Reading Response: The Death of the Author

I did not enjoy this reading, it was a little hard for me to understand. Or rather I understood it but disagree with it. I believe the author can do whatever they want and the work will not loose it's "spark." The article states things like "the Author is supposed to feed the book." To me the author can distance himself from the story because they are creating something that may not be real and they may not put there all into it but they may have certain "writing skills" and can create this creative work without trying. The same goes for if you put your all into a work it could be undesirable. The article also states, "once the Author is gone, the claim to “decipher” a text becomes quite useless."  Why? there is still a story being told, there is still something there to be understood. The biggest disagreement is to this statement of the reading, "once the Author is discovered, the text is explained." We as people change, our creativity changes, and our work changes. It may be one work but you could be going through so much that it can have several different "vibes" from it. My question is who is the author, there are so many thoughts that it may feel like there are multiple people. Does this lessen the work? Or if there is a painful experience that you have lost that desire to put your all into the work and you distance yourself is it still worthless. I just believe that anyone can create art with a spark because no one can define art. No one can define that "spark" in the work. I believe that as long as you create it and put it out there for the world to see that "spark" is always there it's just up to the audience to decide when they will except it. Society loves the work of many artist who are dead because we can create in our own mind that connection between the artist and there work. When in reality no one even knows the true person who created it work their thoughts behind it. We give the work an author for our own satisfaction.