But an "author's" name does more than that: He merely ended his essay by stating,. He looks to St. Eliot and what is not T. Foucault, however, seemed to view the author as being implicated in a system of thought that was mired in personification and personalization that got in the way of the preferred object of study: I won't go into the details of Foucault's argument about this here; it takes us further into Foucault's own position as the initiator of analysis of discourses.
Such figures as Marx and Freud and Foucault radically shift an entire mode of thinking; the discourses they initiate make them more than just "authors" or "author functions" in the ways we've been talking about.
Texts are eliminated which refer to events after the death of the author. Interpretation sets up a play against the original text and leads to infinite regression. Throughout most of Western cultural history, writing has been a means of staving off death, of becoming "immortal;" Foucault points to the Greek epic, where the hero can die young because his epic feats have guaranteed his immortality, and also to a non-Western text, The Arabian Nights , where Scheherazade's storytelling night after night kept her from being killed.
Writing cancels out signs of particular individuality so that, ironically, the sign of the writer is the singularity of absence.
Rather, he wants to discuss the relationship between an author and a text, and the manner in which the text points to the author as a figure who is outside the text, and who precedes the text and creates it. Foucault says that philosophers and poets are not constructed as authors in the same way, but that there are some transhistorical constants in how authors are culturally constructed.
Another major theme or principle of ecriture that Foucault sees expressed in the Beckett quote is the idea of a connection between writing and death. He ends his essay with some questions about the relations of subjects to discourse, so we can end by looking at how Foucault transforms the question of any subject's relation to language via Bakhtin's notion of discourse, i.
Critics questioned this association, asking Foucault how he could put two authors who were so different, in time and place, together in one grouping.PHILOSOPHY - Michel Foucault
On 141b, Foucault takes up the question of "author" as product of "work" again, asking how "the name of the author" serves a function within literary-social relations. The "author function" is not a universal or constant feature of every text.
Michel Foucault: Foucault suggests that the author function arises out of the difference, and separation, between the "author function" and the writer signified in the text. Foucault says that we need to have some sort of theory to explain or analyze questions about what counts as an author's "work.
Althusser showed us how we are interpellated as subjects into ideological structures, and we discussed how that applies to literature: Without this contextual tool, critique becomes difficult and Foucault, as did his colleagues, carefully neutered critique and rendered social criticism mute, coincidentally or not, at the time of a struggle for the rights of women and people of color. He was working to discover and explain the rules and laws of formation of systems of thought in the human sciences which emerge in the nineteenth century.