White Indiana Dude is Published under Chinese Pseudonym

[BytByte]

The wonderful world of public radio brought this interesting situation to my attention today

http://kosu.org/post/how-white-indiana-poet-used-chinese-pseudonym-get-published#stream/0

Basically, Michael Hudson was included in the The Best American Poetry under the pseudonym Yi-Fen Chou. He specifically went by that name in hopes to get published more. In this case it seemed to work. The guy who chose his poem admitted he was more "amenable" to the poem because he thought the guy was Chinese American.

Now I'm wondering what you guys think about this. Is it fair for this guy to use a pen name in order to get published more? Who is more at fault here, the poet or the guy who chose the poem? What does this say about diversity in literature or media as a whole?

Personally, I feel that it's unfortunate any way you look at this. The guy resorted to lying to get published, and in this instance Sherman Alexie may have chosen the poem for diversity's sake.

While I don't agree with Victoria Chang that what he did was unethical, I do think that Hudson did trivialize the difficulties non-white people face in American Poetry. It's a yucky case where someone truly Chinese American or otherwise didn't get their work published to show they are just as good as the louder voices in the poetry world.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Why is using a pseudonym unethical exactly?

Does the author of a piece of literature matter more than said piece of literature?

Do you think that female authors who used male pseudonyms were unethical because men were less likely to read something written by a woman? Would it be unethical the other way around?

If a pseudonym is already a fabricated name then what does it matter if the same is the same race/gender as the writer? It's already a fake name and it's not like one can assume the content of a literary work just because of the race or gender of the writer (or their name).

Maybe if people used more pseudonyms that were of different races/genders than what they actually were then people would be more inclined to read a literally work without looking for specific messages and agendas and would be more open minded to the ideas within.

 

[Zontar]

Does the author of a piece of literature matter more than said piece of literature?

For a shocking number of people, the answer is yes, unfortunately. Who you are matters in the eyes of many much more then what you do.

 

[totheendofsin]

From what I understand he tried to get his poem published under his real name and was rejected 20 times, while under the pseudonym he was able to get published after 9 attempts. So he's not exactly wrong that it was easier for him to get published under an asian name. Honestly I don't see the big deal, pseudonyms are used in literature for any number of reasons, including to overcome percieved biases like it was in this case.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Pseudonyms have been used deceptively for good reasons and for bad reasons throughout history. Some of the good reasons include when women published under a man's name because a book written by a woman wouldn't be published, see; Bronte sisters. There's also those who publish under pen names because they, often rightfully, feared persecution for their political beliefs or actions he had committed. One of my favourite authors, Eric Arthur Blair, is better known by his pen name, George Orwell. He was a socialist living as a vagrant and occasional revolutionary, and aside from being a name that is less bland than "Eric Blair", it wouldn't out him to his family nor bring societal consequence to his family by familial assocition to Orwell for his actions, lifestyles and beliefs.

Bad reasons include having women publish under a man's name in Cosmopolitan because it lends credulity to the "7 Things That Drive Him Crazy In Bed" articles. I think its rather clear that in the instance of Hudson that he was using an asian pseudonym because it would lend him some sort of credibility. It was not deception for the sake of protecting himself nor blatant institutional oppression that keeps him from publishing but because he thought aping asian ancestry might earn him bonus points.

Unless his poem was about his fake asian ancestry whatever his perceived ancestry was shouldn't matter regardless of results. As far as I know his poem wasn't an autobiography about a fictional Chinese man, nor was it about the effect of the the Chinese presence in the US on American culture, or anything of the sort, so his heritage shouldn't matter nor should his pen name. He's not appropriating nor aping Chinese culture so why does it matter what his pen name is?

 

[BytByte]

So the use of a pseudonym to pretend being a different race is just like using a pseudonym to pretend to be man? I thought the importance of the story was he used it in hopes of being published and was but because of his fake ancestry. He's using a heritage he has no connection to to benefit himself.

 

[Dimitriov]

Guys I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this.

But I think someone needs to state something that should be pretty obvious. Right or wrong, with regards to using a pen mane, there's a difference between hiding one's identity and pretending to be someone else.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I do think that Hudson did trivialize the difficulties non-white people face in American Poetry.

It does? If anything, I'd say that he brought this exact problem to light and, sort of by accident, did a good thing by doing so. I surely didn't know of it.

Neither do I see how trivialization of the problems of minorities follows from him using a minority-name pseudonym. There doesn't seem to be a logical connection between the two at all, regardless of whether he did a good or bad thing.

He's using a heritage he has no connection to to benefit himself.

As did female writers use the higher societal status of men to benefit themselves. And both show big problems in our society; the fact that women have a lower societal status and the fact that racism is still a thing. It's both cases of people gaming the system. Especially if he published the same poetry he wrote under his own name and thus didn't even connect the name to Chinese culture.

 

[CrystalShadow]

This happens all the time with female writers pretending to be male.

And you don't need to look very hard to see why.
http://jezebel.com/homme-de-plume-what-i-learned-sending-my-novel-out-und-1720637627

Now, that just hints at outright prejudice.

The question of course with pretending to be Chinese when you're not is what you are expecting to gain from it?
In this case there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason for it.

I can imagine a European Manga writer intending to get published in Japan might choose a Japanese pen name. (or not, you never can say), but that has a clear and obvious reason that relates to the intended audience.

What's the reason here exactly? It's intended for an American audience. Surely the publisher reaction isn't like what the article about female writers implies...
(if it is, there is something seriously wrong)

This overall just seems a rather strange choice.

 

[Azure23]

Why is using a pseudonym unethical exactly?

Does the author of a piece of literature matter more than said piece of literature?

Do you think that female authors who used male pseudonyms were unethical because men were less likely to read something written by a woman? Would it be unethical the other way around?

If a pseudonym is already a fabricated name then what does it matter if the same is the same race/gender as the writer? It's already a fake name and it's not like one can assume the content of a literary work just because of the race or gender of the writer (or their name).

Maybe if people used more pseudonyms that were of different races/genders than what they actually were then people would be more inclined to read a literally work without looking for specific messages and agendas and would be more open minded to the ideas within.

Pretty sure OP specifically stated that they didn't think it was unethical, just kinda shitty. But reading is such work, amirite?

There are plenty of good reasons to use a pseudonym, and a few bad ones. In my opinion this falls into the latter category. I've actually seen a bit about this on other sites, and noticed a rather funny trend. The type of people bemoaning "diversity picks" just a few short days ago, are now defending this person's right to use a pseudonym as a way of courting said "diversity pick." It smacks of intellectual hypocrisy to me. There's nothing particularly polarizing about this man's work, he's not defending his family or using a pseudonym to avoid systemic discrimination, he's just doing it for attention, which is kinda shitty.

 

[maninahat]

People have always used pseudonyms a lot in literature for precisely this reason, though it is usually the gender that gets changed, rather than the ethnicity. I could see how some people think pseudonyms are dishonest, but they are kind of seen as a necessary trick for writers working in an unfair society. if publishers and audiences weren't prejudiced in the first place, writers wouldn't have to pretend to be someone else to sell books. Ghost writing is an even bigger market.

That said, there is a distinction between voluntarily choosing a pseudonym, and blatantly lying so as to meet a specific publisher's criteria (i.e., claiming you are disabled to join a writing competition when you aren't; fraud).

 

[StatusNil]

Pretty sure OP specifically stated that they didn't think it was unethical, just kinda shitty. But reading is such work, amirite?

There are plenty of good reasons to use a pseudonym, and a few bad ones. In my opinion this falls into the latter category. I've actually seen a bit about this on other sites, and noticed a rather funny trend. The type of people bemoaning "diversity picks" just a few short days ago, are now defending this person's right to use a pseudonym as a way of courting said "diversity pick." It smacks of intellectual hypocrisy to me. There's nothing particularly polarizing about this man's work, he's not defending his family or using a pseudonym to avoid systemic discrimination, he's just doing it for attention, which is kinda shitty.

Hold on a sec, if he couldn't get published under a name denoting one ethnicity and could under another, how can you categorically state he wasn't using it to avoid systemic discrimination? That just smacks of an essentialist fallacy to me, falling into a habit of thinking ethnic status is immutable, instead of historically contingent in a dynamic social system.

To me, what this episode is about is the collapse of literary standards of evaluation. The literary establishment has essentially given up on trying to determine if a work is, well, any good on its own. Now it's all about representativeness: "Attention, writers! It is now the turn of this group to do poetry. The rest of you can kindly absent yourselves."

 

[SecondPrize]

Seems fine to me. Why do you think there is any fault to be assigned here?

 

[WindKnight]

People have always used pseudonyms a lot in literature for precisely this reason, though it is usually the gender that gets changed, rather than the ethnicity. I could see how some people think pseudonyms are dishonest, but they are kind of seen as a necessary trick for writers working in an unfair society. if publishers and audiences weren't prejudiced in the first place, writers wouldn't have to pretend to be someone else to sell books. Ghost writing is an even bigger market.

That said, there is a distinction between voluntarily choosing a pseudonym, and blatantly lying so as to meet a specific publisher's criteria (i.e., claiming you are disabled to join a writing competition when you aren't; fraud).

While its a fictionalized example (though with personalities very closely based on actual authors) the Deep Space Nine episode Far Beyond The Stars showed both gender and race being hidden from the audience - the announcement that the readers wanted photos of the writers in the SF magazine is accompanied with it being made clear the female and African American writers are not to be included in the shoot.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Whatever? Many female authors work under gender-ambiguous names like J.K. Rowling and E.L. James.

If you're buying a book because of the author's name, joke's on you.

 

[Fox12]

Why is using a pseudonym unethical exactly?

Does the author of a piece of literature matter more than said piece of literature?

Do you think that female authors who used male pseudonyms were unethical because men were less likely to read something written by a woman? Would it be unethical the other way around?

If a pseudonym is already a fabricated name then what does it matter if the same is the same race/gender as the writer? It's already a fake name and it's not like one can assume the content of a literary work just because of the race or gender of the writer (or their name).

Maybe if people used more pseudonyms that were of different races/genders than what they actually were then people would be more inclined to read a literally work without looking for specific messages and agendas and would be more open minded to the ideas within.

There's a lot that goes into this, actually. If you have a short or simple name, then you're significantly more likely to get published. People with hard to pronounce names (like me) will typically get passed over more easily. It's kind of like how you're statistically more likely to get hired if you're fit and attractive then if you're overweight or unnatractive, even if you're qualified. There are weird subconscious things going on. In this case the name sounded more exotic, and stood out more. I may use a pen name myself when evuentually trying to get published.

I found this funny and interesting, but not necessarily offensive.

Edit: I'll add that I'm taking a Jane Austin class now. The vast majority of women then either wrote anonymously, or wrote under male names in order to get published, read, and taken seriously. There's certainly a history to this.

 

[Qizx]

I would say the person picking the poem is the one who made a mistake. The guy using a pseudonym used it for the exact reason people use them: to get published more (or to avoid their person information getting out which can be related). If you pick a piece of work because you thought a Chinese person wrote it, you're making a mistake. If you pick a piece of work because you think a white person did it, you're also in the wrong. Mark a piece of work by the art, not the artist.

This can get MUCH trickier if we're talking about things that only a Chinese/White/etc.. person would know about. IE: If a white American wrote a poem about life under Communist Chinese rule it would be pretty disingenuous.