Death of an author

[joep...@gmail.com]

Joseph Plair

Post #2

The last class discussion on "What is an Author?" by Foucalt really opened up a lot of thoughts in my mind.  It makes one ask just how important is the author?  In my opinion, I feel that one most know and understand the author to a certain degree to really get his work.  We learned earlier that certain critics felt all that mattered was the text and the author was irrelevant (new critics), but others before them felt that it was extremely important to take a look at the life and  times of the author.  We discussed a few elements that make up the traditional author, and these were things like published works, permanence, intention, and ownership.  But these elements only scratch the surface, and we are still left wondering what exactley is an author and what is his work?  Is he the creator, writer, and narrator all at once?  If this is true, then that makes him "God," because he is omnipresent and omniscient.  This helps explain Neitzche's "God is Dead."  I think "The Death of the Author," by Roland Barthes and "God is Dead" by Neitzche both share the same idea.  The promote "The Birth of the Reader," which can only happen when the author is removed.  This is a Post-Structuralistic way to view it because without the author there is "chaos" and no structure.  But these views do not abandon structuralism all together because things like grammar and punctuation still exist even if the author is removed, so structure still has its place in the work.  In my opinion, the author is a key piece to the work.  I don't think there is really a right or wrong answer.  But if the reader's interpretaion is all that matters, why do we need authors?  This is such a great debate because it has so many different twists, turns, and views.  I am pumped to hear more about this.  

[joep...@gmail.com]

Joseph Plair

Post #4

Jane Tompkins makes a few valid points in her Masterpiece Theater essay, but I think that there is also some contradiction as well.  Tompkins says that "a literary reputation could never be more than a political matter."  I wonder if she is including her own work in this claim.  She attacks Hawthorne's work by saying that he would not be considered in such high regard if not for his political connections and certain individuals looking favorably upon his work because of certain "circumstances."  This may very well be true, but if it is; the same can be said about Harriet Beecher Stowe the writer of Uncle Tom's Cabin.  Tompkins defends Stowe in another essay about the importance of sentimentalism; and in it, she calls Uncle Tom's Cabin one of the best novels ever, but she does not mention any political or economic issues related to the book's success.  When considering the issue of slavery and the time Uncle Tom's Cabin was written, it is safe to believe that Stowe received a great deal of support from abolitionist and Republican Party members who were against slavery.  In fact, Stowe followed up the novel with "A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin," which was collection of slave narratives and actual events made to show the rest of the country that the Uncle Tom's Cabin was not a piece that was made to play on the hearts of the reader; these claims were made by slave owners, Southerners, and members of the Democrat Party.  When Abraham Lincoln met Stowe, he said "so this is the little woman who started the war."  If the President of the United States feels that your novel had that much impact, then your novel is indeed political.  But the question remains, why does Tompkins consider Hawthorne's success a result of political and economical advantages, but does not feel the same way about Stowe's novel?  She said it. "The literary works that make up the canon do so because the groups that have an investment in them are culturally the most influential."

[Tyler Bishop]

Post 5
Fortunately for me, I am covering Foucault in another one of my classes and we have discussed his take on the author. According to Foucault, the author is a big part of the internal rules of exclusion for "The Discourse on Language", along with Commentary and Disciplines. The author is not the individual who wrote the text, but the unifying principle in a particular group of writings. "Commentary limited the hazards of discourse through the action of an identity taking the form of repetition and sameness. The author principle limits the same chance element through the action of an identity whose form is that of individuality and the I." -Foucault. In my opinion, there is a certain extent to which the author is important. Each author has his/her own opinions on any given subject, and a fair amount of the readers are reading the author's work because they may agree with the opinion the author has. Foucault argues that "the coming into being of the notion of 'author' constitutes the privileged moment of individualization in the history of ideas, knowledge, literature, philosophy, and the sciences." (What is an Author, Foucault). In What is an Author, Foucault does not offer a socio-historical analysis of the author's persona. Certainly, he suggests, it would be worth examining how the author has become individualized in a culture such as ours. Half of me agrees with this, and the other half disagrees. I'm a tad bit torn with Foucault's take on all of this, however it does throw so much into your head and really makes you think. I don't necessarily believe that we must take a look at the life and times of the author to really understand the work in which we are studying. Whether it is a novel, short story, or poem, if we enjoy reading it, then we enjoy reading it. There are, however certain instances in which we must take into account the life and times of the author. For example, any and every work that has been done by Langston Hughes, basically writing about slavery and all of the aspects of it. It makes sense and we can understand what he is trying to say because if anyone has studied Langston Hughes, then you know where he came from and what he went through. So yes, sometimes it is appropriate to study an author in order to understand the work, but I don't think it really is necessary when reading a fictional novel.

[joep...@gmail.com]

Post #5

I think there is a huge similarity between Morrison's Africanistic presence and the presence of queerness in literature.  Remember that the presence is not an actual character or solid thing, and queerness is not neccesarily homo sexuality.  So if we look at certain literary pieces I think we will find signs of that queer presence in them.  Of course a lot of literary works which are considered classics are very heteronormative, and this is helpful in supporting my claim.  Remember how Morrison said the Africanistic presence is always there even when the author is unaware of it?  The same can be said about queerness, which in a way causes the author to make his work heteronormative. Nardin talks about the homosexual motif in Willa Cather's work and the debate of whether or not she is correct is a discussion that will continue for ages.  This is primarily because we all have different ideas of what queerness may or may not be.  But I do think its possible to determine if a work has a queer presence to it.  Trying to figure out if the author is gay, lesbian, or queer is a completely different task because we know that some believe the text has nothing to do with the author, and another group may believe the exact opposite.  Having queer, gay, or lesbian characters or theme does not mean the author is gay or lesbian, nor does it mean they are not. But literary pieces will continue to have a presence of queerness because it is part of the world we live in.  Morrison said that it is nearly impossible to write American Literature without including African Americans because they were always present throughout history and so was queerness.  What the two have in common is that they were always swept under the rug by society.