My Love for Authors

While I was reading "Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes, I was struck by three things: his theory and reminded me a lot of New Criticism, the second was that they also reminded me of Reader Response Theory, and the third was how much I disliked his whole paper.

I didn't dislike it because it was esoteric and somewhat difficult to understand. He had his target audience, those in the literary community, and he was merely proposing a train of thought to that community. I can respect that.

My dislike came from the fact that I'm an aspiring writer. I've never liked New Criticism because, much like Barthes suggested, the author doesn't matter. It's all about the words on the page, which I can completely respect. Really, when I stop being so self involved and take time to contemplate, an author only is the sum of his words on the page. And Barthes did make another great point; an author doesn't come into existence until his work comes into existence. I can see that, because as a writer I feel I should be defined by my work. He's also correct when he stated that readers decipher everything within a novel or book. Readers are not only the buyers of novels, they're also the definers of what a novel means, or what characters are important. I just like to get attention, so I'd rather be viewed as the genius that created the next great American novel, even though it's really the readers who would accomplish that too. Anyways, those are just my small, but significant points to make about the piece.

Now, as for relating it to video games, I feel bad even saying this because designers and creative directors are "artsy" types like myself, I have to say that I'll play Barthes servant boy and say that no, video games do not have authors. They have creators, just as books, and they construct stories, much like authors. However, just as with the writer or novelist, the game is only as important as the people playing it. Stories and characters in games only gain significance and meaning based on how an audience perceives them. In this line of thinking, I'd have to say video games come from "producers." Not necessarily in the factory line sense of the word, but game developers take traditional stories or genres, but their own twist on it, make it shiny, and pump it out to the world. In that sense, no, they are not authors, just as writers aren't authors. I say this because I agree with Barthes, writer and game developers just assemble pieces that have been around for a long time, and they put them together in a way they find interesting, then it's all up to the audience to give the game life, to make sure it's played. The work could have been made by anyone, and, broadly speaking, most games have already been created, just with a different name and engine.

As far as what criteria game makers have to meet to achieve authorship, I'd say there aren't any. Unless a company or designer were to create a completely unique story and experience, I'd say they're just publishers and assemblers. It makes me sad to even think about, but originality is dead, and perhaps it's always been dead, ever since the Hero's Journey. The only criteria I could think of is that they were to create everything new. I'm talking storyline, engine, gameplay mechanics, characters, objectives, the whole kit and kaboodle. Yes, it's cynical, but until it happens, game makers are just imitators, as well as authors.

I'm sorry to say, but for now, the only group or persons that matter in a creative endeavor are the audience. They're truly the only creators and authors left, because they give life to the products we sell.