Authors Intentions

In the time I have had available I have only really had a chance to skim Barthes work and frankly I admit I do not really understand his work in depth. I do note however that "The Death of the Author" grew out of the structuralist movement. I am not entirely sure that it applies to the arguments that I have been having. He talks of the inability of the observer be they reader or critic to truly understand the Intent of the author and therefore that they have the right to place their own interpretation on the work provided such an interpretation is supported by the text. The last phrase "supported by the text" is where my position lies. I have no problem with Directors interpreting my work in their own way provided there is no addition to the text. One of my biggest problems in recent years with productions I have seen of my own work and with others is when I have seen Directors and actors build enormous tottering houses of cards of motivation and intent based purely on imagination with no support from the text. Play the text is my only point. With regard to Beckett, his estate protects his work jealously as was discovered by Deborah Warner with her production of Footfalls in London. The estate has interpreted certain instructions left by Beckett in letters and essays to mean that his plays must be performed as written down to stage directions and descriptions of lighting effects. That is his and their prerogative. If you don't like it don't perform Beckett. I don't mean that to sound as terse as it does on rereading but the basic point is there. Some authors are very strict some are not. To return to Barthes, his work really relates specifically to criticism and academic criticism in particular and i am not sure that it really does apply in this situation. I hope that this wasn't too rambling or incoherent and that my viewpoint and stance are clear. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au