building blocks of a literature review:

Due to the historical approach I am taking for this project I have pulled from multiple sources throughout time, focusing on works that are pre-1950's. As I delve deeper into my research I find that bouncing back and forth between more recent literature and those previously mentioned, is quite helpful in providing direction and focus. By starting in the present and working my way back I am able to identify certain literary aspects that may not be as apparent otherwise. For example, once I learned more about media ecology I have found indirect reference to the power of the medium that might have been overlooked without this background knowledge. Below I have included brief reflections on what I believe to be pertinent information regarding our project, particularly for my section on the historical background of anonymity.

What I have come to realize is that the whole idea of being anonymous relies on intricacies we attribute to presuppositions on the subject. In this day and age the opportunities for anonymity are endless because of a convenient little thing we like to call the internet. Prior to the internet, though, anonymity is largely recognized as a tool used by writers of novels, poems and the like. This is exactly where we get stuck. Unless pondering the idea of what it means to be anonymous, it is not common practice to abstract the definition to determine where else the word might apply. This is of particular interest to me but it is important that I start with the largest application of the word in context and tease out the details from there. This is where Anne Ferry lends a helping hand with her article Anonymity: The Literary History of a Word.

Ferry provides an amazing amount of linguistic history starting with the adjective anonymos as it first entered the English language from Greek. Giving us a clear time line of its whereabouts, we are able to trace its journey through the centuries and following along closely with what is happening culturally as well. I can't help but call this article one of my favorites due to Ferry's thoroughness. From the beginning she discusses what it means for the adjective to undergo lexicalization resulting in the noun anonymity. Here she discusses the cultural implications of vocabulary construction of this sort and develops a platform for the rest of the article to take off from. This idea that nouns are formed from parent adjectives represents something new that "has come into existence which did not exist before" (Ferry 2002) is intriguing and exemplifies the direction I would like to take with my research; specifically regarding what Ferry refers to as the "pressures in the culture that produces and is produced by them".

In order to determine what these cultural pressures are, Ferry takes us through time following the great poets (and sometimes authors of other sorts) in order to see where culture begins to shift and give rise to the need for the noun anonymity. I cannot stop thinking about what it actually means to be anonymous, though, and I am having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that without text, whether it be manuscript or print, it is difficult to achieve anonymity...assuming it is even something to be achieved. Determining the use for the adjective anonymous prior to manuscript is a daunting task, which is why we begin precisely there, with manuscripts.

Although, the actual adjective didn't exist yet there is evidence of its concept amongst authors. This puts us at about mid-16th century where it was not acceptable for "gentlemen or people of rank" to appear as poets. The cultural pressures leading to the concept of being anonymous are more apparent here than they are as we move forward in time and they continue on this way until the mid-17th century. By this time being anonymous carried with it "significantly charged" assumptions for similar reasons regarding persons of rank to publish poems. This is straightforward and I'm glad we have a clean cut place to move out from as we continue on our journey towards the noun anonymity.

The end of the 17th century is when we see many poets publishing works at one time or another using some form of anonymity; whether it be initials, pseudonyms, or just plain nothing following a piece of their writing(s). It is in the 18th and 19th centuries we begin to see anonymous taking on a different role. Ferry mentions that "it is tempting to attribute their unacknowledged appearances more to fashion, publishing tactics, or private caution than to the conventions then being largely emptied of their meanings by the pressures of many social changes." This part grabs my attention because we are starting to explore the roots of cultural change and how it manifests in language.

As we move into these two centuries we have to consider two main possibilities for the fate of anonymity. Some poets are adamant about poems being "skillfully made objects fashioned according to formal conventions, rather than as a personal expression of its author"
(Ferry 2002). This continues to be a theme that pervades the literature regarding the state of being anonymous. E.M. Forster sheds light on this in a 1925 publication entitled "Anonyimty: An Enquiry". Here he poses an argument for return to literary traditions when "writer and readers...did not make a cult of expression as we do today. Surely they were right, and modern critics go too far in their insistence on personality." Here anonymity becomes " almost an antonym for personality" (Ferry 2002). Concerns about reputation are still at hand, though, and this is a great example of how the cultural dynamics increase over time. We no longer have one or two variables changing at once but rather an amalgam of options that are possible, which can make deciphering meaning and origin much more difficult.

Giving endless examples of poets and samples of their works allows the reader to grasp the many facets Ferry is trying to cover. It seems to be that the concept and need for anonymity ping pongs back and forth as we move through time. In the early 20th century we start to see that anonymously published writings are much less than the previous centuries. Henry Seidel Canby addresses this in his 1926 article, "Anon is Dead" where he attributes it to industrialization and the idea that the "general man who feels his personality sinking lower and lower into the whirl of indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization," longs for a "vicarious experience" that can be found in the writings of "rich glaring personalities". Not only this but the authors themselves feel a need for recognition as they experience a longing to "escape from the daily anonymity of modern life". This cultural motif proves relevant and makes sense of why authors would want to discard the cloak but anonymity begins to take on a new form as well, reiterating what was proposed in the early/mid-19th century by William Blake and William Wordsworth.

Both poets write of the days of "city life", London in particular, in the same sense that Canby referenced the "indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization" nearly 100 years later. What is interesting here in not that Blake and Wordsworth necessarily used anonymity themselves but how, as Ferry puts it, "pressed toward the institution of anonymity in the cultural sense that Canby used it for automatically." These authors recognized something that later was assumed; "using 'anonymity' in this proposition, where it has nothing whatever to do with a piece of writing lacking the author's name, shows that his generalization though heated, are not personal discoveries, but packaged phrases that by the 1920's expressed assumptions so deeply and commonly held they could be accepted without being questioned" (Ferry 2002). It is particularly interesting for my research to examine how this idea of anonymity as a "cultural motif" existed long before the noun to describe it. Not only that, but I want to know what allowed writers like Henry Seidel Canby to take the parent adjective anonymous and extract it from its original attachment to written work and use it as a noun to describe a "cultural phenomenon".

As modernist like T.S. Eliot came on the scene there was appreciation for anonymity's link with "city life" and Eliot pulled from the works of James Thomson and John Davidson as he looked for needed material. During the modernist period Eliot produced poems that mirrored his "impersonal theory of poetry" set forth in his most famous essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent"; which can be summarized in the stanza "progress of an artist is...a continual extinction of personality". This was far from what Wordsworth dubbed poetry to be, "emotion recollected in tranquility", and made this known by never mentioning Wordsworth even though he used this exact quote. Eliot was adamant about bringing back anonymity as it was once prevalently used in literary works and showed this through his modernist works.

It is obvious to see how this article is my new best friend. It is presenting the ground work for what I am trying to describe through my video project. There is much information to be assimilated from the article itself as well as numerous paths to take that are introduced here and discussed in other literature. As I continue with my research I will reference this article for what it offers both as concrete evidence and as spring boards for cultural inquiry relating to anonymity.

Ferry, Anne. (2002). "Anonymity": The Literary History of a Word. New Literary History, 33(2), 193-214. Retrieved from The Johns Hopkins University Press via JSTOR.



In terms of anonymity there is much ground to explore. The word, as we have seen from above, can be employed in various fashions both literally and figuratively. Because of this the word pops up in part of many literary works regarding one topic or another. The following are snippets of where and how the term shows up.

Curiosities of Criticism
Henry J. Jennings (1881)

Maintaining its connection to description of literary works anonymity appears here but not in terms of the author themselves, rather in terms of those who criticize the works of these authors. The argument is that anonymous criticism is somewhat unfair because the author feels that a critics identity carries with it their biases and grounds for criticism. As with criticism of any type this is a valid point. What one person loves another may despise and it is important to know the identity of the critic if one is to have an understanding of the background from which they are operating.

In rebuttal the author states, "Entire responsibility for whatever is written is assumed by the editor or conductors of the paper in which the criticism appears." Therefore it is not solely on the critic for what is said about the work; there are other monitoring forces that would, ideally, not allow unjust criticisms to be published about the work itself. At the same time, though, the author states that "the idea that critics themselves are afraid of putting their names to their work is simply absurd" and must be "conscious of their inability to deal with the subject entrusted to them."

What I found most interesting is the idea that is encapsulated by the anonymous system. By even having to write about the "curiosities of criticism", particularly anonymity in our case, the importance of individual opinion is magnified. Here we move into cultural phenomenon once again and many questions can be drawn from this aspect in and of itself. Why do some people prefer to criticize anonymously? What difference does it make when one criticizes anonymously? How does it deter/benefit the outcome of what is being criticized? With so much emphasis placed on anonymity in terms of written works it is refreshing to approach it from a different perspective, that of the critic and not the author themselves.

The Writer: A Monthly Magazine for Literary Workers
Volume XIII January-December 1900
William H. Hills, Editor

Following with the theme of anonymity as it relates to written work The Writer takes the perspective of the publisher themselves. Discussing why anonymous works can be controversial for the newspapers and presses that choose to release them we begin to see implication of anonymity outside of the author. By publishing anonymous works the publisher is taking responsibility for what is being published. This brings into question whether or not human beings have a natural tendency to relate objects to one another. Is there some intrinsic need that drives us to make a connection between a written work and its author? Do we feel some sort of relief when the author is known? What information is it providing us when we do know the author and how does that change the interpretation of the message?

Back to the idea of a publisher taking responsibility for the written work and possibly jeopardizing their reputation, we have a view that opposes the one mentioned above in Curiosities of Criticism. The author here states that in order to compile written works, in our case a newspaper, of any value criticism has to be frank. He argues that, "Anonymity in criticism does not imply cheapness of enmity. Anonymity encourages frankness. In the case of an ordinary book review anonymity may raise the standard of criticism...because he, the editor must bare the responsibility alone."

So here we have a similar perspective as mention above, yet it contributes differently to the body of literature on the subject. Not only does it take an opposing view from other literature I have found, it also provides aspects not yet considered in other literature I have read. Again, I am overwhelmed with the many aspects of anonymity, but only in the most positive ways. It is encouraging when I am able to find works that both support and oppose each other so that I can remove some of my own biases regarding the subject.

The Psychological Impact of War Trauma on Civilians: An International Perspective
Stanley Krippner, Teresa M. McIntyre (2003)

The life of Holocaust survivors places a whole other spin on the concept of anonymity. Robert Antelme and Viktor Frankl were Holocaust survivors who wrote memoirs of their experiences. Their stories from the concentration camps give us a definition of anonymity that was partially demonstrated by William Wordsworth and William Blake in their poems of "city life" with a sinister twist. An excerpt from Antelme's memoir (1992) reads:

Our face had, for us, finally become absent from our life. For even in our relations with other prisoners our life remained burdened by this absence; our life had almost become that absence. Of the same striped outfits, of the same shaved heads, of our progressive emaciation, of the rhythm of our lifer here, for each of us what finally appeared generally amounted to a collective, anonymous face.

Frankl (1984) reflects on what it means to publish something anonymously and shares his reasoning of why he didn't choose to do so with his memoir:

I had intended to write this book anonymously, using my prison number only. But when the manuscript was completed, I saw that as an anonymous publication it would lose half its value, and that I must have the courage to state my convictions openly.

What this brings to my research, besides how anonymity is used in context, is yet for me to put my finger on. Obviously in this situation we are dealing with a finite culture that, thankfully, no longer exists to this extent. I feel that there is something here within the cultural phenomenon that can be linked to the other cultural motifs that encompass anonymity. Possibly looking at the common threads that run through such cultural situations (e.g. large masses of people, monotony, lack of individuality, etc.) could be telling. Combining all the snippets I find from books of this sort will begin to form an amalgam of amazing breadth that I am more than excited to piece together to form the beginning of our digital ethnography.