Charles Dodgson may not that mean much to you - unless, of course, you’re a 'Mrs'. Charles Dodgson or a type of person who’s sole ambition 'in' life, is to 'obtain' one.
The name ‘Eric Blair’ also fails to stimulate the slug of an eyebrow into a bouncing frenzy of recognition; again, unless you’re foolish enough to enter into that matrimonial quagmire with a person called ‘Eric Blair’, or by pure chance the name sits proudly above the points on your own driving licence.
I would suggest however, that we are all familiar, or at the very least - aware, of just what it is that these two men are responsible for. They’re writers. Arguably, great writers. Influential writers who somehow felt the need to hide behind those flapping coat-tails of pseudonym. Inside those dark and murky shadows of non-de-plume. Underneath or inside the bowels of a pen-name.

Lewis Carol wasn’t Lewis Carol at all any more than he was the Jolly Green Giant. And the name George Orwell now sits in the minds of most young adults, particularly those born in 1984, and it’s allowed to party underneath the glitter-balls together with those other bits of useless information, while the name Eric Blair sits in the corner drinking lemon-tea. Alone.

Why would Charles and Eric choose to use ‘pen-names’? Apart from one obvious reason I can hear with ‘Eric‘, which always conjures up that same old image of a withered, drunken man with a urine stain the size of Anglesey in the front of his pants who terrorized children in public parks at a time when I was much too young for it to have any long-term affect/damage to my psyche.

‘Charles Dodgson’ sounds as if the name itself could be a writer. Why bother changing it to ‘Lewis Carol’ at all? When to me, the phonology is no more pleasing.

Which eventually brings me around to Write Out Loud and its members. Its significant 500 + members.
Well, that ain’t exactly true. Is it?
There are 500 + ‘profiles’ which, individually at least, wiggle their bums, wet their (and now ours) moist, flesh-filled-lips, or flash us their enigmatic or sultry smiles. A few offer little more than a bizarre piece of art-work to tempt us still further into their unique world of words and poems. However, the odds of having someone salivate over your stanzas, or drool over a rigid meter are somewhat reduced if you have more than say, a single profile. Like, two profiles. Or, and I woe this thought; more than two.

It’s a fact. Individuals on this site have more than one profile. Often, but not always, under the ruse of ‘somebody THE something’. Having one profile under one name, whether that name is genuine or otherwise, does little to disturb my sense of suspicion. However, having more than one profile, or changing an original profile into a fanciful anagram and purporting to be somebody else made me ask myself - why would - or why do - people do this?

This is certainly not a sleight at any individuals. It’s a question. Why do some people who contribute to this site, do so under the guise of anonymity. I’m aware that there can be lots of reasons. Ranging from ‘my wife doesn’t know I wear her poetry’ to that lesser revelation ‘Dunno really…just do’.

Somebody suggested that it’s a case of a person’s original identity, real or otherwise, ‘not succeeding’ (whatever that means on here) . Another said that they felt that they would receive an unbiased and perhaps a more subjective appraisal of their work. While others, to be frank, didn’t give a hoot - and why should they? Is there really anything wrong with having an established profile sitting alongside ‘another new member’ . A member who is nothing more tangible than a character that sits in another part of a writers strange or fantastical mind?

Having said that, if Write Out Loud generate 1,000,000 bogus members will they then qualify for Art’s Council Aid? I have a politician friend who can do the accounting for any subsequent expense sheets.

How many ‘actual members’ are there on the site, anyway? Who really cares?

A recent revelation that a 'member' was purporting to be somebody who they ain't, caused me to consider my own multi-identities ( I only have one on this site) but they offered the 'explanation' if indeed it needed 'explaining', and I quote...
"I'm trying to attract a different audience".
I''m thinking 'first - things - first. Attract an audience'. Then worry about changing it.

My old English teacher, who insisted he was called Mr. Rumplestiltskin said that writers ‘secrete themselves into their non-de-plume’ and whilst this statement still conjures images that make me wince, I’m yet to understand ‘why’? Other than if a person fears that their own true identity may lead, on the odd occasion, to serious ramifications.

Maybe it’s not a bad idea? Afterall, ‘the name 'Darren Thomas’ is as magnolia and tepid as… err, Darren Thomas. It has no pizzazz or enigma. Not like, say, Englebert Humpasausage or that great performance poet, Polarbear; but for now, and for reasons nothing more than taxation. It’s simply, Darren Thomas or around Middleton and perhaps further afield, Darren 'that twat' Thomas.

So, if the 26 genuine members out there would like to discuss the reasons ‘who, what, why , where, when how’ they choose to use a nom de hoolia, I would be interested. For a few minutes at least…

I can't say I've ever openly tried to decieve people and gone by a psuedonym....or have I?....No pretty sure not.

There was a period where I sort of went by Will (William being my middle name), meaning I was the disaterous 'Will The Poet'.....yeah it's as bad as it sounds, I enjoy watching comedy but can't write it.

Anywho, I went by that in some poetry groups because I was trying to play on words. The big joke being I was urging the audience to 'Will the Poet'....to fail. See told you, not funny. So in that case it was an awful attempt at trying to make use of a middle name that I really don't get the chance to use all that often.

I do know one guy though who writes under both his own name AND a female pseudonym. His excuse is that he loves writing lovie dovie crap and that it is often recieved better if people think a woman wrote it.

Also look at those people who were members of Equity or similar unions who have written books and they've had to change their names because there's someone with the same name.

My point, and I think I may have the very bare bones of one here is that sometimes pseudonyms are useful.

I perform in real life under the same name, and make no secret of it.
the character is real.

That is certainly something I never really thought of, a 'character' can say and do things that you wouldn't.

There is more than one issue here. There is the idea of a nom de plume, what name do you choose to act or perform under? How do you want to be perceived by your audience? And the other thought that on web sites, internet forums, multiple id or alternative profiles are used to trick other uses into a different response , or to hide perhaps a different less obvious intention. As write out loud is both a writing and performance community, and also a web based community it would stand to reason that both these issues arise. It should be fairly easy for the administrators to check the IP address of anyone felt to be stalking or ‘’tricking’ people. But it would equally be sad to lose the joy of having different persona for different emotions. Perhaps this is another good reason for a joining fee. So you can literally pay your money and take your choice.

I used a nom de plume for six or so years ...because my publishers at the time asked me to.

The reason was ... I was writing theoretically impartial TV industry news under my real name, Steve Regan (and actually, in my home town of Wigan, I am never called Steve, but only Stephen or Stey <Wigan pronunciation, or it doesn't work>) so I needed a non de plume for my poisonous TVreview column.

I chose the pen name "Sam Brady: the man they can't gag" and I found it empowering.The Sam Brady column I wrote for ORACLE Teletetext from 1989 to 1992 won a cult following (that's not an exaggeration; it did!).

So the nom de plume can work, creatively, in my view... and if you write when full of cider, as Sam did, and still does.Visit
http://sambradyoracle.blogspot.com/

What??? We can't use noms des plumes now? Quelle horreur!

Quoi ? qu'est ce que vous avez dit Dermot , parlez pas du frog!! moi je ne comprends pas. C'est pas gentille .

a character?
you referring to Laura?

I think having 2 personas is fine if you have a good reason for it and you are up front about it. At the end of the day if you are on here to read and appreciate poetry it shouldn't matter what the name is. The difficulty comes in when you enter into chat. It isn't pleasant not really knowing who you are talking to and I really don't like it when reality shifts under my feet - it makes me feel insecure. The lesson I am learning from all this is to wisen up - be a bit more careful about what exactly I say to anyone. If I am just exchanging comments it doesn't really matter. No offense intended to anyone - if I am going to chat on line I really would prefer to see a picture of someone rather than an image.

what fucks me off is that this guy is all of a sudden the judge and jury on incentive and motivation whilst paying little time to observe the delicate intricacies of gender roles.smacks of love poem envy.

I believe that people should be able to write under any pen name that they choose, and it is really nobody’s business whatsoever as to why… though personally I do find it fascinating... I also believe that if you are going to interact with people in any way beyond the work that is written, you need to be genuine...

Lauretta de Mar... ne t'en fais pas... je t'adore ; )

I think some of us may be taking all of this a little bit too personally - am sure the subject was brought up just to air what a lot of people are saying and to clear the air - I don't think it is a question of jealousy. The message as far as I am concerned is - have as many personas as you like but if you are chatting to me on line, be honest. Most people with 2 personas do that - but not all.

I blame Miss Darren Thomas for starting all this kerfuffle.
Yours, more-or-less-sincerely,
Sam Brady (aka The Emperor Constantine).
PS Martin Nelson has a pony tail. 'Nuff said.

Martin Nelson just refuses to pay £7 to get his hair cut, because he's cheap and frugal. 'Nuff Said!

Well... I think Darren's commentary is valid
and brings to light what many people have questioned...

'Ere! How did we get off the subject of Martin Nelson's fabulously long and glossy pony tail?!

I guess it's true that a lot of people resent pseudonyms and it has got to be difficult to deal with people outside of the writing arenas. That said I don't accept Nom de Plumes/Pseudonyms at all on my site. I do allow some members to publish under nicknames or pseudonyms but keep their real names on file in case of copyright issues (I've already faced down a cadre of solicitors over that).

Like I said though, often there are good reasons for Pseudonyms, in fact in my case I have a cast-iron reason. If I were ever to go out and try to make money performing there's already an idiot guitarist called Martin Nelson (even though it's not his real name). I suppose it's kinda like band names. You aren't hiding your name you are naming your act.

Am I waffling? I think maybe I am.

I seem to have gotten my pseudonymous activities arse about tit. I argue/discuss/rant on these threads as 'Siren', but publish my own work on the Showcase (and occasionally blogs) under my real name, Simon Rennie. Everyone who can be bothered knows I am Simon Rennie, I've never tried to hide it.
I suppose I chose a pseudonym for the threads because I wrote on them long before I submitted a profile and I just liked the fact that my name can be shortened into a word that actually means something to do with communication. In the world of Anthony Burgess analysis/criticism I am known as 'Saz', which is a nickname conferred on me many years ago by my step-daughter, because it sounds like a cross between 'Si' and 'Dad'. She still calls it me now.
When I was a teenager I was known throughout Higher Blackley in North Manchester as 'Wolfie' (I was a 'foreigner' from nearby Moston). This embarassing moniker emerged from me biting someone hard enough to draw blood. Once every blue moon (ha ha) someone I knew twenty-five years ago shouts 'Wolfie!' after me in the street, and I run away, howling.
When I was in my early twenties I ran a magazine called 'Crumpsall Green' and published under the pseudonym, 'Phaedrus Nom de Plume'. That title is so pompous and self-regarding that if I ever meet my younger self I will punch me hard on the nose. It's a fair-sized target and I'm stronger now.
Names don't matter, unless there is personal deception involved which is meant to harm or embarass others. The artistic product is everything and should stand or fall by its own merits. 1984 would still be the greatest novel of the Twentieth Century even if we thought of it as written by Eric Arthur Blair. In the Eighteenth and early Nineteenth centuries the act of novel writing was so looked down upon as an activity indulged in by women that nearly all were published anonymously or pseudonymously. The truth will always come out eventually....

Not sure the truth will always out - there are still many who argue that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, if you see what I mean. But then again - maybe you're right and the truth will always out - in which case he was. Well - I know what I meant anyway!
I have two names; but then - I pretend to be someone else for a living. (Theoretically!)
Cx

Nearly all of us use some nickname/performance name, etc. Trying to hide by pretending that some identity is not you tends to be a bad thing.

Does Jane Austen's use of 'A Lady' (because she was only middle class ) count as a soododododo... and would she have been published if she hadn't used it ?

Anybody aware of the writing of Fernando Pessoa? Or Alvaro de Campos? Or Ricardo Reis? And at least two others...

Pessoa was a Portugese poet who wrote using various "homonyms": the different names indicate different kinds of poetry; one (Bernardo Soares, I think...) only wrote prose ("The Book of Disquietude"), one was a pastoral poet, one a kind of Whitmanesque poet, etc....

He created seperate "histories" for each one.

Then of course there's the literary fakes like Ossian, for instance. Fake medieval Scottish poet, written in the 18th century. Then of course there's the Gospels, none of which were written by the disciples of Jesus, or some of the letters of St Paul.