The word Author is loosely defined by the OED as, the individual who originates or gives being to anything, but does this mean that a text is produced entirely by a individual writer? It is clear that the writer of a text will hold a defined thought of what they would wish their text to accomplish, but can we be certain that an writer is capable of bring forthing a text that is uninfluenced by external beginnings? In this essay I will analyze the significance of a text and distinguish whether it is produced entirely by its writer or if it is a complex coaction of the writer, text and the readers own subconscious apprehension.

New Criticism argued that auctorial purpose was irrelevant to understanding a piece of literature. In their essay ‘The Intentional Fallacy ‘ , W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley wrote that ‘the design or purpose of the writer is neither available nor desirable as a criterion for judging the success of a work of literary art ‘[ 1 ]. They argued that an writer could non be reconstructed from a piece of authorship and that the lone beginning of intending came from the text itself, with any inside informations of the writer ‘s desires or life being strictly immaterial.

Critics such as Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault have scrutinized the function of writing to the significance and reading of a text. In Barthes essay ‘Death of the Author ‘ , he criticizes the method of reading and unfavorable judgment that relies on facets of the writer ‘s individuality to condense intending from the writer ‘s work. This ‘death ‘ is directed at the writer showing an interior vision, non at the thought of authorship. He is opposing a position of texts as showing a distinguishable personality of the writer and despises the thought that they ‘consciously ‘ create chef-d’oeuvres. Barthes states the thought that the account and significance of a work does non hold to be sought in the 1 who produced it, ‘as if it were ever in the terminal, through the more or less crystalline fable of the fiction, the voice of a individual individual, the writer ‘confiding ‘ in us ‘[ 2 ]. The writer can be disregarded when construing a text, because ‘it is linguistic communication which speaks, non the writer ‘ ; the words are rich adequate themselves with all of the traditions of linguistic communication. The words and linguistic communication of a text itself determine and expose significance for Barthes, and non person possessing legal duty for the procedure of its production. The writer is simply a ‘scriptor ‘ . The scriptor exists to bring forth but non to explicate the work, the ‘origin ‘ of intending prevarications entirely in ‘language itself ‘ and its feelings on the reader. Barthes notes that the traditional critical attack to literature raises a job of which we can non observe exactly what the author intended.

Julia Kristeva invented the term intertextuality, proposing that ‘no text is ‘free ‘ of other texts ‘ . Intertextuality leads to guesss about the thought of a text guaranteeing stableness and individuality. If a text is partially explained by a whole series of other texts, so its intending clearly does non shack entirely inside it, but is besides produced by its relation with other texts. Every reader may hold a different apprehension of the significance of a text depending on the external texts they associate with it.

Looking at William Shakespeare ‘s drama intertextually, ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ prompts literary unfavorable judgment as the drama portions a relationship with other literary texts. ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘s ‘ secret plan is based around more than one different beginning, doing the audience inquiry the originality of the drama itself. Shakespeare based his drama on an Italian narrative, translated into poetry as ‘The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet ‘ by Arthur Brooke in 1562. ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ is a dramatization of Brooke ‘s interlingual rendition, which Shakespeare has followed closely. We see this through Romeo ‘s duologue as he says, ‘Is she a Capulet? / O beloved history! my life is my enemy ‘s debt. ‘[ 3 ]Shakespeare literally mirrors the secret plan of Brooke ‘s narrative in his ain ‘So hath he learned her name, and know’th she is no geast, / Her male parent was a Capulet, ‘[ 4 ]It is difficult to claim that Shakespeare has ownership of this drama along with the thought that this is non an original thought and the content of his drama has come from influences around him.

Shakspere was besides to a great extent influenced by Ovid ‘s Metamorphoses, taking inspiration from the tragic love narrative of ‘Pyramus and Thisbe ‘ . In Ted Hughes interlingual rendition, it is clear to see that Shakespeare has been influenced by Ovid, ‘The parents of each forbade their kid / To get married the other. That was that. / But prohibition provenders love, ‘ mirroring the exact same household feud and passion in ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘[ 5 ], ‘Deny thy male parent and decline thy name ; / Or, if thou wilt non, be but curse my love, / And I ‘ll no longer be a Capulet ‘ ( Act 2, Scene II ; ll 34-36 ) . There are rumoured to be so many beginnings behind one of Shakespeare ‘s most well-known chef-d’oeuvres, this surely begs the inquiry of whether Shakespeare was original and if he gave intending to his ain work.

It is appropriate to near an Elizabethan drama as a collaborative work, given the sum of people used to successfully ‘create ‘ a drama. A piece of play is necessarily constructed by many custodies, adding to the significance of the drama. ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ would non merely be defined by William Shakespeare, but how the drama was performed would hold tremendous consequence on its significance along with those involved in the devising of it. ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ was arguably non written by Shakespeare, he took influences from many different texts, join forcesing with many other authors. The composing behind ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ does non specify the drama, but it is the theatrical production and public presentation that make the drama what it is. Performance adds to the text in the sense of linking to it gestures, symbols and theatrical production, these all produce a definition non in the text itself. In a well-known citation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and fabrics, ‘the text is a tissue of citations drawn from the countless Centres of civilization ‘ ( pp. 142-48 ) significance that one individuals work is ne’er original. It is the reader/viewer that makes a piece of literature what it is, whether that is personal or non.

It is hard to judge whether a piece of literature successfully carries out what it means to try because we can ne’er be certain of the author ‘s purpose in the first topographic point. For illustration Robert Frost ‘s ‘The Silken Tent ‘ opened up to much argument about whether the verse form was truly symbolizing a adult female and questioned the possibility of its ‘supporting cardinal cedar pole ‘ ( l. 5 ) really stand foring a boat with linguistic communication rich in relatable words, for illustration, ‘guy ropes ‘ and ‘compass ‘ . It should non be ‘wrong ‘ to hold a different sentiment of a text, happening significance in literature is all about your personal gustatory sensations and experiences leting you to associate to texts. Literature is all about what you as a reader brand of a text in your ain personal manner.

There seems to be no warrant in this procedure that the ‘origins ‘ of the text, the conventions of the message and the readers sentiment are indistinguishable in any manner. A piece of literature depends on the words and contexts which surround it, but these contexts are non ever important when looking for intending in a text. The linguistic communication of textuality itself will show an statement that is potentially antagonistic to the writer ‘s witting purpose.

The significance of a text is non produced entirely by an writer ; it is a complex coaction between writer, text and reader. Shakespeare did non give ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ significance, significance was created through the text and public presentation of the drama and by the spectator making their ain personal sentiments about it. Shakespeare may hold been the ‘origin ‘ behind ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ but there are many different beginnings that could hold been seen to be used, oppugning the originality of the drama. The indispensable significance of a piece of literature depends on the feeling it has made on the reader, the authors passions and gustatory sensations do non come into it. Meaning is a coaction of all these different factors, it can non be gathered strictly from merely the writer because there may hold been no auctorial purpose behind that text and literature is all about your ain personal sentiment and where you ‘take ‘ that text in your head. Barthes makes an of import point stating, ‘a text ‘s integrity lies non in its beginnings [ … ] but in its finish, ‘ ( pp. 142-48 ) significance that it all comes down to the reader and society, a piece of texts beginnings are unimportant.

Word Count: 1560