The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-09-22
Anonymity.


Philadelphia Times.
iue age IS usually reckoned to he soma
Mnat nnfayorable to Anonymous ,,.,.,,,,l.
iule was when the young anthor 49,.
50 mas nom de plume before no ,i,as,. !,
tit'e TOT his hook or had cyon mn, w
/ 20 paper The first class noc,s 49,, NJ, w
.scHool essaysts ransacked NODE. "isa
\ NV .ue elassics for suitable pscnao
sHs, me moiesty Of the period nre
| "'eu .ne Young writer from disclos,ne
az az iqen"'y' He wished to try his sn,,rs
ist peIore he revealed his powers T., tt,
public under rlghtfu name.
I Ihis disposition seems now TO hoyc AZ
APPEARED from the literary sccnc r,,1,
new writer Is too wen convinced - n,.
| own force aud talent to make If soon, A.,
suRDle1in his own viaw to hide nix l,.h.
under this kind Of busheI Tho rnhI,
cation Of the book must be nrccodad H..
Facts about the life OF the autho,. AZ
there was a time, few yenrs ag, -
though this tendency seems now IN no No.,
ing when all young writer's must have
'hree or four names To slur over tho
n'iuuie name with single letter was NOT
considered the true method Of conryips
4tsfSry greatness; aud the examines Of
the past were freely appealed TO ttor.
Tor instance, could Henry wodsvo.,h
Longfellow have sung his swoet sores
or James Russell Lowell sounded nootr,,,s
true depths. or Oliver Wedeu rt,i,,os
crackea his wltticlsms without three
MINES! me days Of William Shakespeare
'ohn MlltoA and Walter Scott were for
gotten The simple Georges. Johns and
ihomhses must have some codlcu which 4,
nasty world wogld not forget. Wbv in
deed If a writer Of other sex burn tho
oils of midnight and rack the reccsses of
genius TO encourage fancy's flights. shonld
fame be put in jeopardy by a mistake IKE
this? writer must stand out boldly nt
the literary christening and aim to mike
vain the efforts Of fate to conceal him
by giving him the wrong name. But. II
we hnd few Young anonymous writer's now.
ndays, we occasionally meet With an older
one who is tempted to put reputation aside
and appeal to the world anonymously Ger
trude Anterior, for instance, took this
course in The Aristocrats" She threw
the cloak over her identity TO ind out what
readers could say Of her work II they did
not know the author. She has been dis
NNN'lfh WHY WHY ldltlN- heduefS sQetu-
lated whether the book was Of English or
American origin, and whether the writer
was man on woman; and critics said
what they thought, insofar as critics dc
this, just as if 1t were a work from a new
pen.
Such pother about an anonymous book
seems somewhat unnecessary. If Mis-,
Atherton desired obscurity, not much
could he gained by lifting The veil. If It !
he well written, the authorship of a book
makes far less difference to us than is
sometimes supposed. 1t is a knowledge Of
this fact that in this age Of keen literary
competition. causes an author to look upon
his name as a valuable trade mark. The
fruits in glory and pecuniary reward are
SO slight and feetins that the author isa
in danger of being eliminated altogether,
If he.does not carefully look to his laurels
aud an almost certain road to eclipse with
the mediocre is anonymity. The day Of
the anonymous writer has passed, and is
not likely soon to return. We now re-
ceive the authors name first, and his work
afterward. AS Miss Atherton assumed, a
book Is likely to be prciudgcd accordingly
as II is written by known or m un-
known hand We hold this to be very
unfortunate. In current literature. moth.
lrg should he valued more highly than
free and competent criticism; and if the
rule were generally followed, It would be
q helpful. uplifting influence in the forma-
ton of literary standards among the PEG
pie, and would soon produce benehcal
effects In authorship.