My first instinct was to avoid this article like the plague because of the author. I knew that Michel Foucault's work would be dense and intellectually stimulating. A review of such an eminent writer can be fraught with risk. And yet, I was intrigued. The title of the work, in Foucault's terms, is a statement that can only make sense in the context of a more general discourse. Foucault was not simply talking about others, but about himself and his relationship to the vast discourse of which he is the author. He was, after all, speaking before the French Philosophical Society, immediately after the publication of his monumental work, The Archeology of Knowledge. This article will examine the general approach or style of discourse that Foucault uses to guide his audience through his argument. He opens his speech with "I propose this somewhat strange question..." followed by a confession that certain aspects of his work "now seem misguided and misleading." A bit strange indeed! The opening hangs like bait before this group of philosophers and historians After all, one of the most common logical errors in academic analysis is the "ad hominem" argument like: "It's Michel Foucault and therefore what." he has to say must have merit." His introduction continues to intrigue the audience even by what it excludes. It does not examine relevant issues like the valuation of authors or "the moment when hero stories gave way. the place for an author's bibliography. rest too much on their academic laurels...... middle of article. ....it's up to us to imagine a culture without the need for an author. It suddenly becomes clear that he is not talking about the author as a person at all, but rather about the function of the author. It doesn't matter who speaks. New questions arise: where does it come from? Who controls it? What is the discourse in which this makes sense? Foucault begins with a teaser to stimulate interest. He uses illustration before argument to prepare his audience for difficult questions. The dramatic tension maintains interest and marks key turning points in its presentation. Finally, he uses a dramatic ending to bring out a subtle but crucially important element of his thesis. Through his combination of intellectual rigor and compelling style, Foucault succeeded in creating an intellectual space allowing even a neophyte student of history to explore a new meaning of the idea of ​​authorship..