Week 7 - Prompt Response
Write a reader's response to an article from this week's reading list.
Article: Literary Hoaxes and the Ethics of Authorship: What happens when we find out writers aren't who they said they were by Louis Menand
After reading this article, I was surprised by the fact that the only author hoax I was personally aware of was Mary Ann Evans's use of the pen name George Eliot. Honestly, as a life-long book lover, along with more recent library work experience, and now pursing a degree in information science, I felt slightly guilty at not recognizing all of the other literary/author hoaxes mentioned... However, trying to take a step back and reason objectively with myself, I also realize that there are only so many hours in a day, I'm only one person, and cannot possibly be expected to know everything there is to know about every aspect of literary/library/information events/news. This does provide an excellent opportunity for me though, to learn and research on my own the examples provided, and be more aware of current events happening in and around the literary world.
I found the article's discussion of memoir fraud and its defenses intriguing, specifically the surrogacy defense for popular autobiographies, "...the theory that, although a particular event recounted in the book may not have happened to the author, it happened to someone. Such a book, then, is really the life story of a group" (Menand, 2018, para. 5). Reading this made me recall an episode of CSI that I watched years ago, where such a memoir fraud was at the root of the crime being solved, but (if I'm remembering correctly) while the fictional author was truly trying to bring the spotlight to horrendous acts being done to women abroad, her agent/publicist was promoting the book strictly for personal financial gain. This is the aspect that is most concerning to me - I can understand the surrogacy defense if it is being enacted with the best of intentions, to shed light upon a particular crisis/need where otherwise it would not be noticed; however, if the incentive is selfish (purely for financial gain, notoriety , etc.), that is where I find it distasteful.
A discussion point within the article which I found uncomfortable to consider is that of intercultural hoaxes, where "...the hoaxer is often white and the fake persona is often a person of color. The white writer is appropriating the experience of a nonwhite person --- 'performing' a self" (Menand, 2018 para. 22). Even though Menand (2018) mentions titles that "passed the authenticity test", personally, it just doesn't seem fair or correct for someone to write about experiences they don't have a personal connection to, as if they did (para. 22).
Overall, I found this article very thought-provoking and I appreciate the arguments presented, even if some of them made me feel uncomfortable to consider (potentially all the more so because it evoked such contemplation). I especially enjoyed how the article concluded: "[The arguments] should get us thinking about what we mean by things like authenticity and identity. What they should not do is prevent us from reading" (Menand, 2018, para. 50).
I totally agree that there is only so much that we can be expected to know about these types of things. Just like we can't have read every possible book in our library collection, we also can't know about every single controversy either. I appreciate your comments on intent and personal gain vs. shedding light on a underrepresented need. That was a great point.
ReplyDeleteThis article made me think of the book Yellowface by R.F. Kuang (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62047984-yellowface). The book is about a white woman who steals the book manuscript of an Asian woman who passed away and publishes in under an ambiguous pseudonym that leads readers to believe she is an Asian woman herself. While it's still sitting on my TBR list, the premise sounds so interesting and I've heard nothing but good things about it so I'm looking forward to reading it, especially after this article and your reflection on it.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think about how many authors have pen names and write under both versions. Ursula Vernon writes children's stories but also writes adult fantasy/horror novels under the name T. Kingfisher. I'm guessing part of that is to separate the vastly different audiences, plus the whole female author writing under initials because of aiming towards more male readers concept, but that's for another day.
You hit an interesting point that I was thinking about. Fraud for the sake of sharing works that would otherwise not be respected is valid. It is like civil disobedience. It can be ethically justified. But if women publish with initials for their first name so that their books will be given a chance, then do we also have to respect people publishing books as if they are sharing a cultural experience that is not theirs? I think the motive is what separates these two instances. It is hard to actually determine motive. Furthermore, one has to think about the consequences. One situation gives someone a voice and the other distorts the voice or is louder than the people with the lived cultural experience.
Delete