This enters into highly philosophical territory. Can meaning exist only for one person? That is, can you decide for yourself the meaning of words and if yes, what sense does it make to tell your made-up meaning to others?
I can decide for myself that "road" is a metaphor for "apple" and treat the poem as advice to make brandy from the apples that have rolled the least distance from the tree when they fell. But does that really mean anything to other people? Can you in fact discuss this interpretation, or is it so absurd as to boggle the mind and defy rational discourse?
The other thing that bothers me is, with Death of the Author, you end up with an echo chamber. You don't try to understand somebody else's idea, you're trying to make his/her words say your ideas. Which sounds absolutely counter to the very purpose of writing things down. Why would you write if people won't read what you've written? If you won't put new ideas in their head, but only become a vessel for their current thoughts?
Socrates said he didn't see the point of writing for others, given that you won't be there to tell them what your words mean. Well, someone wrote that he said, since he himself didn't write. In any case, I find these words highly prophetic.
Death of the Author doesn't mean you get to ignore everyone else, it just means you don't privilege the author's intended interpretation as the "one true meaning". You can still compare interpretations and decide one is more fitting than another, you just don't get to sidestep the debate with a quote from the author.
Frost's poem is probably a good example: Clearly it has a pervasive meaning in our culture in a way that the author didn't intend. Would it be intellectually honest to ignore that alternative meaning?
I can decide for myself that "road" is a metaphor for "apple" and treat the poem as advice to make brandy from the apples that have rolled the least distance from the tree when they fell. But does that really mean anything to other people? Can you in fact discuss this interpretation, or is it so absurd as to boggle the mind and defy rational discourse?
The other thing that bothers me is, with Death of the Author, you end up with an echo chamber. You don't try to understand somebody else's idea, you're trying to make his/her words say your ideas. Which sounds absolutely counter to the very purpose of writing things down. Why would you write if people won't read what you've written? If you won't put new ideas in their head, but only become a vessel for their current thoughts?
Socrates said he didn't see the point of writing for others, given that you won't be there to tell them what your words mean. Well, someone wrote that he said, since he himself didn't write. In any case, I find these words highly prophetic.