Death of the Author

“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

You, as many others throughout Twitter, may sit in shock and disbelief as you read the astounding tweet made by an individual that had shaped an entire generation to stand for morals and values of acceptance, identity and justice for those who may not have the strength or courage to fight for themselves. J. K. Rowling’s tweets and the defense of her tweets, leading to her developing a piece titled “TERF Wars,” had sent the platform into a storm and effectively started clouding the vision of those who had seen her characters as childhood heroes who could do no wrong.

For the author of such a massive and influential series, her insensitivity to the struggles of trans individuals contradict the messages that she had thought to preach within her own stories. As a result, the disillusionment felt by many due to the once perfect and infallible story that once enraptured their adolescent brain is now being tainted by the horrible thoughts and actions of the creator.

At the root of this problem blossoms a feeling that continues to be at the forefront of an extensive debate that plagues the minds of consumers everywhere: Is it completely possible to separate an artist from their work?

The first idea of being able to separate the artist and their work was established by the French critic, Roland Barthes. Barthes’ works on literary structure and his study on semiotics (study of symbols, signs and their subsequent interpretations) later influenced Western thinking and many famous intellectuals, such as the philosopher Jacques Derrida and more. Despite his numerous contributions, his most famous work is known as “La mort de l'auteur” (The Death of the Author). In this essay, Barthes converses about the need for readers to separate the artist and their work, arguing that a reader would not be able to experience the full effect of the work on its own if they know the artist’s own biases. In Barthes’ eyes, the artist’s job is only to produce the work, while the reader’s job is only to consume it and make their own interpretations and judgements. This allows for the literary art to truly be able to escape the restraints placed by a single “right” interpretation Thus, the interpretation is under the reader’s control and jurisdiction, completely untainted by the influence of others, or even the author themselves.

The radical introduction to such work, that has subsequently shaped Western literary thought, comes with certain critiques.

The first critique comes in the form of a question: Can one truly understand the work without the experiences that shaped the author and therefore, inherently, the work they produced as a result of it?

An example of this critique is found within the context of “The Republic,” a book by the famous Greek philosopher, Plato. The work is centered upon Plato’s idea of his perfect utopia, where he touches upon subjects such as the division of labor, the idea of marriage, finding one’s place within a society and much more. Although the creation of this seemingly ideal “Republic” would not have been born if it wasn’t for the experiences that Plato had gone through first in order to understand and learn what is essential, or nonessential, to his version of a society.

During Plato’s time, there was the establishment of direct democracy within Athens, allowing every male citizen to have a vote. Due to the uneducated judgements of some, they proceeded to wage war against Sparta, a city-state known for its battle prowess. Ultimately, this cost the Athenian state a huge loss and brought about years of tyranny and suffering that led to the death of many, including Plato’s close friends and family. This caused Plato to distrust the idea of direct democracy and his belief that some individuals were not intellectually able to participate in the decision-making of the people. Eventually, the age of tyrants was abolished and direct democracy was established once again to Plato’s dismay. Though this would not be Plato’s last time dealing with suffering, as Plato’s mentor, Socrates, became the target of the masses and was sent to be executed due to his attempts to enlighten the people with his intellectual capabilities.

Plato’s utopia became the exact opposite of direct democracy as a result of his experiences. Plato’s history became the basis of “The Republic” and the reason for his belief that everyone has a place within society and, once everyone finds where they belong, society would then be able to function harmoniously, effectively bringing about the happiness of everyone.

Not only can the author’s own experience shape the reader’s perspective on the art, but the knowledge of the author can warp the reader’s experience entirely. Once information about an author is learned, especially during the age of technological advancements where so much information is transmitted worldwide, would people truly be able to be objective about the subject material they are reading? An example of this critic has been already spoken about earlier: J. K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter.”

Once J.K. Rowling had publicly revealed her perspectives on transgender individuals and her complete rejection of such individuals as their true selves, it makes it difficult for the readers to objectively separate her viewpoints from her books since they’re inherently written within the story, even if its not explicit.

These implicit biases or prejudice are very prominent in her various instances of racism that are displayed throughout the books in subtle, yet very telling acts of stereotyping. At the very forefront of the obvious racism that Rowling displays is Cho Chang. Her name speaks volumes with two separate last names of Korean and Chinese descent, sparking major controversy with Asian communities throughout the world as the only Asian character of prominence throughout the entire series doesn't even have an accurate first name, but is instead subjected to the racial stereotyping with lazy characterization and development.

Not only is Cho Chang’s name a direct telling of these racial undertones, but her placement into the Ravenclaw house, a house focused on intelligence and education, continues to feed into the prolonged and antagonizing stereotypes that Asian individuals can only be defined by their intelligence and academics.

However, Asians are not the only individuals that are impacted by J. K. Rowling’s writing. Dean Thomas and Blaise Zabini are both Black individuals who are subjected to an absent father, furthering the stereotype of Black children not having present fathers during their adolescence. These characters of color had all played their own roles within the premise of “Harry Potter,” but, truthfully, they never stick out nor are developed further than what their use for the storyline plot is needed for. Cho Chang and Dean Thomas only serve as character development relationships for both Harry and Ginny and in turn emphasizes Harry and Ginny’s growing attraction towards each other through the series. Although J. K. Rowling has tried to make a point upon race with the dynamic between the “muggle,” “half-blood,” and “pureblood” peoples, her discussion on race is tainted by the racism that has been clearly present within her books.

At the end of the day, humans are complex creatures that do not have the ability to be truly objective in everything that they encounter. We’re full of contradictions and have flaws that cloud the subject matter of our books, movies, and television shows. The authors would be just as flawed as their works, continually proving that our own biases and faults do not stop us from pushing the boundaries of the literary or artistic sphere and bettering the craft. Though, this does not mean that we can’t hold individuals accountable for the misdeeds they did without appreciating the works that they have contributed for growing generations. In order to truly be able to appreciate the work presented by the artist, we need to stop the idolization of historical figures and artists that truly do not deserve it.

It’s truly enviable that we stubble upon a work that we love only to later find out that the author of which may not be as honorable as we thought them to be. Our thoughts may be clouded and we may feel sad and frustrated over such a beloved piece of work that has had such an impact on our development and happiness. However, just because our judgments may have changed, it does not mean the joy and memories that we have attached onto these works were not valid and genuine. As Daniel Radcliffe states, “if you found anything in these stories that resonated with you and helped you at any time in your life — then that is between you and the book that you read, and it is sacred. And in my opinion nobody can touch that.”