In class, we discussed the idea of the author and Roland Barthes explains that text does not come from the author, but that the author is dead. The author is really the scriptor who transcribes culture. I agree with this notion that culture kind of just flows through the author and into a text. But does this text have a meaning? And if it does, is it truth? I find it difficult to follow the idea that humans are not essentially individuals. I think that authors impose their ideas and beliefs on the text that they are creating even these thoughts are skewed by culture.
Foucault then said "The function of an author is to characterize the existance, circulation and operation of certain discourses within a society." He is saying that certain things have writers, but not necessisarily an author. The "real" person does not shine through the texts, whether or not a this "real" person exists or not.
Authorship!?
In this blog, the "author" discusses the ideas of blogging and plagerism, not excactly authorship and pseudonimity, but another point that I think should be addressed when it comes to authorship. The idea of having ownership over ideas seems strange when the author is just the scriptor of culture. So does the author then own the language that is describing culture? Does the author own culture? It doesn't seem likely.
1 comment:
I enjoyed reading you blog...and I do agree with the fact that author's role do shape the way that people view a text. However, I do not agree with your notion that individuals are people who can not think for themselves. Every rule has an exception...and although some people fall into that category does not mean everyone does.
Post a Comment