Compare and contrast the manner in which the work of any two theorists involves revisions to conventional models of (i) literary authorship

Helene Cixous’ main argument in ‘The Laugh Of The Medusa’ is that ‘Woman must write her self: must write about women and bring women to writing...’ Cixous states therefore, that it is possible for an author to remain ‘alive’ and for the ‘self’ to be imparted into the text. Cixous’ theory that writing must either be masculine or feminine contradicts the idea of ‘author-function’ as it means that only women are able to write femininely and men masculinely. Foucault and Barthes think that the ‘author-function’ arises out of the ‘division and distance’ of the author and the speaker, and that ‘identity is lost’ when writing. Cixous was of the opinion that ‘life becomes text starting out from my body I am already text’ which is contradictory to the Barthes and Foucault as she believes that the writer is able to project their gender, an essential part of the ‘self’, not the ‘second self’, onto a text.

The idea of a ‘second-self’, the being created by ‘author-function’ is challenged by Cixous’ belief in the power of feminine speech and writing. Far from being a ‘neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away’ as Barthes describes it, Cixous attributes women’s speech and writing as an:

‘..element which never stops resonating, which, once we’ve been permeated by it, profoundly and imperceptibly touched by it, retains the power of moving us- that element is the song: first music from the first voice of love which is alive in every woman.’

A comment such as this implies that female writers are able to access something that a male using ‘author-function’ would not be able to. Cixous’ ideas about the influence of gender in writing challenge Barthes and Foucault’s arguments as Cixous believes that it is the ‘self’, not a creation, which is present within texts.

        A problem that arises when evaluating the assertion that woman may ‘write her self’ is that, as Cixous says, ‘it is impossible to define a feminine practice of writing’. Without an empirical definition, the task is difficult, however it is still possible to take a text and assess the qualities which potentially make it feminine.

        An author which the three critics may have had a strong opinion on is the recently unmasked Dr Brooke Magnanti. Until November 2009 the identity of the author of The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl remained unknown as the only clue was the pseudonym ‘Belle De Jour.’ However, due to pressure from various sources Dr. Magnanti was forced to reveal her authorship of the book.

        The search for the true identity of ‘Belle De Jour’ has been described as ‘the new millennium's equivalent of the 1980s' search for the golden hare’ Foucault and Barthes both commented on this issue in general in their writings, Foucault saying:

‘If by accident or design a text was presented anonymously, every effort was made to locate its author. Literary anonymity was of interest only as a puzzle to be solved as, in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereignty of the author.’ 

Barthes concurs with Foucault arguing that ‘when the author is found, the text is ‘explained’—victory to the critic.’ The search for the ‘real’ Belle De Jour lasted years as the literary world searched for ‘the final signified’ as Barthes calls it. Several people were suspected of having penned the work ranging from the journalist Toby Young to the former Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Alastair Campbell before Magnanti ‘confessed’. As Foucault and Barthes would have said, now that the author is revealed only a certain interpretation of this text is now possible.

        Where there was once the prospect that Belle was ‘some rubicund older man — some literary roué of the old school, guffawing at the joke’ or ‘a balding male writer’ there is now only one reading of the text available. By uncovering this ‘vital’ feature, the literary world has now irreversibly limited the meaning of this text.  As Oliver Marre says here: ‘Belle, with her pretty obvious feminism, bad jokes, dull moaning... could have been a literary construction...In fact, Belle was a well educated woman who wrote about her feminism, bad jokes, dull moaning and complicated sex life. Still marketable, but disappointing. One-dimensional.’ 14  Having vigorously sought the truth about the authorship of this text, the literary world is now fixed with this immovable explanation.

        Does Magnanti create a ‘second-self’ then within her text? Does she reach the point ‘where only language acts, ‘performs’ and not ‘me’ (sic)? The ‘memoir’ is an interesting type of text to consider when exploring these critics ideas. By definition it agrees with Cixous’ idea of ‘writing the self’, yet by its selective nature it also confirms the ‘scission’ and ‘disconnection’ suggested by Foucault and Barthes. The author must be ‘writing the self’ as a memoir is their thoughts and feelings about their experiences, on the other hand, the said experiences have been cut from the ‘self’ which is an act of separation.

        Belle writes about her own experiences in The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl which would seem to support Cixous theory as opposed to Barthes and Foucault. However, it is important to note that in the act of writing an author exercises the power of selection. In the interest of making her writing compelling, Magnanti in all likelihood will have left out boring elements and overstated other events. The ‘author-function’ used here separates Magnanti from ‘Belle’ even though they are one in the same. The effect is that Magnanti makes a character out of her ‘self’.

        Cixous also puts forward the idea that female writers have only ever ‘functioned “within” the discourse of man’. This argument can be evaluated with Belle in mind as her writings have often been described as a form of feminism. The way Magnanti was able to find prostitution empowering and then build a literary career on it is something only a female writer is capable of. On the other hand, now that she has lost her anonymity, Magnanti is at risk of being shoehorned into the ‘page-three girl’ category by masculine discourse.  Only two days after she revealed her identity, The Sun ran an article which was based around a picture of Magnanti holding a pair of iced buns in the ‘Calendar Girls’ pose. An action such as this confirms Cixous assessment that there are always going to be men who will attempt to control women’s writing and force it into their own ‘canon’. The danger with an author such as Belle is that they can easily be objectified by male-dominated media. Even when a female writes her ‘self’ she runs the risk of something like this happening.  

         The issue of ‘writing the self’ is where the largest disagreement between the two Frenchmen and Cixous lies. Cixous assertion that ‘I write woman: woman must write woman. And man, man’ contradicts the idea that ‘the quibbling and confrontation that a writer generates between himself and his text cancel out the signs of his particular individuality.’ There is no doubt that when a writer creates a character, a narrator, a construction, that once it is written, the invention exists outside of the writer’s self. When attempting to ‘write the self’ though, the writer faces an impossible challenge. Foucault and Barthes would argue that an author can never truly ‘write the self’ as some form of disconnection from the being always happens.  A writer can delete, embellish and arguably, most importantly- lie, the ‘self’ is immune to these actions as it is a constant. A person cannot change who they are; the ‘self’ cannot be altered. An author is capable of creating a ‘second –self’ as Foucault describes it, however the original can never be fully transcribed.

        Having set up Cixous in opposition to Barthes and Foucault it is worth investigating if and where their arguments coincide. Indirectly, Cixous does agree with Barthes and Foucault on the issue of the overstated importance of the name of the author.  All three critics concur that there are more important issues to consider with a text than the name of the person who penned it.  Cixous is more concerned that the author writes their self and gender into the work than their name. Cixous also hints at acknowledgement of ‘author-function’ as by saying ‘women must write her self’, she is indirectly confirming that it is possible to not write the self.

        The point which the trio seem most concurrent upon is that the crux of the writing, the effect it has, is the most important aspect to consider, not the author. Barthes comments that ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author.’ Here Barthes is saying that the reader is the most important figure, as it up to them to interpret texts. Foucault agrees when he talks of future debates on authorship. When he envisages people asking the question ‘What are the modes of existence of this discourse?’ it must be readers of the texts in question who are debating these issues. Cixous has an entirely different effect in mind as she says woman’s writing of her self has the potential to be ‘volcanic... to shatter the framework of institutions, to blow up the law, to break up the “truth”’ Two vastly differing ideas on the effect writing can have, however it is the notion of the importance of the effect that is paramount.

        Overall, it is difficult to disagree with Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault’s view that the name of an author is given exaggerated meaning.  The hounding of ‘Belle De Jour’ to disclose her ‘real’ identity is a modern example of the significance placed on authors. It is highly debateable whether ‘the self’ can truly be written into a text, the ‘second-self’ is undoubtedly a feature of many writings, yet the ‘original self’ requires an unbreakable connection which the ‘scission’-action of writing is unable to provide. The three critics come to differing conclusions on what the most important part of a text is, they concur on one aspect though- it is not the author.      

2,588 words        

        

         

 

Bibliography

1. Adams, Stephen, ‘Belle De Jour author unmask herself amid 'perfect storm' of feelings’ from The Daily Telegraph, (15 Nov 2009) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6573504/Belle-de-Jour-author-unmask-herself-amid-perfect-storm-of-feelings.html

2. Barthes, Roland, ‘The Death of the Author’ in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton, 2001), pp. 1466-1470
3. Cixous, Helene, ‘Coming to writing and other essays’ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press:1992)
4. Cixous, Helene, ‘The Laugh of the Medusa’ in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton, 2001), pp.2039-2056
5. De Jour, Belle, The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, (London: Orion: 2005)
6. Foucault, Michel, ‘What Is an Author’ in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton, 2001), pp. 1622-1636
7. Knight, India, ‘I’m Belle De Jour’, from The Sunday Times, (15 Nov 2009)<http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6917495.ece>
8. Marre, Oliver, ‘The shocking truth about Belle de Jour: she can't write for toffee’ from The Daily Telegraph, (15 Nov 2009)< http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/olivermarre/100004809/the-shocking-truth-about-belle-de-jour-she-cant-write-for-toffee/>
9. < unknown author>, ‘Belle’s a Calendar Girl now’ from The Sun (17th November 2009)<http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2733102/Belles-a-Calendar-Girl-now.html#comment-rig>

---