Pseudonyms: aim and shoot

Source Summary

Sometimes I fantasize about writing under a pseudonym. In fiction, it would allow me to tackle subjects that are off-limits to me for personal reasons (if I were to write them, the consequences in real life would be too profound), and it would also save me a lot of promotional work and, therefore, a lot of insults on social media (we know that no matter what you say in interviews, there's always a reel that will hit the nail on the head: we live in a world with an excessive tendency to hit the nail on the head); in articles, a pseudonym would give me the freedom not to remain silent or censor myself (I assure you that often, or even almost always, I bite my tongue; after all, repression is a mechanism of social origin). I fantasize about the idea of not signing my texts, but I immediately realize that this has two problems. The first is that I suspect it wouldn't be hard to realize it's me; after all, everyone has their own thematic, lexical, syntactic, idiosyncratic obsessions, etc., what is called a unique voice, so if you haven't hidden behind a false name from the start, it will be difficult to start doing so halfway through, at least in a natural way, because, of course, if you have to make a great effort so that it's not noticed that it's you, perhaps the whole thing, by not being true even for the author, will already be flawed from the outset.Imagining that I could overcome the obstacle of being identified, the second problem still remains: in fiction, it would imply that one would have to break new ground from scratch and surely fewer books would be sold at the outset (not that I sell many now, don't think so), so that everything would become economically (even) more precarious, even more so because a good part of a writer's income comes from satellite work: book clubs, talks, and the like; in the case of articles, the problem would be that I imagine that at least part of the interest in my articles derives from who I am: from the work I do, the background I have, the place I occupy in the world. I believe that when we read an opinion, an insult, or a digression on any topic, it is interesting to know who is talking to us, in order to better appreciate the virtues and biases it will have (let's be disillusioned: we all have them). So I fantasize and then abandon the idea.Is criticism insincere in our country? All this comes in the wake of the (slight) dust raised by this magazine called No té nom , which defines itself as "a platform for honest and rigorous cultural criticism with a key difference from conventional media: the use of pseudonyms". Behind it is a foundation and a editorial board with names and surnames (Enric Borràs, Marçal Girbau, Enric Virgili and Anna Tort), who are the ones who filter the articles signed with false names. In their manifesto they state that in our country criticism is, in general, insincere , that it lacks in-depth analysis and that it is too marked by egos, self-censorship and cronyism.It seems to me that the diagnosis, although not entirely untrue (I myself have confessed that I censor myself), is perhaps a bit exaggerated; there is indeed some ego that oozes (notice I'm not naming names), but I would say it's more the exception than the rule, and I don't believe that cronyism dictates the majority of the reviews that are published. Self-censorship, I would say, is the greatest danger we face, for a reason, in the end, also economic: critics (with the pittance they are paid: I take this opportunity to request from here that their price per piece be increased) have to do other jobs, often within the same cultural system they criticize, a system in which the most important egos, I would say, are not those of the critics but those of the creators.Be that as it may, faced with the news of this magazine, I don't know what to think. On the one hand, the idea is or could be interesting; I can see the good intentions and virtues in it to avoid self-censorship, which is the only one of the three dangers that is truly avoided by using pseudonyms (cronyism can occur in the same way and ego, even if not tied to a real name, also).On the other hand, however, we are wary of anonymity on social networks, which is the shield that cowards use to insult and mock, so it is not uncommon for those who read "criticism with a pseudonym" to see it as a free pass to shoot indiscriminately. I understand that it is not the intention of No tiene nombre , but it is inevitable to imagine where it could lead. The magazine's editors defend themselves by arguing that pseudonym and anonymity are not the same and refer to the history of pseudonyms in Catalan culture. Come on, let's not kid ourselves, everyone knew that Xènius was Eugeni d’Ors ! Perhaps anonymity and pseudonym are not the same, but they are very similar. Not all pseudonyms are anonymous, nor do all anonymous texts have pseudonyms. But there is a large intersection, which is the ground they tread.All this I write the day after a reasoned, profound and brilliant review by Jaume Forés Juliana about The Threepenny Opera that inaugurated the Grec was published in Núvol . For the moment, in none of the pseudonymous reviews have I found such depth, breadth, or accuracy. Perhaps rather than pseudonymous reviews, someone should clarify all these supposed cronyisms, egos, and insincerity that surround us, someone who gives us the names of the people and the media, someone who (if necessary behind a pseudonym) points and shoots.