Manish over at Damn Foreigner relates an exchange that highlights the important difference between anonymous and pseudonymous writing.
Apparently Andrew Sullivan was criticizing Atrios on Minnesota Public Radio for not revealing his "true" identity, claiming that no one can evaluate his positions without knowing who he is. However, Mr. Sullivan misses the fact that we can evaluate Atrios' writing in its own context because it is published under a consistent name; Atrios has chosen to allow his writing to stand on its own merit, a decision Mr. Sullivan should appreciate as a fellow writer who has written pseudonymously himself (follow that link at your own risk). Pseudonymous writing has a long and noble history, including works such as The Federalist Papers and authors such as Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens. As long as pseudonyms are used consistently, writings done under pen names are as easy to criticize and evaluate as those done under real names. (And what's the difference between a real name and a consistently-assumed false name, anyway?)
In contrast anonymous writing is unattributable and often irrefutable because an anonymous author can change positions and arguments at any time without having to maintain intellectual honesty or consistency. Anonymous writing has as long a history as pseudonymous writing -- particularly in extremely oppressive conditions -- but it's generally rightly seen as cowardly and prima facie unpersuasive unless the work can stand entirely on its own without any external support (as could be provided by other works from the same pseudonymous writer). Anonymous writing can often serve to call attention to a cause, but the actual work of building a case must afterwards be accomplished by writers with names.
Eponymous, anonymous, and pseudonymous writing all have their place, and freedom of expression demands that all be allowed; ultimately the decision belongs to each individual author. There are trade-offs for each.
As for myself, I use my real name because I'm not particularly afraid of persecution and I enjoy seeing my name pop up in Google.
Unfortunately I share a name with a country singer from Texas who is very popular in (of all places) Norway. So searching for my name doesn't get you much that actually deals with me.
Yeah, anonymous/pseudonyous bloggers suck. Oh, wait.
I haven't used my last name in my blog, or my comments on other blogs simply for the fact that I don't even want to take the slight chance something I say will be misinterpreted or otherwise cause someone to be so angry they want to come after me or (more importantly) my family.
Case in point - the CCW debate. In all that happened over several blogs (mine, yours and SU's included) it was mostly civil but others it wasn't so civil. If my position had angered someone so much they went off the deep end, making my name available would've been foolish and dangerous.
Another reason, and I've never figured out why James Lileks does this, is that I blog a lot about my family - my 4-yr-old daughter in particular - and you never know when someone might say, "hey, cute kid............" and if they know my name and find out where I live, who knows what might happen.
Others, like South Knox Bubba, use a pseudonym to protect their business livelihood from those in the business world who might not share their political philosophies.
So there are many reasons...
Unfortunately I share a name with a country singer from Texas who is very popular in (of all places) Norway. So searching for my name doesn't get you much that actually deals with me.
Yeah, altho it can be funny to see what "you" have done with "your" life. Apparently I've been in the Army several times, going all the way back to the American Revolution. I've also run for US Senate.
My real name isn't shared with anyone famous, but it's generic enough that it wouldn't really tell anyone anything useful. Besides, it's a lot easier to get "Xrlq" than [mumble] to the top of the Google rankings.