As a Writer, I’ve Always Been Extremely Conscious of My Place

Novelist Stephen King may not necessarily be placed in the ranks of the great scholarly writers, but why does he have to be placed at all? After a close reading of an interview that The Paris Review conducted with King a couple of years ago, the reader finds that questions of authorship seem to be all that anyone is concerned about. The article begins with a summary of King covering topics such as his wife and kids, his love for the Boston Red Sox and a near death experience he had when he was hit by a car. Then, in a relaxed and conversational way, the interview constructs a sort of narrative about King. It follows a rather chronological path starting with tales of King’s first days writing, his first novels, his more popular work and finally where he sees himself today. While this information is fairly interesting enough, a closer reading reveals that the interview is trying to build some sort of essential Stephen King. Based on our class discussion thus far and the work we recently read by Foucault this idea becomes heavily problematic. As many theorists have shown, there can be no essential author because language cannot be controlled. Yet, as this interview displays, there is still a desire for the presence of an author. Why is this desire occurring? A good place to begin to answer this question is to turn to the work of Foucault.

In his article, What is an Author?, Foucault discusses the functions of the concept of the author in literary settings. Particularly, Foucault discusses how the author is involved with the need to create genres out of a huge realm of fragmented literature. Foucault writes, “These differences may result from the fact that an author’s name is not simply an element in a discourse…it performs a certain role with regard to narrative discourse, assuring a classificatory function. Such a name permits one to group together a certain number of texts, define them, differentiate them from and contrast them to others” (p. 243) Thus the author becomes an essential element within the realm of literature as he or she provides a sense of stability and genre. Knowing the author enables the reader to place the work and develop an idea of how the work relates to other works that are supposedly like it. Foucault further clarifies this idea with what he calls “the author function.” The author function is the idea that the author’s name can characterize a text’s mode of being. Some texts have an author, like novels for example, while others, like contracts, do not. Further, Foucault writes, “literary discourses came to be accepted only when endowed with the author function. We now ask of a poem or fictional text: From where does it come from, who wrote it, when, under what circumstances or beginning with what design? The meaning ascribed to it and the status or value accorded it depend on the manner in which we answer these questions.” Clearly, as Foucault states the author function is rather important to the ways readers classify writing. This statement by Foucault is rather insightful when considering the interview with Stephen King.

The interview with King is full of references to the author function. Below is a short list of some of the questions posed:

• In On Writing, you mention how the idea for your first novel, Carrie, came to you when you connected two unrelated subjects: adolescent cruelty and telekinesis. Are such unlikely connections often a starting point for you?
• Are there other sources for your material besides experience?
• Would you say then that this fear is the main subject of your fiction?
• So if Cell is an “entertainment,” which of your books would you put in the other category?
• But did you ever feel you had to make as big a score as someone like Clancy or Danielle Steel?
• Do you ever feel typed by your reputation?
• Do you still feel a strong sense of exclusion from the literary establishment?

All of these questions are interesting in that they seek to characterize the essential King. For example, when the interviewer poses the question as to whether or not fear is the main subject of King’s fiction, there is an implied idea that King’s writing must have some sort of main subject. Particularly though, the questions near the bottom of this included list are especially interesting. When the interviewer brings up the names of Clancy and Steel it becomes apparent that King himself is being placed in a genre. He is included the realm of books that may sell well but are not always perceived as high literature. Further questions get at King’s reputation and his relation to the literary establishment. Now knowing what a substantial role the author function plays in literature the reader can see the reason why King is not covered as one of the “greats” during grade school. It is because his name is not included among a list with Aristotle, Shakespeare and others and rather it is included within the realm of Clancy and Steel that King becomes separated from high literature. The simple fact that these questions are even being asked shows King’s cultural status.