I would like to use this blog space to address a question that was on the board on Friday: who can be an author, writer, critic, etc.? I know we had a little discussion on the subject, but I wanted to add a little more to it. Foucault would say that "the author is...the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning." (913) I am actually going to agree with Foucault on this one. Consider the 9/11 stories. I agree with whomever said they were more powerful without an "author." The stories could be taken for what they were, written by some unknown individual about an extremely traumatizing event. The event, therefore, is allowed to be the focal point. After all, isn't that why we visit the 9/11 site...to read about 9/11? The "proliferation of meaning" is not feared in this sense, because we have sought the meaning, and ended up on this site. Therefore, the author is irrelevant to us.
Do these authors still exist as authors? If they are irrelevant? I would say no. They are definitely "writers" submitting their "work," but without asserting themselves as an "ideological figure," (913) they cannot be authors. A true author is supposed to act as the shield, the bridge in essence to that which we fear to confront, the meaning that a text holds. Instead of facing the meaning, the author is leaned upon. That's another way to put it...the author is a type of support.
One would think we read these texts in order to derive some meaning, which I think is true. But I think that what Foucault is saying is that we need that meaning to be in the realm of expected. And the way we manage that is to attach some sort of "expected outcome" from an "author's" text, maybe following some trend they oftentimes follow. In short, that "proliferation of meaning" (913) must be subdued and manageable, which is why we attach a given "idea" to a given "author." And one therefore, cannot be an "author" without an understood "idea" of which to be a representative ideology.
2 comments:
While I agree with what you say in paragraph two, I'm a bit skeptical to write off the 9/11 writers are non-existent authors. I think the ideological figure that they assert is that of a survivor. The author as "John Doe" may seem a bit irrelevant to us because we do not and will not know them, but they become the ideological figure of the "survivor" or the "experiencer". They have lived through this tragedy, just as we did, but were able to put into words what so many others felt; this deserves some credit. The author is dead as an individual "John Doe" but very much alive in their author-function--to portray a survivor or experiencer who is telling us what we wanted to read. Would it not be arguable then, that when you read Shakespeare you merely want to read his poetry--couldn't they have been "written by some unknown individual"? The fact that we exalt all of his poetry, in my opinion, is because have classified his poetry by his name, grouping all the works together. That way, people who read "Measure for Measure" hold it to just as high of standards as they do "Hamlet". Otherwise, wouldn't the works have been praised, but for something else, and not by being one of "Shakespeares'"? The difference now, is the internet. With the invention of this, we can create archives that do not require authors name, but instead classification to the greater whole: 9/11 pieces. Anyone, anywhere can search these. Perhaps, had Shakespeare archived his pieces as anonymous or "William", people would also find him irrelevant...after all, especially if they could merely look up his pieces by category.
ctd:
To say that we "sought the meaning and ended on this site" is a correct statement, but I wonder about the actual meaning. The idea of this archive, yes, is to give accounts about 9/11. However, to say the meaning of our perusal to this site is merely to read 9/11 stories is a bit simplistic. We read these sites to get first hand accounts (be they written, pictured, video) of that day in 2001. We want to read it from someone's point of view. Is the author really dead in this way? Or do we not rely on them through the entirety of the web-site? History books account for 9/11 in a very straight-forward manner, yet I'm guessing this site has more hits than an encyclopedia's version. We, as readers, want the to feel the emotion of those who survived, and really understand what happened that day. We rely on the author and their perspective--so the proliferation of meaning is very much still an active component of this. We want to know who these people are, and in archives like this, "anonymous" holds almost as much clout as "Shakespeare". Their anonymity makes them the author--this title given to a piece, adding an eerie touch of reality to the situation. These people aren't just writers who can evoke emotion, no, they are authors who are survivors. We wonder "why the anonymity" or "why chose to write your name"--keeping them very much alive. For those that don't wonder this, or say they don't...I think they'd find it more entertaining to read a history book then, instead of this site.
Near the end, Foucault evens states that he thinks the author-function will disappear and instead, "fictions and its polysemic texts will once again function to another mode, but still with a system of constraint--one which will no longer be the author, but will have to be determined or perhaps, experienced" (913-4). Would this hold true for non-fiction as well? Maybe this is what is happening? The author doesn't die, they just aren't as important in our classification system anymore--the archive based on certain other categories becomes more important than a classification by author. I know I seem to be contradicting myself but these two ideas have been playing in my head since our lecture Friday. I do not want to dismiss the author and write him off as dead, and while I agree on this last point made by Foucault, I think it's more complicated than that....I think we will always rely on the author in some degree--though it may vary from the past.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.