When discussing the idea of what an
author is, I immediately think of a joke my sister tried to play one time. She
was in college at the time and was frustrated with some of her peers trying to
come across as music buffs. She noticed that anything played on the Minnesota
radio station “The Current” was instantaneously deemed as cool, regardless of
the actual content. She started making up names of songs and artists and would
turn to random radio stations while driving in the car. Upon initially hearing
a song, the person would question who it was, not yet admitting whether or not
they liked it. She would tell them she either heard the song she was talking
about on The Current or that random station they were listening to was The Current. She was never challenged or questioned.
I
feel we get the same way with authors. Are the names attached to classic works
some of the reason behind their fame? Are we impressed by the content or do we
feel we are supposed to be impressed because of who wrote it? I feel that in
most cases, we are overwhelming truly impacted by the content of the work at
hand rather than the name associated with it.
I am not certain why this came to
mind, but I thought of this video clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:
(specifically 3:10-3:30)
This woman is in full agreement with Rob Riggle. She is
unknowingly supporting the movement of the institution she is trying to
protest, but because there is not a label associated with the idea Riggle
suggests, she evaluates the content rather than the “author” (in this case, she
evaluates the meaning and intention of an idea that is traditionally associated
with one who is conservative, but because she does not know that, she is not
biased). I think this example is very telling in how labels or authors can skew
our perspective of a work.
However,
this argument seems very cynical! In chapter two of The Theory Toolbox, I loved the discussion of the importance
of Native American folktales to the identity of “American Literature” (page
12). These folktales have no author, but does that make them any less credible
or intriguing? I would say no. On page 13, The
Theory Toolbox questions when someone transcends from a writer to an
author? What makes an author an author? I love to imagine the works of
literature that have been written throughout history that have never been
published or even shared. Timeless characters that have been lost or destroyed.
What
is it exactly that makes The Current so appealing and so unacceptable to
challenge? How did it gain its authority?
I feel like the reason that The Current is so popular is the desire to appear "interesting". Not to say that people who listen to the current aren't, but (for example) if you asked someone what their favorite radio station was and they said KDWB most people who immediately write them off as someone who follows the crowd. Thus, by liking (or pretending to like) The Current, one hopes to appear unique and fascinating. Of course as you say, with the glut of people making The Current their favorite station, it is losing its uniqueness. Now because I'm an interesting guy, my new favorite radio station is the neglected favorite of old: KDWB!
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest differences we have seen between Fish and Foucault is in their view of power. For Foucault, the way we read things is created by the institution(s) we are subject to. For Fish, readers are not subjugated into thinking the way they do, but form their own "interpretive communities."
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I side more with Foucault. Fish's thoughts seem to be unrealistic. But this group of "The Current" people is the best example I think I have seen of Fish's interpretive communities - people who willingly group themselves together and see things the same way.
There's always a group that invades communities like these. They are the people your sister was annoyed by.
Posers.