The subcultural archaeologist

The Roster - Cult of the Dead Cow The cDc roster, read as literary text The Roster exists because the definitive cDc book already exists — and it never read the names. Joseph Menn documented what the members did; Reuters revealed who Psychedelic Warlord was; the L0pht testimony is a museum piece. What no one did was treat the roster as a composed body of text — a found poem written collectively across forty years by people who would have denied writing one. The publication occupies that unattended vantage: handles as literary objects, not identifiers. Success arrives when the community itself has to reckon with the reading — when a cDc member encounters a close read of their own handle and finds it has seen something in the name they hadn't. The mechanism is accumulation. Each issue delivers a self-contained pleasure — watching three syllables get read further than they seem able to go — but over time the publication builds something more durable: a trained ear and a reusable critical vocabulary for underground self-naming. A reader who has absorbed twelve issues of the naming grammar hears handles differently — not just cDc's, but any handle in any subculture. That accumulation is what turns casual discovery into serial return. The reader who stays is not chasing the subject's novelty; they are sharpening a sensibility. The editorial approach is monographic and critical. cDc is the permanent center; neighboring groups (LOD, MOD, L0pht) appear strictly as contrast to sharpen what makes cDc's naming cDc's. The publication carries its own world — enough context that a reader with no prior knowledge of cDc can follow the argument, but no biography, no retelling of known history, no explainer of what cDc did. The writing treats a chosen name with the seriousness folklore gives a true name: a handle is a made self, and the publication proves, issue by issue, that the names were always worth reading this closely. To produce the first sustained critical reading of cDc handles as literary text, building a transferable poetics of underground self-naming — a taxonomy of naming moves (borrowed grandeur, pun-as-armor, morbid-cute, the deliberately plain, phonetic distortion) derived from the cDc corpus and tested against neighboring rosters. The publication is the proof-of-concept that early internet self-presentation is legitimate critical territory. The cDc roster and its primary-source documentation — textfiles (358 files, Internet Archive), signed t-files, HOPE conference recordings, FBI FOIA documents, on-record oral histories, and Joseph Menn's published reporting — read through the lens of literary close reading and onomastic analysis. Neighboring hacker groups (Legion of Doom, Masters of Deception, L0pht Heavy Industries, Hacktivismo, Ninja Strike Force) serve as foils. The naming grammar extends outward to other self-naming traditions (graffiti tags, drag names, APT threat-actor codenames, rap handles) strictly to test and demonstrate the framework's transferability, with cDc always as the spine. - Biography or profile of cDc members as people — the subject is the name, not the named - Retelling of cDc history, exploits, tools, or political activism — the audience already owns the Menn book and will recognize rehash on contact - Explainers of what cDc is or why it matters — the publication assumes the reader either already knows or will follow the argument without a primer - Material that requires private archives, unpublished correspondence, or paywalled sources — the public record is the ceiling - Aesthetic ranking or subjective judgment without analytical scaffold — every reading must have a researchable question at its center - Speculation about the private lives, motivations, or undisclosed identities of living individuals — where a handle belongs to a named living person, the publication works only from public work and public statements - Expansion of the publication's center beyond cDc — when the roster is exhausted, the work is done The subcultural archaeologist Came through textfiles.com, Jason Scott's archival work, or the BBS scene itself. Has read Menn's book, knows the Wikipedia roster, has listened to the HOPE and Defcon talks. Their relationship to cDc is not nostalgic but frustrated — they have always intuited that the handles were worth more than the histories gave them credit for, but lacked the vocabulary and framework to articulate why. They arrive knowing the corpus and expecting the publication to earn their trust by never explaining what they already know. Any biographical context, any "cDc was founded in 1984" scaffolding, any retelling of the Back Orifice or Beto stories will be recognized as filler and will erode credibility immediately. They judge analytical quality harshly and will leave if the reading is thinner than what they could produce themselves. They use the publication as a framework for something they've been intuiting without language — and as proof that taking handles seriously is not an eccentric hobby but a legitimate critical practice. Gains a structured vocabulary — specific, named categories of naming moves — for patterns they have felt but never articulated. After twelve issues, they can explain what makes cDc's naming grammar distinct from LOD's, and why that distinction matters. The underlying stake is validation: the publication proves that the ear they've always had was hearing something real. The internet cultural critic Trained in close reading — literary criticism, linguistics, folklore, or cultural studies — and already applying those tools to digital culture: memes, platform aesthetics, forum rhetoric, online identity performance. Arrives via an oblique reference and recognizes the methodology before they know the corpus. They do not need to be told that a chosen name is worth reading seriously; they need to be shown that this particular corpus rewards the method. The publication is written for this reader: it carries enough context that the critical argument lands without requiring prior knowledge of cDc, the BBS era, or hacker history. They will judge whether the framework is rigorous enough to cite and transferable enough to apply in their own work. Superficial readings or overstated claims will lose them — they know what strong close reading looks like. Discovers a rich, under-examined corpus that proves early internet self-presentation is legitimate critical territory — as worthy of close reading as a Plath poem or a blues stage name. Gains a transferable framework (the naming grammar) they can apply to any self-naming tradition they encounter professionally. The underlying stake is intellectual permission: the publication is the proof-of-concept they can point to. Written for the cultural critic, earned by the archaeologist. The prose carries its own world — enough context that the critical argument is self-supporting without prior knowledge of cDc — but never condescends to the reader who already lives there. No biographical primers, no "cDc was a hacking group founded in..." scaffolding. Context enters only when the reading requires it: the slaughterhouse origin matters when it illuminates the naming; it does not appear as background. The mode is essayistic and philosophical — a critic reading a masthead like a lyric. The writing is prose-driven, not list-driven or taxonomic. Even the naming grammar (which is inherently categorical) should read as argument, not inventory. The register is serious without being solemn — the kind of sustained critical attention that treats its subject with more care than the subject's creators would have expected, but never more than the reading can support. The sensibility is that of a critic who finds more in three syllables than the author intended to put there, and knows that this surplus meaning is the point. Avoid academic jargon-as-authority (no "semiotic valence" or "discursive formation" unless the term does work nothing else can). Avoid journalistic breeziness. The tone is closer to a novelist's criticism — Brandon Taylor reading Zola, not a security journalist profiling a hacker. The handles themselves are frequently comic — morbid-cute, absurdist, pun-laden — and the writing should hear that comedy without performing it. The humor is in the precision of the reading, not in the writer's own jokes. When "The Deth Vegetable" is funny, the writing should show exactly how and why it's funny — the two-register collision, the phonetic misspelling as comedy — without trying to be funnier than the handle. The publication has one implicit argument: that chosen names are authored texts and deserve the same critical attention as any other literary object. This argument is advanced through demonstration, not assertion. The publication never argues that handles should be taken seriously; it takes them seriously and lets the reading justify the attention. No contested political or personal axes. Where handles belong to public figures (O'Rourke, Zatko), the publication reads the name, not the person's politics or career decisions. The Beto O'Rourke / Psychedelic Warlord intersection is a naming question (what happens when a subcultural handle meets a campaign), not a political one. Hacker-scene terminology (handle, t-file, textfile, BBS, phreaking, leet) should be used naturally and defined only when the definition itself is part of the reading — e.g., "leet" is worth defining when the argument is about phonetic distortion as a naming move. Literary-critical terminology should be plain-language wherever possible; when a technical term is genuinely necessary (register, intertextuality, onomastics), use it without apology but without accumulating jargon density. Every reading must be grounded in a specific, citable textual object: a handle, a textfile byline, a conference recording timestamp, a FOIA page, a published interview. The publication does not speculate about what a handle "might mean" to its bearer; it reads what the handle does in the texts where it appears. Where handle origins are documented (Sir Dystic's 1930s comic source, Count Zero's Gibson novel), cite the source. Where origins are undocumented, read the name's construction and register without inventing provenance. When a handle belongs to a living person whose legal name is public, work only from public statements and published material. A respectful reading of a chosen name, never a file kept on a private individual. The detail never exceeds what the reading requires. The publication is not news-driven. Its subjects are archival and its arguments are durable. Timeliness enters only when a public event creates a context-collision worth reading — a handle appearing in congressional testimony, a mainstream news cycle, a policy appointment — and even then the publication reads the naming event, not the news. Primary sources are the foundation: cDc textfiles (358 files, Internet Archive collection "cultdeadcow-master"), Phrack archives, HOPE conference recordings (Internet Archive), FBI FOIA documents (Internet Archive, "CultOfTheDeadCow"), and published on-record interviews. Joseph Menn's *Cult of the Dead Cow* (PublicAffairs, 2019) is the definitive secondary source for biographical and historical context. textfiles.com (Jason Scott's archive) provides primary material and scene-level context. For neighboring groups used as foils: Lex Luthor's own 1990 history of LOD (tech-insider.org/hackers/research/1990/0520.html) is a primary source. Wikipedia entries for Legion of Doom, Masters of Deception, and L0pht are adequate for roster lists when corroborated. For cross-domain naming traditions (drag, graffiti, APT codenames), peer-reviewed or book-length treatments are preferred over blog posts. Handle etymologies must be sourced — attributed to the bearer's own statement, a documented reference text, or a published interview. When no source exists, the writing reads the handle's construction (phonetics, orthography, register) without asserting origin. The standard cDc narrative — founding story, Back Orifice, Beto reveal, L0pht testimony, hacktivism — is exhaustively covered and the audience knows it by heart. Any source that merely retells this narrative adds nothing. Use these sources only when they contain a specific detail about a handle's origin, context, or usage that the narrative summaries omit. Forum posts and wiki-style aggregations listing cDc members with real names should be cross-referenced against at least one primary or high-quality secondary source before treating attributions as reliable. The Democratic Underground member list, for example, is corroborated by Menn and Wikipedia but should not be used as a sole source. Avoid conflating the handle with the person. A source that profiles Peiter Zatko's career at DARPA is useful only if it documents how "Mudge" functioned in that institutional context. Biography that does not illuminate the name is outside scope.

Stay updated.