It was a bad weekend for American journalism, by which I mean it was kind of an atrocious weekend because the standard is already fairly low, with a TIME Inc. division firing its editor-in-chief for, apparently, hiring an adult film actress to write about sports, creating a fake columnist to argue with her, and then lying about the whole thing; and now a New York Post columnist saying Derrick Rose has made a bad first impression on Knicks fans with the “noise of a rape trial.” But all of that is sort of par for the course, especially in our little corner of the journalism world.
The real atrocity, however, was the soi-disant “premier literary-intellectual magazine in the English language,” the New York Review of Books, choosing to out pseudonymous author Elena Ferrante (whose best-selling novel My Brilliant Friend I reviewed this summer) by, among other things, combing through financial and real estate records. It was a malicious, tawdry exercise in placing money over integrity, the sort of yellow journalism we might expect from the Drudge Report or an alt-right site, doxing a woman who’d make it clear she wanted to remain out of the public eye.
Equally powerful case for permanently boycotting @nybooks, for needlessly revealing the identity of a woman who did not want to be known. https://t.co/UHVoCkOTYk
— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) October 2, 2016
The column, written by an Italian journalist, claims that Ferrante, by writing a quartet of bestselling novels, “has in a way relinquished her right to disappear,” while making no actual argument to support this claim, probably because the author – and the NYRB editors who must have died on the way to work that morning, given their abdication of their responsibilities by letting the piece run – can’t do so. There was simply no public need to know at work here. Ferrante is not a public figure, not a politician, not a businessperson seeking tax breaks or handouts, not claiming to be anything at all that she’s not. She’s a successful author who sought to speak through her writing, and to barely speak at all through any other medium.
Outing an author who sought anonymity for its own sake would be bad enough, but here a male reporter has chosen to reveal the identity of a female author who may have (or have had, I suppose) motivations for her secrecy that should, if nothing else, have kept this article from seeing the light of day. What if Ferrante is a victim of domestic abuse, hiding from her former partner? Or a rape or sexual assault victim doing the same? Whatever her reason(s) for choosing to write and remain behind a pseudonym, it is not for any of us to choose to unmask her, to decide that this reason isn’t good enough to maintain the veil … but a woman may choose to hide her identity out of fear of physical harm. This muckraker, with the help of a periodical that aspires to intellectual superiority, has put this woman on blast for no discernible benefit to anyone but the writer and the publication, with no apparent concern whatsoever for whatever physical or emotional consequences Ferrante herself might suffer. Ferrante appears to have been simply too successful for this man or the New York Review of Books to allow her to succeed in peace.
(As of 11 am on Monday, I haven’t heard any response, via email or Twitter, from NYRB. I will update if one appears.)
UPDATE: The woman outed as Ferrante has confirmed the account (in Italian), and has opened a Twitter account (same) to say she will never speak about Ferrante’s books and to call the revelation a “vulgar and dangerous … violation of privacy and norms.”
I respect this person’s desire for privacy more than the NYRB, so I’ll avoid using her alleged real name.
I think holding NYRB responsible for being part of this is fair game, but this was published simultaneously in several other foreign publications, right? It’s only U.S.-centrism that leads us to put this at NYRB’s feet more than others. If NYRB had the principles to pass on this, the info would still have gotten out there (unfortunately).
It’s highly unlikely to be a “hiding from former partner” situation, right? Nothing suggested she changed her name. From what he reported at least, she is still living (in a slightly-more-public-than-average way) under the only identity she’s even lived under. The nom de plume was only ever used for these publications.
The muckraker in question suggested she had lied about the few details of her life she had divulged, which suggests he was holding her to the memoirist-who-lied-deserves-to-be-publicly-corrected standard. Of course, he also reported on her repeated statements desiring anonymity, including at least one statement suggesting she might not tell the truth if she did ever talk about herself.
Yes, it was published in Europe as well. I focused on NYRB because 1) I’ve read them and 2) they call themselves a bastion of intellectualism.
It’s highly unlikely to be a “hiding from former partner” situation, right?
I agree, but I don’t see how you can rule such a thing out, either.
he was holding her to the memoirist-who-lied-deserves-to-be-publicly-corrected standard.
Yes, but she hasn’t written a memoir. All she’s published to date are novels. She has a collection of essays and letters coming out in November, and that may include some personal details, but to call that a “memoir” for the purposes of holding her to this standard is specious. (And since I haven’t seen the book at all, I’m not sure how I could justify this column on that basis.)
Re: the “hiding from a former partner” situation…
There’s also the issue of women in the public eye seemingly in every medium and in every field/industry receiving an unimaginable (for most men) amount of harassment, with some women celebrities even needing to file restraining orders or hire security against stalkers. So perhaps Ferrante wanted to avoid that situation as well.
I would the Daily Beast and the Gawker-family of websites (Deadspin et al) to your list of publications to expect this type of thing from…hardly “alt-right”
Gawker did do this and worse, outing a gay Conde Nast exec for no reason other than spite, but they no longer exist. Univision bought the other sites in the network but there’s no reason to think they would run a piece like that.
You seemed to defend Gawker in the Hogan case, I’d be interested in hearing what makes posting a private sex tape of a pro wrestler and non public figure woman ok, since you’re rightfully upset about this.
“Univision bought the other sites in the network but there’s no reason to think they would run a piece like that.”
One of the former Gawker sites has weighed in:
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-identity-of-a-famous-person-is-news-1787392847
They ran a second piece on the topic as well, presenting the other side of the issue.
“The Doxing of Elena Ferrante”
Worst porn title since “The Audit of John le Carré”
Nice. OF course I missed a shot at a “Doxing Elena” pun.
“The Fletcherizing of Mark Twain” was another choice. Mainly because it’s so confusing.
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Ferrante’s real identity has been a matter of public speculation in Italy for at least fifteen years. Her real identity is legitimately newsworthy (though if the snooping involved violations of any privacy laws, the offenders should be prosecuted).
What’s more, many of the people now professing to be upset that she’s been outed themselves wrote articles speculating about who she really was.
And the idea that she could come to physical harm for what she’s written in her books is basically just preposterous.
You’re equating speculation with outing, or saying that the former justifies the latter. I don’t agree with either position.
And the idea that she could come to physical harm for what she’s written in her books is basically just preposterous.
Well, no one’s said that specifically, although you haven’t made any kind of argument to support your claim anyway.
“What she’s written” is irrelevant. As a famous and now (presumably) recognizable best-selling author, the chance of her coming to physical harm has undoubtedly increased.
The chance having increased from what to what? I wish her desire to remain anonymous had been respected, but the stronger case for her advocacy lays in the realm of artistic freedom and acknowledgment of her anxiety. The focus on risk of physical harm is patronizing and purely speculative.
I’m not saying the risk has increased to the point where the author will turn into an agoraphobe. John P., however, dismissed the possibility as preposterous. And is my comment patronizing because the “real” Ferrante is presumed female? Famous men get stalked, too–see my pseudonym.
Works?