M: I need to remember that as I make my books. :) Covers certainly make a difference for me, along with typography (a biggie) and paper type and the feel of the book. For the record, I love the feel of Nicholas Basbanes’ books.

Book covers. Oh, that’s a bit of a sore spot for me. I really don’t like Catcher in the Rye, but I’m not throwing it off my bookshelf because that cover is just so darn good.

Lisa: A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
Bart: Not if you call ‘em stenchblossoms.

I think names DO carry weight, despite our ideal that content matters. We tell people not to judge a book by its cover because, the fact is, they do. I believe it’s true that using a real name carries more credibility than a silly alias like “smoochmonkey” or something along those lines. That’s why we use real names or initials in work e-mail addresses–because we want to look professional. And if you were looking in the yellow pages for a lawyer, would you rather pick someone named Ginger or someone named Catherine?

M: Agreed. (Again. :))

“Anyway, do you think anonymous writings (whether posts or comments or whatever) carry enough weight that they could do the same thing nowadays? Or is there a stigma attached?”

It depends on the topic and the expertise of the person making the comment. A person with celebrity is oft given a weighted advantage over a learned person with a deep understanding. What does actor X know about foreign policy that makes him the expert? On the other hand, if an expert were to debate anonymously, given their superior knowledge of the topic, the expert’s argument should prevail if properly presented.

My take on it is that logic would prevail if everything else was left out of the mix. However, if the topic is a moral issue, personality would play a weighted role in the outcome.

“If the President proposed a major policy plan, then had an underground campaign of letters to the editor, blog entries, comments on major sites and calls to public radio, people would get upset.” Ask anyone who has worked in a call center on one of these campaigns about it.

There is no “if” about it. This does happen. My point is that logic would have a better chance to rule if personality, party affiliation… were left out of the equation and ONLY the policy was considered.

Example: If Hillary were to say, “I think people should pay tithing,” the reaction would be Bill dropped his pants. If Bush says the same thing people would respond, “Republicans don’t want to pay taxes.”

I believe that Issue X has a better chance of being debated on solely on its own merits if personality and party are left out of the equation.

rikker: And I agree with you, too. :) It seems that perhaps as a general rule, transparency is good, except in cases where it would subvert the purpose of the writer (as M mentions with FSJ) or where it would endanger them.

Janet: I figured that was what you meant — the only way you could possibly disagree with what I said was if you thought the post I quoted wasn’t interesting. :P Anyway, do you think anonymous writings (whether posts or comments or whatever) carry enough weight that they could do the same thing nowadays? Or is there a stigma attached?

M₂: Agreed.

Man, I want to re-read the Federalist Papers. It’s been too long… (To be specific, I haven’t read them since my AP Government class seven years ago.)