It might appear to be an elementary question, but I’m not finding it to be so elementary: What is an author?

Is he or she, as Plato suggests, a purveyor of falsehoods, or perhaps a function of discourse, as Foucault or Barthes might offer, or is an author a quasi-divine seer, as Emerson stated? What is an author? Such was the question of discussion that directed my literary criticism class this afternoon. We will study and marvel over questions like it throughout the semester.

Without bringing in any outside sources, simply drawing upon my current, and limited understanding of authorship, I suggest the following. Largely, an author is one who breathes life into a thought, idea, concept, and/or ideology. At the moment at which that thing aforementioned is brought to life it comes under authorship. Many would argue, as many of my classmates do, that an author is not synonymous with an artist. I would suggest that an author can have authorship over those things inclusive to the arts. Furthermore, both spoken and written word can be under authorship. They are merely subcategories of that which is the work of an author.

I am not ignorant to the reality that many find fault in my assumption that everyone is an author if they contribute to the work of idea, thought, concept, or/ideology. However, it must be said that not everyone is an "author proper". This is a vital distinction. For instance, I would suggest that everyone who thinks about God is a theologian, but this is not to be taken to mean that everyone is a "theologian proper". Similarly, I would suggest that while many are authors few are "authors proper". With this proposition I must now consider what constitutes that which I refer to as an "author proper". This my friends is a question which presents a challenge, one which is seemingly insurmountable when you are lacking sleep, have been up since 6 a.m. and are presently starring at the clock in an academic hall which reads 11:30 p.m.