Author/ity

Nealon and Giroux's view of Authorship aligns more closely with Paglia's views than with Postman's.

Postman believes that writing is analytical, that it is structured. But if this was so, then the structure would have to be made by the author, and logically followed by all that read it. This is nearly the opposite of what is described in the chapter. Instead, authors may imbue their works with whatever meaning they wish to, but once it has reached the public it can take on whatever meaning the person who reads it believes. Postman also says that a literary education can protect us from the "seductions of eloquence" and imagery. However, if every person makes their own meaning from what they are reading, then they have an innate defense against this; no one may impose their thoughts about you unless you are willing to think them already.

These theories are assuming that authors always place some hidden meanings into their works. If they don't, then there is nothing to protect against, and nothing to be misinterpreted by the reader.

The actual recognition of authorship could be seen as the ultimate triump of an individual and their form, which seem to adhere to some of Postman's views. However, there is no logic to who is actually seen as such and who is not; there is no set form to follow, no way to analyze works to see how they will be viewed. It all depends on how it is interpreted by the readers, not by how the author encoded his work.