From the Woodmansee article, we get a brief history of copyright law and how the contemporary idea of author emerged in the 18th century. Her focus is on German writers, like Gotthold Lessing and Friedrich Klopstock, who tried to make a living off the sale of their writings. It is apparent how discouraging it was for some, like Lessing, who ultimately had to take a job as court librarian. In a letter to his brother, Lessing went so far as to advocate writing as a part-time profession. Woodmansee notes about two centuries earlier, “Martin Luther had preached that knowledge is God-given and had therefore to be given freely” (433). The notion of a writer owning his or her work was slow to catch on in 18th century Germany.
Also at this time, piracy was widespread. Publishers would put out legitimate publications and shortly thereafter copied publications would be distributed at a lower cost. It seems public opinion was with the literary pirates, too; so there were many factors working against authors at this time. What is clear from the article is how our present model of what an author is came out of necessity: writers of this era were struggling to make a living and the laws we have in place today were created to protect them.
On the contrary, we read an argument calling for the "death of the Author" in the Barthes article. Barthes gives all the power to the reader, claiming the removal of the author is both necessary and inevitable. More importantly, authorship "impose[s] a limit on" a "text" and, ultimately "close[s] the writing." How accurate is our idea of authorship when nothing written is new? According to Barthes, a finished text is nothing but a "multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash." He would attribute our conception of the modern author to capitalism.
This idea is echoed in Foucault's, "What is an Author?" Both Foucault and Barthes seem to think that the function of the author (at least our idea of the author) is to limit or put a price on what should proliferate freely. Foucault points out that we view the author as creator, and we revere his manipulation of our language, when in reality he is a "regulator of the fictive" (119). Foucault goes on to say that this role of "regulator" is "quite characteristic of our era of industrial and bourgeois society, of individualism and private property."
6 comments:
"Death of the author" is a scary concept. The relationship between author and reader is, for me, the most important exchange on the continuum of creation. To suggest, as Barthes does, that half of that exchange is unnecessary just messes with my head. Perhaps that's because an even scarier question is the one posed by pb922: "How accurate is our idea of authorship when nothing written is new?" I'm certainly not naive enough to think that most, if not all, ideas and literary themes are repeats—but is it naive to think that there still is an innate, poetic or literary "genius" (using its original meaning as Ehrengard noted in his/her 1/29/08 posting) to the creator of a work, whether published or not? Isn’t that particular “genius” worthy of recognition? In fact, doesn’t that particular “genius” add something to the collective? Without recognizing individual contributions of authorship within the author/reader exchange, will we not eliminate the unique voices that make that exchange possible and exciting, that inspire other authorship?
I agree that the "genius" we are speaking of adds to the collective. That is my problem with both Foucault and Barthes. Furthermore, using the "capitalist ideology" Barthes mentions, that is my problem with communism. Where is the opportunity for the worthy individual to stand out--to stand above the rest. We cannot all write like Shakespeare; sadly, most of us cannot even write like Hemingway or even Grisham (though given a solid outline, we could probably spew out a "The Firm" or "The Client" if we had to). Of course, that could just be my post-industrial revolution, bourgeois upbringing talking.
I should also add that I like Hemingway and I enjoyed "A Painted House" by Grisham. I was only using examples from our class discussion. When reviewing my comment above, I noticed my sarcasm was less transparent than I would have hoped.
I agree with entremanureal. "Death of the Author" is a scary concept, and for me, it was a bit disconcerting.
I have two issues to raise and welcome any comments to correct me if I'm off base.
1. If "the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original," then what did the first writer imitate? What came first: the text or the author?
2. I'm all for empowering the reader, but not "at the cost of the death of the author." How can "the total existence of writing" be "revealed" when a key contributor (the author) to this "multiplicity" is extinguished? The author is as much a part of the written conversation as the reader.
It's important to remember that neither Barthes nor Foucault is right. True, they spawned an entire species of literary criticism that (my apologies to Post-modernists and Post-structuralists) is likewise wrong. In fact, Barthes, Foucault, and the theorists they sponsored (whether or not they took credit) are one of the principal reasons the rest of the academy looks upon the humanities and social sciences with bemused ridicule.
Just for simplicity, let me suggest what linguists contend: there are millions of sentences uttered every day that have never been uttered before. In addition, each human being has a specific theory of mind that is unique to that human being - genetically (except for identical twins), we are all different. Different genes, different people; different people, different theories of mind, and thus, different ways of expressing that mind. As Dr. Birner reminds us in linguistics, each individual has a perfect, and perfectly unique, grammar.
If I remember correctly, I read Foucault posit: what if there were a universe exactly opposite to our own. Sure. And what if our universe overlapped ten others. Possible? Decidedly. Probable? Who knows. Can we validate it? No!
ii had trouble buying into what foucault and barthes were proposing. i'm glad it's not just me!
i agree with entremanureal, n.nyl, and walter jacobson about the uniqueness of individuals. i believe in the commonality of human beings as being human. in addition, i hold a world view that there exists a sea of unique voices.
i believe that the author and the reader share an inextricable relationship which is continually being redefined. i think that neither the role of the author nor the role of the reader can preempt the other in importance.
Post a Comment