First of all, without the author (or writer), there would be no written work. That's a simple reason why the author is important. But we're more interested in complicating things for rhetorical theory's sake—to obtain a deeper understanding of things. So, maybe a re-thinking of what it means to be important is in store.
The information in a work of non-fiction writing is most important; is it not? With fiction writing, the piece is about stories and ideas (both which relay information). The writer, if modest, is trying to relay information to the world, not trying to be recognized as a "great author". So, why even put a name to the piece? Maybe the writer is not so modest as to want some sort of ownership to her ideas. But maybe another alternative: the writer wants to document her thoughts to gain some sort of credibility that would not come from an anonymous signing of a work (in order to further a career in writing). That alternative suggests that the reader is more important to a work of writing. The reader determines importance in a writer. Let's focus on one reader. If that reader does not find something important, she will be inclined to skip over it. If she finds something particularly interesting or "important", she might underline it, circle it, or do a number of other things to it—maybe tear it out (if she's feeling rebellious). The point is: the writer is writing for a reader.
So, what about writing written just for the sake of the author? Aren't journals/diaries written just for the author? How can these writings be categorized by importance? A journal/diary is only important to an author—unless she/he is is dead. After death, does a diary lose its importance? Do all those ideas just become void? They may, at least, be important to anyone that reads them after an author's death. A dead author's diary may become another "Anne Frank's diary" or a "Captain James Cook's journal" (both examples are just random examples)—both of which have been read by many people after the deaths of their authors. If a piece of writing is never read after it is written, what is its point? I digress.
So, what is my point? Is it to say the author serves no purpose after she writes it? No. The naming of an author can bring several connotations to a writing, which are determined by the reader—after the author writes something and signs it and far into the future, after the author has died. For instance, the credibility of an author is a factor. If many people appreciate what a writer has to say, that author's work might have an easier time being accepted in the future or recognized as a crucial stepping stone of thought. Does anyone know who Sigmund Freud is? I won't go anywhere with this—except to say, try to think about what connotations might be brought up if Freud was mentioned in a work of writing or what connotations come up when assigned to read something by Freud himself.
Credibility comes from different things: citations within a work from other credible sources, a person's rank in society, a person's work ethic, a person's education, a person's experience, etc. Different people find different things to be credible.
Negative connotations also effect a readers interpredation of a riting. An author could write out the meaning of life; but if it has many spelling and grammar errors or the person writing it has the reputation of a mealworm, the "meaning of life" would remain in the dark (unless, of course, someone went against social norms and actually believed in what that person wrote). Like credibility, negative connotations come from many sources.
This next way of interpreting a writing based on the author I will keep brief, because I do not want to diverge from the main discussion too much (also, other people might bring better ideas by commenting on it). Writing can be interpreted based on an author's gender. I understood this means of interpretation better while reading two short stories by Raymond Carver: "Fat" and "The Idea" (from his book of short stories called Will You Please Be Quiet, Please?). Both stories are written in the first-person point-of-view—with women narrators. If it wasn't already apparent by his name, Raymond Carver is, indeed, a man. On both first readings of each of the short stories aforementioned, I had a little trouble picturing the narrators as women, which was sort of amusing. It was because I understood the author to be a man (a once married man, to a woman). He was writing as a woman. I had to read the stories a couple of times before I could imagine the speakers being women. Before that, the characters went through metamorphoses of becoming women ("Fat" took three readings and "The Idea" took two). While reading "Fat" I pictured a man, then a man dressed in women's clothes, then a woman. What makes these readings important to our discussion is that I had to "eliminate" the author from the equation before I could picture the women telling those stories in those two fictional short stories.
"...it is language which speaks, not the author...." (Barthes 875)
"To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing." (Barthes 877)
"...the author does not precede the works, he is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, and chooses...." (Foucault 913)
With these three quotes, Barthes and Foucault suggest that assigning an author to a text limits said text. The connotations that an author brings to a writing do limit the writing in a way. Positive connotations limit a text, because many people find credible ideas to be absolute instead of thinking the ideas through for their own selves. Negative connotations limit a text, because the message loses its credibility, rendering them insignificant.
More Questions to Consider:
So, what about writing written just for the sake of the author? Aren't journals/diaries written just for the author? How can these writings be categorized by importance? A journal/diary is only important to an author—unless she/he is is dead. After death, does a diary lose its importance? Do all those ideas just become void? They may, at least, be important to anyone that reads them after an author's death. A dead author's diary may become another "Anne Frank's diary" or a "Captain James Cook's journal" (both examples are just random examples)—both of which have been read by many people after the deaths of their authors. If a piece of writing is never read after it is written, what is its point? I digress.
So, what is my point? Is it to say the author serves no purpose after she writes it? No. The naming of an author can bring several connotations to a writing, which are determined by the reader—after the author writes something and signs it and far into the future, after the author has died. For instance, the credibility of an author is a factor. If many people appreciate what a writer has to say, that author's work might have an easier time being accepted in the future or recognized as a crucial stepping stone of thought. Does anyone know who Sigmund Freud is? I won't go anywhere with this—except to say, try to think about what connotations might be brought up if Freud was mentioned in a work of writing or what connotations come up when assigned to read something by Freud himself.
Credibility comes from different things: citations within a work from other credible sources, a person's rank in society, a person's work ethic, a person's education, a person's experience, etc. Different people find different things to be credible.
Negative connotations also effect a readers interpredation of a riting. An author could write out the meaning of life; but if it has many spelling and grammar errors or the person writing it has the reputation of a mealworm, the "meaning of life" would remain in the dark (unless, of course, someone went against social norms and actually believed in what that person wrote). Like credibility, negative connotations come from many sources.
This next way of interpreting a writing based on the author I will keep brief, because I do not want to diverge from the main discussion too much (also, other people might bring better ideas by commenting on it). Writing can be interpreted based on an author's gender. I understood this means of interpretation better while reading two short stories by Raymond Carver: "Fat" and "The Idea" (from his book of short stories called Will You Please Be Quiet, Please?). Both stories are written in the first-person point-of-view—with women narrators. If it wasn't already apparent by his name, Raymond Carver is, indeed, a man. On both first readings of each of the short stories aforementioned, I had a little trouble picturing the narrators as women, which was sort of amusing. It was because I understood the author to be a man (a once married man, to a woman). He was writing as a woman. I had to read the stories a couple of times before I could imagine the speakers being women. Before that, the characters went through metamorphoses of becoming women ("Fat" took three readings and "The Idea" took two). While reading "Fat" I pictured a man, then a man dressed in women's clothes, then a woman. What makes these readings important to our discussion is that I had to "eliminate" the author from the equation before I could picture the women telling those stories in those two fictional short stories.
"...it is language which speaks, not the author...." (Barthes 875)
"To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing." (Barthes 877)
"...the author does not precede the works, he is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, and chooses...." (Foucault 913)
With these three quotes, Barthes and Foucault suggest that assigning an author to a text limits said text. The connotations that an author brings to a writing do limit the writing in a way. Positive connotations limit a text, because many people find credible ideas to be absolute instead of thinking the ideas through for their own selves. Negative connotations limit a text, because the message loses its credibility, rendering them insignificant.
More Questions to Consider:
- Why do we try to find out the author names of works that have been signed anonymous?
- What is the relationship between "the author" and "the agent"?
- How does having multiple authors affect the interpretation of a written text?
- What are the benefits/disadvantages of signing a text anonymously?
- What are the benefits/disadvantages of signing a text with a pseudonym?
Works Cited:
- Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author." The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contempory Trends, Third Edition. Ed. David H. Richter. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 868, 874-877.
- Cook, James. Captain Cook's Journal During the First Voyage Round the World. By Cook. Ed. Captain W. J. L. Wharton, R.N., F.R.S. London, 1893. N. pag. The Project Gutenburg. 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 8 Sept. 2013. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8106/8106-h/8106-h.htm>
- Enright, Anne. "Anne Enright reads 'Fat' by Raymond Carver." The Guardian Short Story Podcast. podcast.getwebreader.com, 12 July 2010. MP3 file. 8 Sept. 2013. <http://podcast.getwebreader.com/guardian-audio/anne-enright-reads-fat-by-raymond-carver-mp3-download/2010/12/1062-232855>
- Foucault, Michel. "What Is an Author?" The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition. Ed. David H. Richter. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 904-914.
- Frank, Steve. "About Anne Frank: Diary Excerpts." Anne Frank Online. The Anne Frank Center USA, Inc., 2008. Web. 8 Sept. 2013. <http://annefrank.com/about-anne-frank/diary-excerpts/>
- "Insect diet: Fancy cricket risotto or mealworm cake?" BBC News: Devon. BBC, 23 Aug. 2013. Web. 8 Sept. 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-23699900>
- Typists Pen, The. "The Idea - Raymond Carver." The Typists Pen. The Typists Pen, 7 Oct. 2012. Web. 8 Sept. 2013. <http://typistspen.com/the-idea-raymond-carver/>
A Response to Andrew
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I would like to add to your writing, “The Importance of an Author.” While it is important that the reader is able to separate the author from their prose, it is also important to acknowledge the author’s role in his or her writing whether it be fiction or non-fiction. In doing so it seems important to ask yourself, is there one way to read a text? I argue that like an author’s unique writing style, each reader interprets texts in their own unique way. It is for this reason that theorists are able to develop so many different hypothesis about one piece of writing, perhaps changing how the author originally intended his text to be interpreted. I believe that it is important to not dismantle an author’s work when he or she is not able to defend themselves and their writing. Often scholars close read so far in between the lines, draw so many parallels and develop theories that are so far out in left field it would be impossible for the ideas to have been conjured up by the original author. If this over analyzation is true, is it even beneficial for us to be studying texts without the author explaining him or herself, or is this creativity and theorization what makes us students better writers in the first place? Additionally, as I stated before, each reader interprets text on their own, the same can be said for authors. Each author has a different background which helps to shape his or her worldview. The lens that each author views the world through can help to make their work stand out from their peers.
In respect to your comment on authors giving their perspective on certain situations (non-fiction writing such as Anne Frank’s Diary), I believe that an author’s perspective is vital in communicating their thoughts and emotions. An author’s life experiences will inevitably have a huge impact on how their writing will be translated by the reader. The author’s lens is powerful and can help shape the reader’s thoughts especially when readers begin to develop a certain like or dislike for the author of the text they are reading. A strong pull towards or push against an author could cause the reader to view the text negatively or overly positively depending on how well the writer conveys his or her story to the audience.
Meghan Kelly
ReplyDeleteEng4020
Blog Reply
This piece is very well written and kept me interested (which is pretty difficult) so, nicely done. Let me first attempt to answer some of the questions you have raised in this work. As for the importance of the author: the author is the creator of the work so without the writer there would be no work, as you have stated. Aristotle states that the arts (including oratory and therefore writing) create knowledge. I believe the importance of an author is to convey knowledge to a reader. Stretching from Burke; language (and subsequently writing) develops out of a need for discovering new knowledge. Knowledge is created through language but if there is no way to convey and spread this new knowledge then what is the point? This is where writing and the author come in.
Next, you raise the question of “whether an author changes the way something is read?” I believe that the words on the page are the words on the page. The author created the text by placing the words in order so –physically- no I do not think that the text changes as a result of perception of the author. However, perception of an author can alter the way a text is read. For instance, if reading a piece by an author that you do not find admirable, then one may perceive the piece to be subpar or irrelevant. In the same way, if you are reading a book written by your favorite author, whether the book is well written may not influence your perception because of the concrete admiration you have already established for the author. Nicholas Sparks is one of my favorite authors and I love everything that he writes. I don’t know much about Nicholas Sparks and frankly I don’t want to know. I like having a divide between the author and the text. While I know the name, Nicholas Sparks still remains relatively anonymous to me. This allows me to immerse myself in the story without the distraction of analyzing the book. This leads to the next question: How should a work of writing be interpreted? I believe that interpretation is different for everyone. However, a good author should be able to convey the way he or she wants a work to be interpreted so that there is little discrepancy.
How does the author’s gender affect the interpretation of a work? As previously stated, the author’s gender has not affected my reading up to this point because I tend to separate the author from the work. However, in your case, knowing the author was male but the narrator was female caused curiosity. Knowing my reading style, that differentiation would create a lack of interest for me. Thus, furthering my idea that a certain sense of author anonymity is necessary for me.
That being said, wondering about the identity of an anonymous author often times takes away from the meaning of the piece. I think we search for a name to out with a work because we feel the need to classify things, as Burke has demonstrated through proverbs.
As for the relationship between the author and the agent; I believe both the author and the reader are agents. They have different tasks: author to convey information and reader to absorb and interpret the information.