I think this or something like this will be the first paragraph or two .....

Understanding the relationship between author and text has long been a topic of critical examination. And whilst I do not wish to enter a discussion with the prominent scholars, like Foucault, Barthes, and Ong (to list a few), who dominate(d) the issue of authors and writers, works and texts, and how we move between each of these, the metaphysics of authorial presence intrigues me. As I see it, understanding authorial representation is a fundamental aspect of the larger picture, i.e., understanding the relationship between author and work on the whole. Specifically, the manner in which authors represent themselves, fictionally or otherwise as a literary device, implore certain questions. Questions much older than Foucault, Barthes, and Ong. Questions that (unfortunately) go all the way back to Plato and to some extent dictate how we have continued to frame and consider the place of the author in a work. Is authorial presence more than just a literary device or means of persuasion? Is a work with a present author more persuasive/believable than a work that lacks authorial presence? Is it problematic to place value judgments on the presence or absence of an author in his/her work? Does authorial presence function differently throughout the various genres of writing? When authors represent themselves somehow in a text, is it always a fictitious representation?
Whether or not these questions have definitive answers is irrelevant. They are relevant insofar as to function as a frame for my examination of ancient and contemporary travel narratives, the presence of their respective authors, and how this tradition has persisted over the ages.