Maket 2013:Layout 1.qxd


In Defense of the Author1

Gohar Madoyan
Yerevan State University

“The author always manifests himself in his works regardless of his will” 
(N.M. Karamzin)

T
he concept of the author is not a new one. It has arrested the minds of most

thinkers from the ancient world to modern times. Aristotle in his Poetics and
Plato in Ion attempted to shed light on the definitions of poetry and poet. Much later
Hermeneutics was to interpret texts through the hermeneutical circle with special refer-

ence to the personality of the author. In fact, it was in the age of Romanticism that the

self of the poet received more emphasis than ever. Poetry was generally viewed as a

means of self-expression. English poets such as W. Wordsworth, P. Shelly and others

considered their own art as the reflection of their own impressions, feelings and emo-

tions. So, it was not least surprising that the poets of the time were more inclined towards

lyrical poetry in belief that it could best serve as a tool to express one’s feelings.

However, the concept of the author became one of the leading issues of linguistics, lit-

erary studies and psychology in the second half of the 20th century when the ideas of indi-

vidualism, respect for human rights and equality were advanced.The “self” became the

dominant figure in all spheres of human activity and literature was by no means an excep-

tion. As a result, any piece of writing was viewed as a unique world, the result of the cre-

ative activity of the writer and a kind of dialogue between the author and the reader.

The developments in the world of politics at the start of the century brought about

underlying changes. Literature was among the first to be affected. Romanic literature

seemed to have exhausted itself in a sense that it no longer seemed to serve its aims. It

was high time new approaches were adopted.The concept of the author was one of the

key issues that received much speculation for it was absolutely essential for the further

understanding of literature itself, in a way because the definition of literature of any kind

first and foremost requires the straightforward answer to a most complicated question -

“Who is speaking?”

It is not an easy task, though, when one comes to think of the dual character of the

author. On the one hand, he is a physical being. This gives him a chance to abandon the

work and go beyond it. Hence, the author becomes not only an aesthetic category, but also

a social and cultural one. On the other hand, the author is a fictional character.

Nevertheless, there comes a moment when the author’s individuality turns into a character

and the type of the character it becomes largely depends on the very individuality of the

physical author, as well as on a series of external factors – historical, cultural, social, etc. 

Most researchers are inclined to call the first version a biographical author and the

second – aesthetic author or image of the author. However, it is not a rare occurrence that

in literary works “it is not the author himself who speaks, but rather the narrator or the

lyrical hero. Then, who tells us what happens in the lives of the characters? In fact, who-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

156



ever it is, the reader hears the voice of the author quite distinctly. Then, why can’t we

identify the author with the narrator? Such identification would not be quite

right,narratologists claim, since the narrator is not the sole manifestation of the author’s

consciousness. The author does not manifest himself only in the process of telling, but in

various parts – the plot, the structure, the organization of time and space (Orlova 2008:7):

Otherwise stated, the author is everywhere and nowhere in the text, thus, he cannot be

identified with any of the heroes. As it follows, the narrator is only one of the expressions

of the author’s consciousness and it gives the author a chance “to play”. 

Despite the diversity of ideas, the author continued to enjoy a certain superior posi-

tion in relation to other characters. His role in the process of text interpretation was often

decisive. However, his position started to dwindle with the introduction of Structuralism

and later by post-structuralism. The 20th century saw a merciless criticism of the subject

rejecting the existence of an independent and complete subject. Roland Barthes all alone

revolutionized all the ideas voiced before with his essay - “The Death of the Author”.

That was a challenge to the traditional approaches. The author was no longer the leading

character in the process of text interpretation. Moreover, he had nothing to do with the

text. This was the key massage that was very quickly supported by a group of followers.

The essay “What is the author” by M. Foucault was yet another attack.“The writing sub-

ject erases the signs of his particular individuality”(Foucault 1996:14). In short, one may

assume that it is not the author who speaks, but the language itself (Barthes 1989:385).

Any writing is faceless. All the ideas of the voice fade away in the text. This is, in fact,

a black and white labyrinth which “kills” any self-expression (Barthes 1994:384).

Barthes believed that by excluding the author from the text, the text acquires additional

meanings and it is read and perceived as there is no author at any level of it. The under-

lying approach of the Post-structuralism to this issue may be summed up as follows:by

granting an author to the text, we put limits on it. The modern writer (scriptor) is born

simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or

transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate;

there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here

and now (Barthes 1989:387).

Still, others believed in the intended meaning of the text which was proposed by the

author himself. Hence, the true interpretation could be possible “The object of interpre-

tation in the humanities is the meaning intended by the author and the historical agents.

The meaning is entrusted to meaningful forms that are the objectification of human

thought” (Betti 1990:164). “Even if the text is interpreted as bearing different signifi-

cance, the meaning is determinate in the sense intended by the author” (Hirsch

1967:250).

Speaking more broadly, the approaches held by linguists and literary critics may be

generally classified into two main groups as to the concept of the author and his presence

in the text – the one advocated by romantics (the author is central to any work, he is the

human being who conveys his experience, emotions and feelings through his own works)

and the complete absence of the author. Barthes and his supporters excluded the author

not only as a personality, a living one who had a direct connection with his own work and

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

157



wished to use his work as a tool to show his attitude to the reality, but also the public fig-

ure, the bearer of certain historical and moral values. There is no author, so there is no

point in searching for him between the lines.

If the lack of authorial interpretation of certain developments in a piece of writing

does not lead to serious objections, the rejection of his being the heir of historical and

social legacy causes much controversy. In a human speech one may always trace some

social information indicating his social status and his attitude towards the ideas

expressed. It may be satisfaction, indifference, admiration, etc. (Stepanov 1965:21).

Indeed, regardless of the level of professionalism, creative talent, etc. one who is engaged

in a creative activity of any kind is also a social being who exists or existed in a certain

society at a certain period of time. And each society enjoys a specific mentality, world

view and world perception that has been formed throughout long years and is affected by

a number of factors - geopolitical, psychological, cultural, etc.). Each member of the

society willy-nilly becomes the bearer of the system of values of the given society with-

out even being conscious of the fact. The artists of any society or people engaged in cre-

ative endeavor are the ones who are distinguished as being oversensitive, keen observers.

Traditionally, they have been held responsible for exposing the evils in the society,

upbringing the youth in accordance with moral rules and for providing mental guidance

for the nation.

This results in books which are directly connected with the political developments of

the time and which carry the imprint of the author’s psychology, national identity, culture

and the past history. One wonders whether the great number of odes to the French

Revolution and Napoleon and many other works would have ever been penned down had

there not been the necessary historical grounds for them. Surely, the true work is the one

that is able to arouse all kinds of feelings, and genius is the writer who manages to cre-

ate a universal work with no time and space boundaries. The odes mentioned, though

have not lost their aesthetic value, cannot arouse the same feelings among the ordinary

French citizens as they did centuries ago. The stanzas that Byron wrote to honor

Napoleon are considered from the perspective of the linguistic characteristics and liter-

ary style. However, one may wonder whether such works still serve their initial aim, i.e.

to encourage wider sections of the society to engage in the movement, to instill faith and

trust in the leader or in the aptness of the route taken. 

If we manage to do away with the historical and social author, then what are we to do

about the biographical one? How are we to treat him? In fact, biography is a certain peri-

od consisting of diverse events, feelings, emotions, facts and episodes, etc. It is not

uncommon to see literary critics turn to biographical data to explain the works of great

writers. The general belief of this approach is that the author puts down his own feelings

and emotions since he cannot escape certain developments in his life and the positive and

negative influences that they might entail. They are stored in the subconsciousness and

may erupt like a volcano one day.In fact this method is quite efficient, because very often

it does shed light on the work. The authorial intention becomes clearer when one consid-

ers the emotions he had while writing the work. Certainly, world literature is full of

numerous writings which are open to interpretation and whose meaning seems inex-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

158



haustible. It is really difficult to give them a single meaning and a single explanation.

However, experience shows that it works with unidentified works i.e.pieces of literature

which have not been identified as being written by a certain person. Isn’t it due to the

lack of sufficient biographical information about Shakespeare that we have not reached

a clear interpretation of his works so far? Isn’t it the reason why we are still in search of

the dark lady of his sonnets.

Any field of human activity and interest is related to biography and it may be assumed

that biography is the key to all of them, and the human life and human identity form the

basis of it (Johnston 1927:xv). It goes without saying that trying to explain any work in

terms of biography we run the risk of imposing one meaning to the literary text, thus

depriving the reader of the opportunity of making his own judgments and interpretations.

The text acquires one definite meaning which is surely not in the best interests of the text.

It ought to be open to interpretations. That is the key characteristic that sets a literary text

apart from a pile of works.  This was the idea advocated by the very structuralists when

they announced that the author is dead, thus, giving absolute freedom to the reader. 

It is quite all right if we treat the issue from the point of view of the reader. However,

things are different if we are to consider the issue from the part of the author. It should

be noted that by saying biography we do not mean documentary evidence. The empha-

sis is placed on the emotional state and the inner world of the author in strong conviction

that the works are the reflection of his soul. In fact, by denying the role of biographical

evidence in the process of text interpretation we cast doubt on thousands of studies that

aimed to decipher the hidden meaning of the works of various authors.

Obviously, postmodernism and deconstructionism have done everything to exclude the

unwelcome figure of the author getting rid of him as of a real person. Authorial intention

meets the same fate. “The hand is detached from any voice” claims Barthes. And it sounds

quite all right until one comes to think of the arm of the author the hand depends on.
Excluding the author from the work Roland Barthes gave birth to the reader “the birth

of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author”. However, the birth of the read-

er implies resurrection of the author since every time the text is read the author is reborn.

The author never dies; the reader, in a sense, nourishes the author by the very act of read-

ing his text. And each different interpretation comes to the concept of the author; each time

we offer a new interpretation of the text we confirm once again: The author never dies.

Note:

1. The title makes reference to an essay by E.R. Hirsch.

References:

1. Orlova, Ye. (2008) Obraz avtora v literaturnom proizvedenii. M.: MGU.

2. Foucault, M. (1996) Chto takoy avtor? // Volyak ictine. M.: Politizdat.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

159



3. Barthes, R. (1989) Izbrannie raboty. Retorika, Semiotika. M.: Progress.
4. Barthes, R. (1994) Izbrannie raboty. Poetika. M.: Progress.
5. Stepanov, Yu. (1965) Frantsuzskaya stilistika. M.: Progress.
6. Johnston, C. (1927) Biography: The Literature of Personality. USA: Century Co. 
7. Hirsch, E.D. (1967) Validity of Interpretation. New Haven, Conn: Yale University

Press.

8. Betti, E. (1990) Hermeneutics as the General Methodology of the Geistes wis-
senschaften. / Tr. by J. Bleicher. // The Hermeneutic Tradition from Ast To Ricoeur. /
Ed. by G.L. Ormiston and A.D. Schrift. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Æ å³ßïå³ÝáõÃÛáõÝ Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÇ

§Ð»ÕÇݳϦ ѳۻó³Ï»ñåÇ ßáõñç μ³Ý³í»×» ñÁ ͳí³ÉíáõÙ »Ý  ·ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý
Ó¨³ íáñÙ³Ý í³Õ ßñç³ÝÝ»ñÇó ÙÇÝã ûñë: лÕÇݳÏÇÝ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ»É »Ý ¹»é¨ë ³Ý-
ïÇÏ ßñç³ÝáõÙ ¨ §·³Ñ³¹ñ»É¦ éáÙ³ÝïǽÙÇ ¹³ñ³ßñç³ÝáõÙ: ²ÛÝáõ³Ù»Ý³ÛÝÇí,
20-ñ¹ ¹³ ñáõÙ ³ÝѳïÇ å³ßï³ÙáõÝùÇ, Ù³ñ¹áõ Çñ³íáõÝùÝ»ñÇ áõ ѳí³ë³ñáõÃÛ³Ý
·áí»ñ·Ù³ÝÁ ½áõ·³ Ñ»é Ç Ñ³Ûï »Ï³Ý Ýáñ ÷ÇÉÇëá÷³ Û³Ï³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ, áñáÝù
ѳñó³Ï³ÝÇ ï³Ï ¹ñ»óÇÝ ÙÇÝã ³Û¹ ÁݹáõÝí³Í ³í³Ý¹³ Ï³Ý Ùáï»óáõÙÝ»ñÁ:
êïñáõÏïáõñ³ÉëÇïÝ»ñÁ ¨ ³ÛÝáõÑ»ï¨ åáëïëïñáõÏïáõñ³ÉÇëïÝ»ñÁ §ëå³Ý»óÇݦ
Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÇÝ՝ ßáõÝã ï³Éáí ÁÝûñóáÕÇÝ: ´³Ûó ³ñ¹Ûá՞ù Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÁ ٳѳó»É ¿: ¶áõó»
ݳ å³ñ½³ å»ë ÝÝçáõÙ ¿:

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

160