In order to dig deep into the meaning in of a given text, there are a number of components you must look at.  Included in those components, are repetition, contrast, key concepts/elements, important words, alliteration, or striking imagery, and many more.  If you take five different readers and give them the same passage to perform a close reading of, you will likely get five variations of meanings.  There are often a number of ways to interpret a text when performing a close reading.  The brains of each person who is reading the text will work differently, and summarize a different meaning from it.  In the case of “The Death of the Author” written by Roland Barthes, a reader can easily see where their own point of view may differ from that of another person performing the same close reading. What a person ma gather from a close reading has to do with the way your brain has been taught to interpret certain literary situations. By closely reading the text in Barthes Essay, you can see the developing and evolving argument against the standard way of reading.   

It does feel a little weird to be constructing a three to four-page essay about a close reading of a three to four-page essay that argues against certain ways of reading. However, in Barthes essay highlighting the flaws in the way people interpret literature, he mainly cites the way people interpret authors. One quote from the essay stands to show his argument as follows… “The author, when believed in, is always conceived as the past of his own book: book and author stand automatically on a single line divided into a before and after.” (Barthes, CR 14).  In this quote, you can detect Barthes main argument of allowing our view of an author to change the way we read and interpret text.  He suggests that in order for us to be able to read and analyze a work of literature to its full potential, we must separate the author from his work.  One of the great examples of this can be poetry.  We often times automatically assume that since the author is a poet, we should read their work as much deeper than it actually is.  What often makes poetry so unique is the simplicity of it, and a lot of the time we may trample the beauty of it, or miss the point of it completely by overanalyzing.  

Barthes repeatedly referenced the relationship between an author and their work as being one that many readers overplay.  Many authors write to get away from their own political views, religion, and psychology, all of which are referenced in the text. Often times, an author uses their work as an outlet from their own personality.  Barthes cites the story “Sarrasine” by Honore de Balzac, where the author writes “This woman herself, with her sudden fears, her irrational whims, her instinctive worries, her impetuous boldness, her fussings and her delicious sensibility.” (Barthes, CR 12) From this he goes on to inquire the reader on the authors views towards the character, plot, ideology, and psychology that is present in the short insert.  All of which seem to be rhetorical questions given the argument he is making in his essay.  

On many occasions, in today’s society particularly, we tend to focus on an authors political and religious beliefs more than anything to draw what we assume to be wonderful and scholarly conclusions about the text we are reading from said author. However, in many, if not most cases, that be the wrong way to go about an analyzation of a text.  Often times, the religious/ political beliefs of an author have no role what so ever in their works.  Obvious exceptions to this rule lay in some fictional stories, as well as stated political/religious publications.  That being said, non-fiction books should never be skewed by an author’s political or religious views, since they are to be based solely on fact.  

Another ‘close-readable’ part of Barthes essay is the title.  “The Death of the Author” seems to be quite a depressing title.  When I came across this title in the Carolina Reader, I assumed a passage on the evolution of writing, scolding the newest authors in this world for ruining what was beautiful English literature for centuries.  However, upon close reading of the passage, and a careful reexamination of the titles relationship to the passage, conclusions may arise.  Authors are not actually dying, but we should figuratively kill them from our minds when reading.  This is the heart of Barthes argument, and the title says it all. 

Conclusively, from a close reading of Barthes “The Death of the Author”, we see an argument held against the standard way of reading, more specifically, associating the authors name and background with the story he or she is trying to tell.  When we do not dissociate the authors name from the reading, we can easily fall into the trap of over analyzation.  Barthes cities works of literature such as “Sarrasine” to showcase the way our minds think about this topic.  We tend to consider things such as political views, religion, and psychology, of the author when we read their works.  Whenever we decide to draw a line between the authors, and the content of that authors work, then we may be able to read the way the author wants us too.   
