eureka.

now that i actually understand the idea of the role of an "author" and what that word actually "means," i feel a little more comfortable with the removal of the entity from my experience. it also alleviates the responsibility placed upon ME because I am not my writing, my writing is merely a persona of myself. so, if i don't do well on this project, i won't take it too personally, since blog marie and real marie are different. this sort of stripping down can become problematic if you overthink it though (which i aways do) because every image of ourseves is a projection to be interpreted and analyzed with regard to what people already know about me. or something.

at first, this was horrifying and insulting, this removal of the author. the blood sweat and tear of these artists, just washed off their personal histories, given away to the masses by some AUTHORity on the pitfalls of authorship...foucoult...but as we discussed the "blame" aspect of the theory, and the idea that we seem to have to know about this stuff or else.

according to barthes (the theory not the man himself) the known author imposes a limit on a text - which is why bible analysis tends to be so extensive. we don't know who the author was, so we have no idea what his intentions were. we can offer guesses, which we do at legnth, but we don't really have any conclusive answers.

i've been reading this woman's blog, and i think that if her author function is anything like herself, i'd probably like her. i'm trying to explicate her life to some degree, through what she reveals through her blog (http://dooce.com/) but its tough, because it's anecdotal and these things really could have happened to anyone, but are compelling and charming (after i wrote that i found the about me section and it is so worth reading, she needs to write a book, although that would make her a TRUE AUTHOR with a BODY OF WORK embedded in LITERATURE heaven forbid). i am not this charming; she is the type of person i want to have an author function. i'm not this funny, not this pretty, not this clever. my roommates and i were in stitches reading this. AND SHES A MORMON. i am a bored, uninspired lapsed catholic. her experience as a fomer alcoholic mormon stay at home mom LA scum chick have given her this scope and this "dictionary" with which to write. i dont want people to read my blog, because i know they won't if people like her are writing better ones. its not my medium and i'm over it. she is a good blogger. i am not a blogger at all. my author is too functioning and present and not interesting enough for even me to read.

I just can't find the time to write my mind the way I want it to read

while i realize that punctuality is important, i am not prepared to write a blog on this stuff right now. i'd rather write a good post about the topics late than write something muddy and unsure on time. i've been reading the material, and i think its going to take a class for me to digest it. i've been reading other blogs though, and have come to the conclusion that i am not a blogger. it is really exhausting to read people's minds, which is what we're doing on blogs. i mean, seriously trying. that's what i am going to write about in connection with foucoult and barthes (just so you know i'm not posting BS at 4:44, i have it planned, i just need to make it sound before i go tossing it to the public) (which is what some of these bloggers that ive been searching really should do before they throw up all over the internet...ours are among the easiest to like that i've found, so good job).

explosions in the sky time, later babies.

a horse is a horse of course

Normally, most Freud is a little too much for me, and I don't think I've been well-served in my previous experiences with his work. I think some of his more outlandish theories have been so mainstream for so long that people have reduced them to pulp-psychology. Everything I've learned about his theories has been relatively strictly psychosexual, and I've experienced a lot of "Freud said (insert totally outrageous clam about baby poop or women here) and this is totally credible." Why his theories are credible has tended to fall under the radar, though I'm learning a lot about his other, slightly less eyeroll-inducing work, especially this year. I like the idea of psychoanalytic criticism though, because its just like all the other theories-stuff I can accept if I want to. I am also nosy and endlessly interested in other people's dirty laundry, and psychoanalytic theory addresses those nasty little bits of character that we don't often reveal to the public.

I'm reading this play for my FYS, Equus by Peter Shaffer. Its about this kid who stabs the eyes out of the horses that he takes care of (and rides around on naked at midnight after establishing them as dieties in his life)...it might be the weirdest and most disconnected thing I've read in a while. I was googling the title to see what the scuttlebutt was, and the names Daniel Radcliffe and Harry Potter kept coming up...I guess that's the play that has been in the news with naked Daniel/Harry all over it. Anyway. What kind of author is thinking at his typewriter one day "Hey, what a good idea, sexy eroticism with horses and naked teenagers!"? And seriously, the author exists here. Let's not have any of that talk, cause someone had to write this. And its weird. But, the weirdest thing about it is that it ran over 1000 performances on Broadway and won a Tony. People LIKED a play about some nudie teenage weirdo horse worshipper and his boring, lame psychologist (who has his share of slightly more understated neuroses). What does that say about us? I couldn't get it out of my head the entire time i was reading it.

So the author has to be weird (though Wikipedia doesn't mention any stints in institutions or Prozac use or anything), because do normal (and i use the term as loosely as possible in this situation) people think about naked boys cavorting with horses and, furthermore, relate to it (as apparently thousands of theatergoers in the '70s did)? Which makes me also wonder how crazy Freud had to be to dream up some of his theories, so critically reading Freud using psychoanalytic theory might be fun.

But not for me. Not when I have a book about crazy Mormons to read instead.

Goodnight.