The regime of the Author has also been, for us, the regime of "the Text"--a theoretical calcification which, in its apparent open-endedness, seems to exempt us from the work of defining what comprises the text, but which really only conceals our own belief in its ultimate determinacy as an identifiable, self-contained and self-consistent object of analysis.
對我們來說，“作者”的構思組織就是“文章”的提綱，----從理論上講是壹個起“骨架”（鈣化）作用的東西， 在文章表面的起始兩端，雖然這種提綱（這種起骨架作用的東西） 好像表面上免除了我們“對文章的組織進行定界“的運作，但是，實際上，提綱作為壹種“可確認的且可獨立完備的” 分析對象 ， 在最終確定文章方面，反而會掩蓋我們自己的信念或觀點看法。
Foucault points to this problem in noting that the concept of ecriture itself " in subtle ways, continues to perserve the existence of the author" to the extent that it " sustains the privileges of the author through the safe-guard of the a priori" ; brilliantly observed through this is, it does not answer for the larger problem of expressing, in theoretical and practical terms, exactly how the a priori status of writing is established--how (to put the question differently) writing passes from the condition of the "timely" to that of the "timeless."
Foucault提出了這種問題，他指出：“在精細的或微妙的寫作方式中，寫作自身的觀念 ，就是繼續持之以恒地維護作者的存在”，（其維持的程度是）---即通過“優先保護”而維持作者的特權 ；那麽，通過這方面大量的和鮮明地觀測(我們發現到的情況)是：寫作觀念不是用理論上的和實際上的詞語來回答或負責大量（如何去）表達的問題，而是（確切地說）人們是如何建立寫作上的優先“狀態”的方法的---寫作是如何從“受時間上的”條件限制轉化到“不受時間上的”條件限制（的）（人們是如何以不同的方式提出問題的）。
More importantly, perhaps, it seems to me that the greatest impediment is the lack of a coherently articulated theoretical framework for the study of periodical genres,forms and media that might allow for the reassessment of the novel within a larger discursive economy.
在我看來---也許更為重要的是：最大的障礙是（人們）缺乏連貫清晰的理論框架來研究下列3中體裁：（1)“期刊體裁，(2)文藝作品體裁和(3)其它文學媒體，這些媒體在很不景氣的經濟內可能會考慮對小說進行重新評估。