In the first few weeks of my last year of undergrad, I had to make a choice. A choice, that is, about what “kind” of journalism I’d ultimately want to practice. I chose magazine-oriented print journalism and… narrative nonfiction. In my narrative nonfiction workshops (led by genre veteran Stephen Kimber), we talked about all the things we weren’t allowed to discuss in my other classes; the focus, at last, was on style (not just substance). We read Capote, Thompson, Wolfe, Didion, Mailer—journalists who took all sorts of risks with their stories—with style and substance (and substances). And on several occasions, we found ourselves arguing about truth, half-truths, white lies, real lies, and the reliability of our narrators. As our final assignment, we were asked to write our own narrative nonfiction story.
As someone interested, equally, in fact and fiction, I found this task daunting. Every time I typed a truthful sentence, I couldn’t help but imagine its fictional counterpart. Did it really matter if I wrote that my interviewee was wearing green mittens—not red leather gloves? Did it actually make a difference if I mentioned our interview took place at a Mom and Pop coffee shop—not some seedy bar? Ultimately, I learned that it wasn’t easy to practice what I’d so righteously preached in class. But my name—and reputation—was attached to that story. And I couldn’t bring myself to meddle with the details.
Today, it’s not uncommon to read stories that don’t have names attached to them. At least, this is often the case online. The Joan Didions and Tom Wolfes of the World Wide Web use pseudonyms and cryptic blogger IDs. And their respondents (blog commenters) follow suit. True, some bloggers do reveal their identities (like everyone does at Torontoist), but I’m wondering what you think about those who don’t. If a “real name” isn’t attached to an article—can this story still be truthful? As it possible to consider these pseudonymed narrators reliable?
The practice of using pseudonyms is a pervasive one, in all styles and genres, Kierkegaard in his philosophical fragments used Johannes Climacus because he feared that if he used his own name the Church would further castigate him and its authority would influence (stigmatize) the weight of his philosophical contemplations. Had he used his real name, It would have negated the substance or revelations being intimated within his text, but only because he was in a very public debate between the Danish church. He abandoned that practice in his later works. I think one should be authentic and stand before what one has written – be accountable to and for what one says and writes – in ‘truth’ and ‘authenticity’.
Petros,
I had no idea that Kierkegaard had done that! You certainly raise a valid point, though: that there are, in certain circumstances, certain risks that come along with using one’s real name. I can’t help but think of George Eliot (whose “real name” was Mary Ann Evans…). There are, for sure, situations that call for pseudonyms. But I remain a little wary of anonymity in the blogosphere—at least insofar as news-reporting and story-telling goes. When I wrote for Torontoist, I always had mixed feelings about the comments that were posted on my articles. My byline was always attached to my stories, and I was fully accountable for what I’d posted… and yet the individuals who left comments usually used aliases (y’know the ones: “bikerchix44″ or “whozyerdaddy1973″). So I’d never really know if the person flaming my article was either a) really, and legitimately, incensed with what I had written, or b) a PR flack for the person I’d insulted. It always seemed like an a-symmetrical dynamic; naked (of course I mean this in the proverbial sense) writers and anonymous commenters.
This is a complicated one. On the one hand, part of what makes the Internet interesting, and unique is anonymity. In countries where citizens have limited access to political expression, the Internet can provide an important outlet for dissent. That being said, anonymous criticism of more mundane topics often seems, to me, rather cowardly. For example, if the Torontoist were to publish art or theater criticism without attributing posts to authors, I wouldn’t put much value in it.
One interesting example of this issue that I think we could talk more about is comment threads on sites like globeandmail.com. I often read the most appalling racist, classist and homophic vitriol in these comments–things that people would never say in public if their real names were attributed, particularly given that globe comments are indexed by google, and would therefore appear in future name searches of the commenter. I think that, nine times out of 10, these globe comment threads don’t facilitate any kind of productive debate or dialogue, and I would personally prefer to see the adoption of more rigorous editorial guidelines for these comments. They should be thought of more like contemporary letters to the editor than like blog commentary. It seems to me like newspapers are under enormous pressure to attract online readership, and the sensationalism of these inflammatory comment threads is part of that strategy.
Petros > I think one should be authentic and stand before what one has written – be accountable to and for what one says and writes – in ‘truth’ and ‘authenticity’.
What does being authentic mean though? What if to be regarded as authentic on one subject, you must use a pseudonym about another. How do we negotiate validity if we want to write dialectical texts? Do we just go for it and hope for the best? Can it not be so that you ‘stand before what you have written’ by using a pseudonym because you are possibly protecting the people/situation in your work or it is the only way to have it published/created?
Wrote a lengthy comment on this a few minutes ago but it seems not to have been posted. The gist of it was, how can we think about this issue in relation to the movement of creditable newspapers towards encouraging inflammatory comment threads that allow participants to remain anonymous? I’m thinking here of publications like the globe and mail, where comments are often flagrantly racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, etc. In situations like this, is anonymity encouraging debate/dialogue with positive implications for the public sphere, or is it just sensational garbage targeted at building new revenue streams for the floundering newspaper industry?
“If a ‘real name’ isn’t attached to an article—can this story still be truthful?” Of course, it can. Attribution is a means to call to account the author(s) of the text. Truth is neither created nor mitigated by inclusion/exclusion. Is it not the reader who determines the degree to which he/she will believe what is written? Of course, I’m a firm believer in the constructivist paradigm and this affects greatly affect my perception.
“As (sic) it possible to consider these pseudonymed narrators reliable?” Yes, it is possible. An exmaple (online) is waiterrant.net. For many months, a disgruntled waiter blogged anonymously about his experiences. Could there have been slippage in his reports? Yes. However, in large part, the truth of what he wrote was self-contained in each posting, and reliability built over time as he consistently applied his lens to the world. Now that his real name is known, are his musings more or less truthful? For me, all that has changed, is that we now have a person to identify and to hold to account for what is written … if we can, since most of us will not have dined at the restaurants in which he worked and can not directly comment on the accuracy of what is written.
Can we ever be 100% certain about truth or reliability? I think not.
Hey guys,
I have mixed feelings on this one – which is evidence of a thought provoking question.
A part of me wants to believe that I don’t consider the identity of the narrator to be a precursor to situating the text as reliable, or authoritative; because I think that there is something to be said for looking at text independently and judging it for what is says rather than who wrote it. This relays back to conflating the author’s ethics or moral background with their work, i.e., I think Picasso was a misogynist, but I don’t know if that makes me view his work differently, although perhaps it does.
On the flip side, academia has taught me to always question my sources when examining a text. I always look at footnotes or works cited lists to check out the author’s names – this is crucial to ensuring that the text is reliable and truthful. In this way, the author’s background is very important to analyzing texts and using it in my on work.
I suppose people use pseudonyms for protection. I find it hard to take a stand on this because I think it becomes a question of intent and what people are protecting themselves from and at what cause. I think I also hold a bias towards blogging and the use of pseudonyms, e.g., I am probably much more willing to discount the narrative of bikerchixx44 than I would be the pseudonym “Bill Smith” in a print journalism piece.
Interesting debate!
I’m inclined to agree with Steve about the notion of readers creating texts; the existence of an author behind a text merely provides for the application of accountability, where and when it is needed for various purposes. (This is certainly not a bad thing, we just have to realize that it is a notion with use-value, for lack of a better term; we here in this very discussion are applying criteria of accountability for our own purposes — that is, depending on whether we value authenticity).
The etymology here is telling: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=author&searchmode=none
For me, the objective truth of something is less of a concern than the uses to which it is ultimately put. Truth always exists in a context. I think, if I remember correctly, it was Terry Eagleton who wrote that every truth statement contains a value-judgment inside it (that is, by virtue of being spoken or written, a truth necessarily testifies to its own value for existence; ie. “Why does this need to be said?”)
This doesn’t mean that I don’t care about whether something is true or false! I only want to say that something beyond these notions is perhaps more revealing.
The role of established institutions is central here, too. Someone who writes for a verifiable and generally esteemed media outlet is required by that organization to identify themselves, I would think. An independent citizen-commentator is not required to identify themselves. This does cause some problems and perhaps a degree of unfairness about accountability, but I suppose that is why we have the notion of ‘trust’ in social institutions and media outlets. Local newscasts are always bragging about being “the most trusted”. Say, if I like / enjoy / trust a certain magazine, this trust extends to the belief that they would hire a journalist whose work is verifiable and trustworthy. Then again, is anonymity an advantage to be enjoyed by those who are not writing behind the supportive structure of a trusted media outlet? Hmm.
I agree with Lara that I probably look more favourably on comments written by a Bill Smith rather than a bikerchixx44… still, however, in either case I am always asking myself: why is this person writing what they are writing and how are they putting it (tone, language, &c)? Who will be reading it and why? What will be the effect?
Misinformation and false reporting are dangerous, yes, there is no question about that. But, I’d argue that the truth can be employed in various ways to be equally as nefarious.
Like most of the people who have posted before me, I too have mixed feelings about pseudonyms and truthfulness.
The simple and unsatisfying answer to the question about whether a text without a named author is truthful is: it depends.
In cases where the safety or well-being of the author is in jeapordy for speaking his or her mind, I can understand the need for a pseudonym. The blogosphere has served as a vehicle for people to express their views without putting their lives at risk – i.e. bloggers in China or in Iran. The pseudonym is not a choice but a necessity, which is not to say that the content is fabricated or fictional. But this is a very specific case.
Where a pseudonym is a choice, instead of a necessity, problems arise. I too, have seen the comments that are posted on the Globe’s website, and I don’t believe that all personal opinions are created equal. Ideas have repercussions. I am entirely on board with Magda in that one needs to be authentic and have the courage to stand behind their ideas. “Truth” as in capital T, objective truth, is mostly a construct. A work of nonfiction (narrative or otherwise), needs to be faithful to the truth to the author’s experience – in the end that’s the truth that I’m most concerned with. Hence, the author needs to be named. That’s entirely the point of calling it “nonfiction”, right?
No name, no validity.
Doesn’t mean the article won’t be effective though. Plenty of people read forums for the entertaining, convincing, provoking etc. that can come from the anonymous blogger. I am one of them. Still, I probably wouldn’t source a blogger in an academic article.