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.
When you talk about persona are you talking about the persona of the text? I was kind of confused by your last couple of paragraphs. Also, I don't think that the author should be totally disregarded. Wouldn't that give readers too much interpreting power? If no the reader had no context or information regarding a text, wouldn't it be easy to interpret it wrong? For example, if someone didn't know what the declaration of independence was and was given a paragraph to interpret, it would be easy for that person to form their own opinion about the paragraph, but unless they say that it's part of the declaration of independence, aren't they wrong? Good blog!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment that precedes my own. I am confused on the meaning of the persona? Are you referring to the voice or tone that the author installs into the text or is it the context of the author's reality in writing the story?
ReplyDeleteBy "persona," I take it that you mean the narrator or the main character of the story, who is experiencing the events or looking down on them? It appears to me that your final consensus is that the author can matter (not always), but the most important thing to look at is the persona and the context of the story in regards to him or her? I agree that a great deal of meaning can tend to focus on the main character and an analysis of him or her, but the main character/narrator is usually a puppet either of the author or the story to convey a larger meaning which may or may not stem from the main character.
ReplyDeleteIn placing emphasis on this "persona," isn't this still focusing on the author, and the role it plays in the text and it's interpretation, which Barthes and Foucault wanted to move away from? It seems like placing emphasis upon the "persona" of a work is no different than placing emphasis on the author. The "persona" seems like it would influence the interpretation of a text, which like authorship, would not allow a text to "speak for itself." I'm just a little confused about the meaning of this "persona" in a text.
ReplyDelete