In his critique “Death of the Author” Barthes, describing Balzac describing “Sarrasine” [...] Barthes, asks “who is speaking thus?” Balzac no longer philosophical due to metaphysical peculiarities and unable to defend his literary image, whether to admire or to refute the theoretical suppositions of occupational discomfort, might suggest, “Is it the hero of the critique bent on remaining ignorant of the Existentialist hidden beneath the man? Is it Barthes, the individual, furnished by his own personal experience with a philosophy of Existential Theology? Is it Barthes, the critic professing literary ideas of tyranny and death? Is it the Existential contradiction of an absolute in the absence of it? Is it the Copenhagen Interpretation?
We might for good reason, understand the arbitrariness of Semioticians
validating an Author or Critic who might be suffering in the interpretation and representation of a symbol language construct such as language or film, if it wasn’t for ambiguity.
We might for good reason, understand the arbitrariness of Semioticians
validating an Author or Critic who might be suffering in the interpretation and representation of a symbol language construct such as language or film, if it wasn’t for ambiguity.