I am an aspiring writer. I am happy to publish most of my work under my real name. On the other hand, I am tempted to publish some of my work under a pseudonym, in order to free myself to speak more brutally than my mainstream work. What do you think?
As a bibliographer, I don’t see the point of using pseudonyms. Why? Because those of us with access to Library of Congress authority records can find out your real name anyway. I am sure that librarians pass this information along to patrons. This may not have any effect in a bookstore, but if you are a library patron also and you happen to know of a pseudonym, you would probably share that information.
I can kind of see why publishers would want authors to use pseuds, from a marketing standpoint. For example, Ellis Peters wrote a great series of mysteries featuring a Benedictine monk named Cadfael. Under her real name, she wrote just historical novels. Also, Anne Rice writes horror under her real name and erotica under her pseudonym, Anne Rampling. So I guess the theory is that, marketing campaigns can be assigned according to the name used.
I am not sure if I answered your question. It is a personal decision anyway.
Rice actually writes her erotica under the pseudonym A.N. Roquelaure.
It’s up to you. There are a variety of reasons why people use pseudonyms. Some involve marketing (Robin Hobb, H. Turtletaub), others because the real name might be confusing (Lawrence Watt-Evans; Michael Kube-McDowell, whose real names were close to those of other authors), some because no one would believe their real name (Eric G. Iverson, a pseudonym forced on the author when the editor felt no one would believe there was a “Harry Turtledove”), because the real name might look to wierd (S.P. Somtow) to protect their identitity (Robert Jordan), or just for the hell of it (C. J. Cherryh).
If you want to write under a pseudonym for your work, go right ahead.
Yes, I forgot Roquelaure, but she also published erotica under the pseud Anne Rampling.
…and ready29003, chicksdigscars, Snooooopy, and RealityChuck are all your real names? 
Sorry… I couldn’t resist.
Sure, chicksdigscars is my real name! Wanna see my ID?
Not quite the same situation, though. We are writing here under these names, unpaid (unless you all know something I don’t!), whereas, a professional writer who uses a pseud has the expectation of getting paid. So I guess our motivation is pure anonymity whereas the motivation of the professional writer is anonymity and bankability?
Nothing wrong with using a pseudonym, especially if you want to switch genres.
Or, heck, if you have something to hide.
I, for example, last year was working for a magazine aimed at military and government technology buyers. But one of my best pals is Senior Editor at a competing pub. He tossed some free lance work my way and I had several columns published in his pub under a pen name.
This is the old ‘protect one’s job’ pseudonym.
When I was starting out as a writer I must have had 20 pen names.
I had so many for a number of reasons most of them monetary. For instance, a number of magazines would have contests for “first time” writers. I got at least seven of those (I was hungry in those days. I needed the money.) Once I had gained some recognizability under one name other types of magazines would not even consider me for their type. So if I, say wrote under “Terrance Verne” for Amazing, I would write under “Verne Terry” for Old West and as Teri Vance for True Confessions (in those days only a female name could sell to True Confessions) and so forth.
My banker knew what I was doing as did my friends who let me use their addresses so all of the submissions didn’t come from the same place.
I suppose there was some fear of failure too. If I were to fail as Teri Vance once I had established myself as Terrance Verne, it wouldn’t hurt Terrance any. Or perhaps I was afraid that if I did ever write the great American novel, I wouldn’t want to be accociated with the hack stuff that litterally kept me alive for a quite a while.
These days, I’m rather proud of my output.
TV
Well, considering that my stuff is on Teemings under my SDMB nom de plume CalMeacham, I’d say that I would definitely publish under a pseudonym.
I want to publish SF under an assumed name, and I’ve got one all picked out.
Worked okay for Mark Twain, George Sand, George Eliot, Stendhal, Saki, O. Henry, Colette… (just off the top of my head).
H.H. Munro is a Wry Swine.
So who is Mitchell Smith?
My wife reads a lot of romance novels. The one thing I could never understand was a series of books written by Nora Roberts, “writing as J.D. Robb”.
What is up with that? Either use the pseudonym or use your real name. Why have BOTH the pseudonym and the real name?
It’s usually because the author became marketable under her own name, but published other works originally under the pseudonym (I suppose it could work the other way, but can’t think of an example). The same thing happened with Stephen King – he published some novels as Richard Bachman. When this was discovered, the books were reissued as “Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman” on the cover.
Why don’t they just bill them as Roberts or King? Because books are originally catalogued under the author’s name. There are libraries and other places that will have older editions and file the book under the original pseudonym. Changing the name to the actual author can create confusion.
It’s the same thing with titles – if a book title changes, the older title is usually listed on the cover. That led to the classic BC comic collection Life is a $1.95 Paperback (formerly Life is a $1.75 Paperback, formerly Life is a $1.25 Paperback, formerly Life is a 95-Cent Paperback, formerly Life is a 75-Cent Paperback) 
I got 10 hits for a Mitchell Smith when I looked up that name. A book title would be helpful since that is a common name.
Well, that is what the Library of Congress authority records exist, to keep track of authors, titles, series, etc.
Sure. But the Library of Congress usually catalogs things under the first author’s name. And they can’t remove that entry in case someone wants to look up Bachman and doesn’t know the King connection. So Bachman has to remain in their files or they aren’t complete.
Actually, under current cataloging rules, libraries catalog books under whatever name appears on the title page, even if that name is known to be a pseudonym. If I were to get a first edition Richard Bachman book to catalog, on which Stephen King’s name does not appear, then I would enter it under Bachman, even though I know that Bachman is really King.
In the case of authors who write under multiple names (or, as we say in the library biz, “separate bibliographic identities”), the Library of Congress maintains multiple name authority records, with cross-references between the names in question. Thus, Richard Bachman and J.D. Robb each have their own authority records, completely separate from the authority records of Stephen King and Nora Roberts.
This doesn’t seem to be so in the specific case of Nora Roberts. I did a bit of browsing at her website (noraroberts.com, if you’re interested). In this case, J.D. Robb does seem to be literally a “separate bibliographic identity.” She is still actively publishing under both names. Robb appears to be a pseudonym established specifically for the purpose of changing her genre slightly. The Roberts books are straight romances; the Robb books are romances set in the year 2058–making them technically SF, I suppose, although they never seem to be marketed that way. As you can see if you look at her site, she doesn’t make any secret of this. I was also somewhat amused to see that Nora Roberts and J.D. Robb are scheduled to collaborate on a novel this year.
This is fun. It’s so rarely that I get to natter about library cataloging!
In retrospect, I realize that my first two paragraphs kind of duplicate what RealityChuck just said. But I enjoyed the chance to elaborate on it a little. 