An Interview With Warren Andrew Slay, Part 2
Here is Part 2 of my increasingly contentious interview with Warren Andrew Slay.
RTNM: Can you tell me why you never write under your real name? Why all the different pen names?
WAS: Many writers will tell you that if they had to do it all over again, they would never publish under their real name. There are a lot of advantages to remaining anonymous.
RTNM: Yes, but wouldn’t you raise your chances of meeting some interesting people if your readers knew who you were. Perhaps some interesting women might even come out of the woodwork.
WAS: If there is a downside, that would be it. It is not a big concern of mine. I am way too old to meet someone, anyway. It makes no sense to start a relationship with a new person at my age. The only thing I would do is waste a lot of time. I certainly would be writing and working less if I met someone. I really have no interest.
RTNM: Tell me more about why you use pen names.
WAS: My academic training is in the sciences, archaeology specifically. At Harvard, it was drummed into all of us that a serious scientist never seeks publicity. Becoming a “public intellectual” was always considered a bad idea. It was frowned upon. I knew one guy, a professor I had as an undergrad, that constantly went out of his way to get publicity for himself. He didn’t want it for the university or even the department. He was all about himself. He was an archaeologist who never met a newspaper or television he didn’t love. I was embarrassed for him. He was a proper media whore. I swore I would never be like him.
RTNM: Scientists, in general, do not like it when their colleagues write popular books or seek publicity for their research. Why is that?
WAS: That is a complex and fascinating topic. The great Stephen Jay Gould had trouble getting tenure at Harvard because he wrote many popular books for a general audience. On the one hand, we need scientists willing to engage the public for educational purposes. On the other hand, scientists, especially at places like Harvard, demand that their colleagues conduct basic research. And, of course, professional jealousy can play a big part. The late great Carl Sagan was denied admission into The National Academy of Sciences for a long time due to his popularity among the general public. In fact, he was denied tenure at Harvard because many felt he was spending too much time becoming famous and not enough time writing technical papers. The bottom line is, for me, all publicity is bad publicity. I want no part of it.
RTNM: And yet you agreed to this interview…
WAS: Yeah, you don’t have any readers, so I am not too worried about blowing my cover. Your blog is so unpopular that you would be the only one to notice if it ceased to exist. I am sure the company hosting it would probably care that you didn’t keep paying your bill, but you get the idea. Your blog is anything but relevant.
RTNM: Harsh…
WAS: The truth can be a delicate instrument or a machine gun. I hear that automatic shotguns are a thing now. Ask me another question.
RTNM: I want you to talk a little more about why you use so many different pen names and refuse to give them out. Why so cryptic?
WAS: If a writer uses a pen name, they create another layer of elusiveness. For example, most novels have a narrator that might or might not be the author. The narrator might be trustworthy or might be unreliable. Then there is what I call the “implied author.” This person is what a reader might come to think of as the person who typed the book out. That writer is implied by the text. Of course, the actual writer is buried deep in there somewhere. The use of a pen mane creates even more nuance. In my estimation, the original, or real, writer must now be understood through another layer of nonsense. If a writer wishes to remain anonymous, this is how I recommend it be done.
RTNM: I see…
WAS: The reader must first examine the characters through the narrative framework. If the narrator is unreliable, that helps the writer create more ambiguity. From the narrator, the reader goes to the implied author, and then the one represented by a pen name, and only then might they get at the real author. In my estimation, the person typing out the story is buried so deep that their true intentions and actual identity remain out of reach. That is how I like it.
RTNM: I take it you will never write a memoir?
WAS: Funny you should mention that. I have been reading a bunch of memoirs lately. Tara Westover’s Educated was on my list for a long time, and I recently got through it. I highly recommend it. Her story is riveting. As for me, I feel that the greatest truths are told through fiction. So, no, I will never write a memoir.
RTNM: What about Buford Lister? Isn’t he basically a fictional representation of yourself? Your true self?
WAS: Not at all. He is much more interesting than I am. His life has been extraordinary. He had a book written about him, right? The Lister Affair, if I recall correctly. His story is more tragic than the average person’s, and it certainly is more heartbreaking than mine. In fact, there is an excellent chance Buford Lister will one day write his autobiography. I know he remembers his story differently than it has been told in print.
RTNM: Kurt Vonnegut had Kilgore Trout…
WAS: Sigh… Vonnegut wrote under his own name; he wasn’t worried about anonymity, was he? Some writers excel at exposing themselves to a bunch of people they will never meet. Others do not. Just as no one reads your blog, no one is breaking down my door demanding to hear about my unique experience as a human being.
RTNM: You appear to be fixated on how many readers I have. Why is that?
WAS: If you write something great and no one reads it, does it matter if you ever wrote it? Seriously, that is an interesting question. Do you go to sleep satisfied that you wrote a couple good sentences in paragraph after paragraph of mediocrity? What are you doing? Can’t you find something more useful to be doing with the limited time you have left? Isn’t there a contribution you could make to humanity, regardless of how small?
RTNM: I feel that my blog is a small contribution, but a contribution nonetheless. You know, Mozart was only the 7th or 8th most performed composer during his lifetime. It wasn’t until after his death that his music really took off.
WAS: Unbelievable. Are you actually comparing yourself to Mozart? He was a stone-cold genius. I have never heard anyone say as much about you.
RTNM: Of course, I am not comparing myself to him. I am only trying to make a simple point. I believe it was Socrates who said there is no correlation between popularity and quality. Because an idea is popular does not make it correct. And the opposite would be true.
WAS: Yes, the opposite would also be accurate, but I am generally unimpressed with your work. I am surprised every once in a while, but most essays contain no original ideas. Yes, I know original ideas are very hard to come by, but if you are out of intellectual ammunition, what are you doing?
RTNM: You should worry about yourself; you just turned 60, right? Good luck punching out anything clever and novel. Most 60-year-olds are spent, brain dead. They can be found playing out the string along the path of least resistance.
WAS: Sigh… That is not going to be me.
