Natalie Shapero
January 9, 2013
Comments 5

Never much of a talker, I’ve long been drawn to poetry because it can thrive in an intermediate state between omission and disclosure. That is, an essential component of many poems is what remains unacknowledged, unexplored. As I grow older, though, and become (marginally) more comfortable with expressing myself in everyday conversation, I increasingly find myself wanting to undertake more forthright projects, to incorporate into my writing frank discussions of sensitive subjects. There’s only one hang-up: I don’t want to use my name.

I’ve come to find there’s an inverse relationship between my capacity for directness in writing and the ease with which that writing can be traced back to me. So long as I can obfuscate and hide behind circuity and device, I feel free to write under my actual name. Likewise, so long I can be an anonymous author, I feel free to write rough truths and chronicle deeply personal experiences. Partially, this reticence to be open under my own name is simply a reaction to the long memory of Google. It’s impossible to read anything online without being made excruciatingly aware that what you put there, like a motherless duckling deposited at your doorstep, will latch on to you and follow wherever you go.

But it’s not just that. From somewhere else inside me, some odd cavern in me that neither knows about the internet nor cares, I have a deeper and more abstract hesitation to associate myself in any way with some of the darker subject matter I want to write about. This has led me to a growing obsessions with fake names, how they’re chosen, and why.

Start with the nearly endless list of Hollywood players who changed their names to hide their ethnic backgrounds. Anne Italiano became Anne Bancroft. Issur Danielovitch became Kirk Douglas. And so on. Other pseudonyms are chosen, by contrast, to highlight someone’s ancestry and culture. (The comedian Carlos Mencia initially performed stand-up under his real first name, Ned, until he was informed that “Ned” was insufficiently Hispanic.) There are anagrams, apoconyms, the measuring of two fathoms.

And then, of course, there’s the classic John or Jane Doe. I have a particular fondness for the Doe formulation, which is commonly used in lawsuits where courts see fit to shield a person’s identity from public disclosure. (A variant of the name was used by probably the most famous American pseudonymous plaintiff, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade.)

The original John Doe was a stock character in explanatory texts for legal practitioners, sort of the Dick and Jane of learning the law. Students could follow around this archetypical citizen as he made and broke contracts, got injured, and evened the score. Gradually, it became the custom to adopt this everyman persona when bringing a lawsuit anonymously—that is, when it’s possible to convince a court that, to protect one or both parties from violence or other serious harms, the need for anonymity outweighs the public interest in a fully open judicial process.

Children, particularly those in vulnerable situations, are often good candidates for anonymity, as in the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, brought on behalf of undocumented children precluded from attending public schools. In the text of opinions in these cases, the group of anonymous minors will sometimes be referred to as “the Doe Children,” as though referencing a wild pack of half-human creatures: mystical, docile, astray. The Doe Children sound easy to slay and in need of protection, like the Anne Boleyn-as-deer figure in “Whoso List to Hunt,” who would certainly be cooked were it not for the writing on the band around her neck: Noli me tangere, for Caesar’s I am.

I like the idea of the Doe Children as a fellowship of those who go forward in shadow. The use of a Doe pseudonym, so nakedly fake, is a bold move in itself: the only thing I will tell you about myself is I am at risk. Risk is all I know about the the three does out my window, none of which has a noli me tangere collar. Here in Ohio, we’re so overrun with deer that even many animal lovers support the hunting season, which hangs over the woods like a fog in late fall. This year, I looked up other methods of keeping deer off the roads. I found that almost nothing works. Most studies show that DEER AHEAD signs do not reduce the likelihood of collision. Neither does something called a “deer whistle,” which I had hoped, like a dog whistle, would emit a sound only deer could hear, and, like a pen name, let me make a great noise without turning a single head in my direction.



5 thoughts on “THE DOE CHILDREN

  1. Changing names is in modern times allows for implementing an ideology within a play of manners that is openly anathema to the society in which it is presented, but is advocated by its sponsors.

  2. Thanks to you both for these good thoughts. Brian, I’m also drawn in by these “rather public secrets.” More often than not, publishers seem powerless to maintain the anonymity of authors in cases where the public wants the information badly enough. I like the story of Joe Klein’s unmasking as the author of Primary Colors. The publishing and news industry players in that instance spent months dodging reporters, employing the language of journalistic ethics (“I have to protect my sources”). Obviously, though, you don’t usually hear editors guarding the anonymity of novelists in this way. At any rate, it all came apart when the Washington Post obtained an early draft of the book with Klein’s writing and then commissioned a handwriting analysis. So the key to protecting anonymity–maybe radically change your handwriting every six months? I HEAR IT’S HARDER TO MATCH YOUR HANDWRITING IF YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS….

  3. This is a very nice essay and very well written. In fact, my comment in many ways signals simpatico with the essay and there is more than one Baltimore poet, for sure. I absolutely agree with this stance, maybe for the same, but also clearly for a different reason. Why should an artwork, built on a mood, be traced back to one’s identity? It is one thing when an art object appears in some obscure literary or art journal, circa 1995. However, the Internet makes it all the more problematic. Nice short essay.

    • “You are longitude and latitude, a set of speeds and slownesses between unformed particles, a set of nonsubjectified affects. You have the individuality of a day, a season, a year, a life (regardless of its duration)–a climate, a wind, a fog, a swarm, a pack (regardless of its regularity). Or at least you can have it, you can reach it…”

  4. Really enjoyed this piece. Brings me back to one of my favorite master lists I started as a child: Hollywood actors real names. I had no concept of why Eugene Orowitz would want to become Michael Landon, but it fascinated me how the real names were a rather public secret. I’ve always wondered, how do you keep your real name from being leaked when you have a pen name? I wonder what publishers do, if anything, to protect the anonymity of authors who write controversial and/or highly popular books under pen names.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Back to top ↑

Sign up for Our Email Newsletter