When the question of what is an author is posed the majority of people would simply reply with, someone who writes a book or novel. But, when the same question is brought to the attention of Foucault he would answer with a simple response of their ability to fulfill author function, their acknowledgement of complex operations and carrying them out,the acknowledgement an author is not a specific person, or have to connote being a specific person, and finally their acceptance of the relationship with death and its inevitability. A more complex answer but one provided through his essay What Is An Author.
Author function is an important part of what an author is to Foucault. According to him it is largely an author as a function of discourse, stated as example in the following section of his essay, “Texts, books, and discourses really began to have authors (other than mythical, sacralized and sacralizing figures) to the extent that authors became subject to punishment, that is, to the extent that discourses could be transgressive” (211-212). In …show more content…
It seems that Foucault is trying to explain that the death of an author is an inevitable fact that should be embraced rather than pushed away. While acceptance of this is important what is more important is creating a work that far outlasts the author themselves, as stated in the following “Our culture has metamorphosed this idea of narrative, or writing, as something designed to ward off death” (206). In other words, being an author is no longer about the ideas instead it is about getting yourself to be remembered for what you have done rather than the ideas presented. Culture and society has morphed in such a social way that who you are is more important than what you say, think and do. Which in the context of what an author is to Foucault is wrong and should be the reverse rather than what is a legitimate focus on todays
Author function is an important part of what an author is to Foucault. According to him it is largely an author as a function of discourse, stated as example in the following section of his essay, “Texts, books, and discourses really began to have authors (other than mythical, sacralized and sacralizing figures) to the extent that authors became subject to punishment, that is, to the extent that discourses could be transgressive” (211-212). In …show more content…
It seems that Foucault is trying to explain that the death of an author is an inevitable fact that should be embraced rather than pushed away. While acceptance of this is important what is more important is creating a work that far outlasts the author themselves, as stated in the following “Our culture has metamorphosed this idea of narrative, or writing, as something designed to ward off death” (206). In other words, being an author is no longer about the ideas instead it is about getting yourself to be remembered for what you have done rather than the ideas presented. Culture and society has morphed in such a social way that who you are is more important than what you say, think and do. Which in the context of what an author is to Foucault is wrong and should be the reverse rather than what is a legitimate focus on todays