death by Foucault

When i began to dive in to Foucault's What is an Author? i was extremely- extremely scepitcal. Not that i doubted his genious or took him for a quack or anything, but i have read some of us other stuff before - History of Sexualitiy to be specific... and im not at all ashamed to say that almost every word of it went over my head. I was mainly afraid of his language and his word choice, and was weary as to if i was going to be able to decipher what he was saying.

For instance in History of Sexuality i read the section Dr. M had assigned for last semester and struggled immensenly with it. However what it was all said and done i thought i at least understood the general idea or thesis of his argument. Low and behold Friday noon roles around and Dr. M begins her lecture, and about ten minutes in my head was going in circles. Apparently i had gotten it all wrong and Fouccault's argument was the exact opposite of what i thought it was. It took my the rest of the semester to understand it enough to answer the question pertaining to to Foucault on the final. Oh well.

Anyways back to the What is an Author, It seems to me that Foucault is saying that it does indeed matter, our image of the author that we get when we read his/her work. Shakespeare was a great example. he said that the individual of William Shakespeare- and the details of his life that are unrelated to his "work" (which i am slightly confused by, when thinking of it in Foucault's terms) are not important to the image of Shakespeare as an author. For instance if it were found out that Shakespeare has 18 brothers and sisters, and father 3 illigtimate children, that should effect his status and and image as an "author". However if we come to find out the "The Taming of the Shrew" was derrived from another story that was never published and written by an unknown person, that would then in turn force us to question his image as an "author". Now, he would still be considered an author- undoubtedbly. Foucault also makes the point that if we were to find out that Shakespeare was responsible for a dozen of other works that were first attributed to other authors - depending on the subtance of the material - this can in fact also change his status as an "author" and in turn give him a different image.

"Work". This term that Foucault throws around more or less confused me. I dont think he gave a clear definition of what should constitute as a "work". he did ask a bunch of questions - that i thought were going to be answered shorlty after they were proposed.. but i never found the answers.. perhaps they are hidden in his vast vocabulary - because once again i do struggle with his work. So if any of you bright english majors want to point out what constitues as a "work" according to Foucault - on confidant on my ability to understand your language - or you just want to throw some page numbers my way, i'd appreciate it very much.