Yes, that kind of thinking is part and parcel with the mindset that writers can only tell about their own experiences.
Perhaps Barthes flew to close to the sun of a shiny, interesting idea that shouldn't have gone as far as it did. Or maybe he was just predicting our future.
Well yes, now with Claude and ChatGPT one literally can have a book with no author, or so we think. I contend that the LLM is a medium which transmits and re-combines the work of human writers. But ''authored by everyone'' is ''authored by no one'' to all intents and purposes.
I think Barthes wanted to free the text from the question of the author's intention. But suggest this for any other made thing and it soon shows how absurd this is. We cannot understand a house for instance without comprehending that it was made by humans for humans to live in. To forget this would be to regard it like some kind of abstract sculpture, and its capacity as shelter purely accidental.
If anything, I'd go in the opposite direction from Barthes, a letter and word only make sense as evidence of an intention to communicate, it's what separates the letter ''O'' from a simple circle.
One of the most morbid things about this entire case has been the way former fans, reporters and claimants themselves have appropriated Gaiman’s own works, interpreting them as confessions, such as when Richard Madoc in The Sandman says ‘‘you know I consider myself a feminist writer’’ while he gets his talent from the literal violation a muse trapped in the attic.
This was considered Gaiman’s most perceptively feminist work, and his own resemblance to Richard Madoc was considered as showing a level of admirable self-awareness, self-deprecation - his recognition that the darkness was to be looked for within rather than projecting it onto external villains.
In the ransacking following the allegations this sort of narrative hijacking felt deeply wrong. It strayed far into the subjective realm at a point where the facts of the case were not established with any degree of certainty, and in fact most official procedure appeared more exonerating than not. But it also seemed to weaponise the readers right to interpret in ways that undermined the creator’s right to create, and I’m given to wonder if writers will now be cautious about writing any sort of flawed partial self-insert lest they have their works turned against them in this way.
If any interpretation is valid, and the author’s intention is written out of existence, it just seems like an excuse to turn art into propaganda, like blaring ‘‘Born In The USA’’ at a Trump Rally despite it being a decisively anti-authoritarian critique of the Vietnam war and the treatment of veterans.
I’ve never loved Barthes. I’ve never understood where his logic lay, except perhaps as rationalisation of jealousy, as the authority of the author is obviously to detriment of that of the critic-academic.
Mark Carey's Lucifer is a great set of graphic novels. Taking the Lucifer character from the Sandman and it was a very good series. Might be interesting to compare and contrast Good Omens with Lucifer.
There are so many artists and creative people who behave badly that I think it is impossible to find something I will like while simultaneously from a moral creator. It happens, probably very often, but you don’t hear about the “good man”. We only find out, after the fact, that said author/musican/artist is awful.
I am more willing to say that people will always fail to live up to our expectations. The phrase, “never meet your heroes”, remains true. We can enjoy something, and might connect with someone who has something to say about their own life. Art is powerful because it lets us recognize our own flaws and emotions in someone else, regardless of time or place.
Likewise, people who have experienced a lot, who have made mistakes, are filled with a great deal of opportunity to express their intimate failures. We can live vicariously through their experiences. The phrase, “write what you know”, makes immoral monsters all the more valuable to learn from.
This doesn’t mean I want to give every rock star, celebrity, author, or artist a free pass with their personal lives. Likewise, I didn’t need to read Lolita or Trainspotting to figure out how awful the narrator behaved.
Quite the opposite, we need to observe and judge for ourselves when an individual has gone too far. We, as the audience/reader, need to engage with a creation. For us, the readers and fans, we should pause, reflect, and figure out if and why another’s creation is valuable. Ultimately, that reflection will lead us to the author/artist. We need to determine if said creator is worthy of praise or condemnation.
As a general rule, I tend to avoid hype and celebrities. Partly because I don’t want to be disappointed by the hype/advertisements. Partly because I have thought one thing about a person and creation, only to be horrified as I learned more.
And if a person is terrible, I might buy their work and analyze it for myself, after their passing. When it comes to books, read it from a library or borrow it from a friend. When it comes to movies, music or television, I wait and stream it, knowing that it doesn’t support the questionable individual as much as buying a physical copy.
Most importantly of all, if you want to read a novel, listen to a song, or watch a movie made by a terrible person, you are not responsible for their actions. You are not necessarily supporting them for their potentially criminal actions. But they are earning prestige and wealth from you. It is a balance that any modern human needs to be aware of. In a similar sense, you can sing along to Michael Jackson’s music without being a possible danger to children.
Yes, that kind of thinking is part and parcel with the mindset that writers can only tell about their own experiences.
Perhaps Barthes flew to close to the sun of a shiny, interesting idea that shouldn't have gone as far as it did. Or maybe he was just predicting our future.
Well yes, now with Claude and ChatGPT one literally can have a book with no author, or so we think. I contend that the LLM is a medium which transmits and re-combines the work of human writers. But ''authored by everyone'' is ''authored by no one'' to all intents and purposes.
I think Barthes wanted to free the text from the question of the author's intention. But suggest this for any other made thing and it soon shows how absurd this is. We cannot understand a house for instance without comprehending that it was made by humans for humans to live in. To forget this would be to regard it like some kind of abstract sculpture, and its capacity as shelter purely accidental.
If anything, I'd go in the opposite direction from Barthes, a letter and word only make sense as evidence of an intention to communicate, it's what separates the letter ''O'' from a simple circle.
One of the most morbid things about this entire case has been the way former fans, reporters and claimants themselves have appropriated Gaiman’s own works, interpreting them as confessions, such as when Richard Madoc in The Sandman says ‘‘you know I consider myself a feminist writer’’ while he gets his talent from the literal violation a muse trapped in the attic.
This was considered Gaiman’s most perceptively feminist work, and his own resemblance to Richard Madoc was considered as showing a level of admirable self-awareness, self-deprecation - his recognition that the darkness was to be looked for within rather than projecting it onto external villains.
In the ransacking following the allegations this sort of narrative hijacking felt deeply wrong. It strayed far into the subjective realm at a point where the facts of the case were not established with any degree of certainty, and in fact most official procedure appeared more exonerating than not. But it also seemed to weaponise the readers right to interpret in ways that undermined the creator’s right to create, and I’m given to wonder if writers will now be cautious about writing any sort of flawed partial self-insert lest they have their works turned against them in this way.
If any interpretation is valid, and the author’s intention is written out of existence, it just seems like an excuse to turn art into propaganda, like blaring ‘‘Born In The USA’’ at a Trump Rally despite it being a decisively anti-authoritarian critique of the Vietnam war and the treatment of veterans.
I’ve never loved Barthes. I’ve never understood where his logic lay, except perhaps as rationalisation of jealousy, as the authority of the author is obviously to detriment of that of the critic-academic.
Great response! I particularly appreciated your reference to Sandman and how one of the characters looks like an admission of the author.
Mark Carey's Lucifer is a great set of graphic novels. Taking the Lucifer character from the Sandman and it was a very good series. Might be interesting to compare and contrast Good Omens with Lucifer.
So was the Godless universe Gaiman's solution to the situation or that of the writers left without knowing that killer ten-minute ending?
Ah yes! The million dollar question
There are so many artists and creative people who behave badly that I think it is impossible to find something I will like while simultaneously from a moral creator. It happens, probably very often, but you don’t hear about the “good man”. We only find out, after the fact, that said author/musican/artist is awful.
I am more willing to say that people will always fail to live up to our expectations. The phrase, “never meet your heroes”, remains true. We can enjoy something, and might connect with someone who has something to say about their own life. Art is powerful because it lets us recognize our own flaws and emotions in someone else, regardless of time or place.
Likewise, people who have experienced a lot, who have made mistakes, are filled with a great deal of opportunity to express their intimate failures. We can live vicariously through their experiences. The phrase, “write what you know”, makes immoral monsters all the more valuable to learn from.
This doesn’t mean I want to give every rock star, celebrity, author, or artist a free pass with their personal lives. Likewise, I didn’t need to read Lolita or Trainspotting to figure out how awful the narrator behaved.
Quite the opposite, we need to observe and judge for ourselves when an individual has gone too far. We, as the audience/reader, need to engage with a creation. For us, the readers and fans, we should pause, reflect, and figure out if and why another’s creation is valuable. Ultimately, that reflection will lead us to the author/artist. We need to determine if said creator is worthy of praise or condemnation.
As a general rule, I tend to avoid hype and celebrities. Partly because I don’t want to be disappointed by the hype/advertisements. Partly because I have thought one thing about a person and creation, only to be horrified as I learned more.
And if a person is terrible, I might buy their work and analyze it for myself, after their passing. When it comes to books, read it from a library or borrow it from a friend. When it comes to movies, music or television, I wait and stream it, knowing that it doesn’t support the questionable individual as much as buying a physical copy.
Most importantly of all, if you want to read a novel, listen to a song, or watch a movie made by a terrible person, you are not responsible for their actions. You are not necessarily supporting them for their potentially criminal actions. But they are earning prestige and wealth from you. It is a balance that any modern human needs to be aware of. In a similar sense, you can sing along to Michael Jackson’s music without being a possible danger to children.