John Fowles is not dead.

I am only up to part 4 of Mantissa, but I know I want to talk about the death of the author, which comes up so often in this book that I am sure almost all my classmates will talk about the same thing. So I am sorry if this is repetitive.

First, can I just say John Fowles is hilarious. He cracks me up. Second, what the hell is he talking about? No just kidding, I think I understand what he is saying about the death of the author and "deconstructivists." Most of the second half of part 2 tackles Foucault's author function. Once Miles starts putting his clothes on (which is a great scene, not because he is putting clothes back on - I have nothing against theory in the nude - but because he sounds like such a pompous ass talking about the author function), he really becomes in charge of the situation again (although not for long) he starts talking to Erato about the function of the author, declaring "At the creative level there is in any case no connection whatever between author and text. They are two entirely separate things. Nothing, but nothing is to be inferred or deduced from on to the other and in either direction." Being the awesome theorist that I am that sounds about right. But I believe Fowles is making fun of this idea in the writing of this book, along with many other theories... I feel like I just lost my train of thought and no longer have anything intelligent to say about the death of an author... I suppose, as I mentioned in class, that one of my favorite lines comes just after Miles' three points on serious fiction, which is when Erato asks him why authors still put their names on the title pages if they are "dead" and he replies something along the lines of, because they are behind the times, vain, and still believe they write their own books. I found this to be quite funny since John Fowles name is smeared across the cover (he must have had some say in what the cover would look like even if he himself did not design it) much larger than the actual title of the book. Is the author dead? What is the function of the author? I believe John Fowles believes he is not dead (Okay so I know he is dead, actually, but I am not trying to be humorous in the slightest. And we all know I am talking about dead in the since of literary criticism.) In this particular section of the book he quite clearly understands the author function as Foucault sees it, but he is poking fun at it. He makes it sound so ridiculous that he makes one question the function of an author, "surely they must be some connection between the author and the text?" He plays with Miles' character, he gives him control and takes it away. Does Erato have power? Or does Miles give her power? How much say does the author have? Who is getting tired of my rhetorical questions? I know I am. While I do constantly get confused by the happenings in Mantissa, I think Fowles is doing a great job of playing around with theories, or maybe he is just doing a great job playing around. That was another question, but I refuse end another sentence with a question mark.

Okay, I didn't write Harry Potter, but I am going to write about him

So, we have a terrific final essay for our class in which we can apply a theory(s) to a text, or do a number of other things with theories. I am choosing to apply the Marxist theory to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Okay, so it isn't exactly the Marxist theory, its more like Marxist/psychoanalytic/historicism. I don't really know how I came up with the idea, I kind of just woke up one morning and it was in my head. I'm not sure I have a very solid argument, but it keeps getting better the more I think about it. The third and final thesis I came up with goes a little like this: "Whether intentionally or not, J.K. Rowling's novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a commentary on the negative consequences of cultural capitalism and social-Darwinism, while the selling of the book itself perpetuates capitalist ideals." I hope that makes sense to someone other than myself.

I want to talk about Grindelwald (which I suppose if you have never read the book, you will have no idea what I am talking about...) because he runs a campaign "For the Greater Good" which really erked me while I was reading it. I know a lot of people have related this and Lord Voldemort's "superior race" thing to Hitler and Nazi Germany, but I feel like that may be too obvious, and I would rather equate Grindelwald and Lord Voldemort to people like the Steel King's during the Industrial Revolution.

I think Hegemony plays a big part in the book, through Grindelwald and Lord Voldemort. They both try to (and sometimes succeed at) convincing the wizard world that a relative truth, like wizards are superior to muggles, as a unitary truth. And in my head Lord Voldemort's manipulation of the Ministry of Magic is closely related to how most multi-billion dollar corporations manipulate our government.

So even though I think J.K. Rowling is showing social capitalism in a negative light, I think it interesting how much money she has made from the book and other Harry Potter products. I would also like to talk about how Harry Potter has become cultural capital. "If you haven't read Harry Potter you are a LOSER!" I suppose you can argue that most people can afford the Harry Potter books, but they do create this feel of "elitism"... or at least I think they do.

What do you guys think? Because writing about Dreamworks' Bee Movie would be so much easier, it's not too late!