ANONYMITY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20572, 14 June 1932, Page 14

ANONYMITY.

TO 12114 EDITOR 01 THIS MES* Sir.—l notice that some of your correspondents are still claiming preference against anonymous writers. I am not anxious to oppose them, as mine is not a' duly qualified aitoiiym, but just initials. However, I think something should be done to check this obs&ssion of theirs. In a general way I fail to see how a writer's real name carries any value. Probably tho only difference it makes is to give the Editor more trouble to knock liis letter into shape. I often wonder why editors bother with the anonymous correspondent j- as next to one who is not anonymous, he must be the greatest nuisance they suffer. I think some of us are ungrateful, or perhaps wo do not realise the fatherly care that is spent on us. We all write in a hurry.' or so it seems, and it is left to the Editor to patch up our jerry-built .sentences. His puzzle it is to find the missing verb; his care to put dots and crosses in where needed, and to supply punctuation free to allworse than all, to make sense of the lot while we' are asleep. I venture to say that some of us hardly know our letters again, except when they are returned to us as hopeless, and even then the hard part if- that he has to read them first. There are cases, of course, where a name carries great _ weight, as when the writer has special knowledge and oxperience. and is giving us the benefit of his life's work. Otherwise, what's in a name 9 Mr George A. Bruce is rather unfortunate in quoting Burns's well-known lines. "As others see us!" Why!"this is the very power that would make us all anonymous, while another- Scotch saying. "The Lord gie us a good conceit 6' oorsels," explains the other side, perhaps.—Yours, etc;, / \ T.A.S. June 12th,. 1.03 v