Re: off topic: query to editors

[Judith Davidsen jdavidsen@xxxxxxxx]

Assuming that this is to be the club's history of itself, I
would suggest you refer to yourself as Felknor, with a
disclosure of authorship in the introduction and possibly as
a footnote the first time your name appears.
This approach makes you one of many named players, and lets
the story proceed smoothly.

History is always someone's version of things, but to refer
to yourself as "I" makes the first two-third's of the club's
history simply a prelude to the appearance of yourself. And
when you appear after the story is two-thirds told, the
reader is likely to become confused. (I'd also wonder how
other club members might feel about your use of the first
person.)

Referring to yourself by title carries its own confusions.
You can't refer to everyone in the 75-year history of the
club by title--too many people have held too many titles,
and many of the actors may never have held office at all. To
refer only to yourself by title would not only smack of
false modesty, but would leave the reader rummaging
backwards through the pages trying to figure out who this
secretary is.

Judith Davidsen


BrennerNY@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> << A question of editorial judgment-cum-taste: As its historian, I am writing
> the history of a 75-year-old club founded by literary and other artists,
> though its membership is broader than that. At several points in the last 25
> years I have been critically involved in affairs which must be related. I
> might add that I have been extravagantly honored by the club, which named its
> library after me.
> < telling
> my role? First person, third, or third "once removed."?
> <>
>
> I'd vote for first person. It's simple and accurate. You were a witness to
> some of what you're describing, after all. "Felknor said" sounds grandiose,
> and "the secretary" sounds like false modesty, given the honors the club has
> bestowed on you.
>
> Lynn Brenner
> 718 855 2179