From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net> To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Subject: [WSFA] Re: Why I dislike LiveJournal Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:04:39 -0500 Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:35 PM Subject: [WSFA] Re: Why I dislike LiveJournal > At 12:27 PM 3/23/05 -0500, Ted White wrote: > > > >So I repeat: why *should* people "spend a second to connect the names. > >Just like with any other alias."? Most aliases are used by criminals or > >people trying to hide their identity for dishonest reasons. > > So, what did Hal Clement do time for? > > I can think of lots of reasons for using aliases on-line that have nothing > to do with criminal or dishonest reasons. Wanna see? If not, hit delete > now... > > The following is an old response I made to someone in a newsgroup who had a > real problem with folks using "handles". At the time I was using > "Stormbringer" as my handle. It's not exactly germane to the current > issue, but seems to overlap enough to be worth including. I've edited it > to remove the flammables... > > A few reasons why people might want to use a pseudonym...some of which I've > used myself, some of which I've only seen or can imagine happening at some > time: > > 1. To stand out in a crowd and make ID easier. For instance, my > name is "Mike". Every third person seems to be named "Mike", and it > can get confusing real fast when there are a half dozen "Mikes" in a > thread. If some use other names this is not a problem. "Stormbringer" *isn't* common? You haven't been around too many gamers, I take it. "Mike" may be common, but "Mike B------" [whatever your last name is] is much less so. That's why we have last names as well as first names. Some of the biggest fans in the history of fandom were "Walt," "Bob," "Charles" and "Frank" -- but we know them better as Walt Willis, Bob Tucker, Charles Burbee and Francis T. Laney. > 2. To convey something about their personality, appearance, temperament > or other information that isn't as obvious in cyberspace as it > would be in person. Names like "Big Bob", "Cutie Pie", "Biker Dude", > "The Listener", or "The Mage" are a lot more descriptive than > "Mary Joe", "Betty Sue", or "Leonard Bogg", which may serve as good > enough labels, but tell you nothing else. And how often do these "names" *accurately* describe their users? > 3. To avoid unwanted attention. Many women use male names to avoid > every over-hyped teenager with a modem from pestering them to death. > Don't think this will happen? Try posting to a group frequented by > teens using a name like "Candy", "Susan", "Mary Ellen" or "Heather" > and see for yourself. Try the same group using "Sam", "Ben" or > "Donald" and compare results (this, of course, adds another reason > for using a pseudonym: education). Yeah, women have been using men's names for centuries, largely in order to avoid harassment or gain respect unfettered by gender bias. A reflection of our culture. > 4. Because their "real" name is not something they like, or it tends > to attract jokes that they are sick and tired of hearing. Some folks > just use a relatively common pseudonym when this happens, and > "William" becomes "Will" or "Bill", and sometimes it's more extreme > and "Richard Face" (didn't make this one up...parents can be > cruel...) becomes "Randal Johnson" or "Bob Connor" (see? Not all > Pseudonyms in use are ones you would recognize as such...see why > it's so pointless to worry about it?). "Will" or "Bill" for "William" is called a nickname and it's surely no alias. My legal name is "Theodore," but I use it only to sign checks. I"ve been "Ted" all my life, and that's the name that appears on all my books, magazines, etc. > 5. Because they are famous and just want to be normal folks for a > change and talk to people without all the "Oh! I read your book! > Can you tell me how you came up with...", and "You bastard! My wife > heard your damn show on the radio and now we're getting divorced! > I'll kill you!" stuff. > > 6. For fun. Some people get very bored just being "Bob" or "Jane" or > "Frank", and they want to think of themselves as a "Witherspoon" or > a "Hawk" or "Galadriel" for a while and see what happens. Some people have a problem with who they are and think a change of name will result in their being a different person. > There are lots of other reasons why someone might use a pseudonym (did you > know that "Mark Twain", "John Wayne" and "Hal Clement" are all pseudonyms? > Mark Twain's real name was "Samuel Clemmens", Mr. Wayne was born "Marion > Michael Morrison", and Hal Clement was known outside of SF publishing > circles as "Harry Stubbs"), but I hope you get the idea. You can decide for > yourself whether you approve or not, but criminals aren't the only ones > with good reasons to use aliases. As Michael Walsh pointed out, I said "Most aliases are used by criminals or people trying to hide their identity for dishonest reasons." Note my useage of "most." *Of course* I know about pseudonyms. But in every case you mentioned -- and more that you did not; let's not ignore "Cordwainer Smith" -- I also know that person's real name. They are common knowledge and hardly true aliases. (And for what it's worth, those of us *in* SF publishing circles who actually knew Harry, knew him as and called him Harry Stubbs.) > In my opinion I don't care what name people use, so long as they are > consistent in its use, so I can associate a particular set of posts with a > single individual and not be misled into thinking it's a crowd of folks. I > prefer one I can pronounce, but that's not a requirement. There's one NG I > read where there's a person named "/*"...I tend to pronounce this > "Slashterisk", and it works fine. It's pretty certain I'll never confuse > him with anyone else! > > If you really think about it, someone who calls him/herself "Stormbringer" > is hiding a lot less than someone who uses "Bill Roberts", since you will be > reasonably sure that "Stormbringer" is an assumed name, while you will most > likely be fooled by "Bill Roberts", thinking it's "real", when it really > isn't. > > You can also run into trouble when your imagination fails and you jump on > someone for using a pseudonym when they are, in fact, using their own name. > I know of at least one guy named "Freff" (no other parts, that's his > entire name...legally changed in court), and a woman named "Tree" (another > name change). These are *not* pseudonyms, those are their legal > names...they're just not all that common, and folks who hate aliases are > likely to assume that they are not, but that's their problem and limitation. Yes, I've known Connor (Freff) for many years; we're old friends. > What I find hard to fathom is why you care. I can think of a number of > half-baked reasons, but none that stand up to any logical analysis or > factual input. The only one that would bug me too, someone who keeps > switching names to avoid prosecution or to appear to be several people, is > not one that we an do anything about since they can always pick names that > sound perfectly normal and therefore are not remarked upon, so why worry > about it? Well, I *don't* care very much. This notion of "handles" is a very internet thing, and one external to fandom. In fandom we like to know who we're really talking to and dealing with. When several new members of LASFS cropped up in the late '50s with fan-pseudonyms (Dave McDaniel became "Ted Johnstone," and "Steve Tolliver" and "George Fields" were a couple of other fans whose names I used to know but have forgotten) it was a new idea for fandom, and one which was never well-accepted. And when their real names did come out, it caused some confusion. Separately, some fans created hoax-fans, the most famous of which was "Carl Brandon," the joint creation of Pete Graham, Terry Carr, Ron Ellik and Dave Rike. These hoaxes required some wit and ingenuity, and had finite lives. --Ted White