Something I see in the book, but haven't seen mentioned in other threads is the concept of mutable identity. There are people with false names, with no names, with new lives, and with incomplete names. People who are not who they claim, or not who they were. I need to read it again to get a better view of this, but I'd like to read some insights from folks who are more analytical than I.

In our world of ID theft, using our SSN's for just about everything and grocery store data-mining through "discount" cards, it's somewhat comforting to me that even though this is a fictional story, people can still plausibly hide their true identities.

After I read Spook Country again, I'll probably have something more to say about it, but that's it for now.

of course the obvious aspect of this is tito and the family. as garet says, he isn't even sure the family have a surname. then of course the old man. who is only ever referred to as the old man.

but even so. in the end milgrim is posing as something he isn't, a professer. and hollis at least denies she is who she is.

again i guess with hollis you have the idea of mediated personality. the perceptions people have of her, how they like her or inchmale, how heidi rejects her band name in favour of her real name. that image of hollis that was seen in record shops, an image (if i recall correctly) both milgrim and tito are semi-conscious of having encountered.

It occurs with other characters too. Garreth gives no surname. Bobby Chombo isn't really Chombo. And how do we know that Brown is really Brown? I wouldn't believe him.
Hollis, Inchmale, and Heidi/Laura I see as people who have exchanged a public identity for a more private one, in an attempt to get nearer to anonymity.

the Old Man

"Brown" is a classic pseudonym. His real name doesn't really matter - as far as Milgrim is concerned Brown is as Brown does.

yeah brown is just a smith really.

had forgotten about garreth not having a surname. initially was thinking thats because he was more minor character, but i think tito observes that garreth might not be his real name, and when he is talking to hollis he declines to offer one, and suggests its not even his first name, but perhaps a middle name.

To me, mutable identity is about there not being a genuine self to begin with. Gibson's work has always had a kind of Sartrean existenialism, to me. I agree with both Sartre and Daniel Dennet that selfhood is aqn illusion.

In the increasingly mediated world, or rather "the world" as Gibson mentioned in the book that there was really any non-mediated place left, the issue becomes altogether more pronounced as celbrity farms itself out as a surrogate for identity. Some celebs seem to have no unmediated self at all. I think we're all of us headed that way.