As linked to earlier today, Sugar, our favorite weekly advice columnist, got written up in The New Republic. Ruth Franklin recognizes the dedicated band of followers that depend on their weekly Sugar fix, and calls her “the ultimate advice columnist for the Internet age, remaking a genre that has existed, in more or less the same form, since well before Nathanael West’s acerbic novella Miss Lonelyhearts first put a face on the figure in 1933.” Worthy praise for our amazing columnist, whose words we seem to need more and more.
Franklin closes the piece by making this point: “Sugar’s anonymity means that she, too, can be everything to everyone: Her blankness is a perfect foil.” There is a freedom in anonymity—but do we need it?
Thus, I am posing this question to Sugar advocates far and wide—should Sugar reveal her true identity or not?
77 responses
No.
No! The beauty of the anonymous advice columnist is that readers are forced to focus on his/her content, not try to infer anything from her/his personal life or other work. Keep the Sugar secret, says I.
Sugar’s advice is moving and inspiring precisely because it’s anonymous. Didn’t we all think Dear Abby was kind of obnoxious because we were familiar with her persona: The rich woman soaking in her bathtub reading our desperate letters? I think we don’t argue with Sugar’s advice because we don’t connect it to single knowable person. Also, consider Sugar’s gorgeous sentences. She’s obviously a writer, maybe a writer we all otherwise know, with books and a career. I wonder about how that writer’s persona could change the ways we think of our dear Sugar…
No.
Why not?
I don’t know. I don’t want to analyze my instantaneous response to that.
I can’t help myself. I’m already analyzing it.
Is it because I like the idea that Sugar could be that totally normal looking woman across the coffee shop typing on her laptop just like me? Is it because I like the idea that Sugar sometimes writes her column at her kitchen table over a coffee she heated up in the microwave while her kids are busy with their Legos? Is it because I don’t want to see a photo… don’t want to see how Sugar PRESENTS herself? Because I read her answers and feel known, and that I know her already, and isn’t that just the whole motherfucking thing?
I feel like calling sugar a ‘blank foil’ isn’t quite right. True, she can be many things to many people- but aren’t those things limited by what knowledge we have of her? We know she is female. We know she enjoys writing. She’s not just ‘everything to everyone’, she’s a sister or a friend or a mother figure or a mentor or just someone you watch at the coffee shop. Why does there have to be more? I know the internet and social networking mean information about everything is at our beck and call, but sometimes it’s just better letting some secrets be secret.
I would like to know, just so I can run out and buy her books.
The day I discovered Sugar, I did some intense google sleuthing and found out who she was, and because I learned who she was, I got to read her novel! A pleasure. I think Sugar should come out. I think she should come out when it makes good sense for her. I think she should reap the benefits of being known. I’m sure won’t all be roses, but I think she should do it.
I am so eager for her identity to be revealed so that I can go out and buy all of her books. So please, yes!
I believe I know who you are. I like being right and wrong and maybe. I am your Schrödinger’s cat.
Should Sugar dispel her illusion of secrecy? In my humble opinion, no. It won’t change who she is.
Will it change what she writes? Will it change how we read her? What we ask? Maybe. That’s the maybe.
What Sugar does works. That is clear. Let it remain clear. Why cloud clear with clarity?
Love you Sugar, no matter what you do.
The ONLY reason for Sugar to reveal her identity would be so she can claim it and apply her newfound popularity to the works she’s published under her given name. She’s certainly entitled to do that, but the enormous downside is that she will no longer be “Dear Sugar.” She will be whoever she actually is, with all of the burdens that come along with that identity.
It’s a somewhat mercenary decision, isn’t it? And as such, it seems to go against all that Dear Sugar has represented so far.
As a reader, I want the giver and the recipient of the advice to be two anonymous human beings, operating outside of and apart from all the things that might make us similar or different and color our relationship accordingly.
Leave the lovely shroud of mystery alone.
Absolutely not. The anonymity provides a safe environment for those who seek her advice.
I go back and forth. On one hand, I’m curious and think I have a decent guess, but on the other, I like her being Sugar and Sugar only. But in the end, it really comes down to what she wants, so I’m cool either way.
If she doesn’t reveal her identity, can she at least please give a list of contemporary writers she likes and include herself on there so I can be introduced to her other writing even if I don’t know for sure if it’s her?
Of course she should. She deserves all the glorious credit that she’s worked so hard for.
I do think that lifting the anonymity will change the conversation. I’m not sure in what ways, and from what I have read and loved about Sugar’s writing, I am fairly certain it’s still a conversation I would want to read. And I would love to support her other endeavors.
In my perfect world, Sugar remains anonymous for a while longer, as long as she can (and is willing to) take the time to write these weekly gifts for us. Maybe a “Dear Sugar” book could even be done before “the reveal” – and then, eventually, boom. There have been two Sugars already. Who says there won’t be another?
Change is all part of the ride. I want Sugar to stay this piece of hallowed perfection on a Thursday afternoon, but see here, even this week it has to be Friday.
Sugar will know best, as usual. The only reason I could justify a “yes, I want to know who Sugar really is” reply was a desire to read all things written by such an amazing individual. Hilary has a fantastic idea!
I suspect we all can make a fairly educated guess who Sugar is… I did and I have met a couple of other people who also figured it out. And when her new book comes out, the rumor will circulate and that will sell the copies she deserves to have sold.
But personally, I think she should never fess up. It’s better if we’re never sure. Like a good sitcom where the couple never gets together, but the sexual tension keeps us watching. Or better yet, a movie with a twist at the end that no one will share so that others can enjoy the surprise. The fun of “Who’s Sugar” is going to be figuring it out for yourself!
I’ve only just found the Dear Sugar archives, and frankly I prefer them anonymous. I think it should be like the Stig – they own up when they retire and a new one takes over.
Sugar puts so much of herself into her columns that tacking on a name is trivial. I say: if it benefits her career (it obviously would), and if she wants to, then she should and she deserves it.
Sugar should do whatever she damn well pleases. Her writing is a gift, and I selfishly want to read every last word she’s written. At the same time, I get the benefit (to her readers and to her, alike) of the anonymity of Dear Sugar. If she does go forth with the plan to reveal all, I’ll absolutely be front and center at the Makeout Room, cake or no cake.
We know so many things about Sugar’s life, because she has been so honest. We know about her mother’s death, her divorce, her past addiction, her regrets. These parts of her history are the keys to her understanding our darkest trials. I don’t know if anonymity allowed her to share those things, but once she’s named, is there anything we could possibly suspect her of holding back from us, at this point? She has proved herself generous in every way. And in fact by sharing her fiction we gain access to yet another side of this person who (admit it!) has touched us and made us cry like only a best friend or parent can do.
I personally hope she does come out, for similar reasons others have said, but ultimately I trust her to make the right decision and I think everyone she’s helped with her writing owes her that trust.
Wow. Some people really seem to think that as long as she remains anonymous, Sugar is not quite human. I mean, not only do they not want to know who she is, they want her to keep making the magic happen indefinitely–2-3000 words a week, usually from the deepest possible place, for no pay–and want to deprive her of a chance at even indirectly profiting from all that work. And they feel entitled to come here and shame her wanting to reveal her name, because apparently “Sugar” belongs to them, and this “real person” nonsense would just mess everything up. Wow.
For the record, I know who Sugar is–I guessed early on, and she confirmed it when I asked–and I’m internet-friendly with her, but we’ve never met. I don’t know much more about her than anyone who’s read her work does, which means I don’t know if she particularly needs money or craves fame, or any secret reasons she might have for wanting to come out. But I do know what she’s said publicly–that she knows she can’t keep up this column at this pitch forever; that a Sugar book will be the only way she gets remunerated for being honest, compassionate, vulnerable, and wise enough to change lives every goddamned week; that elements of keeping the secret are a struggle for her personally; and that yes, frankly, she would like to take credit for her own work and maybe even make some money (though she also sees not being able to as a “great lesson” in humility, because she’s motherfucking Sugar, and thus a much bigger person than most of us would be in that situation).
As both a fan and a fellow writer, I am bummed and grossed out by that in equal measure. Do people really think those reasons aren’t good enough? That she owes her readers more? Or do they just think that as long as most readers get to enjoy the illusion that Sugar is pure wisdom and kindness, with no real name or physical form or flaws, it doesn’t actually matter that she’s a person with bills to pay and kids to feed and other work to do–or that she wants to tell people her real name?
Sugar should do whatever feels right to her!
Knowing Sugar’s identity doesn’t change the value of her experience in the world, or the intelligence, grit, and compassion she displays in every column. I say this because I know who Sugar is. If anything, knowing makes me value her advice even more, and it would be a shame for the writing published under her real name to not get the same kind of attention.
Sugar has done amazing work with these columns, and she deserves to get credit (and paid, if that can happen) for that work. To deny that is to deny the inherent value of the work she’s done. Frankly, if we all love Sugar so much, and we want her to be able to keep doing what she does, shouldn’t we want her to be justly compensated for her time and effort and talent?
Also? I’m never going to Google my way to Sugar’s identity. I assume that she must have reasons for being anonymous in the first place, and that should only change when she’s ready for it to change. I have no right to invade her privacy, especially not just because I love her work.
Finally, Sugar doesn’t owe me or anyone else anything. Her columns have been a tremendous gift, but I have no right to demand anything from Sugar – not her identity, not her anonymity, not her attention, not more columns. Whatever she chooses, I’m grateful she’s shared what she’s shared, and I’m hopeful she’ll continue to do so.
No. I don’t believe in god and I have no faith in America. Sugar is the only magic in my life.
Yes & no.
Yes, because if I ever have the pleasure of meeting her, I want to know that it is her so I can give her a great, big hug. The personal anecdotes that she weaves into her advice prove how much life she’s lived & what she chooses to get out of it. That’s the type of person I like having in my own life.
No, because the format is that she is anonymous, which is comforting; she is whomever the reader wants her to be. Knowing for sure would dash the portrait of Sugar people have in their heads.
I just want to know who this woman is and why she is inside my head, and also I want to buy everything she’s ever written. For me, knowing exactly where these powerful words are coming form would make them even more powerful – but maybe that’s just me and my inability to separate the writer and the work.
But anonymity is a hard habit to kick. Being pseudonymous lets you get raw and personal (as Sugar does so well) without IRL consequences: no family members complaining “that’s not what I said,” no bosses giving you the side-eye for too-blunt political statements, and best of all no enraged strangers sending you vaguely-worded threats with a picture of your house from Google Earth attached. Not that these are Sugar’s concerns, but they’re mine, and I find that anonymity makes it easier for me to say things how I want to say them online. Also the created persona can become part of the writing process. If Sugar wants to stay anonymous I absolutely cannot blame her.
But I still want to buy all her books.
I want to know, I dream about one day google searching her real name and discovering all about this wonderful woman who has reach me on so many levels. But a small part of me would rather be kept in the dark. The mystery of Sugar adds to the impact of her words.
So I say, as much as I may want to say the opposite, No. I think Sugar should keep on being the mysterious Sugar she is.
It’s her choice of course, but she obviously chose to be anonymous for a reason. If I was writing an advice column, doing it under a pseudonym would free me up to reveal more personal truths than I otherwise might. I know she has revealed personal tidbits from her life and perhaps that was okay with her, her husband, and her kids because they could not be traced back to them. I would hate to think that her ‘coming out’ would result in a sort of ‘retreating in’ when it comes time to relate to the struggles of her readers. Stay in the closet, Sugar! Or, come out, if you want. I believe you have the right answer to this question, just as you always have the right answer to our questions.
I don’t like secrets – even the most delicious kind, into which this particular secret falls. And I don’t like not-knowing. I want to know, for all the reasons stated above. I’m nosy, what can I say?
That said, I think Sugar should wait until her reign as Sugar comes to an end. It’s a fitting way to wrap up what has quickly become an important part of a lot of people’s lives.
It comes down to being real, for me. I value how Sugar has been able to touch parts of my heart I didn’t know were raw, and I appreciate the lessons learned from her stories. But it means a little more when I can know the person behind the words – even if only in name.
Dear Sugar,
You’ve no doubt considered the pros & cons of the anonymity thing quite a bit already. My advice: Don’t reveal your identity unless you’re prepared for the good & bad that’ll result. The good will include lots of immediate–and well-deserved–praise & thanks, plus a surge in book sales. The bad could include harassment & increased requests for your counsel. Right now the anonymity protects your time as well as your privacy.
Sugar, think about it. Once your name’s revealed, some of those people who send letters that go unanswered here on the The Rumpus will track you down and ask for advice offline–or, worse, demand an explanation for why you didn’t think their letter warranted a response. Not all, but enough that it could force you to retreat altogether.
The Internet’s an emotion magnifier; the love & appreciation that’s heaped on you could potentially get overshadowed by indignity & resentment.
But increased book sales and some credit would be nice, I’m sure.
My $.02,
Tom
Sugar should do what Sugar wants to do. Telling other people what to do is her job, and she’s good at it.
of all people why would she need advice from me?
Comments need a like button so I can click “LIKE” a thousand times on what Shinobi said. Sugar should do what Sugar wants to do. Period.
The entitlement in the comments is *astounding*.
I would like Sugar to remain anonymous. I want to continue to benefit from all the richness she has squeezed out of life – the good, the bad, the ugly. I think if I know who she is, I will feel more like a voyeur and less like a lucky friend. I want to keep reading as if every “sweet pea” is for me and the fact that neither of us knows the other means I can.
I like Hilary’s idea the best about how to get to her other work and I think Tom’s words are ones to seriously consider (for Mr. Sugar and the Sugarletts too). Whatever Sugar decides, she makes an important contribution to my life weekly and I thank her.
Put me down for ‘Yes’ so I can buy her books! Who knows, maybe I already have? Not knowing is maddening!
The author otherwise known as Sugar may richly deserve “credit,” as many have said, for the things she’s written here and elsewhere. And she would likely enjoy a significant increase in book sales and fans, were she to reveal her identity.
But Sugar didn’t take this particular gig to shill books.
I hope.
Does everything need to be about money and ego?
Tough call. She deserves credit for her extraordinary work, but I think being Sugar as a known entity would be like being a doctor…you wouldn’t be able to have a single conversation without someone saying, “Does this [daddy issue, sexual peccadillo, overwhelming desire to lick a lightswitch] look infected to you?”
I trust Sugar to make the right decision. She’s kind of a smarty.
When you know as much about a columnist’s life as her fans know about Sugar, anonymity is no more than a formality. Sugar deserves real-life credit for the amazing narratives she’s shared with us here.
I’m fine with it as long as she’s still “Dear Sugar” and uses the same logo and not her photo. Why? I don’t know, I just would like it to be that way. Kind of the best of both worlds…
I think Sugar should stay anonymous for as long as she wishes to write the Sugar column. When the sad day comes that she wants to hand it over to someone else, she can reveal who she is so we can all run out and buy her books.
Works for me.
I didn’t read all the comments, just the first few…and here’s my take, but it’s more to Sugar than anyone else: Sugar: You should be true to yourself, something you are constantly reminding us in your columns. If it’s your desire to reveal yourself: Go for it! If the readers “hear” you differently, then that’s on them, not a reflection of what you can offer. Because you will offer the same wise, comforting, honest truths no matter what comes after “Dear”!
What is the purpose of removing that layer of anonymity? Will it benefit Sugar to do so in a measurable way? The appeal of being able to knowingly buy her writing is appealing, but not essential, or intertwined into what this column represents. Will knowing the identity of the Sugar-behind-the-name benefit the column?
My personal answer is ‘no’, as much as I would make a beeline for the remaining local bookstore to buy her work right now if I could. I’m finding it interesting to read the reasoning of other respondents to see other perspectives.
No. Please let some mystery remain in the world.
I’m going to echo what a few others here have said by pointing out that we avid readers of Sugar’s column already know more about her than most of our own real friends know about us.
We know intimately about her family, from her failed first marriage to the first throes of her relationship with her husband to her mother’s early death to her father’s cruelty. We know about her sex life. We know (though she admitted it was a tremendous leap of faith to tell us) that she struggled with compulsive stealing. We know about her struggles helping disadvantaged youth and being a caretaker to a quadriplegic woman, the triumphs and sorrows of her past and trying to rebuild things in her present, and her specific thought processes as she tries, like the rest of us, to forget or forgive or grow or just simply move the hell on.
We writers know that–just like we do–Sugar sits down as often as she can to try to write like a motherfucker. We also know that, just like for us, it ain’t easy. But she does it, and she inspires us to do it, and she does it for us. And the reason we know her so well is because she is more generous with her life than any other writer I’ve ever read. When it comes to her big, messy, complicated and lovely life, she’s gifted us a rare and precious view few would allow anyone in their own lives to see. In that sense, her name will be a comparatively small revelation.
This woman has given us more than we, as strangers, have any right to expect. She could have written a column half as good, as wise, as insightful and as generous and I would have drank it in as greedily and gratefully as I do my morning coffee. But she took it serious, and she did it for *free*, and anyone selfish enough to think that knowing her name (and her receiving whatever benefit that might bring her) will ruin *their* enjoyment of the column probably never wholly got it in the first place.
This column is for us, but fundamentally it’s for the people who write to Sugar, and the people who share relate to the problems and can learn from her answers. They’ll still write. She’ll still answer in the genius way only she can. We’ll still read it and learn more than we thought possible (and we’ll still cry or, at least, I will.) Anonymous or otherwise, help will be sought and help will be given. If you don’t want her help anymore, too bad for you. There’s always that little X or red dot you can use to close your screen.
Bu the rest of us? We’re in. ANd we’re still here, saying: Sugar, thank you and thank you and thank you.
Argh. Typos. Whatever. You get my point.
Does it have to be so black and white?
In my perfect world, Sugar would remain Sugar on TheRumpus and be totally anonymous to the greater public and ‘we’ as a collective population would never know who she is…but then there’d be some ‘super fan’ card that could get me in touch with someone who could tell me her real identity, and maybe i’d sign some sort of waiver saying that i’d never post online who she actually is, just so i could find her books and appreciate knowing who she is. Yeah, I know, this is probably impossible in reality. But I’m just wondering whether there has to be a definite answer one way or another: whether it is imperative that she ‘comes out’ or ‘stays anonymous.’ Are there shades of grey we’re missing?
I say all of this because I worry that her ‘coming out’ will somehow make her feel more caged in. Her beauty comes not only from her infinite life experience, and the wisdom surrounding that, but in the absolute freedom and abandon with which she writes. If the trade-off is ‘learning what books she has for sale’ vs. ‘losing abandon,’ it’s a no-brainer: stay anonymous, and keep giving us your gift in its highest form possible. That’s why I think it’s important that she never fully ‘comes out’ to the general public; it’ll give her the freedom to keep writing as she has been.
But if Sugar can be her highest self AND shed her anonymity, then, great, I’m sure she’ll make whatever decision is right for her, and just go for it.
I just want Sugar in my life. That’s all.
For selfish reasons I want to know. I want to buy her books. She could do with the extra money our sales would generate and although I’m sure that is not the primary motivator, she deserves to have it. I think she should give up “being Sugar” and let a new Sugar take over like she did, then tell us. That way the Sugar legacy will go on with a fresh new take on things and the old replies won’t be tainted. Others have suggested the same and I like the Stig idea Peter!
Aw damn. Jess. +1 What you said. Typos included.
The reality is that Sugar will still be anonymous to most people when she reveals her identity. Knowing someone’s name and their identity, and maybe even being familiar with their writing doesn’t mean you KNOW them. Sugar is anonymous but she isn’t. She reveals all kinds of information about herself in her column. We know she has a partner and children and that she’s a writer. We know about her family. We know some of the jobs she has held. We don’t know everything about any of these matters but we know a lot more about Sugar than we probably do about our neighbors. At least, I do. Anonymity is more than just nomenclature and I tend to believe that whether she reveals her identity or not, the heart and soul of her advice will remain true, lovely, and unwavering.
Before I inadvertently figured out who Sugar was, I would have said no also. I was worried that having a face/name/identity associated with her column would somehow spoil it for me. But it didn’t. In fact, it hardly changed my relationship to the column at all. We already have our own images of Sugar from all she has written and what it means to us.
Honestly, with the amount of information Sugar has put out there about her life, it wouldn’t be that difficult for anyone to figure out who she was – I think she said so herself in her interview.
eh….
Amen, Jess.
I do think that her coming out should be the end of her stint as Sugar, though. I want to read her books, yes, but I also agree the anonymity is part of the beauty. It’s just not sustainable, nor should it be. This is no Ann Landers. This is real, raw life material that is intensely personal, and she should get credit for it. I’d also like to see what another writer does with the column, especially after the amazing precedent the current Sugar has set.
Can we have some sort of ‘if you really wanna know, click this link’…’are you sure?’…’are you really sure?’ kind of deal? So that folks who don’t wanna know don’t have to and the rest of us can go buy all her books immediately?
Nooooo. Sugar is sugar. It would change everything if she had another name.
I think I know who she is, but I want my advice to come from Sugar. Just Sugar.
And no, I don’t believe in Santa. Or the Easter Bunny.
I’ve wanted to find out who Sugar is from the beginning of time and if you Google enough…you can and I did. I’m happy to know her true identity because I love her writing so much I can now read all of her other stuff. But I do understand the appeal of her anonymity. Maybe don’t come out Sugar because those who really want to know who you are (like me) can find you if they truly try. And those who don’t want to know can stay unknowing and we can all be happy where we are.
For me, Sugar’s words are what’s special. I doubt I will ever know her personally, and that won’t detract from what I’ve read and loved. She might, somewhere down the track, lose her form and start writing crappy columns that I don’t like, and that won’t detract from what I’ve read and loved. Knowing her name wouldn’t make those columns any less special for me, nor does not knowing now make them any more special than they are.
I have so much respect for her work, but unless I ever meet Sugar personally and find her asking me for advice, I don’t feel I have any right whatsoever to suggest what she should or shouldn’t do, in regards to her work or life choices. She didn’t ask me to read her columns, she didn’t ask for my opinion. She knows me as little as I know her – she owes me nothing at all. Whether I, a reader she’s unaware of, like mystery or need answers should be irrelevant to her decision, I feel.
All I can say, all I want to say, is thank you Sugar for what you’ve offered up so far and for anything you may like to offer up in the future, under whatever name you feel like signing off with.
I agree that Sugar should reveal herself on her own terms and if she needs counsel I’d be happy to make a referral. I think I know who Sugar is and have since just about the beginning. On the other hand, circa 1981. I peeked in the closet where my mom kept my gifts snd thrilled to items like several operatic heroine
Madame Alexander dolls, things beyond my wildest dreams. When I opened my gifts, my mom had returned many kf the items to fit her actual budget. So as I remember the cobra diadem on the cleopatra I never had, i think, be patient. What’s the harm in waiting? But back to Sugar and her agent/counsel. If they’ve tired of anonymity it’s Sugar’s “property” unless the contract requires dnd of analysis. Bye, going to look for all the madsme alexander dolls that got returned.
Analysis was supposed to be anonymity, but I have sasquatch paws.
It will change the column. It just will. It will still be good, but it won’t be the same. People will talk about the old days. You might even wonder if you’re not doing it differently, post-reveal.
If you can stand it, Sugar, I think in the end you’ll wish you’d waited until you were burnt out on the column, and quit, and then gone public. It’s such a crazy weird situation, to be sitting on a promotion gold mine and have an actual down side to using it. But hey, the longer you wait, the bigger back list you’ll have for people to run out and buy. Don’t do it on this book, and don’t do it on the Sugar book. In fact, I think you should do it on your big departure book. You know, the one that’s different from the ones before. Bigger, more complicated, more mature. Save it for your Poisonwood, and for when the column’s not fun anymore. Pass on the job, lift the veil, revel in the attention, sell 100,000 hard covers. Get a Pulitzer. Hell, get a Nobel. Get a chair at Iowa. My advice to you.
Holy crap. The image of The Stig, in white racing suit and helmet and dark visor, sitting down and writing the next Dear Sugar column is just priceless, oh my god, priceless. Who better than Sugar to help us navigate the Gambon curves on the racetracks of our lives?
FWIW, I figured out who Sugar is after reading the baby bird column. I was like an evangelist about that motherfucking amazing piece, (figuratively) scrawling the link on bathroom walls and in dusty car windshields for months. Knowing who Sugar is hasn’t changed the way I read the column. Knowing who Sugar is doesn’t make the writing any different, or the contemplative wisdom behind it. I commented on this question when Sugar posted it on Twitter the other day, and I said I didn’t think she should come out. I’m not even sure what I was thinking. I rescind that notion, and second this one: Sugar should do whatever she motherfucking wants to do. She’s earned it.
Yes! But only for my personal curiosity. The rest is up to you.
Yes! Nothing could lessen my love for Sugar. I want to be able to read everything she writes, everywhere.
Enough people have said that they have found out by googling… so let those who want to know put in a little extra effort and do it! Sugar doesn’t tell people exactly what to do, she guides them. So for all of you who want to know…you have the internet. Follow your heart. If your heart says, “no that’s an invasion of someone’s privacy because she hasn’t told us” (that’s what my heart says)…then don’t.
For those who dont want to know–I would love a list of books as a Hilary suggested.
There’s safety in anonymity. Maybe Sugar is at a point in her life where revealing her identity as Sugar would only help her career; it will definitely change how she is viewed as a writer/person/advice-giver, for better or for worse. It may change how she gives advice. I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t, actually. I personally love the mystery and love that I’ve gotten to know this person solely through her advice columns. And maybe another persona through her other works. She IS getting credit for her work in her own way; she knows she’s appreciated. Having a secret with the world is a very special thing that very few of us get. She could publish a book of Sugar columns under the name Sugar; people publish under pen names all the time.
ps my bf just told me AS I WAS WRITING THIS. He spent less than a minute searching. Ok guys? So, figure it out for yourselves if it’s that important to you.
pps he also just said “honestly I wish I hadn’t found out.”
I vote for anonymity, because (a) as some folks pointed out, you will probably immediately acquire creepy stalkers and jerkasses constantly contacting you and I don’t think that’s worth it, and (b) I hate it when someone goes by one name and then changes it. Like you’ve known so-and-so by whatever online alias all these years and “now you have to call me by my REAL name!” (Or alternately, I know someone online who went the opposite direction for career reasons and it’s just freaking weird and I don’t even think she knows what she’s going by any more once people know the real name AND the alias.) I don’t know why I hate that, but I do. And as other people pointed out, (c) you get less crap from your bosses and relatives and whatnot if people don’t know exactly who you are. Mr. Sugar, for example, after the last column, might really be enjoying that anonymity right now.
I figured that one could probably figure out Sugar via clues if they wanted to- clearly, some folks have. I suggest that those who want to know should steathily Google. I won’t do it myself, though.
See, now that I know it’s POSSIBLE to know who Sugar is, I wanna know. I guess she’s kinda like any concept of God: the terms aren’t defined, or if they are, not clearly enough, mysterious, ergo, irrational, ergo, not worth my mental energy. If she outed herself, fine, that’s her decision. Now that I know there IS an answer, I am resisting every fiber of my being that says to search for it, to preserve that mystery.
For a number of years I’ve maintained an anonymous presence in a discussion forum where I am frequently asked for advice/input on very personal matters. Nobody knows who I am, and I think it would actually change things substantially if people did know. It would change things for me, certainly; the anonymity allows me to inhabit a persona I might not feel entirely comfortable inhabiting as my day-to-day self.
Although Sugar has indeed revealed many very personal details about her life, they are still revealed at her discretion, and revealed in a context of deliberate usefulness. This is not a criticism at all — this is how a therapist does self-disclosure, also, when self-disclosure is appropriate in a therapy relationship. And I think that the relationship many readers have with the Sugar column is much like the relationship people have with a therapist…there’s an element of projection-friendly blank screen, and also an element of “wizard behind the curtain,” that are necessary to the dynamic. I would echo what several other readers have said…reveal your identity when you are done with the Sugar column. You’ve worked hard on it, and I can’t imagine there isn’t a book deal waiting for you in the near future. And then The Rumpus should change the name of the advice column, and pass the torch to someone different, allowing the Sugar phenomenon to exist in on its own terms, in its own way.
all y’all who want to know who she is should do some google sleuthing – someone says somewhere who they think she is, and if you check the facts on that person, along with some matching phrases in essays, it absolutely is.
anyway… since I wasn’t familiar with the ‘real’ person, it made no difference to me. but if she had turned out to be someone who I did in fact recognize, or have ideas about, I might have felt differently. As it is, now that I know I’m going to read her book(s?! – not telling) – asap.
but let Sugar decide.
i get that people are anxious, but it’s just not going to be the big deal that they think it is when sugar’s identity is revealed. maybe none of them read cary tennis, who has similar (though unique) charm as a sort of advice essayist. knowing his identity doesn’t mean that there isn’t still a magical distance between myself, as the reader, and he as the essayist. he’s still a sort of magical and distant figure who’s lived a storied and surprising life and whose advice writing continues to captivate on that basis. it’s not like we’re going to find out that sugar is really angelina jolie and thereby have our idea of her tarnished by years of tabloid coverage or something. presumably her name is one that most of us (who don’t read a lot of contemporary fiction) don’t know, and about whom there is no public source of information that reveals anything more about her than what she’s shared in the column. sugar, jane smith– what’s the difference? one way i get to read her books (which are no doubt under-appreciated at present), and the other way i don’t, but in neither case is there suddenly some appreciable difference in my knowledge of or feelings of nearness to this person who’s been writing these columns. unless sugar turns out to be one of my friends or neighbors, nothing’s going to change that much
i believe that everyone is sincerely reporting their anxieties about a reveal, but you know people are notoriously bad at predicting how they’re actually going to react to this sort of stuff. you have to reveal because eventually someone else is going to do it anyway, and it should be the writer herself, on her own terms. and because she’s working for you for free and should get some dang book sales out of it. and, most importantly, because even though people are anxious about it, it actually won’t be that big of a deal and they’ll probably eventually be glad for it once they realize that it hasn’t ruined everything the way they fear.
I was going tovent about how selfish and disgusting it is for Sugar’s readers to demand that she make this decision based on what they want, rather than what she needs – – but Kate Harding said it best above.
So I echo Kate here, and will only add that anyone who regularly reads Sugar should have learned from her wisdom that narcissistic demands are childish and harmful, and not the way anyone should engage in healthy relationships. We have been lucky enough to be in a give and take relationship with Sugar — we give her our traumas and she takes our pain and confusion, only to transform it into insight, comasion, and a series of good swift kicks in the ass when needed. We give her little she can use in her own life, aside from our
admiration and gratitude.Yet now we think she owes us her continued anonymity when we know she wants to go public for very real, very reasonable reasons? We have the gall to think Sugar exists what, as some magical entity to serve us, devoid of real human need?
shame on us. We need to listen more deeply to Sugar’s columns.
To get a little advicey myself– I also think it’s about more than book sales. My hunch is that writing this column has meant a ton to Sugar, as a writer. And that ultimately revealing who she is will be liberating and expansive to her future writing. It may be messy, but it will be yet another process that she (and the rest of us) can move through together, as others have said. There’s a book in this, and it’s not just the book of Sugar columns. It’s a book about something else, based in some way on whatever beautiful generosity is driving Sugar to take the time to do this column with this level of vulnerability and depth. This whole thing is a complicated tunnel to move through, and there’ll be good work during and on the other side. This could happen if she doesn’t reveal herself too, but in a very different way.
I am just grateful for everything you have given us Sugar. If you want to give us more by revealing your identity, I am open to it. If you would like to stay behind the veil I am okay with that, too. Your columns have meant so much to me. Thank you. Whatever you do, thank you for all you have written to us, and given to us.
I really really hope she decides to reveal her identity! I think it would only add and not detract from her column. And I want to read her other work so much. Plus, it’s driving me crazy not knowing.
I am eagerly awaiting the day Sugar reveals herself (as if every Thursday wasn’t enough of a reveal), though secretly, I think Isaac should be the one to jump out of the cake.
Add my vote to the NO column. Although I would like to know what else she has written, I also believe it would change the conversation. Right now it’s cosmic. If we know her identity, she falls to earth.
Primarily the benefit would accrue to her as a writer, but her life will also be invaded to a degree she may already realize. I think she should wait until she is through being Sugar, and then drop the mask. May that be years away!
BTW, keeping Sugar anonymous allows Rumpus.net to continue the column with another writer, should, God forbid, that need arise.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.