![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldBelle de Jour, writer of a pseudonymous blog about her experiences as a prostitute, has been outed.
Apart from a Daily Mail article that wondered if Britain's tax authority would go after her on the grounds of unreported earnings, and some columnists speculating as to her motives for doing all this, the reaction seems to be--seems to be--generally non-judgmental, more curious than prurient. The Guardian's Robert McCrum places her initial anonymity and then outing in the context of a long history of selective anonymity among writers.
Um?
Granting what I said about the reaction to Magnanti's self-outing, the fact that she hid behind the identity of Belle de Jour for six years does indicate, notwithstanding her statements, that she did value her privacy greatly, presumably because her work as a call girl wasn't the sort of thing that she wanted other people to know about. If she hadn't been pressured by her ex-boyfriend's thread, Ms. Magnanti likely wouldn't have outed herself. Then again, by outing herself, in a fashion under her control, she does seem to have acquired some necessary agency.
But still. Anonymity does have its place, and I really don't understand how an anonymous writer--say, a never-outed Belle de Jour--would be a bad thing in any way.
At my end, I've been entirely non-anonymous throughout my history on the Internet, starting from when enlisted on Usenet from 1997 and became active on Livejournal from 2002. Most of the blogs I've read have been written by non-anonymous people, at least outside of the unique context of Livejournal. If Belle de Jour's self-outing is any indication, I wonder whether there will be a trend towards more people--and not just bloggers--covering more controversial topics being less anonymous. Will the mild curiosity evidence by the British press become a default reaction from outsiders? Well, that and prurience: her most recent blog entry asks all correspondence to be forwarded to her agent or her publisher, not through her work.
Brooke Magnanti was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying she decided to reveal her secret because she was afraid a former boyfriend would expose her.
Magnanti, 34, is a child-health researcher at the University of Bristol in western England.
She told the newspaper she turned to the sex trade in 2003 while finishing her Ph.D. and worked as an escort for more than a year.
She blogged about the experience in the guise of Belle de Jour, a legal secretary who moonlights as a sex worker.
The blog formed the basis of three books and the British TV series Secret Diary of a Call Girl, which appeared on Showcase television in Canada.
Debate swirled about whether the anonymous author was real or fictional, and Belle de Jour was accused by some of glamorizing prostitution.
Magnanti said on her blog Sunday she was relieved "to be able to defend what my experience of sex work is like to all the skeptics and doubters."
Apart from a Daily Mail article that wondered if Britain's tax authority would go after her on the grounds of unreported earnings, and some columnists speculating as to her motives for doing all this, the reaction seems to be--seems to be--generally non-judgmental, more curious than prurient. The Guardian's Robert McCrum places her initial anonymity and then outing in the context of a long history of selective anonymity among writers.
There are many reasons to write. Freud famously boiled it down to "money, fame and the love of women". Beyond that, of course, there is the urge to express a burning idea, opinion or sentiment – "having something to say", as the expression goes. Such a motivation has animated countless blogs, books and newspaper articles. In the end, most such literary endeavours can be filed under "self-expression".
And that's the clue to Dr Magnanti's move: she wanted to take ownership of her "self". Belatedly, but nonetheless frankly, she did what all writers must do when they publish: admit to authorship. The origins of "author" are telling: the word derives from the Latin auctor, meaning promoter, agent or originator. In other words, by breaking cover, Magnanti decided to seek some kind of originality and hence establish a measure of personal authenticity. As she wrote in her blog yesterday, "The non Belle part of my life isn't the only 'real' bit, it's all real. Belle and the person who wrote her have been apart too long. I had to bring them back together."
What, I wonder, does this say about blogging? For many writers, exploring the genre for the first time, it's the anonymity of the blogosphere that's both thrilling and unnerving. Free content and anonymous self-expression is liberating but intrinsically irresponsible. Writers who grew up in the more constrained world of print can find the adaptation difficult, even antipathetic to the nature of their art.
I imagine that Dr Magnanti who, at 34, is a child of the internet in its early years, had that experience. First there was exhilaration, eventually there was an awareness of responsibility, as much to herself as to her audience. Finally, she was proud of what she had expressed in Diary of a London Call Girl, and wanted to expose it to the rough-and-ready give and take of the literary marketplace. Implicitly, she seems to be conceding that there is something shameful, even dishonest, about opinions that are expressed from behind a mask.
Um?
Granting what I said about the reaction to Magnanti's self-outing, the fact that she hid behind the identity of Belle de Jour for six years does indicate, notwithstanding her statements, that she did value her privacy greatly, presumably because her work as a call girl wasn't the sort of thing that she wanted other people to know about. If she hadn't been pressured by her ex-boyfriend's thread, Ms. Magnanti likely wouldn't have outed herself. Then again, by outing herself, in a fashion under her control, she does seem to have acquired some necessary agency.
What it took me years to realise is that while I've changed a lot since writing these diaries – my life has moved on so much, in part thanks to the things that happened then – Belle will always be a part of me. She doesn't belong in a little box, but as a fully acknowledged side of a real person. The non-Belle part of my life isn't the only ‘real’ bit, it’s ALL real.
Belle and the person who wrote her had been apart too long. I had to bring them back together.
So a perfect storm of feelings and circumstances drew me out of hiding. And do you know what? It feels so much better on this side. Not to have to tell lies, hide things from the people I care about. To be able to defend what my experience of sex work is like to all the sceptics and doubters.
Anonymity had a purpose then – it will always have a reason to exist, for writers whose work is too damaging or too controversial to put their names on. But for me, it became important to acknowledge that aspect of my life and my personality to the world at large.
But still. Anonymity does have its place, and I really don't understand how an anonymous writer--say, a never-outed Belle de Jour--would be a bad thing in any way.
At my end, I've been entirely non-anonymous throughout my history on the Internet, starting from when enlisted on Usenet from 1997 and became active on Livejournal from 2002. Most of the blogs I've read have been written by non-anonymous people, at least outside of the unique context of Livejournal. If Belle de Jour's self-outing is any indication, I wonder whether there will be a trend towards more people--and not just bloggers--covering more controversial topics being less anonymous. Will the mild curiosity evidence by the British press become a default reaction from outsiders? Well, that and prurience: her most recent blog entry asks all correspondence to be forwarded to her agent or her publisher, not through her work.
