Ever hear of Ross Macdonald? How about Richard Stark? Richard Bachmann? Penelope Ashe?
Yes? No? They all share one thing: They're pseudonyms -- alter egos, if you prefer.
Ross Macdonald's name was actually Kenneth Millar. According to various websites, he used a pseudonym to avoid confusion with his wife, also a writer. Richard Stark? The doppleganger of Donald Westlake, who once said in one of his books that he'd never understand why he wrote his comedic crime novels under his own name and his serious crime fiction under another.
Richard Bachmann? Well, most of you probably know that's Stephen King. At one point in his career, as I recall him saying somewhere, he was feeling he could pretty much submit a manuscript based on the Castle Rock telephone directory and get it published. (Although other explanations have been advanced.) He wanted to see if he could sell something that didn't have his name on it. Short answer? Yes.
And dear Penelope Ashe. Those of us of a certain age remember the 1969 bestselling erotic novel called "Naked Came The Stranger". It wasn't really very erotic, but was quite amusingly badly done ... and became even more amusing when it was revealed that it was a collaborative spoof by a bunch of staff writers at Newsday.
The list goes on and on: James Herriot, John Sandford, Ellis Peters, the ever-popular Anonymous (think "Primary Colors")....
All that's a preface to the point I want to make.
There has been much stink around Open Salon over a long period about the use of alter egos, pseudonyms and multiple identities. People rant about being "duped" or worse, as if they couldn't possibly imagine a scenario wherein someone simply wanted to experiment or say something that his or her known identity couldn't, for whatever reason.
It annoys me profoundly to see the posturing and viciousness that not infrequently ensues, and, if I'm being honest, I feel like I'm under attack as well, and not just because some of those so slurred are on my friends list.
I don't "publish" here under my own name. I have my reasons -- including privacy issues -- but perhaps the most important is that using a different identity has allowed me to develop a voice and style other than that which I used for 40 years as a newspaperman.
Now, when I feel like it, I can break free from the restraints of impartiality and declarative writing, and produce funny stuff or reminisce or offer personal observations or whatever, things I couldn't do when I was churning out sometimes thousands of words a week for publication under my real name, which had become synonymous in my own mind with that kind of work.
I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to explore a new identity, and wouldn't deny it to anyone else, even if it means the system is occasionally abused (if in fact that's the case). I am what I am ... except when I'm not.
Ross Macdonald: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Ross_Macdonald
Richard Bachmann: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Richard_Bachman
Richard Stark: http://www.donaldwestlake.com/news_events5.html
Penelope Ashe: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Naked_Came_the_Stranger
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
OS Readers' Picks
Brassawe
Missilynn
Arthur Louis
Firechick
Kim Gamble
Salon.com
Comments
It's not illegal - honestly, it can be entertaining. But being a decent person is not an idea at odds with being a devilish, brilliant author.
Great post.
Very weird in that sense. But I get her back, is she lusting after Frank Hellensten or Joe National Boober(two of my identities on here!! Teeheehee!! ;D)
I like blogging under my aliases, and not my real name, people could find me, like the Pope, and kick me in the nuts for making fun of them.
I mean, I might like that, but for the most part, probably not, so....
AMEN!!!!!!!!
Oh and btw...I would read your stuff no matter what name you used.
Then there is the other thing. There is one user here right now who has so many alters, he's his own audience - literally. It's poor form to create an alter to praise yourself and to tell yourself how wonderful you are. Ratings are earned, not generated.
The last is exactly as you said, it's a completely no-no to write under one identity and chase rabbits with another. Accountability is the order of the day. You say it, then stick by it and own it. It's just that simple.
A good summary Bo.
Good Post and rated with hugs
I agree that setting them up and using them exclusively to agitate someone else is very bad form. I did this for a very short time - not meaning to be cruel, but teasing someone who WAS being cruel to several other people, including myself. I was very uncomfortable in that skin - for the whole hour I did it. I deleted the account, apologized, and have been paying for it ever since.
I was not "outed." I outed myself - I think it would have been better to simply slither away instead of publicly announce what I had done. Lesson learned....
Yeah, Amanda, I agree that it can have a certain entertainment value, but I also agree that it might change my mind about that writer. It sure has here on OS.
Tink, I thought you LIVED for those kicks in the nuts. Oh. Wait. As a BOFH, you like DELIVERING them. I forgot.
Oh yeah, Rita -- no double standard allowed. Live in a glass house, make sure the rocks are elsewhere.
Yes, Torman. I pretty much agree. And ditto -- I'd read anything you post as well (as you know, I'm sure).
Thanks, Linnn.
P13, that's not exactly the idiom I was going to use, but needs must. I try to restrain my ... ummmmmm ... more vulgar side.
Scarlett, thank you for bringing George Eliot up. You might be interested to know that Ellis Peters is (was) Edith Pargeter, author of the medieval Cadfael mysteries, and I included her on the list for just the reason you cited.
Gabby, if someone is so daft, unscrupulous and insecure that he/she has to create alter egos to comment or rate, then that person is already beyond help. I don't know who you're talking about, but if I did, I'd simply ignore said person.
Gabby used the word "accountability", Fusun, and I think she -- and you -- have the right of it. But it has to be individual accountability; I'm not sure it can -- or should -- be mandated. I'm open to argument.
Thanks, Linda. You already know what I think about your posts.
And thank you too, Smithery. Whereinhell have you been, anyway?
Hey, Kit, I know a little about the case you're citing. I know you've apologised for it and that the bad feelings linger. I'm sorry about that, for both your sakes.
You know, Scanner, there's a (OK, more than one) reason you're on my friends list. .. .
I read you anyway.
To come on a writing site and push negative buttons is so wrong. Thanks for saying what I am sure so many of us feel.
Buffy, the ... cad is the only word I can think of that's suitable for more or less public consumption ... in that case should roast over a slow fire for what he said. I admire your grit to do what you've done and are doing.
Am I being paranoid? Oops! Time to take my meds:)
My opinion of aliases is well known. I don't have a problem with people using aliases to write as I do so myself; I do have a problem with them using those aliases to form dual relationships when they already have a strong presence on a site as another personality. The real reason most people have more than one alias is to cause trouble -- THAT is why I am against them for the most part.
And before I put anyone on my friends list, I ask first. Monte Canfield taught me that.
(Yes, headaches are normal, literally and figuratively.)
As for the use of alter egos, as I intimated to O'Really, no one wants to get me started on the importance of self-regulation, censorship, regulation and all. I'm in a foul mood today, I feel like I've been betrayed by people I trusted and very much liked, and I don't want to alienate anyone.
(BTW, The Redhead saw an insightful comment by you elsewhere the other day. I told her the "St." part of your name was deserved.)
Accountability? It's a matter of personal ethics. I was making the point that if you say it, you need to own it, and not run around playing ding-dong ditch. I don't care if you are using a pseudo or not. I classify my pseudonym as my sign on name under which I write posts and publish. I know some folks have one, or two, as Cartouche/O'Really have. Any other ID would be an 'alter', which is what is being abused here. An alter has no posts, no favorites, no bio, and no history other than 'activity'. It is an alternate identity designed by a user to act without accountability to anyone or anything. A subterfuge. A false front. A sham. That's just my own little classification system...
I was stunned at the response to her revelation. It was like watching verbal gang rape, one after another injured her. I felt helpless to stop it and I saw her defenders unable to stop them either. I was so hurt for her I wound up in tears.
I don't like gang wars regardless of who started it. Everyone always winds up battered. I wouldn't mind if people created alters so I could have more to read. I've always wished I could afford to buy all the books I wanted so OS fills a selfish need for me.
Great post, thank you.
I agree with Gabby that it's the intend that's important. I don't know the identities of people who are doing this sort of thing, and I don't want to know. I'm shocked that it even happens. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am.
I occasionally made mistakes on the job. When I did, I was fall-on-my-sword apologetic, in print and in private. Other people ... not so much. I cared about the credibility of the medium, and still do -- whatever it is.
BV, thanks for joining in. I see you get the need for a nom de plume -- we share somewhat similar concerns, although for me, it's former colleagues whose reputations I worry about. Even if they don't deserve it.
Yeah, CC, but the beauty of the 'Net is that there is no such thing as taking up or wasting space. It's not like it was when I had X number of column inches for international news in the next day's paper. OS is not finite (until the servers melt down again). Don't like someone's style? Fine. Ignore that person and whatever he or she posts. I've watched some pretty incompetent writers develop here over the last couple of years into people who are actually able to (better) communicate what they want to say. It's ... heartening.
Bonnie, another personality? Oh Really?
I understand other people's privacy issues, but attacking peaceful fellow-denizens of a zoo from cover is crazy predator crap!
(R)
Hi Chuck. The Redhead and I were discussing you (in a very flattering way) just this morning. I hope your ears were red as her hair.
Fred, thank you. Shooting from ambush is not the way to go, in my opinion. As for the zoo, my problem is who appoints the zoo keeper? And what is his/her mandate?
Hello, Myriad, long time no see. I get caught in a time-warp with the friends thing, probably because I still prefer the term. I have people on my list because something(s) they wrote caught my attention. Many times, that has been worthwhile; sometimes, not so much. But I always ask first. If there are people I don't want to read, I make sure they're not on the list. Then they don't pop up in my feed.
Kathy, much as I sort of understand what you're saying, I don't think Cartouche (although I can't speak for her) was intending to deceive in a pernicious way. My whole raison d'etre with this post was to establish that there are many reasons for publishing under a pseudonym, including my own, and I stand by that. And I should point out that she's hardly the only one on here with a second account who's been given a "pass" by Joan et al.
Best love to all of you, always. And I do mean that.
TPR
TPR
I'm an ignoramus, reference-wise,, Internet-wise. I do understand the voice of reason. Is there hope for us all, yet? It is within our grasp.
TPR
I've been here two years and have seen this stuff come and go and come and go and so on. I do like the way you expressed things here.
One unfortunate reality is that nobody at Salon really cares about this OS site. A simple enforcement of the "only one identity" regulation would go a long way. They could just block the URL's of repeat offenders but they don't.
The current editor (EH) quickly caved in to the demands of a few rather petulant bloggers to reinstate the 4-hour feed and this just allowed the gossip crap to fester in full view. Thomas used to mix up the feed and often left the 3-day up and so the "I blog twice a day" folks didn't get to see their stuff in OS feed lights. Kerry did it that way too. Much more effective. It's really past time for the Eds to reclaim their role here.
And I like what Kathy said about cartouche's double identity. A significant issue back then was when cartouche used to post things about this being a community and she organized an event to help a fellow blogger financially and then had the gall to defend her double identity by claiming this was not a community at all - just a writer's site and she was just experimenting with us. I found that disingenuous and irresponsible and off point and not related to what was going on. But, who cares?
As for all the fury around here - for God's sakes - we have a few people with way too much free time, way too many issues, and egos the size of a planet. The thing that infuriates them most is to be ignored except that every now and then the little man in me likes to poke at them.
Thanks.
Trudge, that was exactly my point. Thank you.
Matt, does this mean that I don't have to ride my bicycle around town any longer, working up a sweat? That I can accomplish the same thing sitting here like a damned fool at nearly 10:30 at night? Hmmmmm. I see a "Fitness for Dummies" book in this. I like it.
Just askin'.........
And, oh yeah, I forgot to say: Rated with appreciation, Boanerges Redus.
Enough of an initial clue now, grif?
And as for you personally - I admire your talent and your spirit and your writing ability and even some of your art pieces. You are very talented (and funny) and sometimes maddeningly self-involved (like me too) and you are resilient. Best...
Abrawang, you've been channeling my family gatherings, haven't you? For more on your specific point, see ConstantGardener's post about Open Salon, the Internet and Marshall McLuhan. It's insightful.
Jane, when I first joined OS, Monte Canfield walked me through the minefield, for which I was grateful. It was he, gracious man that he is, who said he always asked. So have I, ever since. But it's a matter of personal preference, not a law or anything. If someone doesn't want to be on my list, ca va, but I'd rather know than not.
Cappy! Fraternal and filial friendship is nothing at which to scoff (sentence structure for the grammar pedants). Thanks, pal.
Bonnie, if you're talking about the Algonquin Round Table, I don't think any of the names I mentioned was there. As for the multiple IDs, I have to admit, O'Really? wasn't on my list at the time the frenzy broke out. Cartouche was. Why? Because I liked the style and narratives that she wrote as Cartouche better than those of O'Really. I didn't feel duped at all -- I was actually pretty impressed at the differences. And, you must remember, there were other personal issues going on with her at the time.
IC, welcome, fellow hoser. Yeah ... a lot of this stuff is pretty dated. I just get frustrated when the "sins" of the past keep coming back. My intent here was to deal with a larger issue, but I seem to keep getting bogged down.
Hey, Stellaa, thanks for dropping by. We'll have to agree to disagree. I know you well predate me here on OS, and undoubtedly have a far more profound view of what the site's supposed to be. As for personae, I've developed one on here that really does not reflect much of my real-life self, whom I'm sure you'd want to smack on sight. (Although, alas, it does seep in around the edges sometimes.) OS allows me the latitude to develop "relationships" that I could not or would not have out in the world. I think that's part of what goes on with multiples.
While I agree that the "pity parties" can get out of hand (and you'd never find Red indulging in same), as I've said elsewhere on here, everyone on my list is there because she (or he) wrote something that piqued my interest. You, for example, brought a different light to an issue (and damned if I can remember now what it was) that I hadn't thought of. Others are there because because of strong narrative skills or because they're compassionate or provocative or whatever. I don't defend my choices; I don't have to -- although I will, from time to time, defend individuals, if I think it's the right thing to do. Call it a hangover from my old trade: Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.
I should also say that the Siren movement doesn't scare me, as such. I just do not like vigilantism. Used to be that some people on here took it upon themselves to showcase what they thought were the best writing examples of the week. I approved of that, although I don't think I showed up very often, because it was positive. I do not approve of targeting people to drive them away. That's hardly constructive. I've never read anything by the person who was singled out recently, although by all accounts he sounds like a dolt, but it makes me shudder to think that any one of us could be subjected to such an attack. And based on what? Who sets the rules? Who moderates?
Oh. And lest you think otherwise, I'm grateful for the comments. Once again, you're giving me another perspective.
Yes.
People need to realize that others are hurt by their deceit when it involves malicious behavior.
Cartouche/O'Really (Patricia) knows how I initially felt about her alter, but I very much understand it now. And it was in NO WAY anything like what we see here when people create alters to be unkind. I understand why she did it.
But for others to create an alter to hurt others or build up themselves is terribly sad.
I've had all of five minutes in the past month to use on OS and this is what I see when I come back? So very sad, indeed...
I do hope you can find the time to post again soon.