What is the conception of the author employed here? Does it apply to either Thackeray or Charlotte Bronte/Currer Bell? Is it different from our common definitions of authorship today? How? What implications does this definition of the "author" have for our reading?
It seems that in the Victorian era, authors were much more akin to story tellers--the distinction being that a story teller is more personal and intimate with the reader, as if the author was narrating to the reader in person. This personal connection stems from the greater visibility of authors at the time in which the authors seemed less removed from the populace, and more of an actual person that you could interact with. For example, some authors had ongoing chains of letters with critics.
ReplyDeleteThis deeper intimacy between the author and the reader sets a very different tone for the narrator in the author's novels. I think in Victorian novels, much more of the author is invested in the novel due to the greater author-reader relationship. Thus as more of the author’s being is invested in the novel, it becomes harder to distinguish the voice of the narrator from the author.
This theme is very present in Vanity Fair, and to an extent, even in Jane Eyre. In the preface, Bronte defends her novel against unjust critics, citing distinctions between conventionality and morality. I believe that Bronte’s response to critics shows her own personal investment in the ideas and themes represented in her novel, which is reflective of the author-reader intimacy at the time.
On a different note, Punch's mockery of the author "on horseback" in his portrait reminds me of the Old Spice commercial when the guy is on a horse. In both cases, it is a mockery of the self-important gesture, whether of having two portraits or believing to be undeniably attractive.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that this article is a critique of an author for including two portraits of themselves in a work of fiction. It is calling the author vain. The critic thinks the author is making themselves more than the story they tell.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of reminds me how today, an author like Stephen King is more important as a figure than the content of his books. His fame and visibility sell his books, not necessarily their merit.
The critic seems to be saying to authors, "keep out. We care about the story, not you."
Punch was mocking an unnecessary expense, and rightfully so for the time period. While 'thrift' was a virtue, and printing was still a laborious and expensive undertaking, the inclusion of two pictures (when a single one would have sufficed to allow the audience an idea as to the appearance of the author) would have been completely ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThis relates to our reading because the strength of Thackeray's presence within his novel is not a common occurrence in modern times. While authors are still invested in their work, including oneself into published works is not something we see nowadays. While he did include himself on the cover of "Vanity Fair" (as mentioned in the footnotes), as far as I am aware Thackeray did not submit several pictures of himself (which would have been the greatest vanity, thoughtless of printing cost). His investment in the novel is clear, as shown through his acknowledged voice, but instead of conveying insufferable conceit this allows the readers a closer relationship to him. Separating oneself from the current population, in demanding special and business-unsavvy treatment (as the author did in the inclusion of two photographs) was not something which Thackeray seemed concerned with, and if we look at Punch's reaction neither was it a common presence among all published authors since it did provoke disdain/disbelief.
I agree that the piece seems to want less of the author. Amazing point Christine; it never occurred to me to think of portraits as extra cost to the reader. I feel the piece is not just about portraits though. I agree with Brendan's argument. The piece wants less of the author and more of a story that stands alone. This reminds me of Emerson idea of the death of the author, which suggests that once the author stops writing a piece he/she lose control over the meaning of a work. That task is left to the powers of interpretation of the reader.
ReplyDeleteI’d also have to agree with Brendan, judging by the author’s sarcastic tone, that he does not feel this is appropriate behavior. He suggests that authors are pompous and materialistic in comparing their portraits to those of “large mansions”, and by doing so also implies a sense of stasis. The authors are immortalized in their portraits; but this is also the only connection readers would have to the authors at that time, if they did not attend public, Dickensian performances, for instance. Nowadays, authors do entire press tours, and may even engage in publicity stunts—how else did Snooki end up on the New York Times bestseller list?—and so the reader is heavily biased before even opening the book. Even with the simplest, cheesiest of novels like Twilight, which lack any nuanced authorial voice besides that of a distressed teenage wannabe vampire, we are aware of the religious undercurrents only because authors give extensive interviews. This adds weight to trashy literature, so I do not see how it is any worse than these vain portraits supposedly cheapening Victorian works (which we esteem highly today).
ReplyDeleteI think that Thackeray would be more inclined than Bronte to have his portrait included, if only because the latter did not even feel entitled to publish her work under her true name. Yet I find it interesting that as cocky as his narratorial voice is, Thackeray does include vulnerable shades, as well—almost like the portrait this author mentions, of the author caught in his robe de chamber. Even in the same chapter Thackeray parodies the indulgence of lowly and genteel styles to justify the importance of his own work (which I had found somewhat dull until then, to be fair), he admits from experience, what sadness it is “to be alone at Vauxhall” (56). Perhaps Thackeray resonates with Dobbin (“of ours”), recreating his own schooldays at the Charterhouse School, though he is now a famous author.
I also agree in saying that this was a critique on trying to place more of the focus on the author than on the story itself. For the time, however, I see why this would have come about, because I feel like the relationships between the author and the reader were much more personal than they are now. I don't think that is the case with authorship today, only in exceptional cases. Including two pictures definitely comes off as vain, and it didn't even occur to me that it is expensive as well, until Christine mentioned it. The conception of the author applies more to Thackeray, in my opinion, because he stresses vanity in the society he is writing about; he also speaks directly to the reader more often than Bronte does.I found this article interesting because it was mocking the author heavily; I thought the readers at that time enjoyed how personally the authors tried connecting with their readers.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this article is presenting a cynical view on the emphasis on the author over the work, as Brendan said, but also is pointing out the author's presence within the work. Especially in Thackeray's writing, it would have been effective to place himself within the narrative in order to pose as a casual observer, almost as a character himself.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte Bronte did something similar in publishing Jane Eyre as an autobiography. In that case, the author and the author character were the same, although they were not in truth. In another light, she presented herself as Currer Bell the editor, who would have had somewhat different character in relation to Jane Eyre.