Quote Originally Posted by DomaDoma View Post
And now, instead, we're using this credo to bathe every work in the light of contemporary politics. After all, what other "shared cultural existence" can there possibly be? (None at all, says Foucault: nothing is ever uttered but as part of a power struggle. There's a pretty good chance that he, not Barthes, is where it all went sour.)

To take a political example that's current, but not in vogue, for illumination purposes: We don't know the author of Beowulf, but we do know he had a pretty alien and ritualistic idea of the significance of gold, and immersion in Beowulf means aligning yourself, as far as you can, with that mentality. Interpreting Beowulf in the light of what contemporary doomsayers are saying about gold would be daft.
So are you just upset that looking at works through the lens of our current time brings up things you dont want to think about with your favourite authors (or, given the casual dropping of marxism as a negative adjective, something a little more insidious)

Like obviously, context is important in discussing meaning in a text. Its literally impossible to interpret meaning without context. Even if you actively work to not think about what you know about the author, the time it was written, things you already know about the text, or about the subject of the text, or what you were doing when you experienced it, or any number of contexts and outside influences that can distort or change an interpretation.

Again, its about how the author does not control sole ownership over interpretation and meaning. They may be able to provide insight into the production of the text, which can be used to recontextualize your own interpretation, but theirs is not more correct than anyone elses. Thats the point.