Friday, February 8, 2013

Richard Meros on pseudonymity

Three Uplifting Discourses:

)1(
The literature of the author is juvenalia. It comes from the tradition of Juvenal, of juvenile piss-and-shit jokes that will embarrass him when he has creamed through his twenties. In his present state he sees books as play, as entertainment. He abhors the ghastly old men of letters for ever taking the story so seriously as to moralise upon it. Those silly old men. They've forgotten the truths of Julien Gracq: "One must never complain of high spirits amongst the youth."

The youth, elsewhere, in his real name can be found to be political and serious but only where it mattters. He does things such as protest at the US troops coming to train in New Zealand; he is concerned about the Afghan refugee situation. He is, thus, broadly interested in life, but not yet willing to sacrifice his given name.


)2(
There is a strong history of the author, amateur, who uses the pseudonym as a character of whom he writes through the lips. The author fears neither the repercussions to his self nor does he wish to walk naked through the critic's gaze. A third option is his. He wished to be, to literally inhabit, the character. In short, he experiments.

)3(
The author who uses this other name is against, body and soul, the shallow celebritisation of works such as is practised in the ad or pro hominem works of most regional newspapersmen. This is the argument of Soren Kierkegaard. K was wise enough to use a plurality of other names to avoid the curse of accredentialising. I was not so wise, but for early on, when I novellised as Nestor Notabilis.