The Concept of Authorship

The three essays that I am choosing to compare/contrast are Scott Russell Sanders “The Inheritance of Tools”, V.S. Naipaul’s “In the Middle of the Journey”, and George Orwell’s “Why I Write”. With such a disparate variety of essays as these, one might wonder how they could ever be similar, since they are all written in different times, different places, and one of them even by someone of another race. But under closer inspection we see they share a common thread that holds them strongly together; they are all personal essays that recount personal experience. Obviously, it does little justice to these essays to identify them only with this one shared concept of authorship, so let us further compare and contrast some concepts of authorship as exemplified in each.

Not only do the essays share a common thread between them because of their chosen genre, they also share the literary technique of using concrete images to anchor abstract thoughts. We see Sanders achieving this with tools by linking these back to experiences he shared with his father. The tools are a way for him to explore his very conflicting thoughts of his father and share these emotions with the reader. In Naipul’s essay, we also see concrete images being used as he discusses his identity and living in his homeland. He cites the decay and awful circumstances in India, such as starving dogs and thin bodies lying on the train station platforms. The difference between these two essays and their examples is that Sanders is trying to use his concrete images to draw the reader an image of a loved father whereas Naipaul is giving the reader a glimpse into a place where he does not feel at home. In the first essay, the examples being used by the author create a positive affirming feeling within the reader while the second essay encourages a reader to engage in a feeling of loathing and withdrawal. Regardless of the strikingly different emotions that the two authors appear to be targeting in the reader, it is clear that they both have the same goal. This goal is to allow the reader to become more familiar with the author’s life and personal experiences. Instead of a second hand story, the author attempts to draw you into the dialogue using these images, to put you in their position. In doing so, often it seems throughout the essays that the authors do not ask for your sympathy, but instead entice you to be empathetic. Moving to our third essay, we again see the use of magnificent imagery as Orwell guides us through his life and ultimate decision to become a writer. However, he does not use concrete images in the same manner as Sanders and Naipaul. Both Sanders and Naipaul have at least one concrete instrument for imagery, for Sanders it is the tools as aforementioned, and for Naipaul it is his country; Orwell’s concept of authorship is more imaginary and contextual. What we do see in comparing the three essays is each author within their own literary style uses concrete examples or images of some sort to help the reader grasp a more abstract thought that he is trying to convey. As a result of this similar technique by each author, from any point in each essay the reader can use these very personal anchors to travel back through the writers thought dialogue to see where he began his thematic message and thereby is better able to relate to what is being said. We also see another similar application of the concept of authorship if we view the chosen subject matter by each author. Though some would contend that “all art, including literature, is much more than it’s subject matter”(104)1, I believe the subject matter has been chosen for a specific purpose and illustrates a similar concept of authorship among all three essays.

At a certain point, it is difficult to attempt to compare and contrast the concept of authorship in these three essays without delving into the chosen subject matter of each author. We see the subject matter for all three authors is very personal, which leads us to examine to what extent these very personal dialogues may be understood and retained by the reader. Typically a reader will bring his own associations and interpretations to a subject, which makes the author’s choice of the subject an important part of the essay as well as one of the more difficult choices by an author. To a certain extent the author can expect this and write accordingly, and we see the authors do this in their own way in each of their essays. Sander’s essay deals with the loss of a parent, an experience that is inevitable. Any reader, whether or not they have lost a parent, will ultimately relate to his subject, either consciously or subconsciously. Naipaul’s essay is more difficult to classify due to its volatile subject of race and identity. While it may not be as culturally applicable to those who emanate from the United States, one can argue that it is certainly understood by any reader regardless of culture. Immediately there is a difference between the author’s experiences and those we assume to be experienced by Anglo readers. Orwell is in a similar situation as Naipaul, not because of racial differences, but because of his tone. From reading Orwell’s essay, the reader gets a sense of the author’s great security in his chosen profession. This may have the effect of alienating those readers who have never quite found their niche in life. What we see as similar in each of the three very personal subject matters chosen by these authors; the loss of a parent, the challenge of personal identify and race, and finally the choice of one’s life work, is that each author may be on a journey that is not directed outward towards his reader, but inward toward themselves. This thought takes us back to the point that Inge makes [1] that a literary work may “not (be) intended for an audience or publishing marketplace.”

Why did the authors choose these very personal subjects to share with readers? In my view, the answer is relatively apparent. The writers used their essays as a way of self-exploration, moving through their own tangled thoughts utilizing the logical format of an essay. In this way, they each share a very similar concept of authorship, even while all of them were written in very different times and circumstances. While this does not explain why they needed to share the essays, a practical answer arises for that question as well. The authors may have gained some insight into their lives by standing outside of their experiences and looking in at them. They also realized that others would read, have an opinion, and be affected by what they had written. In this way the authors were not only able to work through their own personal thoughts by capturing them in writing, but they also realized that they would benefit from the feedback provided by readers. This feedback would provide an additional lens for the authors to look through and validate their own life experiences. So even as the subject of the essays is largely about self-discovery, they serve a similar purpose for both the writer and the reader. In doing so, we see a duality of purpose in the genre of the self-discovery essay. As exposed by the subject matter of each essay, it is clear that our authors are not unique in having these very human experiences, and their concept of authorship not only served the needs of the reader but also served an inner personal need to express and understand themselves better.

Through examining these essays, we see that they share more in common than originally anticipated. We see that they share the concept of authorship not just in the sense that they are all in the “personal essay” genre, but also in that they all focus on a journey of self-discovery made by the author. Further we see the application of this concept of authorship holds valid regardless of the subject. What we can conclude from them is the concept of authorship as it relates to personal discovery transcends time, varying cultures, subjects, and achieves universally appropriate and effective literature in all cases.
Note

[1] Precisely identifying the meaning or perhaps multiple meanings for the “Concept of Authorship” is not an easy task. It may be helpful to the reader of this paper to comment upon how I have defined the “concept of authorship” in terms of my analysis. Some limit the concept of authorship to focus mostly on the legal issues of authorship and copyright to include the impact and ramifications of plagiarism. However, this is too limited as intended by my paper. As M. Thomas Inge writes in his Modern Language Association article “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship” (PMLA, Vol. 116, No.3 (May 2001), pp. 623-630):

Despite efforts among recent critical theorists to remove, banish, or even kill the author, the author remains at the center of general critical attention. It is commonplace now to understand that all texts produced by authors are not the products of individual creators. Rather, they are the result of any number of discourses that take place among the writer, the political and social environment in which the writing occurs, the aesthetic and economic pressures that encourage the process, the psychological and emotional state of the writer, and the reader who is expected to receive or consume the end product when it reaches print. Even if not intended for an audience or the publishing marketplace, a piece of writing cannot escape the numerous influences that produce it. All discourse is socially constructed.

I agree with Inge that the concept of authorship involves a multitude of styles and influences upon the writer, and I have chosen several of these that are evident in each of the essays to draw comparisons in their application by each author as well as the potential impact upon the reader.

1 Winterson Jeanette. Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery, New York: Random House, page 104.