Reflections on Barthes

In The Death of the Author, Barthes rather confidently announces the “scriptor” as the successor to the “author.” I feel that Barthes took time with his choice of words, for the imagery that the terms convey strengthens the overall argument portrayed in his work. When I think of an “author,” an old man sitting cozily in a leather armchair in front of the fireplace with a pipe in hand is the first image that comes to mind. A “scriptor,” on the other hand, seems to be unattached to his work, much like a scribe. I envision a “scriptor” relying on outside sources, having much less of a personal say in his work compared to an “author,” who attempts to transfer his whole mind onto a different medium.

Here’s the thing. Although I seem to understand Barthes (or rather, to take emphasis off the author as he would prefer, the message in the text) from an overall standpoint, I become confused as I try to dissect specific parts of the reading. Barthes states that “the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text.” If this is so, then how does the "scriptor" obtain the “dictionary,” as Barthes calls it, upon which his work relies? I just don’t seem to understand how the creator of a work can be nonexistent before the work’s creation. I can see how Text never ceases to flow over the course of time, much like a river, which is what From Work to Text touches upon. However, I feel that one must drink from this river before channeling information into text form, inevitably having to exist beforehand.

Perhaps I am overanalyzing and belaboring over picky details. Barthes may even agree, for he claims that modern writing can lack meaning. Brought about by Surrealistic ideals, modern writing “carr[ies] out a systematic exemption of meaning.” In other words, I may be trying to stab at something that isn’t even there. Barthes warns that “the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced.” I argue that I would not have as great of an appreciation of the text if I did not take time to inspect it carefully, such as, in this case, the subtle differences between “author” and “scriptor.” Simply glancing over text also goes against what I have been taught in English courses such as AP Literature, which emphasized breaking the text down into its elements.

One final idea I want to toss out there is how this modern depiction of a “scriptor” ties into plagiarism. If we are all simply “scriptors,” can we be held accountable for plagiarizing? After all, our “only power is to mix writings.” Do DJ’s get in trouble for creating mixtapes and mashups? Why didn’t the idea of plagiarism keel over along with the “author?” I think our course is heading in the direction of answering these questions, so it’s good to keep them in mind.