Now I’m reading “Authors” for next class.. I’m not finish it yet but feel not sure about purpose of this reading so just want to make it clear before continue reading tomorrow.

What I confused so far is a bit similar to Mengyao’s post below, but a bit different, I interpret the reading in the view of “Authors of critiques” instead of Authors of literature. What I’m thinking is that critique also can be categorized as literature. I cannot find the definition of literature in the reading but when consider these conflicting conception over nature of literature, they look pretty the same.

The intention debates is a manifestation of deep divisions over the very nature of literature, arising at a fault-line between two powerful but conflicting conceptions: the romantic conception, as noted, which sees literature as a vehicle for personal expression, and the modernist “autonomy” conception which sees literature as pure linguistic artifact.

Critique, in my view, can be seen as the vehicle for personal expression too, since it has subjective property. Only one difference is this personal expression is a reflection for other things. Also, critique can be seen as the linguistic artifact. Then the next question is, if critique can be a literature, should authorship matter in the same way too?