As i was Writing my SCD #1 . . .

As I was writing my first short critical discussion I realized that I at least had not really thought through the implications of one of Foucault's main arguments. It was something I will be bringing out in my paper, but i also wanted to post here about it. It was the very premise that the historical, social and cultural background that the author represents will be something that hinders the reader’s ability to use the text in their lives in present. This supposition is based on the theory that the experiences, culture and society of whatever time period and situation the author is writing in is so vastly different and alien as to hind the transition of meaning from the text to the reader in whatever time and situation they are in. This supposition is both arrogant and illogical. Human beings are at their core very similar to one another; this is what makes us one species. And so, though on the surface the situations of some ones life and experience may seem totally weird and foreign a good writer will write in such a way as to make their theories relatable to anyone no matter where or when they read it. This is not to say that a good work will never fall out of fashion. All books and pieces of writing fall in and out of fashion and that is okay. The cyclical nature of good writing means that authors may go out of fashion, but they will always come back, because they speak to the nature of man and give us something to talk or argue about.

The Story of O and the Modern Author-Function

In the translator's note prefacing one of my favorite French novels, The Story of O by unknown author Pauline Reage, the translator- self-identified as simply "S. d'E."- explains the novel's strange critical reception. d'E writes, "Even in Paris, where scandal is slow to ignite, there was an element of shock in these exchanges- that such a book, such a total anachronism, could appear, full-blown, in the mid-twentieth century. But the real interest centered around the mystery: who was Pauline Reage?" (x). d'E explains, "Until her identity was bared, people found it difficult to assume a reasonable stance vis-a-vis the work; if Pauline was the pseudonym of some eminent writer, they would feel compelled to react one way; if she were a complete unknown, another.." (x).

Here d'E hits on Barthes' supposition that "the image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyranically centered on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions... The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it" (875). This fascination with the author's name, the exalted status ascribed to her, is one aspect of Foucault's author-function. Reage's example- and, as d'E reminds us, "To this day, no one knows who Pauline Reage is" (x)- validates Foucault's assertion that, "Since literary anomynity is not tolerable... the author-function today plays an important role in our view of literary works" (909). However, through Reage's example we also see how this imperative of the author-function can be transcended. Though Reage- nom de plume or not- remains unknown, her novel attained widespread acceptance and continues to be a site of critical debate (is it pornography? erotica? or something else altogether?). And as d'E notes- and certainly both Barths and Foucault would agree- "perhaps there is a kind of virtue in this, for we are thus obliged to judge the book itself, uncluttered by any outside considerations. Like O before her judges, the work stands naked and alone" (xiii).