What is an Author

Things an Author Is

Writer who is basically never more than the author of his own text. He is not only the author of The Interpretation of. It is not dreams or of wit and its relationship to the unconscious and Marx simply the author of the Communist Manifesto or the capital: you two. "It seems, for example, that the way in which literary criticism once defined the author - or rather constructed the character of the author from existing texts and discourses - is directly derived from the way in which the Christian tradition authenticated (or rejected) the texts at its disposal. The "author" remains to this day an open question, both with regard to his general function within the discourse and in my own writings, i.

e. this question is permitted.

What is an author?"

Reading Michel Foucault means feeling how the foundations of one's own faith system are shifting under one's antecedents. Foucault and Roland Barthes (1916-1980) must consider the concept of author. Though Foucault was not a theoretician of literature, like Barthes he was a historian, and "What is an author?

More than a century previously, in 1953, in Writing Degree Zero, Barthes explained how the "author" emerged during a certain historic era and debated how the word "author" was privilegated by the idea of what Foucault would call "individuation". "The author's own name generated "the authorial function", which became typical for certain types of discourse, such as the fictional, and not for others, such as the composition of letters.

At the end of the eighteenth centuary, the author was placed at the centre of a system of possession. The term "author" was reversed by Foucault, who examined the text in relation to the author and not, as he supposed, upside-down.

It began with a quotation from Samuel Beckett, who wrote: "What affair, who speaks, said someone, what affair, who speaks? "According to Foucault, the issue connotated an "indifference" to the letter, which had become an "immanent rule" that excluded the term. Foucault, like Barthes, acted against structuralism or a verbal interpretation of a work of literature and was against the term expressive, a remnant of romance.

He saw Scripture as "liberated" from the need to "express" and could only be himself. The script was recognized by its own unfurled exterior - an interaction of characters that correspond to the signifier's character. Foucault writes that the process of typing is like a play (jeu) that always goes beyond its own set of regulations and crosses its boundaries.

It is not a matter of manifesting or glorifying the act of the letter, nor of fixing a person in speech, but of making a room in which the person of the letter permanently disappeare. Foucault, like Barthes, used a dramatic voice to convey his point of view.

The letter, he said, is connected to the victim: It is now a spontaneous extinction that no longer needs to be depicted in a book, because it happens in the author's very being. This work, which once had the obligation to ensure deathlessness, now has the right to murder, to be the killer of its author.

"For Foucault, writing" was like "text" for Barthes, and so the letter has the "right to murder the author", to be the author's slayer. The letter removes characters of particular personality, so that the author's character is paradoxically the uniqueness of absenteeism. Authors have the part of the deceased in a puzzle play.

But as Foucault cautioned, it is not enough to reiterate the empty claim that the author has vanished. Instead, we must localize the room freed up by the author's disappearances, track the division of voids and fractures, and look for the holes that this disappeareance reveals. Referring to exemptions from his claim that the author was an idiological construction, Foucault noted transdiscourse authors such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and Ann Radcliffe, who establish all of paradigm or what Foucault calls "discursive storage".

" This is a unique typeface that has produced a typeface in its own area. Foucault, however, thought it risky to restrict either non-fiction or literature to the term "author". "Most of the writers are fictional and Foucault returned to his usual attitude of describing the "author" as what he was not:

This author allows a restriction of the cancer-like and hazardous spread of meanings in a global environment in which one is not only sparing with one's resources and wealth, but also with one's discourse and its meanings. Authors are the principles of thriftiness in the spread of meaningful. The author is not an infinite resource of meanings that fill a work; the author does not preceed the works; he is a certain operating principal by which the free movement, the free handling, the free composing, the disintegration and reconstitution of the fictional are excluded and chosen in our aura.

" Distinguishing between truths and fictions required an author to prevent the kind of acquisition that obsolete the scientific scholars. To put it another way, the "author function" was erased in the scientific world, so that anonymous (indifference) "truth" was guarantied, but fictitiously speeded up in order to ensure the sale. It was Foucault's intention not to reinforce the concept of the "author" as the proprietor of notions, but to destabilise the concept of the establishment of a limited and restricted area. In all the cases put forward by Foucault, the authors' discursive views surpassed those of Marxism, freudic thought and romanticism.

Foucault's separation of the author from his work displaced literary discussion, so that some works become part of a bigger text. Foucault noted that perhaps it is a good idea to examine discursive not only in relation to their expressional value or their formative transformation, but also in relation to their forms of being.

In my opinion, the way in which they are expressed according to the relationship between society can be better comprehended in the work of the author and in their changes than in the issues or approaches that initiate the discussion. Foucault's assault on the author is much more mighty than Barthes'.

Barthe's essays "The Author's Death" took him to the limits of literature and merely wanted to engage the readers. Foucault, however, seemed to see the author as involved in a system of thought that was involved in personalisation and personalisation that stood in the way of the subject he favoured to study: discourses.

The author is an "ideological" character associated with a worship of people: Foucault wrote: It can be reduced with the author. This author allows a limiting of the cancer-like and hazardous multiplication of meanings in a global environment in which not only our own natural resource and wealth, but also our discourse and its meanings are used sparingly.

Authors are the principles of thriftiness in the spread of meaningful. Consequently, we must completely turn the author's conventional notion around. As we have already seen, we are used to say that the author is the genius of a work in which he leaves behind an endless richness and generousness in an endless universe of meanings.

It is our custom to think that the author is so different from all other people, and so transcendental in relation to all tongues, that as soon as he talks, the significance begins to multiply, to multiply for an indefinite time. It was a matter of why the author had become an "ideological figure". "Foucault replied that in introducing the author as a means of expression, the significance is limited to the author's will.

Both Foucault and Barthes were distrustful of the practice of "narrow reading" for this reason. "The author's intimate readings and mystifications as creators conclude what Foucault feared as "the spreading of meaning". "The author thus has the role as a controller of significance and this role as an entity (not as someone) that monitors significance is intimately connected to the controlling of allocation and attainment.

At the end Foucault envisioned that in the near term the author and/or the author himself would vanish into a proliferative discussion. Who" makes a distinction for those who have been deprived of the right to write. It is Foucault who must be likened to his feminine colleagues, who not only claimed the possible singularity of eriture éminine, but also tried to undermine a masculine world.

Though Foucault, like Barthes, wrote against societal compulsions against sense, his last movement was taken out of cohesion and used to erase the other's writings and eliminate the fact that the writer's and artist's cannon still was made up of the Caucasian. Foucault, like most men of his day, did not devote much attention to dealing with females or emphasising colour.

Foucault would not give an interpretative text to the other's/woman. It was always too latecomer for Foucault to find an "original meaning" and a stabile "context" for "everything is already interpretation". "However, it is important to know "who writes" in order to be able to interprete a message in the contexts of sex and breed.

Foucault, like his fellow critics, castrated the critics meticulously and silently, accidentally or not, during a fight for the right of siblings.

Mehr zum Thema