nothing in true earnest done, right? But what if you’re supposed to be writing something that’s supposed to be true?
I am trying to start a new series of articles about some personal experiences, which are, most unfortunately, as real as…what do people compare reality to? Second base? Seventy-Second Street? Apparently something with seconds in it. Anyway, they’re real, and I’ve come up – not for the first time – against this stupid pseudonym problem. I think that if your writing is as good as it’s supposed to be, you shouldn’t need one. The only really good excuse I’ve ever seen for a pseudonym was Neil Gaiman’s for publishing too much, or similar concerns – like wanting to switch genres. I read an article online once, which I thought was on SFWA but couldn’t find it this time, about someone who had to change her name to get out from the authorial reputation.
But inevitably, the pseudonym becomes more successful than your name (Oronte Churm) because of the freedom of writing under it. I don’t know what I’m trying to say. This isn’t a very coherent way to begin a new blog theme.
I guess I just haven’t made up my mind whether I feel publish-and-be-damned about it or whether I feel private about it. This wouldn’t matter to me at all if it weren’t so clear that I’m writing these for the purpose of publication. Now that’s interesting.
The last time I used a pseudonym was in college and that was from just being shy. If I determine it’s just the same thing, I’m going to use my own name.