http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/death-of-author.html

I consider myself as one “student of Lucien Goldmann’s Genetic Structuralism 
school”. Therefore, I somewhat do not agree with the idea of “the death of the 
author”. When a writer writes a piece of literary work, he/she must get 
influence a lot from the era when he/she lives, the place where he/she lives, 
the culture that many people adhere in that era and in that place. The era, the 
place, the culture, plus the worldview at the time of writing will more or less 
influence the result of the literary work.
I believe in Goldmann’s theory very much so that I shape my students to follow 
my way of thinking. Before analyzing one literary work—novels, poems, dramas, 
biography, articles, etc—I suggest my students to study the background of the 
writing of it, to get the best interpretation. I am of opinion that the best 
interpretation is to produce an interpretation which is similar or exactly the 
same as what the writer wants to convey to the readers. So, how can I “kill” 
the author?
Perhaps one can say that it is all caused by my inferiority, not really 
confident with my full interpretation if only based on what is stated in the 
work itself, to study the semiotics, the diction, the plot, the character 
portrayed in the work, etc. 
When reading the discussion “the death of the author” in one mailing list I 
join, I remember the day when I got my thesis examination. One theory I used in 
writing my thesis was “feminist literary theory” with its core “READING AS A 
WOMAN”. This in fact invited one examiner’s curiosity, “Isn’t it enough only 
using Goldmann’s theory and Freud’s psychoanalytical criticism?” she asked me. 
“Don’t you think that we will be able to come to the similar interpretation 
that you have produced with the two theories, without feminist literary 
theory?” 
My answer was that no matter what, men and women would likely have different 
way of thinking in viewing things and experiences in life. “Protection” can 
mean ‘love’ for men, while women can refer “protection” to ‘imprisonment’ and 
‘misunderstanding’ just like what I see in the case of the narrator in THE 
YELLOW WALLPAPER, a short story written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
Going back to the discussion “the death of the author” in the mailing list. One 
member wanted to mediate between those who support this theory and those who 
disagree with it. He said that both sides are right, they only result in “the 
early interpretation” (for those who disagree with it), and “the later 
interpretation” or “more modern” interpretation for those who “kill” the author 
and ‘fully’ (?) use their logic when producing it.
I remember what one of my professors said during my study. Theory is just a 
tool to digest one piece of literary work. There is no exact thing in 
literature or any other art fields. I do agree that different theory we use in 
dissecting literary work will create different interpretation, especially in 
this case the use of feminist literary theory (because I am a feminist). The 
use of another new literary theory such as “post-colonialism” can result in a 
new interpretation of an “old” literary work. 
Is the “more modern” interpretation always against “the early” interpretation? 
Is it possible that they even support each other?
It reminded me of my college years, when the same professor said, “There is no 
wrong interpretation in studying and analyzing literature”. However, I often 
found disagreement from my lecturers when I presented the result of my 
research. 
I also said the similar thing to my students. And I got shocked when one 
student asked me, “In the final test, should we give the interpretation as 
freely as possible or should we follow your interpretation if you give us the 
same work that we have discussed together in class?” LOL.
My students forgot that free interpretation does not mean free without any 
limit. They must give the best arguments based on the theory they use, and not 
just “write free composition”. :)
To sum up, whatever theory we use in analyzing a “text”, it is all back to us, 
the readers. Although I am a fan of Lucien Goldmann’s “Genetic Structuralism” 
(as the result of my inferiority LOL), I admire those who can give their best 
interpretation using any other theories. 
PT56 09.50 240707


Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open. 
  (Sir James Dewar)
visit my blogs please, at the following sites
http://afemaleguest.blog.co.uk
http://afeministblog.blogspot.com
http://afemaleguest.multiply.com

THANK YOU
Best regards,
Nana


       
---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kirim email ke