Riiiiiigghht.
Next you’re going to tell me Kermit the Frog isn’t alive, and that Jim Henson supplied the voice and movement for him.
Here’s the thing.
“Cecil Adams” isn’t exactly a pseudonym for Ed Zotti, because my undertanding is that Ed doesn’t own the trademark, the Chicago Reader does. And a couple of people have written for the column, until Ed got the job and he’s kept the job for a couple decades. But it isn’t his pseudonym because he doesn’t own the name.
If Ed gets hit by a truck tomorrow, it’s conceivable that the Reader would continue the column with the same byline, only written by someone else. Or tomorrow they could hire Exapno to write the column under the byline Cecil Adams, and Ed would be out of luck. If Cecil were Ed’s pseudonym that couldn’t happen.
Nah. Exapno would insist that they add a disclaimer that Cecil doesn’t actually exist and the column is actually written by an editor of the Chicago Reader…
I will cite nothing of the kind. I couldn’t care less about the law. I know that, as a matter of common courtesy, it would be unthinkable for an author to recycle another’s work to that degree if they were two separate people.
This is demonstrably untrue. I have been here for many years, and I can very honestly say that I do not know the truth of who Cecil is. I think, after reading this thread, that I probably now know, but since those in a position to really dispel any doubts seem incapable of ever, even for an instant, putting “the game” aside, I honestly can’t say for sure.
And it is this very attitude you exhibit that also possibly explains why some people get upset over this issue. “Anyone who’s been here longer than a month knows the truth”, stated with the certainty of, say, “Anyone who’s gone outside in the morning and looked knows that the sun rises in the east.”
What does that kind of a statement say to those of us who, honestly and genuinely, have been here for quite a while and yet somehow, as unbelievable as it may be to people like you, actually do not know? It is very insulting. In other words, you’re saying, “Well, I know, and everyone I know knows, so therefore everyone must know.”
I think, frankly, that it’s very sad that the self-proclaimed bastion of fighting ignorance is peopled by those who apparently think it’s just great fun to keep others in the dark. Honestly, you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
I’m not going to go hunting for the exact quotes, but someone made the point that there are appropriate times and places for the game and inappropriate ones. Someone else responded that this is Cecil’s domain, so therefore it must be the appropriate place.
Well, this is also General Questions, a place for not playing around, a place for asking for and getting straight answers. Why is it that the charter of GQ gets put aside for the wonder of this “game” that everyone thinks is so great? Why isn’t GQ the one appropriate place in all of the SDMB for putting the silly game aside and giving straight answers?
Well, Roadfood, if you want the truth, [insert “You can’t handle the truth” rant here], the truth is that the columns that appear under the byeline “Cecil Adams” are written by a guy named Ed Zotti, and that he’s been writing the column since the 70s, although before he got the job a couple of other guys wrote the column before him.
But as I said above, “Cecil Adams” isn’t a pseudonym for Ed Zotti, because “Cecil Adams” and “The Straight Dope” are trademarks of the Chicago Reader, not of Ed Zotti.
Now are you happy? Anyone else confused?
I’m starting to believe that I am the only person on this message board who actually owns a copy of Little Ed’s opus. To clarify this point, on the cover of my copy of Know it All! (Ballantine Books, New York) Ed Zotti is listed as the book’s author and further as "Editor of The Straight Dope. On an inside page is a list of books “Edited by Ed Zotti”, which includes “The Straight Dope” and “More of The Straight Dope”, with “Return of The Straight Dope” listed as “Forthcoming”. The contents of Know it All! are listed as “Copyright 1993 by Ed Zotti”, with illustrations copyrighted by Randy Verougstraete. (The five Straight Dope books are all credited to Cecil Adams and copyrighted by The Chicago Reader, with Ed Zotti listed as editor).
Know it All!'s introduction is written by Ed Zotti, and includes the following statements:
I don’t see the logic here. If Zotti works for the Reader, and the Reader owns the trademark, Zotti can certainly write under that psuedonym as an employee of the Reader. Actual ownership is irrelevant.
By which you think you’ve proven…what, exactly?
Roadfood, I don’t recall ever seeing you around before - but then I tend to stick to the more laid back forums - but your post reassured me greatly. I’ve been following along here and becoming more confused each day. Not something you’d expect in GQ, eh? I just wanted to pipe up and let you know that I agree with you; this specific area of the SDMB is dedicated to fighting ignorance moe than any other, and it seems that on this topic, ignorance is being fostered and encouraged.
I’m going back to CS, where folks tell the truth when asked.
Well, while I appreciate the straighforwardness, I have to say, at the risk of totally alienating myself, what reason do I have to believe that what you say here is based on real knowledge? I mean, the chant of GQ applies: cite?
Near the beginning of this thread, Exapno Mapcase said the same as you, with nice detail. But both you and he have “Charter Member” under your names. And soon after Exapno’s post, C K Dexter Haven, who has “Adminstrator” under his name, felt it necessary to contradict Exapno.
Now, I’m sure that many here could point out to me that, by using some extremely torturous logic and strict word definitions, C K’s post #15 is not really contradicting anything Exapno said. And that’s back to this “game”, isn’t it: cloud the truth, sow doubt, while being careful enough in your choice of words that you cannot, by strict definitions, be found to be actually lying, if it ever came to that?
So, one of two things must be true: either C K was really saying that Cecil is a real person, or he was engaging in the game. If the former, then we’re stuck with contradictory “truths”. If the latter, we’re left with SDMB administrators who cannot, even in GQ, stop playing the game.
What would satisfy me, here in GQ, the supposed bastion of fighting ignorance, the one place in the SDMB where, I believe anyway, it is inappropriate to play games around the truth (no matter the subject), would be for someone with an indicator of some position of standing with the Straight Dope under their name (such as “Administrator”) to say, straightforwardly, something along the lines of what Lemur866 says above.
I stepped out of the thread hoping to defuse the acrimony. But I have to step back in to thank and defend Roadfood.
Stop the nonsense. Of course Ed is the current writer behind Cecil. Read Ed’s quote given by whitetho. If you don’t feel beaten over the head by Ed’s bluntly thudding innuendo then you haven’t learned to read.
I don’t like being lied to. Apparently **Roadfood ** and others feel the same way. This is not a good situation.
Ignorance is no more being fostered here than it was when the New York Sun responded to Virginia O’Hanlon.
When’s the last time that Cecil mentioned his wife in a column, or the fact that he’s a southpaw?
Bullshit.
In your analogy, a fictitional character with no connection to any known person was asserted to exist, mainly on the basis that he represented an idea.
In this thread, a flat assertion was made that Ed is not Cecil. If Ed IS the person who writes under the nom de plume of Cecil Adams, that’s a complete lie, and not in any way analogous to the “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” editorial.
If Ed is NOT the person who writes the columns bylined to Cecil, then let’s have a completely unambiguous statement to that effect, and, preferably, either a statement as to who it is, or a statement that the Chicago Reader never intends to divulge the identity of the “real” Cecil Adams.
Sorry, but that’s B.S., and I think y’all are missing the point. We all understand that neither Santa nor Cecil is a real person.
What’s being asked is whether:
a) the columns under the Cecil Adams byline are written by a group of people under the guise of being a single author?
or
b) Cecil Adams is a pen name that has been used by a series of single authors (as in the case of Ann Landers)?
Maybe the answer is both, maybe it’s neither, but we’re not asking whether Santa is real.
Both situations foster ignorance. Difference being, Miss O’Hanlon was a child; we’re all adults here. If I came into GQ asking serious questions about belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, I’d be laughed at, mocked, possibly Pitted, and driven right off the boards. So why doesn’t that happen with Unca Cecil? He’s either a mythical figure shrouded in a grain of truth (like the origins of Santa) or he doesn’t exist at all, like Superman. Or, least likely of all, he really is a real guy who is exactly how he is portrayed on this site. My money’s on Supes at this point.
In September we should have a chance to learn more about the non-Chicago Reader life of Ed Zotti.
Obviously, nobody here --neither you nor the others responding to my comment – has actually read the column to which I referred. I’m sorry that your world is so cold as to have lost that spark of wonderment.
Now go read the “Yes, Virginia” column, and learn in what sense the editor told her that Santa Claus exists. I hate to be so messy and explicit here, but Unca Cece exists in exactly the same way. Ed or anyone else might act on his behalf exactly as parents act in loco Santensis. That hardly means that He isn’t real.
But again, you’re missing the point (and I guess maybe you didn’t read *my * post). Folks are not asking whether cecil is real. They’re asking who writes the columns. Is it a single person or a group of people? Straight forward question. If the answer is “we’d rather not say,” then that’s okay too.
But three pages of dancing around the question is a little off putting, especially on a site whose motto is “fighting ignorance.” You presume to lecture us for a lack of wonderment, while at the same time knocking us for asking a simple question about the basic premise of this site. Sheesh, you can’t have it both ways.