We here at TheMotherFaulkner are not usually known for hard-hitting journalism or breaking news. We rarely rip the lid off of a story, and we never dive deep into the truth.
But fake journalists have to have some sort of standards, and we feel compelled to reveal that for decades, Samuel Langhorne Clemens used the pseudonym Mark Twain within the publishing industry.
Boom. Take that, Mr. Clemens. We now know who you truly are.
Apparently in the literary world, these things are called "nom de plumes." Sounds like a fake term to us, though.
So now that you have been exposed, what do you have to say for yourself? Do you like tricking the public? Or do you have some dark secret you are trying to protect?
The public deserves to know.
Some people have tried to stop us from publishing this article, saying we are just a bunch of hacks, too stupid to understand what something called a "pen name" is. They even say that authors have been doing this since the early days of publishing.
Apparently in the literary world, these things are called "nom de plumes." Sounds like a fake term to us, though.
They tell us Emily Bronte would publish under the name Ellis Bell. That George Eliot is actually female, and her name is Mary Ann Evans. Or that Lewis Carroll was born Charles Lutwidge Johnson.
But perhaps the most unbelievable of all is that C.S. Lewis' name is actually Clive Staple Lewis! We don't see how that one even makes sense.
So, the story goes that Mr. Clemens took the name 'Mark Twain' in 1863 when working for a newspaper in Nevada. According to legend, it is a reference to his old steamboating days, when crewmembers used to shout "Mark Twain!" when they meant two fathoms (roughly 12 feet).
That covers what the name means. But why, Mr. Clemens. Whyyyyyyyyy?
Are you too afraid to come out and publicly address our question? We assume you did it to protect your shadowy past. Or perhaps trick your readership into thinking you are something that you are not? Perhaps you felt that you could say what you wanted with irreverence, without repercussions, despite who you harmed in the process? Are we getting close?
Or it might just be that you were so embarrassed by the drivel you put out that you hoped to save your personal reputation when the critics turned against you. You wanted a cheap way out in case your books didn't sell. You wanted your cake and the ability to eat it, too.
You sir, are a coward. Now what do you have to say for yourself?
PS- Happy Birthday, by the way.