Authorship

"…readers expect, and search for, the identification of an author in a text at least in part as a means to assist them in their own sense of differentiation and establishment of a sense of self. … If everything embodied in a text is so novel, so new, as to be alien to and entirely external to a reader's experience then that text will likely remain opaque and difficult to engage. Readers will be unable to differentiate the author in such manner that they are able to internalise the authorial voice and establish the required internal dynamic where meaning, and differentiation of self, can arise." SB


I was really affected by this quote...after reading the whole piece, I read through the quotes we could pick from and I liked this one the most (PS - That article was tough to get through...).

I'm not really sure if I can agree fully with this statement...I believe that knowing who an author is can lead to a better understanding of a text and I suppose eventually lead to a better established "sense of self." However, I don't feel that this always happens - For instance, I particularly love some books because they are extremely personal, and by reading the book, I feel that I know the author more. Sometimes this leads me to forming a new line of thought about myself, but many times, it just changes how I view the book. Frankly, there are many books I have read that I can't recall the author perfectly on the spot (I'm ashamed to say). I've never been that great with names, but it doesn't change the way I feel about the book or the way it's impacted my life...

I will say this though, I really feel the second part of the quote is dead on. When the subject matter being written about, or moreover, the way in which the text is being written, alienates the reader, it cannot have an impact. I think that's what we've been driving at all semester.

When something is jargon-filled and dense, when it makes no relation to the reader at all, when a piece is so abstract or obtuse that no thought process aids the reader in figuring things out, it is a failure. It is the duty of the author, if he or she wishes to reach an audience, to gear their writing in some way shape or form. If I can't connect to a piece I can't learn from it. This doesn't mean that every piece has to be the same or even "normal." In fact, for me at least, many of the experimental or "new" literatures seem to be the ones that can reach me best.

Oddly enough, this article was hard for me to make a connection with simply because of the way in which it is composed: DENSE.

Furthermore, I understand what is being said about authorial voice. If I cannot understand that voice, I cannot derive any sense of meaning. Is a piece sarcastic or serious? Am I supposed to feel that the authorial voice is human and flawed or perfect...I know I'm going a bit out of the range of what was being discussed in this particular piece, but seriously...If I can't see or feel the author in a piece, does it even matter anymore? Can I pull something from it if I don't understand what I'm SUPPOSED to be feeling?

Here is where I am conflicted again...I like the thought of having an androgynous voice. I like reading anonymous literature, I like viewing anonymous paintings, etc. I feel like I am free to interpret anything I want...

When some of my professors tell me that in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" the river is a vagina and the boat is a penis, I snicker. I don't see it, but that's the beauty. We can disagree. I don't want to know the author's every intention...because it's a constantly evolving influence. They create a living breathing idea instead of something so concrete, so dead.

This article made me think about a lot of things...which is good...I just wish I could read it and feel smart for understanding it all, but really, even on my second read, I feel a little lost.