It seems like only a couple days ago that I explained to Eric Zorn why I blog pseudonymously. That’s because it was only a couple days ago. I often wonder if I’m a bit too paranoid, but given I post a lot on local issues in St. Louis and some of those posts are somewhat controversial it allows me to avoid uncomfortable situations. I wasn’t quite sure what might happen, but one of the issues was harassing calls or behavior. And I’m not convinced that being uncomfortable is enough of an excuse. Declaring what you believe might often be uncomfortable. I have a family and while I am certainly willing to accept accountability for what I write, the nuiscance of being known could be a problem. I believe the post on being cursed makes the point.

I’m not sure if I’ll remain pseudonymous for a lot of the initial reasons why I did aren’t really relevant anymore. On the other hand, Rochell Moore has asked her supporters to protect her with weapons.

I actually agree with Eric Zorn’s assesment today on pseudonymous writing,

A one-name newspaper byline, "Garbo," on a Tempo commentary "Will `Lesbian Eye’ be next? It’s unlikely anytime soon."

A one-name byline is automatically pseudonymous in our culture–a handful of celebrities excepted–though one-name and pseudonymous (and anonymous) writings go way back and include "Publius," the name under which Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers.

The practice has been rare in American letters and journalism over the last century or so, but I wonder if the internet culture isn’t giving it a big boost.

My 13-year-old son and his friends all IM each other using elaborate names for themselves even though in some cases they could use their own names or simple versions thereof; I’d guess that about half of the web logs and 80 percent of the message board postings I’ve looked at are written anonymously or pseudonymously, the ethic being that it doesn’t matter who you are, but what you say.

My feeling, as one whose name is always attached to his words, is that accountability is an important promoter of responsibility and accuracy. And who you are does matter to the reader. On the other hand, it would be nice to have a dashing nickname for an alter ego:

But at least for the near future, I’m going to remain pseudonymous. I always hope to make up for the disadvantage of being pseudonymous by trying hard to be honest and get the facts straight–especially when I am reporting. And I always try and make factual corrections obvious. In fact, I’ll dispute Rochell Moore’s claim that I got the story wrong–she did assert that Amy Hilgemann put cocaine in her coffee at the Board Meeting. Maybe Moore meant that Hilgemann helped plan it, but that is what I heard Moore say. I’m not sure that either claim makes Moore’s conspiracy theory any more reasonable. Actually, I am sure, it doesn’t make her conspiracy theory reasonable.

Then again, the way the curse situation could play out, I could be outed soon anyway. Many in St. Louis have already guessed my identity so it wouldn’t be a huge change, just an inconvenience in some instances.