Pseudonymity is a necessity for some people for excellent reasons.
*Pseudonymity* or *anonymity*? Different concepts.
If there's one trope I've seen play over and over in fandom, going all the way back to Star Wars, is that the fans were more upset about revealed sock commentators by a major factor than they were about negative reviews in the first place. Part was the inevitable shock of finding out that a friend was stabbing them in the back under cloak of anonymity, and a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"
Pseudonymity is different in my eyes because so many people online use pseudonyms as identities. It's not so much the question of "is that your real name" as "does x stand for a person, and does that person stand for what they think?" If there's a background and a history, it doesn't matter if that's the same name that's on someone's driver's license. (Sock puppetry doesn't count as a pseud because the whole point of the sock is to have no history.)
she believes, especially post-RaceFail, people's reactions would srsly damage her career as an author.
Three comments there, to be expanded later because I have to get to work:
1 - There's a long history of authors using different pseudonyms for different types of writing. Who does she write for; what is their opinion on the subject and what do they offer their writers in terms of backup?
2 - Despite all the anger and resolutions to "never buy the work of X again!" I'm honestly wondering how much RaceFail is going to impact those author's bottom lines. I've seen a lot of righteous anger that burns itself out within a publishing cycle.
3 - One thing I have *never* seen is anonymous reviewing end well. Can't think of a single instance, whereas I've seen plenty of (read: all but about two) anon things flaming out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-07 10:49 am (UTC)*Pseudonymity* or *anonymity*? Different concepts.
If there's one trope I've seen play over and over in fandom, going all the way back to Star Wars, is that the fans were more upset about revealed sock commentators by a major factor than they were about negative reviews in the first place. Part was the inevitable shock of finding out that a friend was stabbing them in the back under cloak of anonymity, and a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"
Pseudonymity is different in my eyes because so many people online use pseudonyms as identities. It's not so much the question of "is that your real name" as "does x stand for a person, and does that person stand for what they think?" If there's a background and a history, it doesn't matter if that's the same name that's on someone's driver's license. (Sock puppetry doesn't count as a pseud because the whole point of the sock is to have no history.)
she believes, especially post-RaceFail, people's reactions would srsly damage her career as an author.
Three comments there, to be expanded later because I have to get to work:
1 - There's a long history of authors using different pseudonyms for different types of writing. Who does she write for; what is their opinion on the subject and what do they offer their writers in terms of backup?
2 - Despite all the anger and resolutions to "never buy the work of X again!" I'm honestly wondering how much RaceFail is going to impact those author's bottom lines. I've seen a lot of righteous anger that burns itself out within a publishing cycle.
3 - One thing I have *never* seen is anonymous reviewing end well. Can't think of a single instance, whereas I've seen plenty of (read: all but about two) anon things flaming out.