Awritingreader’s Weblog

Michel Foucault states: “Finally, the author’s name characterizes a particular manner of existence of discourse. Discourse that possesses an author’s name is not to be immediately consumed and forgotten; neither is it accorded the momentary attention given to ordinary, fleeting words. Rather, its status and its manner of reception are regulated by the culture in which it circulates” (1627).

We discussed this idea in class today and came to the conclusion that names create certain kinds of usages. Therefore, a name works differently depending on its position in culture. And if we assume this to be true then Literature isn’t something that’s there, literature is something that culture makes by the way they choose to talk about it. I find this argument fair enough and can confess that I’ve read certain works or purchased certain book simply because they had a particular name attached to them; a name that signaled authority, quality, and an air of culture or superiority. I certainly don’t read Spencer because I find his works enthralling and wonderful, I read Spencer because I am told that they are so, and by the time I’m done reading his works, I may not personally feel enthralled or wondered, but I should recognize why he is identified in this way.

We talked about Shakespeare and J.K Rowling, identifying how in our culture (in most cultures now), Shakespeare signals serious authority while Rowling aligns with popular culture and a child’s level of entertainment. It is easy enough to recognize that throughout much of our lives, Shakespeare was pointed to as some kind of supreme artist. The mention of his name in conversation or a consideration of him or his works in an essay automatically elevated the discourse to a higher level. He is held in our society as a genius and therefore must be known and celebrated, so we read him in our classes and show cartoon versions to our children and we then grow up assuming his greatness.

I wonder though, if this power of the name can extend beyond cultural appreciation to a point of cultural imitation. We assume that our culture allows us to like Shakespeare, but could the name and the authority behind that name, that identity, actually become so powerful that we continually construct our culture to match the icons within it? And thereby, hinder society from a natural progression in thought or belief because we must maintain these to continually honor Shakespeare, for example.

It’s a tempting thought, and perhaps not altogether impossible, but my instinct is to say “no”. There are so many things within Shakespeare’s works that assume a societal and contextual understanding that we may recognize as contemporary readers, but don’t necessarily ascribe to. His depiction of women for one thing, or class structure. It seems that a work may remain poignant, while losing the immediate truth authority granted it, in the context of its original publication.