In the lecture, I did not comment on Roland Barthes' argument, but explained his central point. To repeat, Barthes iterated that the text, not the author, refers to pre- existing texts for unraveling its intent. But you are right in thinking that a writer has a role to play in the making of the text, his version being one version that the reader struggles to interpret, to unmake, or replace with his/her own. Thus, the author is not dead or irrelevant to the reader/interpreter.

Thanks for responding. This answers my query completely.

He explained post structuralism and deconstruction in a very nice way

"Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself". It is Historiography's strong defence.

Nicely explained and I would like to thank the people associated with such programs .

thanks for uploading

Nice explaination of complex topics.

As awesome as all other lectures... But a few topics are missing... For example, I couldn't find a video on Structuralism separately or Formalism.

Thanks a lot.

Roland Barthes, as you mentioned, talked about the death of the author and that the text is a tissue of quotations taken from different sources, thus negating any significance of the author. My question is that even though a text may contain things that were already said by someone somewhere, still the way these pre existing ideas are represented in a text and the perspective that emerges thereof, is author's own. So don't you think that completely wiping out an author's authority in a text is slightly problematic ?

pls upload or send me the link of structuralism and formalism...

The day this videos will gain millions of videos The World will change.

Was very helpful

thank you

pls send me the link of structuralism

sign substitution- concept of difference by Derrida

Mam ur usage of word "probably" is what Post-Structuralism signifies :)

Thank you for this lecture. It is most helpful! The young lady asked very good questions too. Thank you!

مكملين

In the lecture, I did not comment on Roland Barthes' argument, but explained his central point. To repeat, Barthes iterated that the text, not the author, refers to pre- existing texts for unraveling its intent. But you are right in thinking that a writer has a role to play in the making of the text, his version being one version that the reader struggles to interpret, to unmake, or replace with his/her own. Thus, the author is not dead or irrelevant to the reader/interpreter.

@SusanSt.James-33

7 жыл бұрын

anand prakash The notes help the viewer in following the exposition. You have ably tackled the issues.