Comments

I have decided to comment on everybody's posts so far. If you want to add something please feel free to comment!


Jazmyn,

You are essentially correct in your interpretation of this essay, except that I don't think Foucault views scientific authorship as static or unchanging at all. Foucault indeed mentions that,

"Superficially, then, the initiation of discursive practices appears similar to the founding of any scientific endeavor.
Still, there is a difference, and a notable one . In the case of a science, the act that founds it is on an equal footing with its future transformations; this act becomes in some respects part of the set of modifications that it makes possible ."

What he is saying is that modern science is no longer a set of observations and rules that is blindly followed because a famous thinker proclaims them to be true. As you undoubtedly know, one of the reasons that the scientific method is such a good tool for discovering truth is that it is open to revision and change. A theory can be constantly modified to fit observations and this is the entire basis behind scientific writing. As Foucault puts it "In the case of a science, the act that founds it is on an equal footing with its future transformations; this act becomes in some respects part of the set of modifications that it makes possible." So in this case the author does not really influence how the work is received. However, I would have to say that this is not always true because certain scientists can bring on their own stereotypes and prejudices. Take, for example, Charles Darwin. Anything he has written will be assumed to have to do with the theory of evolution and therefore anyone who has strong opinions of him would get a slightly different meaning out of his work. He cannot escape this. This is where there is some overlap between scientific and discursive writers.



Annyrani,

I just re-read this and I believe Foucault is just saying that, for the purpose of this argument, authors such as Freud and Marx can be considered to be a different type of author because they founded certain styles of thought/writing by establishing "an endless possibility of discourse."

As for the idea of who is speaking not being important I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of Foucault's essay. He is saying that who is speaking is in many cases overemphasized and that in an ideal world the necessary evil of pegging authors into various categories would not exist.

Hyounoh,

You are absolutely right that Foucault seems to think that repetition is something that has an almost negative connotation in literary work. This is in stark contrast to the idea that Kierkegaard brought up in Fear and Trembling, where he sees repetition as being the stuff of life and absolutely necessary.
I believe both authors have valid and complementary, though opposing points. On the one hand, repetition of literary ideas is something that is quite necessary. It provides a platform which we can use to develop new ideas, after all most new ideas were inspired from old ones. On the other, repetition of ideas often leads to stagnation and mental sloth. Its a "catch-22," much like the idea brought up by Foucault that the overemphasis on the author is a necessary evil, bringing about organization and a context in which to examine works, as well as type-casting authors into certain roles and making it harder for lesser known authors to be read.



Aaron Lee,

My understanding of this essay was that the author was actually both a flesh and blood person as well as a "voice" or as you put it "revealer" and it was the relationship between this flesh and blood person with his work that was problematic.


Prof. Rowan,

I was just wondering if Queaneau was the first author to use this "create your own story" style of writing.


Joseph LaSalle,

I like the idea you brought up that "Without the reader, there is no story, no book, for there is no one to interpret it; it merely remains a tome, the writings of a madman who no one will take the time to read." This is somewhat akin to the age old question of whether a tree that falls in the woods with nobody around to hear it still makes a sound. In my opinion the answer is yes and no, and this illustrates the importance of context. The story still contains the information, so it is still a story, but in the context of having around nobody to process it, so it has no significance alone - it is just words on a page. This is similar to Foucault's idea that different writings in different contexts will have a different significance depending on the state of the writer. The example brought up in What is an Author would be that seemingly insignificant work by somebody who is not considered "an author" would remain insignificant but that this is not the case with somebody who is an author – most of of the minute scribblings of an author would be considered to be works or literature.

____________________________________________________________________


One other point I wanted to bring up was that this idea of too much emphasis being placed on who wrote something carries over to many other arts and humanities such as music, preforming arts, and visual arts, and that the relationship with death is especially strong in music, so much so that the quote "If he was willing to die young, it was so that his life, consecrated and magnified by death, might pass into immortality; the narrative then redeemed this accepted death. Consecrated and magnified by death, might pass into immortality; the narrative then redeemed this " carries over to the musicians themselves.