The main reason as to why Foucault comes out to criticize the author’s work is on the basis of insufficiency. As far as the author asserts, the author gives out baseless information in his publication work.
Foucault furthers that the author’s information lacks theoretical back up and hence is outdated. Due to the lack of supportive theory, Foucault compares the author to the renowned 19th century writers; these are Karl Max and Feud Sigmund. He refers to them as the “founders of discursivity” (183). The second reason that motivates Foucault to come up with a conclusion “What is an Author?” is based on values. He states that most of the author’s claims are just hanging and “foundationless”: the author-function may offer “a loom to the typology of dialogue”, a way to examine a discourse is based on history, and means to “re-examine the civil liberties of the topic” mentioned earlier (185).
In addition to that, other collections of the reasons comprise of “ideological” study. In his analysis, Foucault portrays the author as a restraining representative upon the “free passage, liberated exploitation, the free work, re-composition and decomposition, of fiction”. This set of ideologies is seen as an “enormous peril” (186). An additional reason as to why Foucault criticizes the author’s work is based on the laudability.
In as much as this is not documented, he argues that based on the observable changes in the society, the entire work of the author may vanish. The final reason for difference in the concept between the author and Foucault is the concept of “text authorship”. Foucault argues that millenarian vision’s time is yet to pass. This is confirmed by the continual effort of literature “ownership” in all manners of sense.
So far, Michel Foucault's literature, which permits all articles to enclose an “author”, remains an important perception in literary world.
