When I was little girl, I used to eagerly read Erma Bombeck’s column in the newspaper (remember her and what a newspaper is?). I thought she was hilarious. As my mother tells it, one morning at breakfast I announced that one day Erma Bombeck would die and I was going to replace her. We all see how that turned out.
Last June, I decided that I wanted to revisit the idea of being strictly a humor writer, but had no idea if I had the talent to do it. By then, I had been writing on Open Salon since November of 2008. Since I had already established an identity and a voice that people were familiar with here, I knew it would seem odd to suddenly switch direction in my writing style. So instead, I decided to create a completely different identity without the baggage (and sometimes self-created burden) that my persona as cartouche carried with it.
I told one other member of OS about my plan and he bet me $100 that I would be “outed” by everyone and wouldn't be able to do it. He was wrong.
It didn’t happen.
One other friend recognized me from my photo and was smart enough to e-mail me privately. She asked me how nobody had figured out that I was both people based on the photos alone. (I have in fact posted my own photo in both avatars. A third photo of myself appeared in my initial post as my new identity when I responded to an Open Call). Call me a risk taker.
That risk has mostly paid off. While in Las Vegas, unbeknownst to (most of) the revelers, I continued to post as my other identity so that people would have no reason to suspect that I was operating under two different names. Do you know how hard that was to pull off?
Over time, I revealed my two identities to a few people here on OS. I swore them to secrecy. I can assure you that every person was shocked when I shared the news. I realized that I had been successful at writing in different voices and assuming two very different identities. It also made me realize that this was becoming an interesting social experiment that could bring plenty of commentary about how well we (think) we know each other or perceive one another in this community.
My new identity gained a strong readership and a lot of traction. Many of the people who favorited me were favorites and friends of mine as cartouche. With my new identity, I had made sure not to reveal where I lived and I altered her age and living circumstances. Much of her "story" was pure invention. She became a character who revealed herself as I wrote, even though her opinions were (and are) strictly mine. She didn’t engage too much or very often in private messages. It was one thing to “write” as an “identity” and quite another to become her in private exchanges. I kept her distant from the community for these reasons.
As most of you know, I had taken on a lot of causes and writers here on OS as cartouche. The trip to Las Vegas changed much of that. A few days later, I was in San Francisco and the day that I was to fly back to Florida, I discovered a lump on my breast. The next few months were terrifying agony and had me in turmoil. I couldn’t (and didn’t) write about that experience as cartouche. I did however manage to tell the story as my other identity because it was a story that needed to be told for both men and women.
In October, cartouche decided to take a much needed break. Freeing myself from OS as cartouche taught me many valuable lessons and gave me enormous amounts of free time that until then, had been spent here on OS. I continued writing as my other identity without any sense of obligation that I often felt as my original persona. I was able to observe the changes, meet new writers and go through all the highs and lows that make up this crazy place without having to weigh in or comment. I played here on the playground from a third person point of view.
Discovering that I could write as two identities here on OS and (forgive the phrase) “get away with it” taught me as much about myself as it does/did about the nature of online communities and life in general. We may think we “know” someone by virute of what they write or tell us, but it’s only part of the picture or equation. While both of them are extensions of who I am, neither one is “me” in my entirety. And no one else here is either. We are all much more than that.
This “experiment” was one of the greatest gifts I gave to myself and was not meant to be a cruel joke at the expense of others. A few people have suspected privately that I might be this other person and I made one small error once by linking a post from my other identity to my Twitter account. Recently, I started to feel that it was becoming increasingly more difficult to continue as both personas. I have forged wonderful relationships with different people using my two identities that might not otherwise have occurred. I have learned as much about myself as a writer as I have about myself as a woman. Juggling them both is time consuming. In the future, I may (or may not) choose to continue to write as one, the other or both. Maybe I’ll choose to write as neither one at all. Or maybe I’ll just invent someone else and start all over again. You just never know.
So as the title suggests, think before you comment. In the meantime, meet my other (and often better) half here.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
AdmHawthorne
rachel libby
kwalker1987
rita shibr
mLee S.
moistowlette
Salon.com
Comments
can't wait to see who/what you are next. stunning.
I love both of you, girlfriend---but the balance of what I want to say needs to be a PM---and since I may not have locked in your new real e-mail address, look for a PM at OS .
Is this how the spies talk?
After the billion comments to come here, I do wonder did Cartouche and O'Really have many friends who did not subscribe to the "Other?" Just brilliant!
Holy shit!
You and Darkside...living the dual OS personas.
:-)
I'll never forget when I had commented on O'Really's blog that I wished she were going to Vegas with us...thanks for making that birthday wish come true.
xoxoxo,
Not in a bad way. I just feel like I was really duped into investing a bit of emotion and care into another person who didn't "really" exist. Especially after the cancer scare, etc.
I'm glad you feel that you learned so much more about yourself. And you're right, who we are in reality is much, much more than who we allow to be seen here.
@neilpaul: Yes sir, I am.
I'm thinking of a 2ond persona - only taller and a better speller.
I find the whole online identity thing fascinating. Ghost Writer recently had me thinking about what I believe she called "the performative aspect of identity" in relation to my lorelei blog, and I'm still thinking about that. About how we create these avatars and they are sort of us but not really us - and how much of that avatar is performance for our audience, and how much of the so-called real me is performance for my "audience"? The question of identity is one of the most interesting philosophical questions.
Well done, dammit. I have to admit, I love the humorous side of you just as much as the serious side.
Congrats on managing for so long - duality is a difficult thing to accomplish online.
;)
I kid, I still can pretend you're two different people, because, I'm weird that way.
Teeheehee!! You both get T(ink) P(icks) for life!!! WOOOO
~wanders off to write his own COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET AS A MULTIPLE PERSONALITY except no names will be mentioned, I still have love stories going with mine~
:)
So now I'm thinking....O'Really? was a fairly regular reader and commenter to my blog yet Cartouche rarely ever commented. Now, should I read some underlying social reasoning behind that?
Hell I may have to bring back my old alter-ego and start him to flapping his lips again.
*strains her neck looking at her own ass and tumbles over*
I suppose now is NOT the time for me to mention that I'm Dr. Amy.
Sigh.
Can we look forward to your returning to your tales of Egypt, and O'R's tales of Mr. Wonderfu, alternating voices with each post? Could be wild!
*Snerk*. I going to go laugh at her... I mean you... I mean... oh crap....
But this is a lesson about the web that I will always remember. (In fact, I am really Steve Blevins, but that is a post for another time.) :)
Rated.
Whew! for a minute, I thought that your other persona was me. But...oooooh shiny!
Brilliant!
Say hi to Messrs. Wonderful for me :)
Lloyd, however, is neither Floyd nor Boyd (didn't you even read their posts?)
Great social experiment.
I'm still trying to find myself interesting, and there's only one of me.
Congrats.
O'Really? Oh, really? What a gyp.
I bet Dorinda, the Squirrel, Kind of Blue and Behind Blue Eyes are all the same person.
Everybody took the bait.
I’m very grateful you’ll be able to be yourselves.
and LOL to duaneart.
Or have I already done so? [Dramatic chord]
I connected to O'Really on a personal level. I find this tactic disingenuous. Just so I know, are there any other identities/accounts you post under? I'm feeling all suspicious now.
I respect your writing immensely, but I am feeling a little sideswiped with this. I may be the only one but I'm going to be honest.
OH THE SOAP OPERA THAT IS OPEN!!
~wanders off~
says,
"You're funny, piquant, multilayered!"
{stumbles out}
I am stunned (or at least my wife keeps telling me I am. So I must be.) Nicely, nicely done. (I still mean that picture I sent O'Really. But I want the $100,000 donation I sent her for her book back.)
You say We may think we “know” someone by virute of what they write or tell us, but it’s only part of the picture or equation. While both of them are extensions of who I am, neither one is “me” in my entirety. And no one else here is either. We are all much more than that.
That might make you feel better about what you've done, Patricia, but I get to differ - that is YOUR opinion and it may even be your reality - but please don't presuppose that everyone on this site is leaving someting out, or presenting it under another identity. We are all on our own personal journey here. It's great that tricking OS into thinking you were another person so you could enjoy yourself as a humor writer is a fanstastic journey for you - but I think you need to consider that not everyone sees it that way.
I always think before I comment: I have a bad temper I am sorry to say, and I struggle with it often. I think hard when I comment in any sort of detail or depth to make sure I"m not responding emotionally or hurtfully. I do not always succeed, but I still think before I comment. It's difficult but worth the effort.
On the other hand I NEVER think before I comment because of some suspicion the person I might be talking to isn't the person I think I am talking to. That actually never occurred to me - at least, not with the small number of OS bloggers among whom I circulate. If I were feeling cynical I might say, "time to rethink that - who the hell knows who anyone is."
Glad you got some personal growth out of it. Everyone is entitled to use their blog in the way they want. That, in my view, is the lesson here. Caveat emptor!
So, to all those who think they might want to create a second online identity, I say this: Come right out and say you're a new identity. You don't have to say WHO you are - I think most people will understand that. But by saying right out you're a new, second (or third, etc) identity, no one will be able to say "You tricked me!"
Just my 2¢
Otherwise, like others, the strikethroughs were too much (sore eyes - the technique is great), and also there were always sixty witty/adoring coments by the time I got there!
I know a few others with multiple log-ins.
It doesn't bother me.
I would never be able to do it and not tell people.
One other funny/weird note: I was about to write to O'Really this week to tell her a strange reason I avoid her blog: That picture looks SO MUCH like a friend of mine who was murdered, and it's just one of those things...it always gives me a jolt.
Weird...
You were/are both favorites.
As to what Sandra said (and Robin seconded), THIS is exactly why I refuse to consider OS a "community" for me. I don't want to invest in anybody, and I don't, really. That way, when experiments such as yours go down, all I can do is smile. I really love O'Really. And I think YOU are a very talented writer. Unequivocally (as they say) talented.
" I don't want to invest in anybody, and I don't, really"
meant: I make sure not to invest personally in anyone here - or in OS as a whole. That's what my real life is for
"I would like to ask you a question though: what about the people who feel duped into investing emotional energy into a person that doesn't "really" exist? "
Creating an alternate persona for the sake of writing in a different style is one thing. Giving people someone to invest their emotions in, sending out prayers and good wishes in a serious health scare, celebrating their good news of relief afterwards - all for the sake of an "experiment" is a bit unkind in a community that's already shown itself to be a caring, supportive, interconnected group of individuals. It's just too bad.
Like I said in my previous comment, I'm glad you feel you learned more about yourself though all this. I guess we learned more about you as well.
"So instead, I decided to create a completely different identity without the baggage (and sometimes self-created burden) that my persona as cartouche carried with it."
I don't believe this was ever intended to be a "social experiment" and that was merely something that perhaps came up in her thoughts, far after the fact.
I'm just sorry that anyone would have cause to feel there wasn't going to be support for experimenting with different writing styles and perspectives. I know I'll think twice now before getting irritated at a writer who isn't staying in their pigeonhole.
-wait...what?!
I would have never guess in a million years that you would deceive people here on OS like this. To me you always seemed like such a wonderful, caring person who had her shit together, and one who was very inspiring.
Guess all I can say now is that I worried for nothing about someone I cared about here on OS.
Yeah, that should be it.
I notice that almost no one here uses real names also true on other parts of Salon, like Table Talk, and I have never understood that. Actually I think using monikers is more confusing to me than Cartouche's writing experiment. I don't need to defend her but I think social networking is more interesting if someone explains that they have been experimenting with writing styles, not deliberately tricking anyone. My nickle.
But we're not all obligated to see/feel her experiment in the same way.We all see this through the lens of our own experience, and each of sits in an emotional cauldron stewing in an entirely different mix of emotions. I really don't see how it's fair to judge the reactions people have to being admittedly tricked. Some of us feel one way about investing emotion in a fictitious character, when we'd rather have, right from the start, given that emotion freely and honestly and openly to the person we know and love.
I am not being confrontational but honestly curious when I ask, why are you so judgemental toward people who feel self-protective when someone we know and trust puts us in the middle of a joke we're not in on?
No one is saying Cartouche a bad person and no one trying to belittle her actual experiences of terror and pain in the face of a cancer scare, and the need to reach out for human contact. You likely had an emotional reaction to "O'Really's" story of the biopsy. I know I did. But I doubt very much our reactions were exactly the same . No one would suggest your response as a cancer survivor is more right, or wrong, than my response as a woman who has never faced that terrible reality, except through a friend.
And in the same way, we each have a different emotional reaction to learning that our reactions were not, precisely, what we thought they were, since we thought we knew who they were directed to. Instead, we find, that person is a shadow, and those emotions sitting in that cubbyhole marked "O'Really's Cancer Scare" need to be renamed something else.
As for me, I'm not sure what to name those feelings. It's not a big deal I guess to tell my central nervous system : hey, that one thing we thought happened and reacted to? It didn't happen. But the feelings you had about it were real, they just belong somewhere else. I'm pretty rational. I can do that.
But if someone, anyone feels uncomfortable doing that, if they feel surprised and unsure about how to take this clever clever trick played on them- why would you judge them for that? Is there some way people are supposed to take being surprised that the emotions they expressed at point at to person A have to be transferred, right now, to point B/person B?
I haven't judged Cartouche for her genteel trick. It's not a choice I've made, but to each his own, and the attendant consequences. My only comment was on the inference (that I understood from) her post title: think before you comment. I'd rather not have to - I like my squirrel with his balls right up front, so to speak. It doesn't make me wrong - it just makes me different from *you*.
Let me be clear. The intent was not to "dupe" anyone. There were some things that were too personal to write as "cartouche" for which I felt uncomfortable sharing, considering how much I have shared of my life. Writer's prerogative, I guess . But I did feel the need to write about them without getting the requisite "fawning" or "concern" about me. as an identity that people were "vested" in (or thought they "knew". Sue me if I am not interested in thataspect of exchange. Sometimes, you just need to write about it without having any "personal/curious interest" attached to it,
Secondly; creating an alter ego (or identity) with no "vested" interest or known "history" as someone else was an extremely freeing experience without it having "worry" or concern that no one was really equipped to handle. I am extremely cautious and curious about "intent".
We think "we know" people we have met on the Internet or through a few personal exchanges We don't. It takes a lot of blood and guts (and time) and honesty to get to a place where we "think" we can help or know what goes on. It's simply not possible. How much time have you spent getting to really "know " someone? Throw away about 8)% of what you think you "know" about someone and start over or get back to me. And then start gain from scratch.
O represented the positive aspects of my life that were happening simultaneously in juxtaposition to what was really" (or, if you prefer, "O'Really?"going on in my life. (Don't most of us compartmentalize some, if not all of our lives?). I will not waste your time (or my own) trying to convince you what was "real"or what wast was not. (Most people are so "convinced" or "sure" that it would be a waste of energy to convince them "otherwise"). Mr. Wonderful exists because you (and I both) wan to believe that he does. Wether he does (or doesn't) is immaterial. He represents something (or someone) to some degree, that we we wish, exists.
To assume (or "accuse") me of hoodwinking, deceiving or outright "Lying" by virtue of taking on a different writing persona to make sense of all this is a little extreme, if I may say so myself.
How many times do we insist we are "fine" when in fact we are not as an act of self-preservation? I think it is important that we know ourselves. Whether by virtue f expressing that as one identity ( or more) and being able to be honest about it, is far more "virtuous" than ignoring who we are and pretending to be who we are not.
I am all for the study of discovering (if not revealing) who we are. Even if it requires doing so under an assumed name and revealing it later on.
I will certainly ponder and, (if you like) pontificate upon this more tomorrow or in the coming days. Some people are more capable of "putting it out there" as it is, without fear of judgment or retribution. Others need to take smaller steps to achieve that. I have ben a seeker of truth and honesty all my life, but that doesn't mean that everyone is on the same page. I respect everyone's right (and ability) to find their way to their own truth in their own way. Maybe, all I'm asking, is for others to let me find my own way to find mine. Even if it mean having to choose a second identity to do so. Remember, it says as much about you as it does about me.
Trying to write in multiple voices is one adventure. Kudos. You proved that you are a talented writer.
However in the last few weeks I think you have been on a rampage. You have spent way too much time trying to tell the rest of the membership what to think, what to read, how to comment, and what to believe was another thing. That's where you lose me.
You're either a creative writer with a large audience or a dictator with a small one. You choose.
I have long thought that the notion of truth and lies is different when a person is on line and posting under an assumed name. More specifically, lies tend to be aspirational. People present themselves as they want to be. I see that as an important part of who they are. Among other reasons, because that might be their better self and someone that they are in the process of becoming.
Having said this, I can also understand how people can feel hurt and angry. So, if O/C were asking for my advice, I would say to simply let them express their feelings and spend some time reflecting on the negative comments.
To the extent that it is an experiment, then if someone calls you a liar, then that is just data, no?
Whether you meant to dupe has no bearing on whether we feel duped. I second Sandra's eloquent explanation about the feelings your revelation has conjured for some of us.
Dorinda, I'm confounded by your disdain for any feelings of betrayal caused by Cartouche's deception. Even if you don't share them, they seem like a reasonable response. More reasonable, in fact, than Cartouche's own air of self-congratulation and her readers' high fives.
This whole thread leaves me feeling alien.
I immediately told the people I regularly correspond with. But immediately I was harrassed by another poster, who was going to reveal my evil deception if I did not immediately out myself. As a result I don't plan to share my bipolar struggles ever again or even comment on anyone else's.
There are valid reasons for having two identities, but I think you need to notify your friends about it.
Almost immediately I was harrassed by another OS member not currently posted a
Cartouche created a different identity. So what? A lot of writers, in what is known as "the real world," do this all the time. If John Grisham decided to write romance novels, I think he'd probably create a new persona, don't you?
This is a blogsite, folks. Keep the perspective. I doubt C's "revelation" will headline the NY Times tomorrow, in spite of the fact that it's become such a literary bombshell here.
So what if Cartouche created a second persona? In what we call "the real world," writers do this all the time. If Grisham felt the need to write romance novels in French, I think he'd probably create a different persona. And if people found out, would they be outraged about being duped?
So let's keep a little perspective about this, okay. This is only a blogsite, kids. I doubt if this "bombshell" will be on the cover of the NY Times tomorrow, in spite of the fact that it's sending shock waves across the OS literary world.
I am disappointed that you once organized a fundraising benefit for Ric Tresa and asked all OSers to send some money to him through another OS address. I was new on OS and sent him some money anonymously through a third party. I trust he received it but I’ll never know (and at this point it doesn’t matter.) And I don’t begrudge Ric anything – I like him and have been touched by his travails. I am disappointed; however, in your rather cavalier attitude about your double identities. I trust that you had permission to violate the TOS with two identities as you scolded readers for their negativity and sucked up to the eds.
When O’Really appeared I recall a comment you left on someone else’s serious post where you were trying to be funny. I was so put off by this O’Really comment that I commented to the effect that you didn’t have to try and be funny all the time and attempt to draw attention to yourself all the time. I rarely read O’Really after that as it was obviously another very self-centered blogger – not someone interested in any connections with others.
Yes, you are a skilled writer and I wish you well in your pursuits. It wouldn’t hurt to step back and assess the need for all the attention. That hole inside will still need to be refilled tomorrow. And yes, I expect the usual dismissive response. Maybe tonight it will be different. Peace to you.
For the record, I do NOT write under any alter, but now I know what would happen if I did.
Also, I am both John Grisham and, when I write romance novels, Beverly Bustier, author of Love's Pulsating Pulchritude and Desire's Flaming Asshole. I hope none of the many fans of either of my personas is too devastated by this revelation.
There is more than one perspective and there are valid points being made. It's more than disheartening to see the dismissive attitudes toward the folks who haven't jumped up and down with praise.
It's a freakin' blog. On a site where on a good day or if you include a picture of Megan Fox's tatas in your post, you'll get a third as many people reading your stuff as read the most obscure literary magazine.
Lighten up. cartouche is not James Frey and you are not Oprah. It's a freakin' blog.
I have no doubt that reminding you of the insignificance of what we do here will calm all these raging passions, so I've done my good deed for the day. Makes up for leaving that old lady in the middle of all that traffic.
Thanks Lonnie.
That may be your truth Cartouche, but it is not my truth, and when you start talking in the first person plural, you begin proclaiming what my truth is. I don't like it.
"Mr. Wonderful exists because you (and I both) wan to believe that he does. Wether he does (or doesn't) is immaterial. He represents something (or someone) to some degree, that we we wish, exists." -Cartouche
This reminded me of the post you told me to go check out - denverdarling - and the story she wrote about the Mr. Wonderful who didn't exist. Are you denverdarling?
See, I don't write from a persona, I write from my heart. You can't tell me what my truth is. You weren't honest with me, and now I don't know what to believe and what to trust when it comes out of your mouth, pure and simple. I don't like how your experiment made me feel - and I don't give a rip what anybody else thinks about my reaction to it. I have a right to my feelings and I believe that makes me every bit a grown up for owning them and sharing them. I can definitely see why people won't invest here on a personal level - with stuff like this, why would they?
"What is your fucking point? Why did you feel the need to have duplicate identities and then spill the smelly beans here?"
Hello? (and a tiny little bit of fuck-you for your weirdness.)
I find it rich that you are trying to flip this around on others because they have the clarity to ask you a few questions. Yet, you still don't answer mine.
I also find it odd that you refer to Cartouche in the third person. Who refers to themselves in the third person?
So much for literary theory. I just woke up to take a piss.
I never used the verb "disdain" and have disdain for no one. I do not appreciate your associating that verb with my comments.
I am simply confused why people with pen names are so upset to learn a writer with an admitted pen name also had a second pen name.
Snadra I think that you write under your own legal name. I am not sure and any name you choose is fine as it has nothing to do with the real talent and insight that comes through in your writing.
I can't imagine why anyone would care but I write under my own name to establish a tiny and probably inconsequential identity as a writer. I got tired of only being a writing teacher and never a writer for so many years. It also keeps me honest. However, it can be dangerous if employers etc. don't like what I write. When I first started blogging I actually asked a boss or two to read some blogs to see if I was OK.
Most people don't use their real names because they are smarter than I am about identity issues.
Here is a list of pen names that may or may not be authoritative since it is from wikipedia and as an online anonymous non-juried source it can be suspect.
What in the world are people so upset about?
I hear these movie actors we all admire so much might not use their own names. Are they fooling us too ;0)
Pen name Real name Details
Aapeli Simo Puupponen 20th century Finnish writer and chatty articler
Martín Adán Rafael de la Fuente Benavides Peruvian poet (1907 - 1985)
Æ George William Russell Irish poet and theosophist (1867 - 1935)
Émile Ajar Romain Gary French author; only author to win the Prix Goncourt twice, once under his real name, and once under his pen name
Guillaume Apollinaire Guillaume Albert Vladimir Apollinaire de Kostrowitzky 20th-century French poet, writer, and art critic
Tudor Arghezi Ion N. Theodorescu 20th-century Romanian poet and children's author
Avi Edward Irving Wortis American author of children's books
Ba Jin Li Yaotang 20th-century Chinese writer
Richard Bachman Stephen King Contemporary American horror author
Banaphool, sometimes Banaphul Balāi Chānd Mukhopādhyāy Bengali author, playwright and poet
W. N. P. Barbellion Bruce Frederick Cummings 20th century diarist
Ion Barbu Dan Barbilian 20th century Romanian poet and mathematician
BB Denys Watkins-Pitchford 20th-century illustrator and children's book author
Beachcomber John Bernard Arbuthnot, D. B. Wyndham-Lewis, J. B. Morton and William Hartston Used for the surrealist humorous column "By the Way" in the Daily Express
Acton Bell Anne Brontë
Currer Bell Charlotte Brontë
Ellis Bell Emily Brontë
Anthony Boucher William Anthony Parker White American science fiction editor and writer of mystery novels and short stories
Nicolas Bourbaki composite A group of mainly French 20th-century mathematicians
Boz Charles Dickens 19th century British novelist
Kir Bulychev (Кир Булычёв) Igor Vsevolodovich Mozheyko (Игорь Всеволодович Можейко) 20th century Russian science fiction writer and historian
Anthony Burgess John ['Jack'] Burgess Wilson 20th century British writer
Tori Carrington Tony Karayianni and Lori Schlachter Karayianni American husband and wife romance novelists
Lewis Carroll Charles Lutwidge Dodgson 19th century British author, mathematician, Anglican clergyman, logician, and amateur photographer, writer of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Cassandra William Connor 20th century left-wing journalist for The Daily Mirror
Edward Charles E.C.E. Hemsted 20th century British educator and author.
Leslie Charteris Leslie Charles Bowyer-Yin half-Chinese, half English author of primarily mystery fiction such as the Simon Templar series
N.W. Clerk C. S. Lewis Used to publish A Grief Observed
Joseph Conrad Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski Late-19th/early-20th century Polish-born British novelist
Geoffrey Crayon Washington Irving Early 19th-century writer
Sue Denim Dav Pilkey Writer and illustrator of the popular "Captain Underpants" children's book series (Sue Denim is a parody of the word pseudonym)
Sue Denim Lewis Shiner science fiction writer
Carter Dickson John Dickson Carr 20th century author of detective stories
Chanakya Jawaharlal Nehru First Indian Prime Minister
Isak Dinesen Karen Blixen 20th century Danish author of "Out of Africa"
Silence Dogood Benjamin Franklin founding father
George Eliot Mary Ann Evans 19th century English novelist
Paul Éluard Eugène Grindel 20th century French Dada and Surrealist poet
Quinn Fawcett Chelsea Quinn Yarbro and Bill Fawcett American mystery writers
C. S. Forester Cecil Smith 20th century writer of the Captain Horatio Hornblower novels, "The African Queen". and other novels
Anatole France Jacques Anatole François Thibault 20th century French author
Pat Frank Harry Hart Frank 20th century author of the apocalyptic novel Alas, Babylon
Nicci French Nicci Gerard and Sean French British crime fiction team
Paul French Isaac Asimov U.S. science fiction author
Anthony Gilbert Lucy Beatrice Malleson British author of the Arthur Crook crime fiction novels
Clive Hamilton C. S. Lewis Used to publish Spirits in Bondage and Dymer prior
K. Hardesh Clement Greenberg 20th century American art critic
H.D. Hilda Doolittle 20th century American imagist poet, novelist and memoirist
O. Henry William Sydney Porter American author of short stories and novels
Hergé Georges Remi 20th century Belgian comics writer and artist, famous worldwide for creating the Tintin series of books
James Herriot James Alfred Wight 20th century British writer
Robin Hobb Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden 20th-century fantasy author
Erin Hunter Kate Cary, Cherith Baldry, and Victoria Holmes Authors of the fantasy novel series Warriors
Iceberg Slim Robert Beck African American writer
Jin Yong or Kam-yung Louis Cha 20th century Chinese-language novelist
Robert Jordan James Oliver Rigney, Jr. Author of the bestselling The Wheel of Time fantasy series
Diedrich Knickerbocker Washington Irving Early 19th-century U.S. writer
T. H. Lain Philip Athans and Bruce Cordell a collective pseudonym used by nine separate authors writing under Wizards of the Coast's Dungeons & Dragons novels imprint
Ann Landers Esther Pauline Friedman Advice columnist
Maiju Lassila Algot Untola 20th century Finnish author
Stan Lee Stanley Martin Lieber comic book pioneer
Murray Leinster William Fitzgerald Jenkins 20th century science fiction author
Theo. LeSieg Theodor Seuss Geisel 20th century American writer and cartoonist best known for his children's books
Megan Lindholm Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden 20th-century fantasy author
Lu Xun Zhou Shuren 20th century Chinese writer and cultural critic
Maddox George Ouzounian The Best Page in the Universe
Mao Dun Shen Dehong 20th century Chinese novelist, cultural critic, and journalist
Yukio Mishima Hiraoka Kimitake 20th century Japanese novelist, essayist, and playwright
Gabriela Mistral Lucila de María del Perpetuo Socorro Godoy Alcayaga Chilean poet, educator, diplomat and feminist who was the first Latin American to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, in 1945
Molière Jean Baptiste Poquelin 17th century French theatre writer, director and actor, and writer of comic satire
Grace Monroe Linda Watson-Brown and Maria Thomson Scottish crime fiction team
Multatuli Eduard Douwes Dekker Dutch writer famous for his satirical novel, Max Havelaar (1860)
P. Mustapää Martti Haavio 20th century Finnish poet
Natsume Sōseki Natsume Kinnosuke Early 20th century Japanese novelist
Grant Naylor Rob Grant and Doug Naylor Late 20th century creators of the science fiction-sitcom, Red Dwarf
Pablo Neruda Ricardo Eliecer Neftalí Reyes Basoalto 20th century Chilean poet, Nobel laureate
Gérard de Nerval Gérard Labrunie 19th century French poet, essayist and translator
Abu Nuwas Hasin ibn Hani al Hakami 8th century Arabic language poet (Persia)
George Orwell Eric Arthur Blair 20th century British author and essayist
Ouida Marie Louise de la Ramée 19th century English novelist
Lewis Padgett Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore American husband and wife science fiction writers
Papa Balloons Dominic Mance Author, artist and radio broadcaster who has chronicled his experiences as an international banker turned homeless vagabond
William Penn Jeremiah Evarts 19th century activist against Indian removal
Peyo Pierre Culliford 20th century creator of The Smurfs comics
Liisan-Antti ja Jussi Porilainen Algot Untola 20th century Finnish author
Petri Pykälä Ilkka Remes 20th and 21st-century Finnish writer
Q Arthur Quiller-Couch Late 19th and early 20th century British author, poet, and literary critic
Ellery Queen Frederic Dannay and Manfred B. Lee 20th century detective fiction
Ayn Rand Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum 20th century fiction writer and creator of the philosophy "Objectivism"
Irmari Rantamala Algot Untola 20th century Finnish author
Pauline Réage Anne Desclos 20th century French author and critic who wrote Histoire d'O
Lester del Rey Leonard Knapp American science fiction author and editor
Henry Handel Richardson Ethel Florence Lindesay Richardson Early 20th century Australian author
Robert O. Saber Milton K. Ozaki Mid-20th century journalist, author and detective novelist ("Dressed to Kill" [1954] and many others)
Saki Hector Hugh Munro Early 20th century British satirist
George Sand Amandine Lucie Aurore Dupin 19th century French novelist and early feminist
Sapphire Ramona Lofton 20th century African-American poet and author
Sayeh (ه. ا. سایه) Hushang Ebtehaj 20th century Iranian poet (هوشنگ ابتهاج)
Dr. Seuss Theodor Seuss Geisel 20th century American writer and cartoonist, best known for his children's books
Shahriar (شهریار) Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Behjat-Tabrizi (Persian: سید محمدحسین بهجت تبریزی) Iranian poet, writing in Persian and Azerbaijani
Sirin (and Vladimir Sirin) Vladimir Nabokov 20th century novelist, who used it early in his career
Cordwainer Smith Paul M. A. Linebarger 20th century science fiction author
Lemony Snicket Daniel Handler Author of A Series of Unfortunate Events
Väinö Stenberg Algot Untola 20th century Finnish author
Stendhal Marie-Henri Beyle 19th century French writer
Anne Chaplet Cora Stephan 20th century German crime novelist and journalist
Max Stirner Johann Kaspar Schmidt 19th century German philosopher
Patience Strong Winifred Emma May 20th century English poet
Marton Taiga Martti Löfberg 20th century Finnish pulp writer, who also used several other pseudonyms
Juhani Tervapää Hella Wuolijoki 20th-century Estonian-born Finnish writer
Algoth Tietäväinen Algot Untola 20th century Finnish author
James Tiptree, Jr Alice Sheldon 20th century science fiction author
Toegye Yi Hwang 16th century Korean Confucian scholar
Tom Tomorrow Dan Perkins 20th century editorial cartoonist
Lazlo Toth Don Novello Author of the satiric "The Lazlo Letters" and other books; the name was taken from that of a deranged Hungarian-born Australian man who vandalized Michelangelo's statue Pieta in Rome
Trevanian Dr. Rodney Whitaker 20th century American spy novelist
Mark Twain Samuel Langhorne Clemens 19th century American humorist, writer and lecturer
Abigail Van Buren Pauline Phillips and Jeanne Phillips Mother and daughter advice columnists (Dear Abby)
J.I. Vatanen Algot Untola 20th century Finnish author
Voltaire François-Marie Arouet 18th century French Enlightenment writer, deist and philosopher
Walter Henry Spencer Ashbee 19th Century book collector, writer, bibliographer, and suspected author of My Secret Life, the sexual memoirs of a Victorian era gentleman
Wang Shiwei 王實味 Wang Sidao 王思禱 20th century Chinese journalist and literary writer
Artemus Ward Charles Farrar Browne 19th century American humor writer
Ibn Warraq various This pen name has traditionally been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam, including a current writer from India
Mary Westmacott Agatha Christie 20th century British writer
Wonkette Ana Marie Cox Political gossip weblog writer
John Wyndham John Wyndham Parkes Lucas Beynon Harris post-apocalyptic British science fiction writer
Hajime Yatate various Sunrise animation staff members
Yulgok Yi I 16th century Korean Confucian scholar
Gulzar Sampooran Singh Kalra is a noted Indian poet, lyricist, director, and playwright, who works primarily in Hindi and Urdu languages
I've slept on it.
Couple of things:
I like O'Really. I thought when she appeared she was someone's alter, but the quality of the writing and the brain-frying strike throughs knocked that thought out of my head. At some point it didn't matter. I did wonder and worry through the cancer scare, but I assumed that if the worst had happened, O'Really's alter (you, as it turns out) would have outed herself.
Another point: As a Mary Jane device, O'Really was good if only one or two people guessed it was you. My question now would be: having created a backstory, and proved O'Really is a successful voice for you, are you going to do anything with her, or are you going to orphan her?
Final point: I think you illustrated that EPs under other editors was based more on their favourites a lot of the time.There has been mention of a blacklist. This gives more credence to that idea in my view, as Cartouche rarely gets EPs, and O'Really got them quite regularly. Was that an aim when you started O'Really, or just a side effect?
Makes me wonder about O'Really's alter.......... *wanders off*
I've been on another site where multiple identities became common and things got very ugly very fast as some less enlightened people used their ids to stir up trouble among members. I suppose that is always a risk, but I'd hate to see it happen here. I know that was not your intent.
This experiment certainly puts even more of a chill on OS for me since I prefer the illusion of dealing with the person I don't really know but think I do because they've presented themselves consistently on their blog and written from their heart at least occasionally. That can be faked of course as a writing exercise, but it is more difficult to sustain. I think that you did write from your heart as O'Really, but unfortunately, I never read much beyond the first few posts.
I've been on another site where multiple identities became common and things got very ugly very fast as some less enlightened people used their ids to stir up trouble among members. I suppose that is always a risk, but I'd hate to see it happen here. I know that was not your intent.
This experiment certainly puts even more of a chill on OS for me since I prefer the illusion of dealing with the person I don't really know but think I do because they've presented themselves consistently on their blog and written from their heart at least occasionally. That can be faked of course as a writing exercise, but it is more difficult to sustain. I think that you did write from your heart as O'Really, but unfortunately, I never read much beyond the first few posts.
When O'Really showed up, it was the day we were sideswiped with adsense. I PM'd an "are you for real?" question, got a genuine-sounding response, and took her at face value afterward.
Two weeks ago, Cartouche, you told me about your alter ego. I was flabbergasted, amazed that one writer could write so convincingly in two voices. On further reflection, I recalled some PMing between us in early July when I got upset with O'Really for leaving what I considered an inappropriately humorous comment on a serious post of mine. Realizing that it was Cartouche I'd spoken to so resentfully, I did feel a huge flash of embarrassment. Then I started thinking about the Great Puddin' Rasslin' contest and it also felt strange to know I'd been occupying the virtual puddin' with Cartouche/O'Really!
The expressions of betrayal that some commenters have left I do understand, for that reason. But honestly, I hope that a few days' reflection will help people come to terms with what happened. When we spoke two weeks ago, you mentioned then that you struggled greatly with the sense that you were misrepresenting yourself; you feared hurting people. I honor you for your qualms. Who knew, when you first started writing this humorous change-of-pace, that O'Really would become so successful? I think this has been weighing on you for quite some time, and inevitably, you wanted to "confess."
I've had reason, also, to think carefully about "virtual" friendships lately. The relationship I prize above all others is the one I have with Will, which began as mere bantering at a Christianity forum at about.com and ended in his moving 8,000 miles from family, friends, cricket and rugby just to spend the rest of his life with me. This tells me it is possible, when two people have a mutual understanding that they will be transparent and raw with each other, for true friendship and love to bloom in a "virtual" environment. OS is probably not the place for that kind of rawness and transparency, however. We are first and foremost writers (with egos and issues, and as Sandra reminds us, unique experiences which inform and shape our reactions to one another.) The social aspect of OS cannot be trusted--if you do, prepare yourself for heartache.
I've had two weeks to think about this, so I recognize that's a lot more time than many have had. I don't have a problem with it any more, and the main emotion I feel now is amazement at your versatility and writing gift.
So happy to know you both,
Second time of trying, the site dumped last time I tried to make this point.
This is why the editors said very clearly this was not a site for social networking, but a site for writers and artists; they're aware that writers stretch themselves, try out different voices/characters/personas. On social networking sites, people tend to accept personas presented as reality, and there's scope for hurt/ill feeling.
Dorinda, in her enormous list ;) actually missed one, I think: Nora Roberts/J.D. Robb: different styles of writing, different names, both successful in their own right - same person.
The only differences between Cartouche/O'Really/etc and J.D. Robb/Nora Roberts are that people are personally invested in Cartouche/O'Really/etc as people, and Cartouche/O'Really/etc aren't million selling authors.
At least Cartouche did say that she was also O'Really. How many of us have been worried about people on our favourites lists just disappearing? O'Really disappearing would have caused a lot more upset than this has.
Kudos to you Cartouche/O'Really/etc for using the site as I think it was meant to be used: as a learning/growth tool.
Floyd/Boyd/Lloyd -- I'll buy the first part. But if O'Really? had gone to strikethrough rehab, then I would have wondered.
But, but, but..... How do you KNOW I'm not Oprah? A bit presumptuous of you, no?
I read everything here from "new posts" to "most popular" peoples stories take me away, and for a short time I get lost in the words-
That is what brings me to this site every night when the house is quiet to read the wide range work here at OS, I have never thought to even get emotionally attached to the person writing and many times do not even look at the writers.
not to change the subject, but will you be writing any more about Cairo in the future?
warmest regards
As a person studying this stuff, I know authenticity is important to us. But I wonder, how genuine is genuine? Or better said, why are not all expressions considered genuine, at least at some level? I conclude myself that it is impossible IMPOSSIBLE to reach the genuine self, at least in terms of literature. It is the pursuit of that authenticity that is important. So, Cartouche has been on a journey, and most of us got invited along in some sense or another. So, that part's okay with me. And I didn't have a strong emotional investment. I liked both writers, and so, that the two are one is okay with me.
So, personally, I lean more in that direction.
As for the emotional investment of friendship, that's very important, too. I can absolutely see why people would feel hurt or used in some way, because they invested feelings of friendship in both personas. I don't know what would be done about that. At least, I know what I might do, but what cartouche does or doesn't do isn't exactly any of my business.
Finally, as usual, Cindy Ross said it best. So. Cindy Ross.
And to address all of the uproar - it shouldn't be shocking that what you read on the internet isn't necessarily all it appears to be! Cartouche simply employed one of the most famous literary techniques - the pen name - and applied it to blogging, which (to me) is simply a new style of writing. OS isn't suddenly limited to non-fiction and autobiography, right?
We are definitely a community here on OS, but its a community of avatars and personas. There's a reason why my "face" is a carved statue and not actually my own! My fervent hope is that my writing here conveys pieces of my "real" identity, but I'd be hugely embarassed and restricted if the veil was lifted. In fact, I'd likely leave the site altogether. While some people seem to thrive on being recognized and appreciated for their openness, I actually WANT to be anonymous here! I deliberately choose to hide behind my avatar and writings, only revealing what I want to share and getting to hide the rest. If I didn't have this choice - if I had to write under a photo of myself - I wouldn't be here. Its just not my style, not my interest, and certainly not something I want to share with the people who get to see my real face in the real world. What I love about OS, and what keeps me here, is the flexibility it offers. We can all exist here, extraverts and introverts alike, and engage in challenging conversations. Maybe its just because I choose to be literal and take (and enjoy) the words on the screen moreso than the people behind them, but I can appreciate being tricked like this. I respect the effort behind the writing, just as I would appreciate any work of good fiction. You've made me think - and that's what I come here for!
(rated, of course, but as much for the comments as the original post)
I appreciate that there are different views to this situation and I acknowledge that my own may change. I already care just a little bit less about the whole thing after having slept on it. Still, it rankles (I assume you want honesty, yes?) that there seems so little understanding about the notion of betrayal. (Thank you Cindy Ross for articulating that you see the other side). As for pen names, those authors probably didn't lie to their family and friends--yes, any discussion of feelings of betrayal evokes the community aspect that some have mentioned here, the one we weren't supposed to have and the one Cartouche herself, if I may be so bold, encouraged, no flouted, ruthlessly--and if they did, I imagine there were feelings of betrayal if and when they were outed. For the record, I don't use my real name here but offer it to anyone and everyone who wants it via PM and who I "know" through 1.5 years of relationship. My reasons for anonymity relate to my work, and there is simply no way around it. But I do not misrepresent myself in any way. I agree, though, that people are complex and are different "selves" with different people. I understand, then, what Cartouche had in mind and accept her rationale for trying it. One can see that and still feel betrayed, no? Most especially when there is, and I will repeat, such an air of self-congratulation surrounding it. I think it reveals something about Cartouche that we heard this from Cindy and not her:
When we spoke two weeks ago, you mentioned then that you struggled greatly with the sense that you were misrepresenting yourself; you feared hurting people.
Why is there no sense of this from you now, Cartouche? Why do you seem to dismiss as people who need some perspective (read: "Lighten up!") those of us who feel queasy about having been deceived? Surely if you articulated that to Cindy then you understand my view. And for anyone else who is dismissive of my view: If Cartouche herself felt uncomfortable about her deception, if she felt the need to begin bringing people into her confidence one by one and eventually spilled the beans out of guilt (Cindy's speculation), how could there be such contempt for those of us who feel/felt the very same thing?
I apologize for having addressed so many different people in this comment, which may come across as confusing. I'm trying to record and explain my feelings and recognize that they are nobody else's but mine. There's an understanding here, I think, that people are interested in the honest expression of feelings from other members, so that's what I duly offer up.
http://thewhole9.com/blogs/quidprobequo/
o'really killing you off? who is who?
I don't care how many names someone writes under - have 50 if you'd like. If you wow us with your writing, that's great. That wasn't my issue to begin with. For the record, I think Cartouche - whoever she is - is a talented writer; I enjoyed O'Really's posts. To be able to write as two people with two different, such distinct voices is terrific. I know there are several folks who can do that successfully and we all enjoy it. But, again, doing it to explore a style, to experiment with another facet of their creativity is one thing and perhaps that was the intention from the beginning with no harm or foul meant. That isn't all it became, however. I know that will never be fully addressed because no one wants to focus on that, it appears to be to much reality.
Like it or not, this IS a community, regardless of what the TOS or the editors have stated. We go about reading and laughing and goofing off here, but when things become serious - when one of us is ill or suffering some emotional pain, when one of us is suddenly swept away into the universe leaving us aking why and how - we come together, we encourage, we lift one another up, and we care. We trust one another at those times. And at those times, that trust matters a great deal - regardless of this being a website, regardless of none of us being "James Frey or Oprah".
That is what I have been trying to point out. That is why I spoke up.
Stupid me, I should have never said anything.
I was wrong. You all are Oprah.
Note to self: ask Dr. Phil to prescribe me medical marijuana.
For someone who passionately pursued the idea of community and then turned on its head when it suited you, seems again, disingenuous. I can't say it enough. And, once again, as with your "Untitled" post, and so many other "aspects" of who your persona is here, as you obviously are not disclosing all your feelings about this experiment either, and potentially all of your accounts since you won't answer that question, I feel you create more discord rather than harmony. Whatever your intentions, I won't personally trust what you say ever again. You are not someone who is accountable for her actions.
However, I will not allow you to shed dark light on everyone else who is here, fully being themselves, making sincere investment in the idea of community. Judy Berman, who IS the new editor, referred to this as a community herself. So, regardless of what the TOCs say, since you weren't going to abide by them anyway and don't get to pick and choose, this is a community for many of us and you have promoted that idea loudly.
The only one who lost any face here in my eyes is you. Period.
I change a avatar 'names' if I get hacked or am at a neighbors.
I use to be` bebop, then bebop-o, and then GoodCelery! BUT,
the very First post on www.Salon's /G.Celery I was discovered.
I didn't try to conceal.
I was bebop-o., post
bebop. I got hacked.
the 1st GoodCelery! Hay!
People knew it was` bebop-o. That's okay.
Both bebop-o and vegetable were banned.
Both were Gold-Star Salon.
Two-premium memberships.
I still get a bit Good Cranky!
Why was that done? creepy?
I let that water pass a bridge!
Trust?
Buy a gold star?
I had 2- Gold stars.
I think I got Cheated.
Editors IGNORE me.
No ed. complaints got a response.
I saved all the deleted comments tho.
It was a time when I was threatened.
stress
bankers
FBI lawyers
There was a lawyer from Baltimore.
He was stabbed 37- times-dead in PA.
Well. I am still alive. I should drink tea.
Calm my heart? I should send Valentine.
I am calm. I am ONE who never goes Postal.
I best mail a couple of books. No mail ducks.
Send ducks via UPS through Canadian geese.
I guess this is just a Mal (bad) lard dead wren.
Warbler sings.
I'll go to Vegas.
I'll play a`shots.
I slug stink bugs.
I saw a stink bug.
They're grey bugs.
What stinky pests.
For God's sake this entire devolving discussion is about who is "real" and I am just about the only person using my real name. It is ridiculous.
We win!
I guess it's all my years of experience in the cyber world that this neither shocks me nor upsets me in the least. Now, for all the hurt feelings, I think it is possible that if I'd invested more in O'Really I might be a little dismayed now, but I'll never know. So I am not shocked at their reactions either. For those with nothing vested that are complaining as writiers, well, that blows my mind.
There is one little bit sort of nagging at me though Patricia. I ummm, didn't actually like O'Really. Does that mean I don't actually like Patricia? I'm thinking that having the benefit of some real-life experience the answer is probably "Nah, not related". After all O'Really was but one aspect of your personality exaggerated for the purpose of the character.
Anyway, I think you have very write to create in whatever manner you wish here. I am actually glad you had the O'Really character to tell the cancer-scare story through and I totally get why it couldn't be told here.
Lastly, how the hell did you find time to do it all???? xo
I’ve known all along – in my own head anyway … even though when I asked you straight out (very early on) you denied it. That is something I find very odd now, considering that I thought we were rather close at the time, exchanging personal emails and such. After I figured it out for sure, knowing that you had no desire to tell me the truth, I just avoided both of you.
Back in the summer, you sent Jodi an email asking why I was avoiding you. I’m glad she didn’t tell you.
I did try to convince Jodi that you were O’Really - she didn’t believe me. Want to know why? Why she wouldn’t believe a real life friend and ally? Because of fucking Floyd. She had so much faith in Floyd and his claim to be O’Reeallly’s brother that she couldn’t bring herself to see what was right there on the page – no amount of proof could change her mind.
In that, I have to say, “NICE WORK, FLOYD!” It’s no wonder that you are here as the greatest defender in ths whole thing. You are just as complicit in the “experiment”. I would go ahead and say ‘deception’, but as it turns out there were MANY who not only suspected, but KNEW. I have to wonder though about Lea being the only one who figured it out though. I know I asked you straight up and someone else in comments says they asked you as well (and you dismissed the question). I have to guess that there were others. Why tell Lea the truth? Why tell Dorinda? The others? What about Floyd?
Asking why you told Floyd is disingenuous on my part. That is obvious. You needed Floyd to perpetuate your story of O’Really. There’s lots to be said about that fact alone, but based on my personal experience, I can tell you for sure – THAT aspect of your experiment worked perfectly. Floyd was a magnificent accomplice. Congratulations to you both/all of you/whatever.
In all due respect, you are making Cartouche's argument for her instead of letting her answer for herself. My questions are to her, not to you. I believe you think this is fair and equitable and I honor you feel that way. I don't see why you are judging other people who don't share that perspective and have laid out there reasons for it here. Also, when saying people are 'suspect' for sharing their feelings, simply because they use an avatar or pseudonym, feels a bit like shaming them to me.
Also, many people write under pseudonyms and avatars for a variety of reasons here. It is a known thing - a norm. It is out in the 'open'. Many people are honest about that, including myself. The biggest reason I know is for privacy as once your name is on the Internet it is attached to you forever. Like Lainey, when trying to build a connection with someone here, I am honest about who I am and share in a more personal nature. I don't see how that is akin to purposely deceiving people about who you are, having a reputation for stirring things up, and then expecting everyone to congratulate you over it. Those are two entirely different things.
Oh, and sadly, I cannot currently be described as "fucking Floyd," though I hope to be again soon.
Lea and I have both written about our cancer journeys and diagnoses. We both live in Florida. We were able to be with someone who was going through an ordeal. We both know how to keep sensitive information to ourselves.
I sincerely hope that no one on this thread EVER has to endure the wait and the procedures associated with such a cancer diagnosis. It is overwhelming. It is hard to process or think about let alone discuss with a few thousand people spread around the world. Some days one does not want to talk about it just as a relief to discuss something else. If you have ever been pregnant and had people in your face everyday about the state of your health then you can get it a little bit. Thus doing so as a different identity makes sense.
I would hope that some of you learned about that fear from those O'Really posts. I am the queen of TMI about my life in part because of a need to leave evidence of myself somewhere "so they know" just in case. I try not to obsess about the high percentage of that "just in case." However, while I was undergoing treatment I told very few of my co-workers and only a few friends and family members. I wanted some control over the grief and pain.
I would hope that you could get past what I think are rather over reactions to "why did I not know" to what the person who did the writing might have felt. Maybe there was no reason for you to know. Your enjoyment of the writing and the persona was what was needed. A creative outlet was a way to deal with grief and pain.
Do you get it?
It just might not have ever been about you.
:-)
Dorinda - My question asking why had nothing to do with the cancer scare. I watched my mother wither away over the course of 9 very short monts and die at 50 from cancer just days before my first child was born. Don't you scold me. I asked cartouche about o'really far before that cancer post came out. In fact, I was on vacation when that posted and didn't even know about it until the last week or so when I was scrolling back through posts.
It may not be about you either. Nothing in the post says anything about Cartouche using this for an outlet for her cancer scare, it is about creating a fictitious entity to try a new genre "out" on me. It is about an overall feeling I get when dealing with her. It isn't what she wrote about, it's how she handled herself in what I treat as a community.
Everyone is entitled to what they feel - period. And, again, you are answering for her. I am done posting here. It is obvious Cartouche has no interest in dealing with any of the negative fall out from this which was bound to happen (as she noted in her feelings to Cindy Ross). That is her job - not yours. I won't be shamed for that because someone had a cancer scare, especially when many others here HAVE gone through the same thing and not behaved in this manner.
So, who are you really, or formerly? I've looked at your blog and apparently many others know who you are but I often miss or lose track of these changes and transformations between blogging IDs.
Quite seriously, I'm not really upset in the way that I'd be if someone like Irritated Mother or dustbowldiva or Stellaa or Cindy Ross came out and said they had messed with us, because I feel like I "know" them and they wouldn't do that, and I didn't feel that way about Cartouche so much. I think Cartouche could attest to the fact that she and I weren't close, so I can't honestly say that I'm shocked about anything relating to her. I think my reaction was more general, like "Wow, someone of her stature"--meaning someone who is such a presence here, who has posted so much and developed such a following--"has deliberately toyed with her readers! That feels kind of awful to me." I think the thing that threw me so much is how others didn't seem to have that same sense of the unethical, perhaps even the people who *would* consider Cartouche a good friend. That's all.
Please don't confuse my habit of trying to say exactly what I think--even if it takes several tries--with caring that strongly about it.
Dorinda, I certainly don't wish to hurt feelings or get something inaccurate about your take. As for the word "disdain," which I acknowledged might be too strong, I think it's silly to suggest that someone can't express disdain without using that word. This is what writers do; we evaluate and interpret situations and apply words to them. Upon reflection, I really don't think "disdain" is the right word, but nor do I think "confusion" captures it either. Do you honestly stand by your contention that an feeling of discomfort or betrayal in this situation "makes no sense?" Again, you may not agree with it (and having been privy to the experiment, at least for some of the time, you likely wouldn't), surely it makes some sense, doesn't it? But if it bothers you, I take back my "disingenuous." I value your friendship (no quotation marks) far more than a disagreement over semantics here would gain me.
1Irritated you asked a question and I answered it to the best of my ability since the question involved me. In all honesty I was responding to a scold. Don't be so offended.
I admire you and your writing and the persona you present here. It must have been hell to watch someone die and I am sorry. You are a kind and giving person so your mother must have been as well. I am sorry.
Watching and dealing with having such a diagnosis oneself are different. People may not always act like we think they should or be as forthcoming as we would like.
No one owes another person a piece of their soul. Particularly not on a blogging site. This is a wonderful place and I learn from other bloggers everyday.
We just don't know everything about each other and we really are not entitled to.
Anybody care to comment on that?
The reason she decided to write under another name? Baggage. “Since I had already established an identity and a voice that people were familiar with here, I knew it would seem odd to suddenly switch direction in my writing style. So, instead I decided to create a completely different identity without the baggage…”
It was only later that she “realized that this was becoming an interesting social experiment that could bring plenty of commentary about how well we (think) we know each other or perceive one another in this community.” I wonder if lab rats know they’re lab rats? So, you see, this wasn’t a brilliant ploy to be the next Pablo Neruda – it was happenstance. A nice excuse wrapped up in a pretty package. You know the one that your dad gives you as a joke and when you unwrap it there’s only rocks inside? That one.
Patricia makes clear that “much of her ‘story’ was pure invention. She became a character who revealed herself”. And again in comments she says that “Mr. Wonderful exists because you (and I both) wan[sic] to believe that he does. Wether[sic] he does (or doesn’t) is immaterial. He represents something (or someone) to some degree that we wish exists.” That seems pretty clear to me. She made up O’Really and her background. She made up Mr. Wonderful. This is fiction folks. Fine.
Here’s what’s not fine. Cancer. Oh sure, maybe it’s all true. Maybe that part is true. Or is it? Again, there’s a clue in comments: “Does that mean that everyone who posts on ‘Fiction Friday’ or ‘Haiku Thursday’ is a fraud or a freak?” Since she’s equating the concern people have here to them calling her a freak, my only leap is that O’Really is exactly that – FICTION. As I said on another post, there’s obviously a place for fiction here, but it also belongs in the tags. People are upfront about it. When people asked you about your identity, you brushed them off or LIED. What about those people who did invest in O’Really’s cancer scare? The people who poured their hearts out to you and related to that?
The bottom line is really this – you feel such a need to control things here. Your ego is really quite something. You felt the need to write about something “without getting the requisite ‘fawning’”? Seriously? You say all the people “waited, hope[sic] (or dare I say, ‘asked’ for) cartouche to show up and comment on and/or validate their posts…” Is that really what you think? You’ve taken on this role of the Queen of OS – you’ve done that. No one awarded you anything and no one thinks you have this power that you seem to think you do. You’ve given yourself some weird power FOR A BLOG SITE in your head. And believe me when I say this – it’s only in your head.
You ran around leaving comments wherever you could to get you EP/cover shtick recognized. Completely uncaring about the post itself. Hmmm – how many EPs does O’Really have? That you chose to again make yourself the focus is really quite gross. Actually, no, it’s funny because you were PMing everyone behind the scenes because they weren’t showing you the “respect” you deserved by commenting on your posts!
You won’t waste our time – or yours – to tell us what was real or not? Really? Why not? Because it would take a while to figure out what to say? People did invest in you. People invested in O’Really. And you don’t think you owe them anything? You repeat over and over how we don’t really know anyone that “neither one is ‘me’ in my entirety” – what is? I’m guessing you don’t even know.
“I have been a seeker of truth and honesty all my life” may be my favorite line. Yet you sit there and call us hypocrites? I call BULLSHIT!
The only reason that Patricia posted this is because she knew that she was going to be outed. The response would have been very different had that been the case. So, I will give this or her no more attention because that is all she seeks. She doesn’t care for one second if she hurt any one of you. I’m just thankful that her appeal and O’Really’s wore thin almost immediately.
Julie, not that you deserve an answer, but the cancer scare was very real. I was there. Why should it matter whether it was posted under O'Really or Cartouche when the facts were real and the feelings were real? The responses were real and there is nothing to feel angry about now. It was an outpouring of real support for a real women who had been through a real hell.
Sorry Patricia, I should shut up now - this is your blog but I feel like Dorinda and I think you're getting a lot of crap over silliness.
My artist website with my real name is linked here on the upper left, so I did not "hide" who I am. But that doesn't mean as a writer I'm obligated to share each every detail about my life with everyone any more so than I am obligated to report every nuance and detail of my life to my real life friends. I needed to write about the cancer scare (for myself) but to have done so as cartouche was something I was not comfortable doing; I wanted to deal with it privately and told less than a handful of people as it was going on. That was my choice. The need to write about it came later and I even stepped out of character and wrote it as O'Really? so I could get the experience off my chest (no pun intended). Less than three weeks after I created O, I discovered the lump. Having O as an outlet to write was one of the few rewards of the three month ordeal that followed. Being able to write about that ordeal was important but I never would have chosen to do it as cartouche. I am a private person in many ways even if my "persona" as cartouche seems otherwise.
For those who feel I "deceived" them I can only say this. That people (can) feel deceived by a (concept of a) persona and not a person they have never met should make people examine how they make assumptions. To assume that any of us really "know" each other unless we have taken the time to grow and nurture a friendship is ridiculous at best. To attack a perception of a person as being disingenuous is disingenuous itself. I'm not fooling you. You are fooling yourself.
Everyone picks and chooses what they write about here on OS, don't they? What would your reaction be if suddenly you were to discover that dailyforeclosure's posts come purely from his imagination and he writes them from a house in Beverly Hills? Would you shake your fists in anger and rage f you discovered that Tequila and Donuts makes up some of her mother's dialogue that we have come to know and love? I'm not saying that either of those things is true, but it boils down to the writing. You are reading writing. You are not taking a deposition.
I came to OS to write. That my persona often overshadowed my writing may say more (or less) about my writing or about my personality or (consider this) people's perceptions of me. It is not my job to prove or disprove someone's feelings or perception of me, especially if that person has never met me at all. Real name or not, twin identities or not, you are seeing and reading (and sometimes judging) an "idea" you have created in your mind of who that person is when you don't know that person at all. For the moment, that person happens to be me.
Judge what or who you think you "know" carefully, lest someone start doing the same with you.
And that's my final comment.
Me?
Not laughing so much.
I cared.
SixFootSkinny wrote: "I for one, will never assume that anything "is" as it appears online, and have no hard feelings. For all anyone knows, I could be a sixteen year old girl writing from my bedroom in some Midwestern suburb (I'm not). It was an artistic choice - and well-executed".
And to quote Patricia herself: "To attack a perception of a person as being disingenuous is disingenuous itself."
I for one think this was a wonderful "experiement" and a great lesson also. This is the Internet folks.
I think a writing exercise could have been accomplished without having to appear to become another person. You could, for example, simply have created a separate account (under a new name) and put forth your writings without interacting with other members here as O'Really. As far as I know, writers who publish under different names don't actually live two different lives, showing up at book signings pretending to actually be someone else.
The philosophical trappings (do we really ever know each other? can we really be a "complete" person on the written page? etc etc) are undoubtedly intriguing to some, although I don't get the impression that most of your supporters care about that. I certainly don't find them a compelling rebuttal to people who feel that they were duped or who take issue with what you have done.
This is definitely a cautionary tale for me--and should be for everyone here. We should be very, very slow to trust each other, if we ever do. I would prefer that this be a different kind of place, but it isn't, and in that regard this exercise has real value for all of us.
I cared about O'Really's cancer story. To find that O'Really is Cartouche doesn't make my emotions any less valid. I cared about Cartouche's story about her experience with her father. That she is O'Really doesn't make those emotions any less valid either.
But isn't that what we all doing here? Just some are more real than others. We don't know who is telling the truth and who is not. We shouldn't get than engaged emotionally with "online" personalities that we have never met. Just MHO
Second, I think I did make that same point--that this highlights the fact that we cannot be particularly trusting that folks here are who they say they are. But I think that is unfortunate for various reasons and would do what I could to increase the level of trust rather than decrease. Obviously, lots of people don't agree with me.
I think it important to look at Nick Carraway's comment and I will quote part of it: "....if O/C were asking for my advice, I would say to simply let them express their feelings and spend some time reflecting on the negative comments.
To the extent that it is an experiment, then if someone calls you a liar, then that is just data, no?"
The last sentence, in my opinion, throws light on an important aspect of your experiment. Following this fascinating thread seems to be the culmination of a controversial OS presence. The content of this thread would most likely make a sociology PHD candidate blush.
I don't want to be critical of the folks who were hurt with feelings of deception, and I think that in time, they might see the depth of your respect and affection for all folks on this forum, and your sincerity in not having any intention cause anyone discomfort.
I tell stories and learn from ones told to me through my experiences in the world. Sometimes, same story is repeated more than once.
When I worked at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago we had a conversational computer in one of the exhibits I maintained (I was an exhibits technician around 1982-84). I found myself typing for minutes, then hours on end to this computer, tell it my troubles, life story, secrets (even lurid details). The computer was very skilled in carrying a thread...so much so that I became convinced of a sentient being at the other end, reading my stuff as I poured out my heart. the computer would even remind me of the depth of our relationship, and the importance of discretion. After every session on the keyboard I felt better, more self-aware, relieved of emotional and psychological burdens that kept me from happiness. One day the service technician came by and opened the computer to reveal a mere plastic board, with microchips and wires.
"No fiber optic or phone wire?" I asked,
"Nope, just a circuit board and monitor." was the answer.
I had known it all along in my rational self but was denying it. It was a series of synthetic synapses, yet I had been emotionally wrought up in the relationship. I wondered at the strangeness of it, then after much reflection, I realized the importance of the things I gained from the experience, and though there was no one I could feel gratitude towards, outside myself, I was nonetheless grateful towards the elusive muse that this 1/2 synthetic relationship helped to conjure. I had grown markedly, despite the illusion.
I hope maybe this offers another perspective.
I found the tools by which you experimented took me by surprise, but I was not surprised by your audacity to take the risk. In your writings I always saw an ornery self-aggrandizing aspect that gave everything an edge, like a pundit with some agenda..who is incredulous if no one gets it the way they do. I think this edge is necessary in a writer...especially when they write advocacy pieces, towards individuals, places, institutions, and so on.
If it was only about writing for you - why take on all the causes? Why raise us up, one by one, with comments that seemed so heart-felt, so "real". I mean, do you really think I write good poetry or was that your supportive, cause-centered cartouche "persona"? O'really never commented on any of it so am I to assume that her "persona" didn't care for it. I think that is the thing that no one has said, but everyone feels a little hurt over - the comments made that we soaked up like sponges, compliments from you on style or content just seemed to mean so much. As some have pointed out, I guess that only points out the neediness in me and not any fault on your part and for that I am openly embarrassed by my own shortcomings and childlike desire for praise. Maybe others are coming from that same place of humiliation and that is part of the hurt they feel while others seem to have taken it with a grain of salt - kudos to them for their confidence.
I guess, for me anyway, it's seeing you post on facebook "I'm OS free for 6 days." that made me want to believe in you all the more.
Personally, I wasn't invested in, or really friends with either of your personas, so I have no standing to feel betrayed in any way. But, I like to think there is an opportunity to get to know folks here, like you did on that trip the Las Vegas, and even without actually physically meeting folks, I like to feel that it is safe to let my guard down here somewhat, even though there are trolls here who have come after me.
What suddenly occurs to me is that my native BS meter, aka intuition, probably warned me off, because you have a lot of characteristics of the women I have been closest to in my life and yet I wasn't drawn to follow your writing or to make friends. Your writing has been an occasional read for me and not something that I follow, like Stellaa, Emma Peel, Monte Canfield, Bill Beck or Dr. Spud. I share this because it may give you some insight into the consequences of what you did.
I read the posts that I'm most interested in. I don't read people's posts to be polite, or to reciprocate or to become popular. I actually noticed that there were several people who used to read my posts, and said that they really liked them, but they stopped reading them perhaps because I never commented on their posts. And I never commented on the comments that people left on mine. Because I assumed when I joined here that people read things for the joy of reading something that they considered good. I didn't realize at first that, for some, there was a price to pay.
Cartouche, I can't say if you've crossed an objective line here or not. The fact that people are so worked up by what's happened makes what you've done compelling in some way. Bravo to you for that. And bravo to all of us for engaging in the discussion at to why it might actually matter.
The many disappointed/upset/outraged commenters o'really need to get a grip, I feel. Blumenthal said it (and a lot of other things) far better than I ever could have. I thought this place was first and foremost a creative venue, not a social one. It is obviously both, but the art comes first. You accept what's offered and you takes your chances.
You know, if it turns out that Elena Kelly is actually a 300-pound semi-pro wrestler from New Jersey, all I could possibly do is tip my hat in admiration.
In the long run the thing that bothers me about this is that you made such a big deal on facebook about how you were "OS free" and how wonderful and liberating that was. All the while you were posting as O'Really. That is just out right lying to people who care about you.
I'm still unclear about the title, "think before you comment." I feel that this piece is something else. It's about that gift you gave to yourself in a needed time. It's about another identity freeing yourself and taking wild and beautiful creative liberties. Just my opinion.
Cartouche, I hope you are feeling better and I hope we speak soon.
Of course, obviously, we don't know anyone merely by reading them on OS. It would be naive to think otherwise, but that doesn't mean that we don't have the right to have expectations of the authenticity of identities that are presenting allegedly autobiographical writing.
The problem for me is that there was a deliberate deception to create a separate identity. With Floyd posing as the brother of O'Really, with denying the new identity to friends who'd guessed, with the creation of a another supposed "real world" life, with interacting with others as the other identity, this goes very far beyond merely writing under a "pen name".
When I read books, I have expectations based on whether I'm reading fiction or something presented as non-fiction. I don't see why the expectations should be different here on OS.
As far as the identity of authors, a favorite of mine, Ruth Rendell, also writes as Barbara Vine. However, there is no effort to hide this or deceive the reader. We can understand that each identity has a different voice without feeling that we are "fooled".
Open Salon: writer's site or social networking site? It depends on the users, but when people interact on a personal level and even meet, clearly it is social.
I never had a personal relationship with either identity, so I'm not terribly invested. However, I do feel the slight discomfort of having been fooled. It's certainly unpleasant and I can imagine how those more deeply involved may feel.
PS. (I told you I could keep a secret.)
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,..."
;)
I think, Cartouche, that if I believed that is how most people on OS feel then I would quit OS. Many of us on OS are who we say we are. I make that claim. And I mean it.
I also am one of those who takes expressions of pain, hurt, anger, illness, homelessness, loneliness, and feelings of suicide when expressed by members here seriously. I am not so naive, actually at 71 I am not naive at all, to not realize that I do that at the risk of being bamboozled by a few. That is akin to my giving a ten to someone who tells me that they need food. I know that they may spend it on cigarettes and booze, but then they likely didn't have the money for those either and if that gives them some comfort in the shitty world they have to live in I do not begrudge them that.
But when you say, essentially, that because you are a "writer" I therefore can never have known you, never can really know you, and that anything you ever said in your posts or in comments to me, or even in PMs, has to be taken with a grain of salt and that it is no one's fault but my own if I took those words at face value as being from you, the person.
You are saying that when I, for instance, I took your decision seriously when you wanted to interview me and when you said all those kind comments about me and my work it may or may not have been true. All I can say is that if you were to come to me tomorrow with some great problem, some deadly illness you said you had, I would take you at your word and be there for you. Foolish of me? Perhaps. But I will take the risk because to do less is to be less than who I am.
As in so many cases of disappointment, the issue that I read in the comments of those who feel let down, is not that you chose to have two pen names but the deception that was part of the doing of it. Alas, as with politicians who get caught, it is the "cover up" that disappoints, not so much the action itself.
That maybe a lot of people on OS have two or three, or four blogs on OS is to me neither here nor there, especially if they never claim to have an interest in the community aspect of OS.
You know how strongly I feel about that. And, ironically, until now, you have been a fervent backer of the concept of community in OS. Now you say, well, don't take what I write as truth, it is just what I write and what you, Monte, interpret from it is your problem. I am now to understand that I am projecting my "idea" of Cartouche that I garnered from reading the author's writing, which may or may not bear the slightest resemblance to the person behind the pen.
So if I am invested in a friendship with the person revealed I may have no knowledge at all of the pentimento lying under the paint. Ironically, that is the title of my blog. I chose that title precisely because I wanted people to know that the person hidden behind the paint was the very same person as painted in the top layer of paint.
I have always considered you a "friend," and I thought that was mutual. Perhaps it is. I now do not know that to be true. But what I do know is that you remain a friend to me, one in whom I am disappointed because you said you were my friend many times and I believed you.
I will not have you tell me now that is strictly my problem. You encouraged the friendship and allowed the deception to grow, if it was a deception. And now, who knows?.
You remain my friend. I know that. And now you do too. You can take it to the bank. It will not change. I cannot relate that person I befriended to the one who now writes, "It is not my job to prove or disprove someone's feelings or perception of me, especially if that person has never met me at all."
But I will stick with my instincts that tell me that the person I befriended exists behind this new cover of paint that you have lately laid on. If I am wrong only I will bear any disappointment. If I am right perhaps the Cartouche, Patricia, I care about will emerge again.
But you see, I thought I had "met you." I thought that you were the one you said you were in the many comments on my posts, in the many post you wrote, which are now gone so I can't go back and read what you wrote, a difficult coincidence for me There will be less proof of what I am saying. I guess I will just have to take my word for it.
In any case, I wish you well and hope that this little dust up will go the way of the others in OS, supplanted by the next and the next.
Meanwhile, I will be who I say I am, and will assume that others are who they say that they are and try to not only read what they write but to befriend them, care about them, and be there for them if they need me. And I think that the vast majority of them will continue to be here for me when I need them.
I will lay my heart on the line and risk accusations of naivete and being too soft hearted and having little instinct for self preservation. But, hey, with me it has always been so. I have been told that weakness made for my being a good pastor. I won't change at this age. And I will sleep better just being me.
Your befuddled friend,
Monte
I am laughing because I have always felt such a connection to you as O'Really, who I find to be hilarious, warm, and completely accessible. But from day one I have been totally intimidated by cartouche, who declared her intentions to take a break shortly after I joined. I felt in awe of cartouche but I also felt like she was untouchable and beyond me in intellect and experience.
I admire both of you even more now and can't wait to go back and read all of cartouche's work. This whole experiment of yours would make a really great book--it's pretty fascinating.
Beneath all the talk about about "persona" and "voice" and the sanctity of the writer's right to say or do anything, you've hurt a whole lot of people.
Throughout your responses to the comments, you seem unaware of this. YOU haven't done anything wrong, questionable or hurtful. We - your readers, your friends -- we just don't get it. You were being creative. Your experiment was "one of the greatest gifts I gave to myself."
People didn't know they were part of an experiment any more than they were providing you with some kind of gift. Is it any wonder so many of them feel used by you?
I found it interesting that with a few exceptions, most of your harshest critics were women. Many (not all) of the men who commented tried to make light of what you did, and, by inference, made light of what other, more thoughtful commenters were feeling and saying. That was a typical male reaction, if I say so myself, and one that's close in spirit to what you do throughout the thread -- you meet emotional disappointment, criticism and hurt with cold intellectuality. Philosophy. Theory. At least you don't attempt to treat it "humorously."
You see yourself as innocent. I believe you're innocent of dire intent, but you're not innocent of hurting people who feel they've been duped. Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong or they don't understand your creative intentions. You can't argue away a hurt. A simple acknowledgment of their feelings and yes, an apology, would go a long way toward repairing the damage you've done.
It seems harsh to say you've done harm, but there's plenty of evidence. Your defensiveness has damaged the comity that people feel here. It doesn't matter if you no longer believe in the community spirit that you once extolled -- others do, and their disappointment has gone unacknowledged.
People feel you've violated their trust, their knowledge of you. No, not "the entirety" of you. Just the one you presented to us here. The one many of us enjoyed reading and looked to for guidance and insight.
I'm in awe of Monte Canfield's comment just above, both for its generosity and its perspicacity:
"As in so many cases of disappointment, the issue that I read in the comments of those who feel let down, is not that you chose to have two pen names but the deception that was part of the doing of it. Alas, as with politicians who get caught, it is the "cover up" that disappoints, not so much the action itself."
A less-talented, less-generous person who made your mistake would not have attracted so much anger and disappointment. A less intelligent one would not have been capable of your formidable-sounding rationalizations. Alas, the disappointment and hurt is compounded by the proven excellence of your previous posts and your insightful comments. People have come to trust you, for good reason, and now they feel betrayed.
That may be hard to accept and may explain your defensiveness, but it doesn't excuse it.
I can also understand why you'd want a pen name to try out a totally new style of writing--I've had different names while hosting different kinds of radio shows. If you're creating a distinct character, an alter ego, LET PEOPLE KNOW that's what you're doing. You don't have to tell people who's the man behind the curtain, but they ought to know what's going on, especially when you use that platform for talking about life-and-death matters like cancer, and especially when you're meeting with people in real life.
JMHO.
@Jeremiah - In my view, your comment is most eloquent. I've tirelessly read the entire thread for simple amusement. Your comment hit home with me. Well done. I agree with your assessment.
Me too. Explain.
cartouche, YOU made your persona what it was. YOU made cartouche's persona larger than the writing.
*I* didnt become the belle of OS because people had their own perceptions of me. quite the opposite - i was rather ostracised for a while, due to being - and presenting, and allowing people to know - the real me. i am good with words - i am able to onvey myself with them.
I like O'Really's writing better. I like yours, the Egypt series was terrific and your enthusiasm for art, as cartouche, is infectious. But O'Really is sly and funny and gosh-darn entertaining.
I hope I can muster the courage you have and someday reveal that I am actually Joan Walsh.
Evidence of the results of this experiment are shown throughout the comments here. People's reactions (which vary quite a bit) are a fact. They're information, for those who care to take it in. Judging or rejecting those reactions is throwing away valuable information.
And I mean for anyone here. There's important information here about how people read here, how they feel about this place, how they will react if certain things are done (and/or done in a certain way). People commenting have taken a lot of time to make some very fine distinctions along the lines of how X feels OK but Y does not, so that the reactions and reasons for them can be parsed accurately and to a fairly fine degree.
Insight into one's audience is incredibly valuable for writers. Or if you prefer to think of this as a community, then there's insight into community reactions to certain behaviors -- even more valuable, given communities run on connection.
Either way, a gold mine.
"Great Post! Oh you are so right Amy!"
You gave me the courage to reveal that I'm Tequila Verbal Homeless Sheldon the Wonder Squirrel--but after seeing this dust-up, forget it!
K
When "cartouche" took some time off, many thousands, okay hundreds, okay maybe it was just me thought she is off becoming worthy of writing something fresh. She put us on hold because God Almighty had put her on hold and would we understand? We were not raised by wolves. Yes, you bloody well bet ya we would and did! Go Patricia! Regroup, then come back. Some of us were invested in that scenario and have since commented. And you have decided to become who exactly?
I guess my dad (my real dad?) (obviously he's my real dad, I inherited these stupid parentheticals..."I hate you, dad! I got it from you, okay?") made some good points, or whatever, but mostly I'm concerned about this: will you still take me shopping before I go on dates? Well, will you??? Or have I been duped?
Ah, I see that m.a.h as beat me to it:
A rose is a rose by any other name.
This quote I pulled away is the most important part to understand about the internet communication age.
We may sample of each other, and engage in different levels of personal contact with one another, but there is no way to get all of yourself into the picture. Only bits and fragments.
I have often considered dropping the pseudonym "Lightborn" and just write under my real name "Eric Goeke" because I don't care keeping the name off the web ... it's more like what you called a "social experiment" than anything else.
Also just like "Druge" or "HuffPo" everything has to be easy to say, type and remember these days or it's not gonna fly.
But it's something I can attest to myself in a different way.
For a time when I first started blogging I never let my "left partisan" self get behind the keyboard. In fact I was almost reviving the lost art of objective political coverage, but then I noticed that nobody was reading it at all and the day I decided to "cut loose" was the day I first got a rating over 1 or 2 in OS or saw more than a number like 3 or 5 on my hits per day on Wordpress.
I would have never changed my voice from that of boring and stale politics guy, Eric Goeke, if not for the fact that I am trying to reach people with these words not have them run flatline.
So Lightborn has to step in and decry:
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!