While I'm not sure what reasons you have for stating that Barthes makes a poor argument, I think the "irony" you perceive is more about your limitations rather than Barthes's.
For anyone who is reading this who is not blinded by hubris: both Barthes’ and Foucault’s argument about the end of the author are on their face absurd and historically incorrect. ChatGPT is the return of the author (and authority), and this return (of repressed need for authority) was made possible in part by their arguments (the author a suspect product of 19th Century social hierarchy). The displacement of authority was a superficially performative. It is very ironic that their legacy is increased authoritarianism (through an inviolable emotivism), not less. Further, the notion that intention is irrelevant is not only false (as argued convincingly by E.D. Hirsch) but betrays a latent privilege and elitism: only the extraordinarily educated and talented can avoid creating utter dreck when following this unmoored monomania, which itself is demonstrated thoroughly by the endless drivel and doggerel posing today (and above) as literature and criticism.
First, I'm not sure why you'd think I was irritated.
Second, there is a basic incongruity between saying that Barthes was a "great writer and author of ideas that have become cultural milestones" and the claim that his theory has no merit. The works you would admire are his theory in action; Barthes's theory of reading is substantially a guide to reading Barthes. So, at the very least, Barthes is applicable to Barthes, and anyone inspired by Barthes. And probably anyone who writes against Barthes.
No, friend, what is absurd—where you fall into hubris—is where you read Barthes as being as prescriptive as you want to be. *You* want to believe in absolutes—and claim to possess them—so you project that desire onto everyone else. In doing so you prove Barthes's point: once a reader gets hold of a text, authorial intent matters very little. Hell, you even did it with my comment, completely ignoring what I actually critiqued. Congrats, you killed me.
In any case, you seem to be confusing the observation that there is a point at which authorial intent ceases to be the primary driver of meaning, with the argument that authorial intent doesn't matter at all. The latter would be absurd, and it's absurd for obvious reasons.
But this isn't Barthes's position (I don't know about Foucault, but it seems unlikely that this was his position either). In a sense, what Barthes is saying is that at some point a text becomes the reader's problem (or responsibility). This is, of course, undeniably true: as with any other artifact that enters circulation, the craftsman has lost all control. If this is true for physical objects, why wouldn't it be true for a text? For the craftsman, it is enough to have an intent and to enact that intent in the creation of the artifact. The author is no different from any other craftsman.
The irony of Barthes’ (poor) argument is that he was a great writer and author of ideas that have become cultural milestones.
While I'm not sure what reasons you have for stating that Barthes makes a poor argument, I think the "irony" you perceive is more about your limitations rather than Barthes's.
With such wit I’m glad to have irritated you.
For anyone who is reading this who is not blinded by hubris: both Barthes’ and Foucault’s argument about the end of the author are on their face absurd and historically incorrect. ChatGPT is the return of the author (and authority), and this return (of repressed need for authority) was made possible in part by their arguments (the author a suspect product of 19th Century social hierarchy). The displacement of authority was a superficially performative. It is very ironic that their legacy is increased authoritarianism (through an inviolable emotivism), not less. Further, the notion that intention is irrelevant is not only false (as argued convincingly by E.D. Hirsch) but betrays a latent privilege and elitism: only the extraordinarily educated and talented can avoid creating utter dreck when following this unmoored monomania, which itself is demonstrated thoroughly by the endless drivel and doggerel posing today (and above) as literature and criticism.
First, I'm not sure why you'd think I was irritated.
Second, there is a basic incongruity between saying that Barthes was a "great writer and author of ideas that have become cultural milestones" and the claim that his theory has no merit. The works you would admire are his theory in action; Barthes's theory of reading is substantially a guide to reading Barthes. So, at the very least, Barthes is applicable to Barthes, and anyone inspired by Barthes. And probably anyone who writes against Barthes.
No, friend, what is absurd—where you fall into hubris—is where you read Barthes as being as prescriptive as you want to be. *You* want to believe in absolutes—and claim to possess them—so you project that desire onto everyone else. In doing so you prove Barthes's point: once a reader gets hold of a text, authorial intent matters very little. Hell, you even did it with my comment, completely ignoring what I actually critiqued. Congrats, you killed me.
In any case, you seem to be confusing the observation that there is a point at which authorial intent ceases to be the primary driver of meaning, with the argument that authorial intent doesn't matter at all. The latter would be absurd, and it's absurd for obvious reasons.
But this isn't Barthes's position (I don't know about Foucault, but it seems unlikely that this was his position either). In a sense, what Barthes is saying is that at some point a text becomes the reader's problem (or responsibility). This is, of course, undeniably true: as with any other artifact that enters circulation, the craftsman has lost all control. If this is true for physical objects, why wouldn't it be true for a text? For the craftsman, it is enough to have an intent and to enact that intent in the creation of the artifact. The author is no different from any other craftsman.