Like so many other concepts, what counts as authorship varies by discourse community. An easy example of this is the difference between the writings of a creative writer writing fiction for a general audience and a literary critic writing for an academic journal. The differences are potentially endless. One may use dialogue between pretend characters while the other cites noted authorities and their work to argue a point. Both are authors, but the kind of authorship would not transfer well between the different discourse communities.
In academic writing, there are also differences between discourse communities for what counts as authorship. For example, the scientific community has slightly different standards when listing multiple authors of a study than the liberal arts community. Compare these discourse communities with the business and technical writing communities for an entirely different conception of authorship. Is the an author of your monthly billing statement? Especially now that so many companies use a computer to create such forms?
Institutions and discourse communities shape their construction of authorship based on their needs. In business it is more important to have a standard billing statement or letter that can be modified at will to meet specific needs than to worry about a specific author of that form. In the academic community where authorship is very important to gaining promotion and tenure, the author is constructed very carefully indeed.
1.28.2008
technology and communication
Ever since I came across the work of Walter Ong while working on my thesis, I have been entranced by the relationship between technology and communication. It's not that I think that Ong has all of the answers, but I do think that his work in orality and literacy provide a different perspective that may enable us to find a better way to describe past and current communication practices. This in turn may enable us to better understand the world around us and to better predict and prepare us for the future ahead.
That said, I do believe that technology had and has an effect on our definition of authorship. Where authorship is by necessity of the technology a solitary or at least limited affair, our conception of authorship will revolve around that idea. Where authorship is easily shared between numerous individuals, perhaps even without consent, then our concept of authorship is by necessity ambiguous.
For example, let us look back in time at the old oral poets predating the invention of writing (itself a very important technology). Who is the author of Beowulf? The men who wrote down the story recited by the bard? Not really because they simply recorded a story. However, if I remember correctly some contend that the monks who recorded the story likely introduced christian elements into the story. If true, then are they not part authors? What about the bard? He told the story, but to tell the story he must have heard it first from someone else. Before writing even, there were still stories and storytellers. But they authors? How much of their material would be considered original by today's standards of authorship?
Ong asserts that one of the effects of the invention of writing and later print is the emphasis on originality. In pre-writing cultures, more emphasis is placed on repetition. You know what you can remember. Thus, oral cultures spend a great deal of time repeating their knowledge. Can you have a concept of author (beyond inspired by a muse), when your culture's knowledge is dependent on key individuals remembering the important information and upholding traditions?
It is interesting, but I would assert that we are having the opposite problem with authorship today. When it is theoretically possible to remember and record everything, is it possible to be an original author by the standards of print culture? No, hence the hiccups over copyright law, youtube, and napster. Who are the authors? Who gets the compensation? Who owns the material, "creator" or consumer?
That said, I do believe that technology had and has an effect on our definition of authorship. Where authorship is by necessity of the technology a solitary or at least limited affair, our conception of authorship will revolve around that idea. Where authorship is easily shared between numerous individuals, perhaps even without consent, then our concept of authorship is by necessity ambiguous.
For example, let us look back in time at the old oral poets predating the invention of writing (itself a very important technology). Who is the author of Beowulf? The men who wrote down the story recited by the bard? Not really because they simply recorded a story. However, if I remember correctly some contend that the monks who recorded the story likely introduced christian elements into the story. If true, then are they not part authors? What about the bard? He told the story, but to tell the story he must have heard it first from someone else. Before writing even, there were still stories and storytellers. But they authors? How much of their material would be considered original by today's standards of authorship?
Ong asserts that one of the effects of the invention of writing and later print is the emphasis on originality. In pre-writing cultures, more emphasis is placed on repetition. You know what you can remember. Thus, oral cultures spend a great deal of time repeating their knowledge. Can you have a concept of author (beyond inspired by a muse), when your culture's knowledge is dependent on key individuals remembering the important information and upholding traditions?
It is interesting, but I would assert that we are having the opposite problem with authorship today. When it is theoretically possible to remember and record everything, is it possible to be an original author by the standards of print culture? No, hence the hiccups over copyright law, youtube, and napster. Who are the authors? Who gets the compensation? Who owns the material, "creator" or consumer?
1.22.2008
authorship=choice
After working through this week's readings, I have high hopes that I have arrived at a simpler definition of authorship (that will work for me anyways and is, by my own quirks limited to print).
I think that the concept of authorship is tied choice. In other words, I think that authorship should be assumed (or assigned) based on the degree of choice an individual with a given piece of work. For example, let's say that I have sitting in my desk an unpublished manuscript written entirely by myself in my spare time. This would probably be close to an ideal of authorship because I have both control and choice over my work. After that would be publishing my manuscript, but still retain a great deal of control and choice over how my work is published. Even working with an editor, I still retain the power to choose, including the choice of signing a contract that hands over certain rights in exchange for things.
At the other end of the authorship spectrum, we have the example of the technical writer employed by a corporation. In this case, I would name the corporation as the author since they have the greatest power of choice over the material. The organization chooses the subject, the material, the writers, the hours that the writers work, compensation for all individual involved, and means of publication. In this case it is truly impossible to assign a single individual as the author.
Of course, there is a lot of grey space between these two extremes. Also, I haven't taken on the issue of authorship extended to images, music, film, or other multimedia compositions. While I think that the basic underlying concept will transfer, I am not certain that the exact term of "author" will.
I think that the concept of authorship is tied choice. In other words, I think that authorship should be assumed (or assigned) based on the degree of choice an individual with a given piece of work. For example, let's say that I have sitting in my desk an unpublished manuscript written entirely by myself in my spare time. This would probably be close to an ideal of authorship because I have both control and choice over my work. After that would be publishing my manuscript, but still retain a great deal of control and choice over how my work is published. Even working with an editor, I still retain the power to choose, including the choice of signing a contract that hands over certain rights in exchange for things.
At the other end of the authorship spectrum, we have the example of the technical writer employed by a corporation. In this case, I would name the corporation as the author since they have the greatest power of choice over the material. The organization chooses the subject, the material, the writers, the hours that the writers work, compensation for all individual involved, and means of publication. In this case it is truly impossible to assign a single individual as the author.
Of course, there is a lot of grey space between these two extremes. Also, I haven't taken on the issue of authorship extended to images, music, film, or other multimedia compositions. While I think that the basic underlying concept will transfer, I am not certain that the exact term of "author" will.
1.18.2008
ranking writers and authorship
It's weird, but for me the term author is just really closely tied to writing, even though I know that it could be applied to a wider range of activities. And perhaps it should be.
For me it seems like the terms fall into categories (which to be honest probably reflect traditional divisions in the academy)
Writer (text/prose on page) = Author (most strong in connection with a published book)
Writer (text/poetry) =Poet (secondarily thought of as author, but generally only when tied to a book)
Writer (movies, TV, theatre) = screen writer or playwright for theatre Writer (lyrics) = song writer (only a tenuous link to author)
Writer (musical score)= composer
Writer (business) = technical writer
This last category is the farthest from Author in my mind since I perceive a strong disconnect between ownership of the ideas/material and the work produced. In other words, a technical writer goes into a job knowing that he or she does not own raw data or material or the product. This is echoed in the fact that plagiarism is rarely an issue. Old documents are continually adapted from to fix new circumstances without worry about attributing a source.
So I guess the question is for me: Do we stretch the meaning of authorship or do we adopt other terms for specific genres? Personally, I think that I see the death of the author as a term because it is tied too closely to the book and printed text to cover everything. Instead, I'm betting that a new generic term will rise to to cover all of the new multimedia creations that are becoming the norm with the rise of the Internet.
For me it seems like the terms fall into categories (which to be honest probably reflect traditional divisions in the academy)
Writer (text/prose on page) = Author (most strong in connection with a published book)
Writer (text/poetry) =Poet (secondarily thought of as author, but generally only when tied to a book)
Writer (movies, TV, theatre) = screen writer or playwright for theatre Writer (lyrics) = song writer (only a tenuous link to author)
Writer (musical score)= composer
Writer (business) = technical writer
This last category is the farthest from Author in my mind since I perceive a strong disconnect between ownership of the ideas/material and the work produced. In other words, a technical writer goes into a job knowing that he or she does not own raw data or material or the product. This is echoed in the fact that plagiarism is rarely an issue. Old documents are continually adapted from to fix new circumstances without worry about attributing a source.
So I guess the question is for me: Do we stretch the meaning of authorship or do we adopt other terms for specific genres? Personally, I think that I see the death of the author as a term because it is tied too closely to the book and printed text to cover everything. Instead, I'm betting that a new generic term will rise to to cover all of the new multimedia creations that are becoming the norm with the rise of the Internet.
1.15.2008
favorite authors
I tend to read a lot of science fiction as my escape genre. Here's a quick list of some of my favorite authors (the ones I read time and time again) off the top of my head:
Kelly Armstrong
Lois McMaster Bujold
Jim Butcher
Julie E Czerneda
Eric Flint
Raymond E Fiest
Charlene Harris
Sharon Lee and Steve Miller
David Weber
I am sure that I am leaving quite a few off the list, but these are some of the best of those that I've read. What all of these authors have in common is that there stories are character driven in addition to having wonderfully detailed and novel worlds to set their characters in. For me, what sets them apart as favorite authors is not simply their ability to tell a great story, to invent vivid characters, or create detailed and unique worlds; it is the whole package. I've read other authors with a good plot and characters, but their "world" reads to me like a ripoff of another author or is just bland. I've also read books with novel, detailed worlds, but the story or character failed to keep me interested.
I think what sets these writers apart as authors is their ability to consistently deliver what I consider to be a great package in story form that I can enjoy time and time again. I've read other versions of these stories. Sometimes their story is an obvious riff off of a common fairy tale, but I am still hooked.
One more thing: I think that from each I have learned something. Maybe it was a bit of historical trivia or perhaps it spoke to a common theme of humanity. Perhaps it worked out and dealt with current world problems in another setting. Whatever it was, I finished those books with a slightly different view of the world. I may not have agreed with all of that perspective, but I saw it for a moment.
Kelly Armstrong
Lois McMaster Bujold
Jim Butcher
Julie E Czerneda
Eric Flint
Raymond E Fiest
Charlene Harris
Sharon Lee and Steve Miller
David Weber
I am sure that I am leaving quite a few off the list, but these are some of the best of those that I've read. What all of these authors have in common is that there stories are character driven in addition to having wonderfully detailed and novel worlds to set their characters in. For me, what sets them apart as favorite authors is not simply their ability to tell a great story, to invent vivid characters, or create detailed and unique worlds; it is the whole package. I've read other authors with a good plot and characters, but their "world" reads to me like a ripoff of another author or is just bland. I've also read books with novel, detailed worlds, but the story or character failed to keep me interested.
I think what sets these writers apart as authors is their ability to consistently deliver what I consider to be a great package in story form that I can enjoy time and time again. I've read other versions of these stories. Sometimes their story is an obvious riff off of a common fairy tale, but I am still hooked.
One more thing: I think that from each I have learned something. Maybe it was a bit of historical trivia or perhaps it spoke to a common theme of humanity. Perhaps it worked out and dealt with current world problems in another setting. Whatever it was, I finished those books with a slightly different view of the world. I may not have agreed with all of that perspective, but I saw it for a moment.
negotiated authorship
I am the author of this blog. And yet, in choosing this website, in completing the forms, registering, and checking the box stating that I have read and agreed to the terms of service, my authorship has already been limited. To gain an account, these forms and agreements were essentially non-negotiable. Of course, theoretically I could have walked away, chosen another site, or even created my own website on the Internet. So, I have accepted these terms of necessity. 
I am the author of this blog and I can design its look...with certain limitations of course. Limitations that I agreed to when I created my account. And yet, here I have a bit more freedom to choose. There are more options to choose from. I can customize the design of the blog and I can add pictures or videos.
I am the author of this blog and I can design its look...with certain limitations of course. Limitations that I agreed to when I created my account. And yet, here I have a bit more freedom to choose. There are more options to choose from. I can customize the design of the blog and I can add pictures or videos.
I am the author of this blog and, ironically perhaps, I have the most freedom when it comes to the written word. My posts. I can write what I wish how I wish when I wish.
i can decide to not use caps or punctuation or spellcheeker
I am freer, and yet I am still aware of how my choices, limited or not, will affect my audience's perception of me. My choices are limited by my past experiences and current culture. I can agree with it, react against it, but I cannot ignore it entirely and still be a part of this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)