Firstly, Michael Foucault steadily criticizes the name used by the author in his publication. As portrayed in his critics, Michel believes that a normal human being ought not to have such a name. He quotes: “Characteristic of the form of being, passage and execution of certain discourses within a culture” (179). Foucault further criticizes the author by the introduction of the “transdiscursive” idea of the authorship. He claims that this is an out dated way of literacy. In addition to that, the critique closely compares the author to 19th century figures such as Karl Max and Freud Sigmund. He refers to them as the “founders of discursivity” (183). Moreover, Foucault disagrees with the author’s way of analysis as well as with his most definitions.
Michael has clarified the following major definitions of the author’s functions:
- The author-function does not match with history; for a long time, the existed different texts’ varieties have required very little acknowledgment of an author.
- The author-function is due to “an intricate operation that constructs a definite rational being referred to as an ‘author’” (180).
- The author-function refers to a non real personality, because it repeatedly consists of numerous, concurrent topics; this concept is affirmed in many ways.
- In view of the fact that discourses are just the objects of appropriation, there is a form of linking between the institutions of judgment and the author’s function. Some of these institutions may be founded on ethics, legal or even ethical society.