Paul thinks that Barthes is an idiot

Is it too childish to say "I don't get it"?

I know that might sound cliche, or trite, but the fact is I don't see how it is possible for the author to be extinct simply because his text exists to the reader. This seems like total pontification without reason. How can a text be without a source? Did the writing write itself from the vast sources of wisdom that solidified itself into a written work to be enjoyed by any random reader? No. The author is the voice, the text is the vehicle and the reader is the destination of the authors voice. If the author decides to remove his or her name from their written piece, they are still the source of the thoughts and intents that are put into print, even though they may wish otherwise. If the author is dead at the time of the reading, then the author is not extinct, but comes back alive to deliver the message that was once written. The text does not in anyway forgo the author, but in fact reincarnates the authors mind when the reader decides to become an audience for the words of the author.

I am not convinced that a writing comes from so many sources that identification of a single source is impossible. Even in a group writing, there are several unique voices that join to make the groups joined perspective understandable.

All these ideas and events that penetrate this world are impossible to be perceived by a single entity, and those who have the fortune of witnessing the same spectacle each have their own lens of understanding based on their unique history. This frames the individual as a vessel who holds a very unique perspective from every other person before or after them in the world. When this individual decides to share their views in writing, the writing itself may transcend the persons life, but it will never obliviate the author such as Barthes suggested.