what's in a name.

We return once again to questioning "what is an author?" and how this alters the meaning and interpretation of a literary text.

Michel Foucalt's ideas and views were extremely enlightening and I found easy to resonate with on a different level then some of the other texts addressing this same issue. He brings up the idea of the "death of an author" writing, "Where a work had the duty of creating immortality, it now attains the right to kill, to become the murderer of its author" (1624). We place so much emphasis and power on the name given with a text and we derive so much discussion and meaning from the background and history of that person. Why? Foucalt brings up a point, which I found brilliant and slightly humorous (because I never thought of it before), when he writes how far we should go with this authorship idea. He writes, "Assuming that we are dealing with an author, is everything he wrote and said, everything he left behind, to be included in his work?...a reminder of an appointment, an address, or a laundry bill, should this be included in his works? Why not?" (1624) I laughed when reading this because it sounded so silly and ridiculous, but I find that these questions are really trying to get at something. What is an author and why do we place such importance on the name rather than the text itself?

I find that I fall victim to this idea of categorizing all the work of one author together. For example, take two of my favorite authors, Jodi Picoult and Donald Miller. After reading "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller I immediately began looking for other books written by him. I assumed because I loved this one particular work of his that I would enjoy the rest of his books. The same goes for Jodi Picoult. I just recently read "Plain Truth" and liked it so much that I've started another novel by her. If I don't have a good book at the moment to read I'll look up an author's name that I've read before and enjoyed and hope to find a book they've written. And if I do, I don't think twice about reading the inside flap for details on the story; I just assume that it will be of the same quality and style of a previous book read by that author. Isn't it funny how we do that? I feel in a way I've missed out on some really good books because I've attributed bad characteristics towards them based on the author's name alone.

At the end of Foucault's essay he writes on this idea of circulating texts and works of literature without any status or value placed on it from a particular author. I liked his idea and the questions that arose from this, such as "What are the modes of existence of this discourse? Where does it come from; how is it circulated; who controls it"(1636). This eliminates the ever pressing question or "Who is the real author? Have we proof of his authenticity and originality" (1636). I guess the idea of focusing more on the text of a work of literature appeals greatly to me. I'd rather spend time discussing issues and themes existing within the text rather then placing immediate value on a work simply because some famous name is printed across the cover.