It will be readily seen that a certain protective advantage would be gained for such weaklings if they were put forth over some feminine pen-name. With no intention to disparage that which by exact antithesis might be termed “ man’s work in literature,” it may be remarked, I trust, that one now and then meets both prose and verse which, lacking the highest virility, suffers through being accompanied by a too robust signature. It is not my purpose to look into the validity of these and similar arguments vindicating the use of the masculine pseudonym, but I venture to suggest what has hitherto been overlooked, - the utility of the feminine pseudonym as adopted by writers of the opposite sex. Some commentators on the practice have gone so far as to justify it on the ground that the literary wares of men receive a better market price than do those of women. Also, it is argued that if the individual woman have an inclination to take up some line of thought not yet generally pursued by her sisters, she will be best able to carry her free lance by donning a manly visor. The practice is frequently defended on the ground that the woman who adopts a masculine signature secures thereby a more impersonal consideration than if her productions were known to be “ woman’s work,” and is accordingly judged by a more indulgent set of criteria. FROM time to time my attention has been attracted to comments in newspapers and elsewhere upon the expediency or inexpediency of masculine pseudonyms as employed by the literary sisterhood.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |