“Death of the Author” by [[Roland Barthes]] discusses and criticizes the emphasis literary critics place on the author while offering an alternative emphasis. The article claims that many have tried to break the idea that so much weight of discourse lies upon the authors. The examples include Mallarme’s attempt to suppress the author in poetics and Valery’s stress on linguistics and the text. Barthes claims that nothing is original because it all comes from already constructed dictionary from which all write. The dictionary, he also asserts, is just a “tissue of signs imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred.” For Barthes, “A text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God), but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash” (5). Then, Barthes states that putting an author on the text limits it and potential interpretations. He further states that the existence of writing is “a text...made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations...” All of this multiplicity is thus focused in the readers. They are the ones that have to power to make a variety of different interpretations, emotions, and hold all the traces of text of which the text being read consists. The author can only understand and convey his/her own interpretation. Therefore, “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”

Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"

2012-02-16T00:37:32Z

Meg Seeger:

[[Andrea A. Lunsford]] and [[Lisa S. Ede]]

In “On Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric,” Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede address the common distinctions made between classical rhetoric and modern rhetoric. However, the point of their essay is to demonstrate how similar classic and modern rhetoric are (398). Lunsford and Ede say that major distinctions made about classical rhetoric include that it was based on a rational being living in a socially cohesive society, focused on rational proofs (logos), based on one-way communication with a selected audience, and the overall goal was to persuade. While distinctions about modern rhetoric include that rhetoric is based on symbol-using men who live in a less cohesive society, there is a focus on the emotional proofs (pathos), there is understood two-way communication, and the overall goal is communication not persuasion (400). Lunsford and Ede continue to dissect Aristotle’s arguments throughout the essay to show the relationship between classic and modern rhetoric. For them, some similarities include that both classic and modern focus on uniting emotion with reason through argumentation, allow both the rhetor and audience access to knowledge, and use rhetoric in various fields (404). Overall, Lunsford and Ede are calling for rhetors and rhetoricians to realize how connected modern and classic are. They write, “ If rhetoric is to reach its full potential in the twentieth century as an informing framework …then we must define ourselves not in opposition to but in consonance with the classical model” (408).

Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"

2012-02-16T00:36:57Z

Meg Seeger:

[[Andrea A. Lunsford]] and [[Lisa S. Ede]]

In “Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric,” Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede address the common distinctions made between classical rhetoric and modern rhetoric. However, the point of their essay is to demonstrate how similar classic and modern rhetoric are (398). Lunsford and Ede say that major distinctions made about classical rhetoric include that it was based on a rational being living in a socially cohesive society, focused on rational proofs (logos), based on one-way communication with a selected audience, and the overall goal was to persuade. While distinctions about modern rhetoric include that rhetoric is based on symbol-using men who live in a less cohesive society, there is a focus on the emotional proofs (pathos), there is understood two-way communication, and the overall goal is communication not persuasion (400). Lunsford and Ede continue to dissect Aristotle’s arguments throughout the essay to show the relationship between classic and modern rhetoric. For them, some similarities include that both classic and modern focus on uniting emotion with reason through argumentation, allow both the rhetor and audience access to knowledge, and use rhetoric in various fields (404). Overall, Lunsford and Ede are calling for rhetors and rhetoricians to realize how connected modern and classic are. They write, “ If rhetoric is to reach its full potential in the twentieth century as an informing framework …then we must define ourselves not in opposition to but in consonance with the classical model” (408).