the one in which Barthes rolls in his grave
Even though I'm still working on fics for the prompt table, I couldn't even help myself because Marta is the worst and started this beautiful FREE-FOR-ALL META COMMENT-A-THON! and then woobloo prompted this:
Discuss the essay "Death of the Author" and how it relates to fandom.
and apparently I have 3000 words worth of thoughts on this, even though I kind of digressed heavily from the original prompt? As this couldn't fit into a number of comments, I'm just posting it. :s general barthesian disclaimer: all the views and opinions are my own and are only views and opinions and you are free to interpret my words howsoever you wish to etc. etc.
Meta: Death of the Author, and the Problematics of
Classification of Interpretative Tyranny on Television
• One of the most prevalent methods of using the Death of the Author argument around fandom that I’ve personally seen is “my interpretation is valid because THE AUTHOR IS DEAD SO I CAN INTERPRET HOWEVER I WANT”. Which, of course, every interpretation can personally be assumed to be valid, but the Death of the Author as a theory does not legitimize “every interpretation ever”, but only interpretations that are based on text rather than the author. The Death of the Author is the birth of the reader, and simultaneously the text. The Death of the Author does not, for example, mean that you can read into the text things that don't actually exist within the text itself. I'm not saying that every reading ever isn't valid, because that's nobody's case, but I'd definitely argue that every reading ever isn't a DOTA reading, per se.
The Death of the Author very specifically talks about the concept of authorship and the presence of an author. It’s based on the general idea that using a writer’s political views, their biographical origins, their own interpretation of their writing, is limiting that text, because the ultimate consumer of the text is as much responsible for the "creation" of a text through the interpretation that they impose on it, because of their individual propensities and understanding.
According to Barthes, the debate on authorial intentionality is futile because it is impossible to infer intent. There can be a wide mismatch in what the author wants to say, and what she actually ends up saying. The acknowledgment of the author as supreme places a singular interpretation on a text; what you imagine the author was saying. Except, then, what it seeks to negate is that it is only what you personally attribute to the author that becomes the singular interpretation, not what the author "actually" intended, because intention is not something that exists as either tangible, or absolute. People are not driven only by what they want to say, but also subconscious, or psychological impulses that they may not have "intended" at all, which might nevertheless be obvious within the text. For instance, I think we can presume no fic author "intends" for a character to be a Mary Sue, but it's impossible to tell what the author intends, so we classify the character according to what the text tells us, instead. Intention is variable, it isn't fixed and it's very, very rarely, if ever, determinable.
• I personally believe there's this prevalent confusion about the intentionality of the author and the intentionality of the text. Barthes is concerned with judging the text through the personal attributes of the author. So, for instance, if I were to judge TVD through Julie's views on, say, politics or the gothic tradition, then that would be in contravention to the DOTA theory, because it absolutely isn't necessary that those views are the views of the text. In Veronica Mars, for instance, it's impossible to judge what Rob Thomas' views on feminism are; because Veronica Mars herself, imo, is one of those rare strong characters [female], rather than [strong female] character, and yet the literal representation of feminism in the text, through Nish's character for example, is definitely problematically stereotypical.
So, trying to understand whether Veronica Mars is a feminist text through the lens of Rob Thomas's personal views would necessarily lead to an interpretation that would not be entirely supported by the text as The Only Correct Interpretation, because the text can quite clearly support both interpretations, which is where the reader's response and interpretation is paramount. However, if Rob Thomas's or Julie Plec's personal views, as gleaned through interviews etc., are supported by the text, and that is the interpretation you choose to accept, then that is a valid DOTA reading. DOTA doesn't mean that everything the author says about the text is immaterial, because if that, in your opinion, is what the text also says, without the authorial commentary, then that is again a valid DOTA reading. For instance, I personally felt that the sire-bond was a very real thing and existed and worked exactly as it was supposed to. This was because I never felt that there was anything to the contrary in the canonical text. No indication at all that it wasn't working or was just a psychological construct or a metaphorical representation of anything. So, even if Julie herself had shouted herself hoarse saying it didn't actually exist, I wouldn't have interpreted it any differently than as actually existing.
• These problems multiply when you try to judge a TV show through the lens of authorial intentionality. Because it can well be argued that there is no definitive "author" of a TV show at all. Whose intentionality would you put paramount in the case, where we were talking about TVD: The source-text's? The script-writer's? The director's? The actor's personal interpretation of their character on screen? The camera person's perspective as framing a scene? The market's? TV offers almost endless modes of interpretation, and limiting that to a Single Grand, Overarching Viewpoint That Is Objectively Correct is even more limiting than perhaps it would be in a book, where there is at least one particular intentionality at work, even if it's impossible to tell what that intentionality is. The manner in which an actor chooses to say a sentence or delivery of a line, can entirely change its meaning, and how it is received by the audience. In this case, the confusion is even more prominent, because, forget the author, it's almost difficult to identify what the text is. Is it the line in the script? or is it the expression of the character while delivering it? or is it the way the director chooses to frame a particular scene? Or is it the sequence of events? or is it the zooming of the camera to highlight the trembling of the lips of a character otherwise saying awful things?
• Another problem that arises with the direct application of this theory is, that often, a TV show that isn't over, isn't even a complete text. Authorial intentionality, in the Barthesian worldview, pertains, necessarily, to a finished text. I personally don't believe that Barthes is arguing that authorial intentionality doesn't affect the text, his argument is that it is immaterial whether authorial intentionality affects the text, because the text, once complete, stands separate from the author; and any such intentionality, to be considered relevant, must exist within the text itself, without the need for historicizing or contextualizing a text according to a biographical analysis of the author; i.e. The Text Is All There Is.
The problem within an ongoing television show is obvious, it is nearly indisputable that authorial intentionality affects the text, so when interpretations are made from an unfinished text, then the author, who is creating the text, has the privilege of altering the course of the text to definitively foreclose an interpretation that they feel they had not "intended", but the audience was apparently gaining from their text. That fandom has a name for this trope; Being Jossed, also clearly pertains to context. For instance, there may be a theory amongst fans that gains popularity, and the author, noting that, has the privilege of changing the text if she so wishes, or to clarify a point that they feel the audience "misunderstood". Take Harry Potter for example, Harmony shippers can give endless examples within the text of how the text was moving towards a deeper understanding, and perhaps even romance, between Harry and Hermione. But JKR, knowing this, and disagreeing with it, definitively foreclosed that option through the Epilogue. It would've been entirely possible to not write the Epilogue at all, but the author, especially through the Epilogue, exercised the option of fixing the universe, so that canon is set in stone some regards. Julie Plec in interviews has mentioned how Damon was originally supposed to be the character to become human, but it was such a popular theory, that they changed it to Katherine instead.
While the work is still a in-progress, and the author is made aware of what the audience thinks, which may be in opposition to what they had "intended", then it's possible for them to make that intention, which would otherwise have been immaterial in DOTA, a material part of the text itself, which of course is material for a DOTA reading. So when a showrunner says something in an interview, it is not that their elaboration of their "intention" is Word of God on a text (as TV Tropes would suggest), or that it is the absolutely and only interpretation, or that extra facts they throw about should be considered canon, but rather, that, as the show is ongoing, that intention may eventually become a part of the text, even if it initially isn't, in which case, it will transform from intention of the author to the intention of the text; something to be taken into account if you invoke the DOTA.
• Taking another example, James Marsters has related many times how Joss told him that he would not make him a heroic or sympathetic character, no matter how much the public wanted it, which, of course is pretty much not what happened at all. Spike is almost definitely (in my opinion) a sympathetic character. And yet, Joss's stated intentionality is also at work within the text; taking into account the audience reaction, and basically Jossing it. Because Spike's character had problematized Buffy-verse with regards to vampires, and how vampires were otherwise depicted in the text. As soulless creatures, incapable of feeling anything, devoid of almost all elevating human emotions. Spike, of course, feels almost ridiculously much, he seems capable of an extraordinary range of human emotions (more even than some humans in the text, perhaps), which would obviously tend to change the audience-perception of vampires as a race itself. If Spike could be the kind of character he was, then who was to say that other vampires couldn't? And if these creatures were not inherently evil per se, but rather were oppressed by a mindset that viewed them as inherently evil, when they were potentially not, then would the heroes be so heroic anymore in slaying them, without first trying to find out if they were "good" or "bad"? This apparently was not what Joss wanted. Vampires in Buffy-verse were supposed to be unequivocally "bad", symbols of what humanity in general is fighting against, and making them sympathetic would mostly be counterintuitive.
Since Joss was aware of this, it can be argued that that's one of the major reasons (apart from a whole host of others), that Seeing Red happened. Because yes, it fits perfectly within the frame of what the show otherwise espouses, and Spike's character had problematized. That vampires, no matter how human seeming will inevitably betray you, somehow, because they are not human, and it is a fallacy to imagine otherwise. Spike, to fit within the framework of how he was being perceived by the public, had to go and get a soul, in order for the intention of the text be in tandem with the audience's pre-existing audience response to him. (I don't want to go into debates about Buffy and Spike's relationship in S6 and how this was a natural culmination, or even that rape is hardly something inhuman, it's very, very human, because I may agree or disagree with all that, but I also think that one of the major reasons for Seeing Red was to establish the human-vampire status quo, and act a catalyst for Spike getting a soul, which was important for the BtVS premise of the human/vampire divide.) The same, to a lesser extent, is what happened with Harmony, who had one of the most sympathetic lines about vampirism in all of canon, and yet betrayed those who trusted her twice, because, apparently as a soulless vampire she just couldn't help it.
• The problem of authorship in television is wide-ranging. I would in fact argue that one of the foremost authors of current texts, especially in the medium of television, is the market. The market, especially in recent times, has shown the potential to determine entire storylines, overriding everything from the "author" to the "text". In fact, in this context, an interesting dichotomy emerges where Barthesian theory about the Death of the Author is almost literalized, because the market is obviously the audience. Take an example; the TVD storyline about the "sire bond" was one of the most useless storylines I've seen yet on the show. It furthered no arc or narrative, and instead served to regress a lot of development and problematized a whole bunch of stuff that would otherwise have been largely unproblematic, by putting the agency of the lead character in question for almost an entire season. And yet, it furthered the cause of the market, because Stefan/Elena shippers, a significant "fan base" could spend an entire season arguing that Elena did not "actually" love Damon but was simply affected by the sire-bond. The same of course could be said of screentime given to Damon/Elena through the seasons, or the emergence of Klaus/Caroline as an actual, effective part of the show, because the larger audience showed interest. In fact, the precedence allotted to Logan in the original VM narrative was because of how the audience responded to him. As I suppose was Caroline's in TVD. The point being that these narratives aren't fixed, thus, any interpretation can be furthered or closed off, and the validity of any interpretation is based on these factors.
Shipping especially is becoming something that the market is taking definitive notes of. Whether it be teasers like the Supernatural episode talking about Dean/Sam shipping or Derek and Stiles on a ship or even most questions just asking Nina or Julianna Margulies from The Good Wife about who they would "choose". And it's even more obvious in something like the Veronica Mars kickstarter, which, for a large part, was literally sold on Logan/Veronica, with Rob and Kristen signing off their messages with "LoVe", or including questions about Logan and Veronica in the FAQ, even though Kristen famously doesn't so much as like the ship, while Rob also initially lobbied for Duncan/Veronica or Weevil/Veronica. Who in this case would be the definitive author, or what would be the definitive text? Is it possible to argue that because Kristen and Rob possibly preferred Duncan/Veronica, then Duncan's exist from the show means that Logan and Veronica only ended up together because Duncan left? Or is it the canonical continuing arc of Season Two, or Season Three, which the Network interfered in to a large extent to make the show more market-friendly and Logan/Veronica centric, which show no evidence to that effect? And it is almost a certainty that the movie will have a lot of LoVe interaction, because everyone involved with the show is quite aware that that is what sells, regardless of what they may personally want.
In an ideal world perhaps, the market would be subservient to the creative vision of the, well, creative. But it's not. (Then again, I might not have had Logan/Veronica at all, so can't be too cut up about the market interfering there, tbqh). What happens when you try to run a show, no matter how brilliant, that goes against the demands of the market, is what happened to VM in Season Three, or the FBI pitch which doesn't so much as resemble the show at all, or Dan Harmon's removal from Community. Shows are inevitably bound by the market, so when TVD constantly makes use of the Stefan/Elena vs. Damon/Elena trope, and caters to the shippers, then that too is not something that is solely within the powers of the showrunners to overturn. The audience feedback is literally informing texts, so the audience almost become part-authors of the text themselves, because their choices are reflected in canon, which of course, is entirely what a DOTA reading is based on.
• Finally, I'd just note that the Death of the Author reading is only a form of reading a text. Different forms of criticism would argue differently, and some would even insist that the author is all there is. DOTA, therefore, is not absolute in any way, and has, in fact, been heavily criticized within literary circles itself. The funniest, of course, is that fandom often appropriates this reading to close off other interpretations, but positing theirs as absolute. But this theory is basically a wormhole, because my reading of Barthes, is clearly my interpretation of Barthes, so anyone interpreting differently would read all these points I've mentioned differently as well, and the result is a never-ending debate as to what DOTA actually is, which I quite think Barthes would have liked.
The essay can't in any way be taken as the be all and end all of literary criticism in any form, or the conclusive end to the debate on interpretation. To each his own, basically. (Besides you know, reading the Death of the Author and it's application is just an exercise in interpretation of what Barthes could have intended through writing it, which, all things considered, is just plain ironic.)