The Death of the Author, an essay by Roland Barthes from his book, Image, Music, Text, discusses the idea of removing an author from his or her works so that their life does not become the basis of the text and that the language itself is what is being appreciated. This essay brings up valid points in Barthes's argument centered around removing the author's backstory and history from work and how it is flawed in showing the appreciation one's life can contribute to their writing. With his thesis and foremost point in this essay, he states, "outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins" (Barthes 142). Barthes's argument is strong but misses the point of value and influence an author holds to their work.

Credit is deserved nevertheless for how he sets up his argument. Barthes's argument is vital in which the text and its meaning can be lost or hidden by the influential power the author resides over it. The strongest point of his argument and how he persuaded the audience for this piece came from the Frenchman, Mallarme, in which he discussed before that, "The author stills reigns in histories of literature, biographies of writers, interviews, magazine, as in the very consciousness of men of letters anxious to unite their persons and their work through diaries and memoirs" (Barthes 143). Mallarme agrees that language holds power and meaning, not the person who is writing it (Barthes 143). Language in the text is beautiful when used correctly; for example, figurative languages such as similes, metaphors, and personification create a better way of phrasing a word, sentence, or meaning without it being a form of direct language (or conversational language). Removing the author can be beneficial when it comes to honestly acknowledge what the text is saying, the facts it is trying to present, and the story it is trying to tell. Yet, the author holds an influential role in the text because of the history that comes with them based on society and their time period.

His argument stands on the premise that the work is not praised, but the author gives the meaning of the text no value; however, I believe he pushes aside the impact an author can have in the frame of their work. Barthes does not consider that without an author, there is no nonfiction, no autobiography, no memoir, and no true sense of everyday storytelling. The author can add another layer of analysis into their work. Barthes crafts his argument disregards those influential points and thoughts, which makes his argument blind spots for lack of mindfulness towards that. An example of this comes from my favorite literary piece, Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. He writes on the life of an unknown man of color and how tragedy hits, opportunities arrive, and fate meets failure. With Ellison being a Black man, it makes sense that he can write this narrative. Others cannot always tell stories due to gender, race, and ethnicity because people who represent it should write it. Though, if we were to rid of the author and his value he holds to the piece, one can assume that anyone could have written this and question what credibility do they have to write about this character, scenario, and more that apply to plot and world-building? Removing the author would change the narrative on how this specific piece was to be read because it also loses the reasoning on why this was written and why the author decided to write about it. 

Flawed in this argumentative essay is that that it is not the author that should be removed because of the history, biographies, and more; it should be the opinion of the critic(s) who create these thoughts and notions. Barthes states, "The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his persons, his life, his tastes, his passions, while criticism stills consist for the most part in saying that Baudelaire's work is the failure of Baudelaire the man" (Barthes 143). It is not the author who is wanting the praise to be all on them. It comes more as a bonus for the hard work and dedication put into their work like any other profession. It is the influence of others that substantially value the work, like critics that make or break the piece. With the removal of critics, that itself will let the reader determine if the author is credited to write this piece and if the language comes off as interpreted. Barthes' argument, in my interpretation, lies along the lines of criticism and how it plays its role in literature. To remove the author is to remove the criticism that comes with finding out who the author is and then discovering what the text is genuinely about.

Did Barthes consider that if his name were to be removed from this essay, that his point of view would not be as valued? How would people not praise him on his thoughts on this essay? That this essay would just be classified as another essay? The removal of the author seems more harmful than the beneficiary to literary works and language. That needed layer of credibility, explanation, and exploration would 'die' along with the author, and the work would not be as praised or appreciated. Although a strong perspective is written to be considered, Barthes misses the influence an author holds to their work and how they help bring an extra layer of value instead of losing it.

Works Cited

Barthes, Roland, and Stephen Heath. Image, Music, Text. Fotana/Collins, 1977.