在解構的聲浪中，形而上的本體、實有、或存在說皆化為烏有，作者搖身一變，看似被驅除出奧林帕斯山，但細究起來，在文化史上，恐怕沒有任何一個時代比當今更重視作者創意的尊貴，此表與裡的差異在文化論述中，是互斥的抑或是共容的？本文將藉著探討解構論述中，作者與符號的辯證關係，一方面突顯理論與實踐上的差異問題，另一方面也針對此問題，給予進一步的評析與回應。 本研究顯示作者與符號間存在著弔詭式的依存關係，而此關係也隨著其底層遊戲規則的變動，而不斷的改變其風貌。而其能變的現象，在在也彰顯出，不論是作者或是符號，都沒有其恆常不變的自性與主體，也不能以有或無定義二者，因此不論是傳統的作者說，或是解構的虛無說，僅是其眾多風貌之一、二。

　　　　　The apocalyptic annunciation about authorship in the post structuralis t studies has brought an entirely different perspective to the conception of originality or creativity, Before, we could not think of the author except by invoking simultaneously his specific gift of imagination. Now the new perspective no longer considers the author as an imaginative but as an imaginary or make-believe individual. The author is incapable of imagining freely and independently; his name and function are merely imposed or prefabricated by systemized structures, like discourse, institution, language, and so on. Given the situation, we often find little consensus about what precisely might constitute authorship, even less about what imagination or originality comprises. In this essay, I will study the rapport and interplay between the self and the signifier or language from the post-structuralists' viewpoints, with a special emphasis on Roland Barthes', and then examine the gap or discrepancy between their critiques about the nature of authorship and the results of their practical criticism. Much of this study shows that the notion of the game, with its demand for utmost seriousness without an ultimate metaphysical for utmost seriousness without an ultimate metaphysical foundation and with its shifting of rules from epoch to epoch, best explains the dialectical place of the author in our present discursive practices. Paradoxically speaking, a so-called authentic or true author should be free from the game, but the author can not be recognized as an author unless he sets himself into the game itself. Its nature of the game makes us wonder whether we should be ready for another shift or transformation which proclaims that there is no other, but only the self, in spite of the fact that the conception of authorship at the present moment hails an other by negating the self. At any rate, it is in the endless comings of the apocalyptic annunciation of end that postmodern authorship has been embedded and has parodied itself, inasmuch as the apocalyptic annunciation always entails or welcomes another end or beginning.