When Barthes states "writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin," it seems as if he is saying that writing does not convey the same message that speaking does. To tell and write a story are distinctively different. For starters, the explicit details used to create the world in a written work is mostly absent from oral delivery, but the cues found in a verbal rendition are missing from the written form. It is not as if the author can utilize a sudden change in his/her vocal tone to indicate that something sinister is about to occur. It certainly isn't as easy as changing your voice while sitting around a campfire, building a wickedly scary story up to a climatic moment, using your voice as a key to ramp up the intensity.
Ah, but to bring it to a level that will surely be relatable to everyone who uses a cell phone: texting. I have gotten into so many uncomfortable situations by sending a text that has an unintentional ambiguous meaning simply because the vocal tone isn't there to lend credence to what is trying to be said. The words 'I don't care' take on a variety of meanings depending on who's reading them or hearing them. It is so easy to take what is written and add a personal meaning to it, inadvertently raising your own blood pressure as anger sets in when the message was totally benign in origin (the legacy of texting will be a mass spike in blood pressure and the need for anger management classes, mark my words).
Ah, but I've digressed from the words of Barthes, or have I? I wonder what exactly Barthes would think of the texting phenomenon. Either way, I think he'd possibly agree with me when I say that when it comes to texting, something gets lost in the transcription.