Books published under real names - Reclaim her name

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53755117

Books by women published under male pseudonyms are now being republished under the authors' real names. For example, Middlemarch by Mary Ann Evans.

Paper sets are being donated to (UK) libraries, but e copies are available free from https://www.baileys.com/en-gb/reclaim-her-name-campaign

Note: The website requires a birthdate, because it belongs to Bailey's.

Inquiring minds want to know: Is Bailey's considered a women's drink? (I've never tasted the stuff.)

Interesting question.

While not logged in and with no cookies to bias the results, I asked google: is baileys for women girls. The first page of the google response says yes.

I asked google: is baileys for men boys. The first page is half the same results saying its a female's drink, and half about a murderer who was supposed to be homosexual because he drank Baileys (this is where stereotyping ends up apparently).

The creation myth is different though. It's claimed that the original men's focus group all drank their glasses dry but then claimed it's a "girly drink", while the women's focus group were less keen and said it tasted like a popular anti-diarrhoea medicine "Kaolin and Morphine", lol.

Baileys claim it's bought/drunk equally by men and women.

/anecdata

Back to the original topic: I'm not convinced rebranding by gender segregating names is especially feminist, as it would seem to appeal more to binary gender segregationists who tend to be more culturally conservative (in most anglophone Bailey's drinking countries). ETA: I mean, John Wayne's birth name was Marion and not so long ago Hilary was perceived as a masculine name.

In cases where women wrote using a male pseudonym because that was more acceptable than their own name, I think there may be some merit in reminding people that actually some of these classic works were written by women -- that doesn't seem to me to be as much "gender segregation" as recognizing a female achievement that has been obscured by the prioritizing of male identities. I'm guessing there is a not insignificant number of people who don't realize that George Eliot was a woman...

Ursula K. Le Guin wrote somewhere about one of her early short stories being published under the name "U.K. Le Guin" and only later realizing why and (if I recall correctly) wishing in retrospect that she had insisted on the publication using her full name.

I'm not sure I agree with changing names in all cases, since there are all sorts of reasons why authors choose to publish using pen names. I'd be less comfortable simply swapping a pen name for a birth name in cases where the author chose it as a reflection of not conforming to gender norms of their era, particularly if they identified with the pen name in a way that extended beyond its use on the title page. (To be clear, I'm not talking about cases where someone has changed their name entirely -- this is just their name, not a pseudonym -- but rather of people who have, for example, adopted a separate persona in certain parts of their public or private life.) George Sand, for example, seems a bit more complicated than a pen name adopted for pragmatic reasons. I also don't know how I'd feel about the works of James Tiptree, Jr. being republished under the name Alice Sheldon.**

** Speaking of which, is there a reason LT doesn't include James Tiptree, Jr. in the list of "other names" in the common Knowledge entry? This seems rather odd...

>4 spiphany: **

1) Because nobody has entered it. If you want it there, you can enter it.

2) Because that field is for 'Other names', and the name at the top of the author page is hardly an 'other' name.

>4 spiphany:

is there a reason LT doesn't include James Tiptree, Jr. in the list of "other names"

Aside from the fact that "LT" doesn't list anything in CK (individual members do that), the Author page is under "James Tiptree, Jr. The same name is not an "other" name.

Same reason "Mark Twain" is not listed as an "other name" on the Mark Twain page, or "George Sand" on the George Sand page.

I realize that CK is entered by LT users and I also realize that the most commonly used name of an author appears at the top of the LT author pages.

I will rephrase my question: is there a logical reason for not including an author's pseudonym in the list of names in CK? In cases where an author is best-known by their pseudonym instead of their legal name, it seems rather absurd to me that the CK includes all names except the one that actually appears on their books. I would have interpreted "other names" as contrasting with "legal name" (and possibly "canonical name"), not as contrasting with "name that appears on the top of the page".

I agree with the remark that this is a little more complicated than it might appear. Superficially it seems like a nice idea and, possibly, informative to many, but I'd be curious to know (if only there were a way...) how the writers would have felt about it.

Not implying anything, just genuinely curious.

>4 spiphany: >8 LolaWalser: I agree that it's difficult to guess what authors who're no longer with us would have wanted if they had a free choice.

Would some authors have preferred to keep either pseudonymity or anonymity? Probably, yes, but some would also have preferred their everyday name.

I like to think George Eliot would have liked to be Mary Ann Evans.

Alice Sheldon / Raccoona Sheldon / James Tiptree Jr is an interesting example, especially because of the former James Tiptree Jr Award (now the Otherwise Award). I mean, if your pen name is famous enough to have an award named after you....

I knew about Ursula K. Le Guin (who used to be published here in the UK as Ursula Le Guin, supposedly because we didn't conventionally use middle names or initials or Jr etc). I've often wondered why JK Rowling didn't opt for Joanne Rowling as soon as she had the power to do so. I'm sure there's a public explanation for this but one never really knows whether that reflects private realities. And how would the Brontes feel about their various publication names?

>7 spiphany:

I would have interpreted "other names" as contrasting with "legal name" (and possibly "canonical name"), not as contrasting with "name that appears on the top of the page".

The latter is the way it is generally understood here.

It seems likely that in the cases where the male pseudonym was adopted out of sheer necessity (say, because otherwise they could not publish) reverting to one's own name would be welcome.

But I wonder if it was always that stark a choice, without some other factors coming into play. I know very little about the lives and personalities involved so can only speculate (and not very far at that).

Am I wrong in thinking that taking on male pseudonyms became a thing from the 19th century onward? Madame de Staël apparently had less trouble finding fame--and respect--for her literary and political output, back in the 18th century. Or, I don't know, even earlier, Aphra Behn, say, wasn't she fairly famous?

And I wonder about George Eliot in particular. There's an interesting essay of hers that Penguin republished not too long ago as an independent booklet, Silly novels by lady novelists. (Published in the series "Penguin Great Ideas"--make of it what you will.) It's hard to guess at the psychology here (and there's no doubt the books she discusses sound preposterous) but I would say she felt ashamed to be included, however casually, into the company of women writers when women writers were turning out such rubbish and were known for turning out such rubbish.

I imagine that at least in some cases adopting male pseudonyms wasn't only or predominantly a technical necessity, but an expression of attitude, a promise of sorts about what kind of writing it was, one was producing (none of that frivolous feminine rubbish etc.)

As for Rowling, to me she seems profoundly, reflexively misogynistic, based on the Potter books and the first two (or was it three) of that crime series. I'm not claiming this would be why she published originally in a way that masked her gender (I presume the publishers played a role in that) or even why she continued to publish using the initials (and a post-fame male pseudonym), I can't claim anything that specific.

But that she depreciates women and values men and masculinity in a way utterly conforming to the usual traditionalist, patriarchal patterns, always seemed glaring to me. So, I'm not surprised that she'd stick to the initials or employ a male pseudonym regardless of necessity.

>9 spiralsheep: On Rowling, some of the recent furor she's created as a result of transphobic remarks are fairly revealing about her attitudes towards womanhood, which I wouldn't consider particularly feminist. It strikes me as interesting that she chose an obviously male pseudonym for her recent crime fiction series.

More generally: I've been trying to think of whether there are any examples of male-identifying authors choosing to publish under a female pseudonym for any reason other than dubious assumptions about audience (e.g. that the author must be female to successfully sell books in certain genres that are mostly read by women). Yasmina Khadra is the only one that comes to mind.

There's an interesting article on male authors using female pseudonyms here: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/men-are-pretending-to-...

Off the top I would add that, as much as acceding to publishers' demands, there was likely a need to conform to class expectations of what a lady could do without compromising her social position or that of her husband.

An interesting counter example is the composer and performer Pauline Viardot-Garcia (or just Viardot), 1821-1910. Perhaps because she came from a family of performers she could mingle in the upper echelons not entirely subsumed into her husband's identity and renowned for running one of the most fashionable salons in Paris.

I've seen an engraving of one salon where the audience comprises pretty much the political elite of Europe at the time. Her biography, Pauline Viardot is well worth tracking down, as are her chansons.

>11 LolaWalser: >13 librorumamans: "male pseudonyms became a thing from the 19th century onward? Madame de Staël apparently had less trouble finding fame--and respect--for her literary and political output, back in the 18th century. Or, I don't know, even earlier, Aphra Behn, say, wasn't she fairly famous?"

You're correct, yes. Earlier in European history marital status and class (or caste) was a more important factor in which women could read, write, or publish.

Church women who wrote for circulation under their religious name were usually of upper class origin and married (to God) and therefore allowed a public voice in restricted circumstances.

Aristocratic women circulated their poems unsigned within their social group but most readers would have known the authors so it was socially constructed fake anonymity for "modesty". Publication to strangers, "the public", was shameful exposure.

Then working women, who emphasised their respectable married status by using the polite middle-class form Mrs Behn or Mrs Manley (no maidens or spinsters allowed!), published professionally for money, which was supposedly economically and socially shameful because of their immodest public exposure.

And, btw, if we're reclaiming women's names such as Aphra Behn from Mrs Behn and Delarivier Manley from Mrs Manley then can we also have Germaine de Staël rather than Madame (wife of) de Staël (husband's name)? I see no reason to unnecessarily replicate sexist classist status markers from the past. As this whole thread reveals that limited choices for women in the past don't need repeating now.

Then, as public politics became more revolutionary for men, it was women and the lower classes who were the easiest targets for intellectual repression. Ironically the new Polite Society, that Jane Austen wrote about so effectively, became increasingly repressive to women authors who wanted to claim both social and intellectual respectability, hence the return to fake anonymity and use of masculine pseudonyms (although there are always exceptions).

As for Mary Anne "George Eliot" Evans, yes, she wanted to claim her place in the intellectual elite and found a way of attempting that in a hostile society. I can try to understand her actions but I don't feel I can judge them.

>13 librorumamans: Yes.

And not only the work of wives and daughters subsumed deliberately or incidentally by the reputations of their male relatives but also sisters, e.g. not everything published by F. Mendelssohn is by Felix....

>12 spiphany: Thank you for the article and example. Both very interesting!

The only example that immediately springs to my mind is the bluff Yorkshireman who was a bestselling Mills and Boon romance author for many years under various feminine pen names. Later in his career it was common knowledge and the subject of newspaper profiles. Some men also made careers writing anonymously for girls' own comics in the UK but I can't think of any pseuds. One of my favourite comic strips when I was a girl was apparently written for many years by a man: it was a satirical comedy about a servant girl who often accidentally bested her middle class employers and their daughters.

ETA: I don't want to derail this to focus on men but I did think of one interesting example of a man inspired to write under a feminine pen name: Fiona MacLeod.

>14 spiralsheep:

And, btw, if we're reclaiming women's names such as Aphra Behn from Mrs Behn and Delarivier Manley from Mrs Manley then can we also have Germaine de Staël rather than Madame (wife of) de Staël (husband's name)? I see no reason to unnecessarily replicate sexist classist status markers from the past. As this whole thread reveals that limited choices for women in the past don't need repeating now.

Funny, I'd say the thread shows there's no single view on the utility of "reclaiming" these authors' birth names.

As for Madame de Staël etc., my personal choice is to use designations that currently aid rather than hinder communication. Younger generations may be growing into different habits with "reclaimed" names and gender-neutral address, and good for them.

>12 spiphany:

Interesting article, but shows how much stereotyping persists.

Martyn books, he explains, “were more complex, more metaphorical. The kind of things I like in writing.” Tania books were simpler: mainstream commercial thrillers aimed at a female audience.

Women take on male pseudonyms to appear serious and smart; men take on female pseudonyms to dumb down... (granted, maybe this particular dude is particularly obnoxious--oooh, my "clever" books aimed at smart men like me are doing less well than the junk I churn out for stupid women.)

I don't read this type of stuff (usually) so feel there's little I can say... except that I'm very surprised if this is true:

One of the biggest surprises for Waites when he adopted the persona of Tania Carver was learning how much women readers enjoyed, even craved, brutality in stories.

It's so contrary to my own experience I find it hard to believe, even countenance the idea intellectually.

But I'm very curious to know if it's really true. Let's have a shaggy poll:

>16 LolaWalser: "I'd say the thread shows there's no single view on the utility of "reclaiming" these authors' birth names."

That's why I said "can we" as a question.

I see your personal answer is no and that you'll only change after a other people have already established change, which is fair enough but if everyone took that view then usages would never alter.

I'm personally happy to be at the forefront of changing Mrs Behn to Aphra Behn and Madame de Staël to Germaine de Staël and no-one has ever mistaken my meaning because context supplies any deficiency.

>16 LolaWalser: Oh, definitely, there are all sorts of assumptions going on in that article. I wasn't posting it as a positive example of progress; I thought it was interesting precisely because it is so revealing about some of the (to me) unexpected perceptions about genre and readers that are still very much part of the publishing industry.

I mean, apparently it isn't uncommon for writers of romance novels to assume a pseudonymous identity that doesn't match their own -- terribly problematic, of course, but not especially surprising in a genre where emotional identification with the characters is a central part of the reading experience.

I don't generally read thrillers, either, so I can't say much about what draws readers (of any gender) to them. I do know there have been some studies of the mystery genre that argue it's not just about the crime, but about the restoration of social order through the act of solving the crime. There may be something similar going on with thrillers, or horror, or dystopian fiction: fiction provides a safe place in which we can confront the things that we fear.

I don't see this as an inherently gendered need, but there may be reasons why women might, overall, feel especially drawn to this -- because we experience dangers and fears in our daily life that the average white heterosexual man does not, and because many of the ways that men can process fear or violent urges are not considered socially acceptable for women.

>17 spiralsheep:

I take your point. Admittedly, if my environment involved a lot of talk about these people, my priorities might change. As it is, I can't remember having a conversation about literature in my professional life, let alone about female authors' pseudonyms.

However, when it comes to everyday and historical sexism in my profession, insults and injustice that seriously harm myself and others, I have confronted it head on from my university days and expect to keep doing so.

>18 spiphany:

I don't see this as an inherently gendered need, but there may be reasons why women might, overall, feel especially drawn to this -- because we experience dangers and fears in our daily life that the average white heterosexual man does not, and because many of the ways that men can process fear or violent urges are not considered socially acceptable for women.

I had to think back to my "perennial" question about where are/why aren't there women writers and readers à la Jim Thompson, the "sadistic school" of pulp reversed, with a female readership that would bask in the brutalization of men. (Part of the answer is of course "well, misogyny"--within a misogynistic system it's not possible for this type of literature to express the "opposite" or sincerely cater to anyone but misogynists.)

So it's interesting to watch how this scene is changing (if it is).

But if the focus is still on the victimisation of women... that, at least, is not new.

And if, as you suggest, the motivation for such reads is a kind of catharsis and therapy for women, that would make it even less like the classic misogynistic pulp lit, which gave everything to men and nothing to women and served to reinforce the gender divide.

Btw, I don't mean that there ought to exist this "reversed" genre (women writing/enjoying violence against men as much as men write/enjoy violence against women); as before, I'm only noticing that it doesn't exist--to all appearances, still doesn't exist.

Further to Marian [sic] Evans, it occurs to me that she published in that name translations of Strauss's and Feuerbach's works on Christianity before (as far as I know) she started publishing fiction.

>20 librorumamans: I wonder if that work was rejected in some way because she was a woman and that effected her expression of her desire for intellectual recognition.

>19 LolaWalser: "However, when it comes to everyday and historical sexism in my profession, insults and injustice that seriously harm myself and others, I have confronted it head on from my university days and expect to keep doing so."

I don't know you well but this is how you appear to me, yes.

I have no worthwhile insights into why women read fiction depicting graphic misogynist violence.

I've just begun reading Mirror, Shoulder, Signal though, in which Dorthe Nors seems to have included Nordic Noir, misogynist violence, and why women read it, as one of her themes.