A multitude of theories circulates the question, “what is an author?” but there never seems to be a definitive answer. Is there a difference between an author and a writer? More importantly, does the author matter when one is analyzing his or her work? In Michel Foucault’s “What Is an Author?” he questions if a work can exist without an author. Like Barthes, he talks of how an author “must assume the role of a dead man in the game of writing” (Foucault 103). Does this mean, then, that I must pretend to be dead to write this blog post? I would hope not.
To be a ‘dead’ writer, one must supposedly distance himself from what he is writing so that his individual characteristics do not interfere with the work itself. While in some circumstances, it is indeed necessary for people to speak of texts in the context with which authors wrote them, there are other occasions when further context, arguably, is not needed. I am speaking of those who would wonder what kind of impact elements such as the economy or the author’s own psychological state may have on any particular work.
While it is certainly true that these factors will ultimately play a large role in certain works, I do not believe this pertains to all works. Both Barthes and Foucault seem to view “works” as one thing and “authors” as another; however, they fail to further break down these broad categories into something more tangible. Obviously, a work has a very wide range of definitions, both extensive and specific. But no matter the definition, there will always be smaller sub-categories within the existing meaning.
One could break down “works” by genre, medium, time period, etc. Each of these individual works will follow it’s own pattern and array of ideas. Does this variety of works then deserve to be lumped into one category? Maybe if that category covers multiple topics. However, some works will require an author to form an opinion or draw upon their own background of knowledge. Other works are composed of entirely different worlds, such as a science fiction novel. Are these not to be considered “works?” Do they have no authors?
An author plays an important role–in history, in society, in humanity–yet people do not give enough credit to the “persona” of a story. This persona plays a key role in authorship. In many cases, when writing, an author does not speak as himself, but rather discards his own skin and takes up the mantle of another. This narrator guides us through the work (whether it be novel, poem, textbook, or other form) without once making references to the real author or the author’s life behind the curtain.
I am not claiming that this is always the case, or that an author does not deserve credit for a work; rather, I am saying that when one reads a work they must carefully analyze the persona. When a persona happens to be the same as the author that is a unique case in itself and should be treated thus.
