My Apologies, But I'm an Emersonian myself... The Speaker and Author ARE Important!

I know this is probably dangerous to say, considering Professor's specialty is Foucault. I'm hoping I get points for being brave and honest. I'm not a Foucault person. I don't like his theory on writing. I'm an Emerson junkie. The whole 'author is the epitome of the world' and all that jazz. I can agree that being an author is more than writing. It's about making a point, telling a truth (a real truth or created truth). I do not agree that Marx and Freud and Foucault were the first real authors. In terms of what? Were there no other good writers before? Writers with purpose? Someone please clarify, because this bothers me. I wonder about his question, which asked what difference does it make who is speaking? Really? there is NO DIFFERENCE? I cannot believe that. We all have a bias. we all view the world differently. To NOT consider the author is reckless. It's like looking at art without appreciating the time period, the context, and looking at it objectively and assuming it stands for a whole society or a culture. You MUST consider the author! of course, you need not credit nor discredit, but one cannot look blindly.

I can appreciate his breaking down of a paper/work philosophically. It makes sense. I'll give him credit (I'm not saying he isn't a smart and learned man, I just Have an issue with his idea of being an author). I disagree with his last paragraph in it's entirety. perhaps our bigger questions are 'What is the point, what happens' etc, however, today we still consider the author! The first thing we do when we read something new in a class is learn about the author's life, so that we are able to understand more. Would we have understood the Communist Manifesto if we had not known about Marx, or Utopia if we had not understood what brought on the book? How can he say it 'What difference does it make who is speaking?' I really did not like that line. I feel as though it does make a difference. I understand a work must be objective, in that we should read it and take the work at face value. We are human, we over think clearly. It would be nice to just think of a work objectively however, we are not all equal. We do not all think the same, act the same, or are exposed to the same thing. Therefore, I feel to understand the work, one must understand the person. therefore, it is imperative to ask "Who is the author" and "Who is the speaker?"