Reflecting on this latest segment in my writing class I
couldn’t help but feel a little overwhelmed at what my classmates and I had
discussed about authorship. Before this class I thought there was a simple
definition of an author. However, it seems I’ve been under a rock when it comes
to the discussion of what an author is and what they do.
Up until these past few weeks in class I believed an author
was someone who simply wrote. As to what they wrote I had assumed the
boundaries to be novels, poems, plays, epics, or any other general form of
text. After the class discussions I discovered that some people, such as
Foucault, Barthes, Poster, and Grusin, all have different ideas of what an
author is and what their function does. Some even say that the author is, in
fact, dead. If you were to tell me the author is dead before I had read any of
the class readings I probably would have been completely confused and said you
were crazy. Now though I can understand where that conclusion comes from, even
if I don’t agree that the author is dead.
Even after reading many articles on the idea of what an
author is, I think I’ll stick to the basic definition. However, now with
technology advancing and people writing many short phrases for Facebook
‘statuses’ and Twitter ‘tweets’, there is a small need for redefining what
counts as a text worth authorship. Should we consider a status or tweet a work
of the person who wrote it? And if it counts as a work, should that writer then
become an author? I don’t believe such short phrases that are used as statuses
and tweets constitute as works of an author, but there are times when I read
one so creative and unique I can’t help but want to give authorship to the
writer so they can be credited for being so witty and intelligent.
Also, on social media sites like Tumblr where people can
post longer pieces of writing, some people should be considered authors because
of what they post. As silly as this will seem, some posts created by more than
one person do turn out quite brilliant, or as in this case, quite (I find)
hilarious.
With the Internet being such a ginormous network we
sometimes see creative and confusing pieces of writing that can stir-up
people’s ideas. It’s things like this picture shown below that make me wonder
if it should be considered a work of an author. Did they actually write
something? Or is it a meaningless bunch of words jumbled to look like something
creative.
Whatever the definition of the author is, the Internet has
been a great base for writers to share their work and claim authorship of
something they have written. The short phrased statuses and tweets have allowed
for more people to write and read. Whether people are considered authors might
not even matter because, hey, at least people are practicing the skills of
writing and reading, right?
The question of authorship has to do with authority and ownership. Extending "authorship" to more and more writers does put a great deal of strain on the authorship regime. The whole author construct is predicated upon exclusion, as Foucault makes clear. The clamoring at the gate may well cause the floor to cave in.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone is an author, is anyone an author?
ReplyDeleteBy the basic definition of an author, anyone could be an author just by writing. But I'd also have to include the criteria that the thing written must have a purpose whether it's the author giving it purpose or a reader. The use of the term author is to designate ownership of a text, so there is still a use for the term author if everyone is an author because whether or not a writer writes something magnificent or pointless, they still should have ownership of the text they wrote and be the author of that text.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a poster an old teacher of mine had. It said, "If you can walk, you can dance. If you can talk, you can sing." Maybe someone should add, "If you can write, you can be an author."