readerly/writerly/Foucault

Jonathan Laidlow · 16 Dec 1999, 10:20 · from urth-v0028.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Jonathan Laidlow" <LAIDLOJM at hhs.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: (urth) readerly/writerly/Foucault
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:20:05 GMT
Message-ID: <urth-v0028-0632 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0632.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

More boring stuff on literary theory I'm afraid folks. If we go on much=20
longer we'll take it to email. Sorry in advance!

> I prefer Foucault's term "discourse" which is somewhat above the level of
> the statement, though you have to plough through _Archaeology of knowledg=
e_
> to work this out (one of his last structuralist books thank goodness).
> Discourse is what is formed by the archive, the set of rules which
> determine what can be said, remembered, appropriated, re-used or forgotte=
n.
> Anyway, the point is that there is authority in discourse, it frames simp=
ly
> what can be said or how it is said. His examples are madness, criminality,
> and sexuality.

I dunno. I always found that unless I was doing linguistics=20
(*shudder*) 'discourse' became one of those nebulous mis-used=20
terms that could actually refer to just about anything. If we stick with=20
referring to material objects like books then we can keep ourselves=20
grounded in actual discussion of the work at hand. Of course it=20
helps if your research (like mine) actually concentrates on the=20
differing authorities presented by physical features in books by=20
Laurence Sterne (black pages, footnotes, marbling etc)
You also end up making sweeping generalisations about=20
'discourse' which may well be true, but also leave you open to=20
further deconstruction by post-structuralists keen to reveal that there=20
is some basic contradiction in your argument that unravels you and=20
(probably) erases you from existence....

> >structuralist theory was always the weakest point. What intrigues=20
> >me is the scope for questioning concepts of authorship and=20
> >authority which are too often taken for granted. That doesn't mean=20
> >we must erase their existence, merely understand the way we read=20
> >the 'new Gene Wolfe novel' in different ways to the 'new Jeffery=20
> >Archer novel', and the way the presence of the author has a bearing=20
> >on our reading of their narrators.
>=20
> This seems useful.

I hope so. I'm not a Foucault expert at all, but I have done extensive=20
research on theories of authorship (most of it now sadly replaced in=20
my mind by useless trivia I'm sure) and I think one of the dangers of=20
using big name critical theory is that you end up either taking it at=20
face value or dismissing it wholesale. Perhaps its that I'm de-
radicalising it, or missing the point somewhat, but we have to find=20
where such theories actually become useful and intersect with 'real-
world' (for want of a better world) applications, whether it be the=20
study of literary texts or, indeed, post-modern geography.

What is it Foucault says about the 'author function' [checks draft of=20
thesis on hard disc - inserts section from an early draft which keeps=20
things simple:]

Foucault defines the =E2=80=98author=E2=80=99 as a =E2=80=98limiting practi=
ce=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98the regulator=20
of the fictive=E2=80=99.Rather than the originator of the significations of=
 a text,=20
 Foucault suggests that the =E2=80=98author=E2=80=99 is a function of the t=
ext,=20

=E2=80=98by which one impedes the free circulation, the free manipulation,=20
the free composition, decomposition, and recomposition of fiction=E2=80=99.=20

In the  repetition of the word =E2=80=98free=E2=80=99 we can perhaps begin =
to see that=20
 Foucault is aspiring towards a new form of literary discourse which=20
allows signification more liberty, more plurality. Yet Foucault also=20
recognises that all texts have features which limit the free play of=20
significations. Nevertheless, this desire for pluralism reduces the=20
utility of the concept for our own purposes, for it taints the idea of=20
the =E2=80=98author function=E2=80=99 with a utopian desire for the excisio=
n of the=20
author from critical work.=20

It appears unlikely that Foucault was, in the above passage, calling=20
for a =E2=80=98death=E2=80=99 of the author, when so much of his work is co=
ncerned=20
with the construction of authors and authority. Rather, he appears to=20
be establishing that alongside the originating (and elusive) figure of=20
the author, there is a feature of texts which is also the author: the=20
author function.=20
=20
What this formulation of the =E2=80=98author function=E2=80=99 does for lit=
erary studies=20
is that it historicises the very notion of authorship and recognises=20
that the term =E2=80=98author=E2=80=99 has changed its meaning at various p=
oints=20
through history. The =E2=80=98author=E2=80=99 is merely another feature of =
the text,=20
rather than the privileged originator of all its meanings. The actual=20
function that it performs he describes as follows:

"The author=E2=80=99s name serves to characterize a certain mode of being=20
of discourse: the fact that the discourse has an author=E2=80=99s name, tha=
t=20
one can say =E2=80=98this was written by so-and-so=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98so-=
and-so is its=20
author,=E2=80=99 shows that this discourse is not ordinary everyday speech=20
that merely comes and goes, not something that is immediately=20
consumable. On the contrary, it is a speech that must be received=20
in a certain mode and that, in a given culture, must receive a certain=20
status."

(quotes taken from F's essay, 'What is an Author?, reproduced in=20
various places - most handily in the 'Foucault Reader' published by=20
Penguin in the UK,)

Would appreciate any suggestions on the above, as its part of my=20
work that, er, *doesn't* work correctly. Quite hard to squeeze it into=20
my arguments that the materiality of the physical book is important.

> Thanks again Jonathan. If you're in Chester next week I'll buy you a pint!
> I'll be home for the holidays.

Chester UK? Or Chester USA? Both are a bit far from the wet and=20
windy west midlands!

Jonathan
Visit Ultan's Library - A Gene Wolfe web resource
http://members.tripod.co.uk/laidlow/index.htm
Jonathan Laidlow
University of Birmingham, UK

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net