In “The Death of the Author” Roland Barthes tackles the relationship between writing and the author and writing and the reader. Barthes starts the essay by making the argument that when “the author enters into his own death, writing begins.” (pg 142). In recent years there has been discussion on whether as a consumer, one can separate the art from the artist. Here, Barthes is making the argument that in the creation of the art itself, the artist is no longer themselves. To be able to create a work of literature, the author has to essentially perform a role that is different from who they are as a person to be able to write the voices of these different characters from different perspectives. Later on in the essay, Barthes explores the opposite of this idea. The idea that the artist and their art are intertwined and therefore cannot be separated from one another. “Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile.” (pg 147). He makes this argument that the relationship between art and artist is similar to that of parent and child. That the art that an artist produces is inherently infused with bits of the artist because the art is the creation of the artist. In the case of a novel, it existed in the mind of the author before a word of it was ever written down and even after the written story has ended, the author continues living and so does the possibility of the continuation of their creation. Whereas the work of an author can never predate the author itself, for that reason, the author is the life force of the novel , making it difficult to separate it from the author. Towards the end of the essay, Barthes points out the relationship between text and reader “The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost” (pg 148). Barthes makes the argument that the text comes alive once it is perceived by the reader. Multiple readers with different personal biases interpret the text in different ways, which can be in direct conflict with the author and the original intentions of their work. The reader is removing the influence of the author and projecting their own, therefore once a text is exposed to a reader, it is the “death” of the author.

The title “The Eiffel Tower is a Tree” for readers may produce a similar reaction in the vein of Arnold Jackson from Diff’rent Strokes, “Watcha talkin’ about, Willis?” However, to support this theoretical claim the title proposes, one must put on semiological spectacles and commence to view the objects beyond what Saussure calls the “social contract” and what Nietzsche calls the “peace treaty” to view these objects (or any object) “beyond the bounds of human existence (Norton Anthology, 752.).” One theory Saussure posits in his student-compiled essays, “Course in General Linguistics,” is that the social contract makes linguistic signs — and therefore meaning — arbitrary and leads to what Saussure designates as one of the faults within language, “name-giving.” Treating language as a “name-giving system” prohibits “any research into its true nature,” or how one interprets its true nature and varying meanings in different societies.

Semiology, “a science that studies the life of signs within society, (Norton Anthology 825 )” allows the reader to consider the Tower and Tree as signs. For Saussure, a sign “designates the whole” and is a combination of two psychological components: a signified (concept) and a signifier (sound-images, or what Saussure calls “auditory images (Norton Anthology 824).” The signifier is sensory. Saussure writes that it is “the impression” of “our senses (Norton Anthology 826-27).” It is concrete, something one can interact with through sight, touch, etc. A signified, which Saussure also notes as the “signification,” is abstract and immaterial. It is what the signifier refers to and has no significance without a relationship to other values. For example, if one denotes the word Tower as a signifier in this essay, one knows it refers to The Eiffel Tower, but out of this context, it differs. If a man walks up to a woman and yells, “tower!” in New York City, the woman is likely to think he is crazy and probably hit him, but in Paris, the Parisian woman is likely to give him directions and assume he’s a tourist. These relationships, these signifiers, give the signified its meaning.

The Eiffel Tower is teeming with signification. Roland Barthes comments that the primary shape of the Tower “confers upon it the vocation of an infinite cipher,” but this is the nature of signs and symbols. They are prone to multiple interpretations and significations. Roland Barthes presents his readers with a hand full of examples: it is the symbol of Paris, a symbol of a scientific revolution, a belvedere overlooking the “essence of Paris,” a way of feeling part of Paris, in the case of Mythologies, an analogy for understanding structuralism, and myriad more symbolic meanings. In these few examples from Barthes, one can see the fickleness and arbitrariness of linguistic units, signs, symbols, and ideas. 

The Eiffel Tower is a tree in that a tree, too, has a myriad of symbolic meanings, some that are arbitrary and specific to the beholder. To some, a tree may symbolize peace, love, unity, mother nature, or community. It may be an iconography for a religion, like in the case of Yggdrasil in Norse cosmology, or a symbol of a place, like Redwood National Park. It can be a home for animals or a shade for a picnic. To this writer, it’s now The Eiffel Tower. The Eiffel-tower tree is a signifier that conjures to mind semiotics, structuralism, and, most of all, now The Eiffel Tower. Like Genette notes in his book on paratexts, one has to look at things on a case-by-case basis. There aren’t any hard or fast rules here. 

Throughout the text “ The death of an author” Barthes goes on to talk about how the idea of an author is this socially constructed version in which the author is a product of our modern society. Barthes acknowledges that an author is connected to the book through direct relation in where “ he exists before it, thinks, suffers, lives for it, is in the same relation of antecedence to his work as a father to his child” (1270).  Although Barthes represents the clear relationship between the author and their book, he does it in a way where he replaces author and book with scriptor and text. Barthes uses the term “scriptor” and “text” throughout the piece “The death of an author” rather than the customary “author” and “book” because as Barthes explains it, in the modern terms of writing the author is removed from the book not physically but in a sense where it becomes just the scriptor and the text. When talking about the death of an author he explains that the voice of an author starts to loose its origin and in that way the author in turn enters their death (1268). This could be interpreted by saying that through the metaphoric death that an author goes through occurs when there becomes a slight personal disconnect between the author and what they are writing therefore turning the author and the book into just the scriptor and the text. There is no more personal connection between the two and the author no longer feels a strong personal connection to the piece that they are writing resulting in it just simply being text. Barthes explains the direct relationship had between an author and their words and explains how it goes from personal to just something that they are writing. The author is no longer confiding in us and there is no longer an explanation of the work being presented to the reader. According to Barthes the readers role changes once we recognize “the death of the author” by forcing the leaders to let themselves be “ fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical recriminations of good society in favor of the very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or destroys” ( 1272). Through the idea that the “reader is the space on which all the quotations following that make up a writing are inscribed” Barthes means that the reader holds up the text in which the reader is the one that puts the text together following the “death of an author”.

As we are reading more about Friedrich Nietzsche and his critiques, writing and ideas about the concept of “truth”, I am learning more about how to view many aspects of history in a different perspective. Like in many languages, writing is also influenced by traditional morality and religion and history has affected that a lot.

There is a part where Nietzsche mentions truth is subjective and is also influenced by our experiences, cultural backgrounds and our own point of view. Understanding this truth is not always the best possible option when it comes to individual opinions. Therefore, just because we claim something to be the truth, doesn’t mean it necessarily is, because it may have been shaped in some way by our personal experiences or purpose to hide certain actions. I find this to probably be a smart approach to many arguments that are thrown around on important topics such as politics, historical events, crime, certain behaviors. That is because I believe everyone has the right to double check how valid this information is and whether it’s good enough to allow a bigger group of people to believe a single person.

Nietzsche described perspectivism as an idea without an objective truth, but with multiple interpretations on the world. He believed that this diversity of thoughts and perspectives was to be embraced and appreciated for what it was. New ideas and ways of understanding our world are some good aspects of people being open enough to accept this kind of diversity. I noticed reason and logic being two of the things that could possibly limit these perspectives, however, he tells us that we shouldn’t be limited to those when trying to understand the environment around us or people speaking about a certain experience. Our own feelings, the unexpected standards of beauty and more things about our world can be a good source to get started when looking for the truth. There are a lot of things that us as humans can’t give an answer to. I feel like this can be one of the reasons why not everything deserves to have a truth to them, but yet to remain a mystery among us, so that we can explore the possibilities of something being true through our expression of emotions and good or bad experiences throughout life.

In conclusion, writing about the truth is a big challenge to the traditional idea of truth and gives us an opportunity to look at the world in a new perspective. Nietzsche believed that embracing the multiple perspectives of seeing something, a piece of information, a part of our life, etc. is essential to us if we want to get closer to accessing that truth.

According to Barthes in his essay “Eiffel Tower” the “mobilization” of the structure’s symbolism in modern culture is merely the tipping point of its power. In line with Saussurean traditions, he argues that while semiology is present everywhere, The Eiffel Tower in particular represents a sort of limit case in its capacity to “transgress [the] separation, [the] habitual divorce of seeing and being seen” inherent within the signified-signifier binary. Unlike the classic example of the arbre, whose signifieds are multifaceted (think Oak or Willow or Rollins), the Tower, Barthes claims, acts as a “virtually empty – sign…ineluctable because it means everything.” He points to how the structure can be seen everywhere – both physically when in Paris (where its looming presence is practically inescapable) but also within the psychological mindscape of the culture who can’t seem to isolate the physical Tower from its association with the City of Lights. He continues to abstract the monument further, pointing to certain phenomena involved when one visits the structure. Seemingly, one can be both within and without of its interior; at any given time, it is simultaneously empty and full; crucially, the Tower permits us to “see things in their structure.” What are those things Barthes is talking about, though?

Well, he speaks of the ways in which the Tower grants the viewer a “euphoric vision” of Paris, the physical place. This process of topographical “reconstitution” which occurs atop its viewing deck allows one to “plunge into the mysteries of time,” rendering the metropolis as somewhere “conquerable” “owned” – understood, in short. It would seem that above all, the vantage point allows for a structural reading on the thing which is right in front of the viewer: the city itself. Plainly, the Tower renders Paris as a text to be read… And vice-versa. The Towers’ extremity as a “pure signifier” complicates immensely and in fascinating ways when paired with the work of Genette. Just as much as the Tower is the “universal symbol of Paris” I’d argue it is the City (spatially and temporally) which holds the essential, paratextual-character of the Tower’s singular, enigmatic allure.

When Genette writes that the “location of [a] text” and its “temporal situation” have massive implications on the ways in which a piece is interpreted by its reader, we can apply a similar framework to that of the Tower. What happens when the Eiffel Tower is placed in the middle of Kansas? Better yet, the middle of a field with no historical, state, or cultural affiliations? Does it retain its “mythic” status? Barthes himself recognizes the Tower as a symbol of “modernity” “nineteenth century” and as a “Parisian statement” with all of its loaded connotations of romanticism, aestheticism, historicity, and cultural magnificence. So, in the case of the Tower, it seems that one must also consider the “book” that the “text” is embedded in as it does not stand in isolation from its geographical or historical positioning. So, I might rub up against this idea that one is “cut off from the world” high in the Tower. In fact, when climbing up the imminence of its transcendental abstraction, it’d be best not to forget how close one still remains to the ground.

Saussure’s approach in “From Course in General Linguistics,” teaches us linguistics in some different ways to understand language as a base on rules, “a social system”, not from one origin but through the principle of the “arbitrary,” which makes sense the desire to create meaning, the choosing of names for things, through our interpretation and intend of “nature of the signs.” The nature of the linguistic signs takes form and is founded when we invest in them, the sound image and the concept. Saussure’s theory is “The atom of language is the sign, which is functionally split into two parts: a signifier (sound-image) and a signified (concept), brought inseparably together like the two sides of a sheet of paper” (Saussure, 822). They are two different ways to look at and describe language or the semiotic world.

Saussure’s powerful model of the linguistic sign is composed of a signifier and a signified. The sound image according to Saussure is “the psychological imprint of the sound, the impression that it makes on our senses” (Saussure, 829), a fixed visual image of language accompanied by the synchronized sound of movements in speaking, the sum of a limited number of elements or phonemes that can in turn be called up by a corresponding number of written symbols which allow language to work. And the concept “immaterial,” is the individual mental construct, the free way I can speak to others in a society.

From the beginning of humanity, from the period of human being started to evolve, and the notion of communication was crucial to develop a society, our world became composed of thousands of cultures, hundreds of subcultures and tribes in each country, and even within a region in the same country. That is why language is a diversity of descriptions (signs), an arbitrary specific view and perception of each culture not on individual utterances. Where signs become a social building block of communication to express what we see in our own way unconsciously to then relate them to our familiar systems of conventions.

The sign is a recognizable bond of the association of the signifier with the signified, but this relationship is arbitrary because there is not necessarily any logical connection between the two, that is why there are different words, in different languages, for the same thing. In other words, the relationship between signifier and signified is made up of signs in different contexts.

Be sure to submit anything appropriate you have to the department’s annual awards. Cash money!!

Prizes & Awards

Every year the English Department offers a variety of prizes and awards for both undergraduate and graduate students. The prizes and awards program provides a wonderful opportunity for students to have their work recognized in the fields of literary analysis and criticism; linguistics and rhetoric; creative fiction, non-fiction, and poetry; personal essay; and drama.

Imagery has always been an essential aspect of communication and expression. In literature, imagery is used to create vivid and compelling visual representations in the reader’s mind, which can evoke emotions and convey meaning beyond words. Roland Barthes, recognized the significance of imagery in literature and explored its role in communication and interpretation in his essays “The Eiffel Tower” and “The Death of an Author.” In these essays, Barthes argues that imagery is not just a decorative element but an essential aspect of a text that contributes to its meaning and interpretation.

In “The Eiffel Tower,” Barthes examines the iconic Parisian landmark and its representation in popular culture. He argues that the Eiffel Tower is not just a physical structure but a cultural symbol that transcends its physical form. The tower represents a specific cultural imaginary, which is constructed through its repeated representation in photographs, postcards, and other forms of media. Barthes argues that the Eiffel Tower is not just a physical object but a sign, which refers to a specific cultural meaning that has been constructed through repeated representation.

Similarly, in “The Death of an Author,” Barthes explores the role of imagery in literature and its impact on interpretation. He argues that a text is not just a product of its author’s intention but a product of the reader’s interpretation. The reader’s interpretation of a text is shaped not only by the author’s intention but also by the cultural, historical, and personal context of the reader. Barthes argues that the author’s intention is not the only source of meaning in a text and that a text can have multiple interpretations based on the reader’s context and perspective.

Barthes’ ideas have significant implications for the way we understand and interpret literature. He challenges the traditional view that a text has a single, fixed meaning that is determined by the author’s intention. Instead, Barthes argues that a text is open to multiple interpretations based on the reader’s context and perspective. This view recognizes the importance of imagery in literature, as it is through imagery that the reader’s imagination is engaged, and the text’s meaning is constructed.

Imagery also plays an essential role in creating a connection between the reader and the text. By evoking emotions and creating vivid visual representations in the reader’s mind, imagery can make the text more engaging and accessible to the reader. For example, when reading a description of a beautiful landscape, the reader’s imagination is triggered, and they can picture the scene in their mind. As Professor Allred once said “When I say tree, your mind goes “poof” TREE!” This connection between the reader and the text helps to make the experience of reading more immersive and meaningful.

In conclusion, Roland Barthes’ essays “The Eiffel Tower” and “The Death of an Author” highlight the significance of imagery in literature and its impact on interpretation and meaning. Barthes argues that imagery is not just a decorative element but an essential aspect of a text that contributes to its meaning and interpretation. He also recognizes the role of imagery in creating a connection between the reader and the text, which makes the experience of reading more immersive and meaningful.

We recently learned about Saussure’s explanation of linguistics, the value of words and signification too. He is considered to have played a very important role in linguistics as a field. His theories are well thought and organized to be able to notice that kind of impact on the language studying.

One of these explanations is the way we perceive words, how we understand them, and theorizing over the reasons why different languages have separate sounds and words about the same things. There really isn’t a known truth or fact behind them, but the fact that the meanings are socially agreed upon. In the book we read about the signifier, which is the physical aspect of the sign and the signified, which is the meaning that is related to the signifier. There is no natural connection between the sound of a word and its meaning. An example of that is how there is no reason why a word like “owl” should refer to a creature with feathers.

One of the other points he makes that I find very interesting is the idea of not looking at words as just labels to put on certain things. Instead, Saussure describes them as vehicles for thought, in the sense that they can shape our perception of these objects in different ways. The concept of time can be taken as an example. Time is seen as a progress from the past to the present, and then to the future. We use words such as “yesterday”, “today” and “tomorrow” to define them. I do believe there can be a lot more psychological connections to these “tools” of communication.

Saussure’s conclusions are good enough to influence the reader’s  perspective and impact the way we think about language. The importance of understanding language as a system is brought up multiple times, because it gives more meaning to the perception of words as part of a bigger group, rather than a single thing that has no relation to other parts of the language. This way our thought process is also driven to connect the dots on how there’s a lot of things that affect the language.