Those literary critics and conventionally minded readers who seek to critically engage the many texts which shape the canon of Western knowledge too often ask the same, misguided questions. Their discourse is, according to Michel Foucault, trapped within parameters established by a dominant mode of thinking with grants the “author” absolute primacy. Even the recognition of this paradigm too often produces a similarly misguided interrogation: “Who really spoke? Is it really he and not someone else? With what authenticity or originality?” (Foucault 230). These well-intentioned questioners tragically miss the point. They incessantly fret over the qualities and character of signifier which has no meaningful impact on a text’s meaning, but which rather serves to limit our ability to receive or disseminate knowledge. Instead of either denying the relevancy of the “author” or entirely ceding to its reign, we ought to interrogate what precisely is meant and entailed by the existence of the “author-function” at all.
This paper will explore three primary areas of analysis related to this pursuit. First, we must investigate what is meant by the naming of an author-- its origins and immediate distinction from the mere naming of a human being. Second, we shall analyze the implications of the author-function’s widespread acceptance and deployment. Finally, we will synthesize these lines of questioning in an attempt to discover the importance of uncovering the ideological nature of the author, and what this uncovering entails for the reception and interpretation of texts.
Foucault quickly advances his discussion of authorship to the implications of his discoveries, admittedly foregoing the vital question of origin. While Foucault would argue...
... middle of paper ...
...ho can appropriate it for himself? What are the places in it where there is room for possible subjects? Who can assume these various subject functions? And behind all these questions, we would hear hardly anything but the stirring of an indifference: What difference does it make who is speaking? (Foucault 230)
The romantics and the profiteers have trapped us and tricked us into an almost pathological obsession with the “author.” Masquerading as an open set of questions or an opportunity for productive discourse, authorship and its trappings have subtly locked us into a self-abusing mode of thought which forecloses the possibility of truly free understanding. Only once we abandon our corrupted conception of knowledge will we be able to find the liberating intellectual space necessary for truly understanding the multitude of meanings which collectively form our world.
There are many times in which a reader will interpret a piece of literature in a way that was completely unintended by the author. In her article, “In the Canon, for All the Wrong Reasons”, Amy Tan discusses people telling her the meaning behind her own stories, her experiences with criticism, and how this has affected her approach to writing moving forward. While this may seem ironic, considering the topic, I have my own interpretations of this article. Firstly, Amy Tan addresses how people will often tell her what her own work means and the symbolism in her writing.
Among its detractors, literary theory has a reputation for sinful ignorance of both literature and the outside world; literary critics either overemphasize the word at the expense of context (as in formalistic criticisms) or overemphasize context at the expense of the word (as in political and historical criticisms). However, deconstruction holds a particularly tenuous position among literary theories as a school that apparently commits both sins; while formalistically focusing on the words on the page, deconstruction subjects those words to unnatural abuse. Thus, deconstruction seems locked in the ivory tower, in the company of resentful New-Critical neighbors.
Throughout literature and novels we can find authors who will reference history, other authors works and most often the Bible. One may ask themselves the reasoning behind allusions and how it can affect our perspective and the authors meaning when reading the novel. In the late sixties, Julia Kristeve, who studied the elements of literature and other communication systems, introduced the word “Intertextuality”. In Kristave’s essay “Word, Dialogue, and Novel” she went into deep analysis of an authors work and its text, “A literary work, then, is not simply the product of a single author, but of its relationship to other texts and to the strucutures of language itself. Any text," she argues, "is constructed of a mosaic of quotations; any text
Over the years, writing has been used as an art form, allowing people to write their thoughts. Though, the most torrential puzzle of writing is the reasoning behind the words on a page. The logic behind any piece of literature falls into categories of wants and needs. There are three essays to which these categories are explained in further detail with more depth. Firstly, “Not So Deadly Sin” which focuses on the act of lying and exaggeration.
Graff gave an example of the author is directly speaking in the text in Don’t Blame The Eater, by using “I” (189). Another example he showed was in The Cask of Amontillado and in this case when the author used “I” he was not the narrator in this case, but the narrator was a character in the story(189). Graff suggests that one should look carefully at the work to identify the speaker. According to Graff, a tactic that can be used to identify the meaning of a literary work is to look at the conflict in it. Graff writes, “look for the conflict or debate in the literary work itself and then ask what the text is leading us to think about that conflict” (191). Then he suggest asking some questions to help the reader take a position on the meaning of the work. He emphasizes that the meaning of a literary work is always arguable and one should argue for what they thinks it means. He also included some templates to help starts to respond to others
It is fascinating to me to read the articles “Why I Write,” by George Orwell and Joan Didion. These authors touch on so many different topics for their reasons to writing. Their ideals are very much different, but their end results are the same, words on paper for people to read. Both authors made very descriptive points to how their minds wander on and off their writings while trying to write. They both often were writing about what they didn’t want to write about before they actually wrote what they wanted too. In George Orwell’s case, he wrote many things when he was young the he himself would laugh at today, or felt was unprofessional the but if he hadn’t done so he would not of been the writer he became. In Joan Didion’s case she would often be daydreaming about subjects that had nothing to do with what she intended on writing. Her style of writing in this article is actually more interesting because of this. Her mind wandering all over on many different subjects to how her writing came to her is very interesting for a person like me to read. My mind is also very restless on many different unneeded topics before I actually figure some sort of combined way to put words on to paper for people to read. Each author put down in their articles many ways of how there minds work while figuring out what they are going to write about. Both of the authors ended ...
As we have learned already, the author of a text has a purpose. This purpose may be to inform, entertain or to persuade, among many other purposes. In order to determine the author purpose one must first know what it is that they are reading. If you are reading a textbook, the author wants to inform you. If you are reading a story, the author wants to entertain you. If you are reading a brochure or speech, the author wants to persuade you.
Deep-seated in these practices is added universal investigative and enquiring of acquainted conflicts between philosophy and the art of speaking and/or effective writing. Most often we see the figurative and rhetorical elements of a text as purely complementary and marginal to the basic reasoning of its debate, closer exploration often exposes that metaphor and rhetoric play an important role in the readers understanding of a piece of literary art. Usually the figural and metaphorical foundations strongly back or it can destabilize the reasoning of the texts. Deconstruction however does not indicate that all works are meaningless, but rather that they are spilling over with numerous and sometimes contradictory meanings. Derrida, having his roots in philosophy brings up the question, “what is the meaning of the meaning?”
Is Michel Foucault a historian or not? At the beginning of the analysis on Foucault’s historical analysis, what should be acknowledged is that none of Foucault’s works refer to his previous ones and every work is based upon a new construction of theory and method which shakes the standard norms of history writing and put his methods under suspicion by some historians. On the other hand, many others favor his work; because of Foucault’s specific approach, Gutting calls him as an ‘intellectual artisan’ who was an expert of producing intellectual equivalents of material objects and especially three kinds of them which are history, theory and myth. (Gutting 1996, 3-6) Thomas Flynn answers this question by claiming that Foucault’s all major works are histories of a
Parker, Robert Dale. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford, 2011. Print.
"I no longer believe that the author has a sort of patria potestas over his brainchildren. Once they are printed they have reached their majority and the author has no more authority over them, knows no more about them, perhaps knows less about them than the critic who comes fresh to them, and sees them not as the author hoped they would be, but as what they are" (45).
A successful writer is he who is able to transmit ideas, emotions, and wisdom on to his readers. He is cable of stirring emotions and capturing the reader's attention with vivid descriptions and clever dialogues. The writer can even play with the meanings of words and fuse reality with fiction to achieve his goal of taking the reader on a wonderful journey. His tools are but words, yet the art of writing is found in the use of the language to create though-provoking pieces that defy the changing times. Between the lines, voices and images emerge. Not everyone can write effectively and invoke these voices. It is those few who can create certain psychological effects on the reader who can seize him (or her) with inspiring teachings, frightening thoughts, and playful games with the language. These people are true writers…
Parker, Robert Dale. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
The notion of the author has often been disputed when it comes to critical literary studies. The argument centers around one basic question: Should the author be considered when looking at a text? There are numerous reasons given as to why the author is important or why the ...
“In my estimation a good book first must contain little or no trace of the author unless the author himself is a character. That is, when I read the book I should not feel that someone is telling me the story but t...