I was going to post a lengthy, intellectual comment on the use of of pseudonyms online, but, alas, I realized that most of what I was going to say has been said far more eloquently
here and
here. I will, however, give a little case study: myself.
Online, I go by two names: Sarah, and Misch. They both allow me a degree of anonymity, as Sarah is an extremely common name, and Misch is a nickname, albeit one that stems directly from my last name. The point is quite simple: to allow myself some privacy should someone I know in real life stumble upon me online (and yes, it has happened). That's really the entire story. Theoretically, if someone were to e-mail me with their real name, I'd tell them mine.
Additionally (and I know I promised not to go into a long post), for many bloggers (especially
him, and
him) their online web log is an extension of their professional lives. Professors, journalists, scholars...for these people, it makes sense to go by their real name, because
this is their line of work. Not for me. This blog has yet to attract enough readers for me to worry about whether I should continue to write anonymously.
Mostly, it's force of habit that I go by "Sarah". "Don't give out your name or address" was the line hammered into my head when I first signed online back in the third grade, and it's stuck ever since.
Two Extra Points:
1) USS Clueless has forgotten his basic science fiction, tsk tsk. Valentine (Ender's sister) went by the name Demosthenes, and Peter went by Locke. Peter went on to play uber-warblogger, his writings pushing the entire planet towards intergalactic war; Valentine stuck with Ender and went off-planet, where she maintained the Demosthenes persona for the thousands of years that she and Ender lived. Curiously, from a geek's point of view, blogger-Demosthenes chooses to open his/her site with "Shadow of the Hegemon" -- the only book in the Ender series in which discovering Demosthenes' real identity was not a significant plot element (or does he/she want to be more like Bean?). Even more curious is Valentine's (and Peter's) view on warfare. I need to re-read Ender's Game to verify this (I will post back), though I recall in the continuation of the series, Valentine never once doubted that the war was a necessity; in the first battle of the war, the enemy had taken out China, and threatened to demolish the entire Earth should there have been a the second battle*. An enemy which was entirely at odds with humanity's moral viewpoint and opinions, an enemy which could not be negotiated with. Any parallels there someone wants to draw?
*I do not believe that humanity acted immorally in demolishing the enemy's home planet. There was no way to know that there was not going to be a second battle.
2) You can ask Becky why she uses her real name, but I think it's because she gave it to Blogger by mistake when she signed up and we've never bothered to fix the problem.