intention of the author should play a role, whenever it can be verified. I wouldn t want to take any reading experience away from readers, or declare their readings as wrong, but I do question the worth of a meaning read in a text that is not actively put in there. There is a tendency to assign intention in writings. Especially when authors write offensive texts it can result in a lot of commotion. In the case in which the author would be dead, not the author would be attacked on their offensive ideas, but the reader. That never happens, to my knowing. I think it is important to see whether an author has the intention to be, for instance, offensive, or if such a thing is read into the text, rather than written into the text. The question whether authors can be blamed for what they write is for another time to discuss (I don t think authors should intentionally be scandalous!). It goes without saying that when a reader reads a meaning in a text that wasn t put in there (or couldn t have been in there, due to time of writing or culture) isn t the meaning 12 of a text but rather a ghost. This ghost does truly exist, because a reader can shed a different light on a text or have experiences an author did not. Still, I think a reader shouldn t take hard on an unintentional meaning in a text. Reading the reflection of a ghost can be a mystical experience that may influence a reader. One can enjoy a text, find it very beautiful or even read a meaning engag in a ghost , that is good and perhaps the fun part of reading. It could be argued this is because the reader has turned himself into an author, writing new meaning in a(n identical) text, like Pierre Menard. The original meaning, as intended by original author is still there and is arguably more important. For not only does the original author s version give insight in a view of the author s time and culture, it is also a kaleidoscope through which new Borgesian authors can look and construct new meanings. The original author has intentionally chosen the color and shape of the beads in the kaleidoscope. Other
7

olde Boerrigter, Reading Meaning (2011) Horn is citing Foucault in the last part of my quotation. 9 The author of this article (Rereading Meaning) aspires to authorship. Perhaps that could declare his dissatisfaction with his death. 10 Horn, On the (Overhyped) Death of the Author (2011) 11 My example. 12 Just like the intention or meaning of the author isn t the meaning
8

lights, in different times or locations, may alter the view through the scope, or give sights the beadselector hadn t seen. That doesn t change the fact that the aforementioned bead-selector has had his personal intentions and taste during the selection process. That should not be forgotten. Do you see what I mean?

Bibliography
Barthes, R., The Death of the Author. UbuWeb: UbuWeb Papers (????(1967)) Borges, J.L., Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote in Fictions, London: Penguin Books, (2000(1939)) Horn, P., On the (Overhyped) Death of the Author University of North Carolina: Web discussion, (2011-5-1) http://englishcomplit.unc.edu/content/overhyped-death-author (last visit: 2011-7-11) Moores, B., Whose Words?: Text and Authorship in Pierre Menard, Autor del Quijote in Pivot 1(2011) olde Boerrigter, L., Reading Meaning: view on Borges messages behind Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote (2011)

y y y

y y