Ransonwrites
Eternal factotum
Re: the title, are these the only choices, or can one be honest and balanced in one's online life if one is operating under a false name, as the vast majority of internet users do?
This question came to mind as I viewed the submissions list for the Fantasy Faction monthly short story competition. What I found interesting was that there was only one person listed whose username appeared to be their 'genuine' author name. While I signed my submission with my proper name, my username is the same as on here - only half accurate, although that's more than enough to identify me.
When I made the decision to write for publication I made the conscious decision to set up author accounts for the purpose, simply to make it easier for readers/agents/publishers to know who wrote that scintillating piece of prose! ;-)
However, I've also found it refreshing, in a sense, to be open about who I am. This keeps me honest in two ways:
1. it removes forever the temptation (small as it was in my case, happily) to vent my spleen upon some hapless victim before retiring into the protection of the great lake of anonymity that is the internet, my catharsis extracted at the expense of someone else's self-esteem.
2. it behoves me not to open my internet mouth without having considered what I will say, and decided whether it is worth saying and, thus, has probably raised the standard of my discourse. Writing anonymously, I had the option to be lazy, whimsical and needlessly polemical. Now I'm accountable. Not necessarily a bad thing.
This line of thought was brought into stark relief by an excellent post on the subject by Michael Eisen, a noted researcher at UC Berkeley. His discussion takes place within the context of scientific peer review, but the problems are applicable to all of publishing, especially in the age of social media, when a fiction writer's reputation is as much at risk from a mauling on twitter as a junior researcher who earns the ire of a senior member of a peer reviewed journal (one such situation being described in Eisen's blog post).
I will quote two extracts, one from Eisen and one from a response:
So, to return to the central question: is it better to be anonymous or open?
Openness brings with it the cachet of credibility, whilst anonymity provides protection.
However, anonymity gives the user the power to say the things that must, or should, be said according to principles of justice, fairness and legality, without suffering great personal cost to that user's career. This power is counter-balanced by the ability to abuse without fear of consequence.
Hence, openness is often better respected in the first instance because everyone who interacts with an 'open' user knows they must be as careful and measured in their comments as if they were speaking to a live audience.
A final question: the vast majority of users on these forums have what amount to anonymous usernames in that they are not their real names. You've built up reputations, crafted on online persona that may not be like your real one, and have invested in this new person. But do you now wish you had done all that under your real name? Or do you agree with Eisen when he says the following:
This question came to mind as I viewed the submissions list for the Fantasy Faction monthly short story competition. What I found interesting was that there was only one person listed whose username appeared to be their 'genuine' author name. While I signed my submission with my proper name, my username is the same as on here - only half accurate, although that's more than enough to identify me.
When I made the decision to write for publication I made the conscious decision to set up author accounts for the purpose, simply to make it easier for readers/agents/publishers to know who wrote that scintillating piece of prose! ;-)
However, I've also found it refreshing, in a sense, to be open about who I am. This keeps me honest in two ways:
1. it removes forever the temptation (small as it was in my case, happily) to vent my spleen upon some hapless victim before retiring into the protection of the great lake of anonymity that is the internet, my catharsis extracted at the expense of someone else's self-esteem.
2. it behoves me not to open my internet mouth without having considered what I will say, and decided whether it is worth saying and, thus, has probably raised the standard of my discourse. Writing anonymously, I had the option to be lazy, whimsical and needlessly polemical. Now I'm accountable. Not necessarily a bad thing.
This line of thought was brought into stark relief by an excellent post on the subject by Michael Eisen, a noted researcher at UC Berkeley. His discussion takes place within the context of scientific peer review, but the problems are applicable to all of publishing, especially in the age of social media, when a fiction writer's reputation is as much at risk from a mauling on twitter as a junior researcher who earns the ire of a senior member of a peer reviewed journal (one such situation being described in Eisen's blog post).
I will quote two extracts, one from Eisen and one from a response:
I am impressed by Eisen's perspective: he was angry at his treatment but was sufficiently self-possessed to sit back and consider the criticisms objectively, acknowledge those which were true (requiring no small amount of self-knowledge, a virtue sorely lacking in most people), and most importantly of all, learn from them! I have met so few people who didn't just talk about learning and changing their philosophy of life and of themselves based on new evidence and learning, but actually went and did it, that I can count them on the fingers of one mutilated hand. I approve mightily of human beings like Eisen.
So, to return to the central question: is it better to be anonymous or open?
Openness brings with it the cachet of credibility, whilst anonymity provides protection.
However, anonymity gives the user the power to say the things that must, or should, be said according to principles of justice, fairness and legality, without suffering great personal cost to that user's career. This power is counter-balanced by the ability to abuse without fear of consequence.
Hence, openness is often better respected in the first instance because everyone who interacts with an 'open' user knows they must be as careful and measured in their comments as if they were speaking to a live audience.
A final question: the vast majority of users on these forums have what amount to anonymous usernames in that they are not their real names. You've built up reputations, crafted on online persona that may not be like your real one, and have invested in this new person. But do you now wish you had done all that under your real name? Or do you agree with Eisen when he says the following:
