The Virtue of Anonymity

Today I ran across this statement, from The Economist magazine, about why they do not list author bylines with their articles:

The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle." (About The Economist)

In a day when many magazines pay homage to writers with "contributor" pages (including long-paragraph bios and fancy photos), I find that to be a rather intriguing statement. The publication appears to be saying two things: first, content is king and who cares about your ego; and second, the publication has more weight than an individual author, and, dear writer, you'd better not forget that you exist to serve us, not the other way around.

To a degree, I agree with those sentiments.

When I edit an article, I attempt to respect an author's voice, but I'm sure writers who have worked with me groan in memory when I say that when it comes down to it, an article has to meet the magazine's standards (as interpreted by me, the editor) before it goes into print. I've had writers balk at editing, but as Crowther says, in the reader's mind my magazine's title means a lot more than your name.

For the other point, content is definitely king. When I pick up a magazine, I flip by the contributor's page with a groan and move on to the stuff. Who cares what Joe Author does in his spare time? I didn't get this magazine to read about someone who spends most of his time typing at a computer. That's what I do all day. I want to read about something else. I bought this magazine to get information or to be entertained. I want to learn about the world or explore an idea. I don't want to fawn over some freelance writer.

On the other hand, in today's quest for editorial integrity, author bios provide a look at the person who is spooning out this information. More and more, objectivity is openly regarded as an unattainable objective—every attempt to share information is filtered by some person with some set of ideals—and a bit about the writer can help one gain a glimpse into who is sifting the stuff you are reading and what biases may be influencing the sifting.

In addition, readers want to connect with people. The ambiguous "them" appeals little; a warm smile and a familiar face go a long way toward building relationships. Take Martha Stewart or Oprah, whose magazines—and empires—are built around a relationship with a person, nevermind that Martha and Oprah don't write every article in their magazines.

So, where do I fall with anonymity?

I guess the fact that I have a blog may give a clue. I'm afraid I'm not as ego-less as I would like to believe.