FOSCIS Week 9
2015 04 05
- The Gist
- This is another philosophical paper about authors and authorship. It discusses the various forms an author can take, and the various transitions "authorship" has made throughout history.
- The Good
- I would be way more interested in "complete works" collections if it included laundry bills.
- The footnotes are nice.
- "The distinctive contribution of these authors is that they produced not only their own work, but the possibility and the rules of formation of other texts."
- The Bad
- Two sentences in, and I'm already writing something in this section. The "author" is not really an open question. It's the person who wrote (assuming this is strictly a literary context) a thing. That's it.
- "Neither Hermes not[nor?] Hippocrates"
- "What are the modes of existence of this discourse?"
- The Questions
- Perhaps this made more sense in the "real" class, but these past couple readings have felt wildly out of place. Why were they included?
- What happened to the annotations in the margins? Did the person annotating also get bored and subsequently distracted?
- I don't "get" philosophy. This entire document seems like a crazy guy trying to redefine and bend the meaning of words, seemingly for the hell of it. I just don't see why any of it matters. Why would anyone care about this? "an anonymous poster attached to a wall may have a writer, but he cannot be an author." I mean, if you say so, man. It just seems pretentious and "intellectual" for its own sake.
0/5 <review increments>