Should book-reviews be signed or anonymous ? An old and
interesting question, and it is raised afresh in the Fiftieth Anniversary Number of the Times Literary Supplement pre- sented to guests at the very agreeable party given by the proprietors of The Times last week to celebrate the notable occasion. Everything in the T.L.S. today is-anonymous, though that was not always so, and the case for anonymity is per- suasively argued—though not persuasively enough to change my firm convictions. The cloak of anonymity is a dangerous garment except for writers of the sternest integrity. The T.L.S. holds that " the writer who does not sign his criticism is usually more objective than on the occasions when he signs." I dis- believe that. The man who signs takes publicly responsibility for all he has written. He can give vent to no private malice, nor eulogise an undeserving friend. And often enough, of course, his signature in itself lends authority ,to his article. All the balance of argument, as I see it, is in favour of signing.
Previous page
