Last week saw the announcement of the National Book Awards annual “5 under 35” list. Seemingly establishing a new precedent, all five authors are female: Molly Antopol, Noviolet Bulawayo, Amanda Coplin, Daisy Hildyard and Merritt Tierce. The news is particularly interesting in light of the earlier Man Booker Prize revelation of a female-dominated shortlist. NoViolet Bulawayo’s ground-breaking work We Need New Names has secured her recognition by the Man Book panel, in addition to her well-earned place on the ‘5 under 35’ list.
Both announcements suggest an inclination towards inclusion: the celebration of, often unacknowledged, female literary talent. Yet, to suppose that this indicates a new precedent in critical equality between male and female authors is a mistake. Literary history abounds with gender discrimination. Many of the greatest female authors have fallen victim to the necessity of disguise, adopting male pseudonyms in an effort to circumvent prejudice. Charlotte Bronte, author of the magnificent Jane Eyre, published under the pen name Currer Bell. Her sister Emily, creator of the equally brilliant Wuthering Heights, hid behind the signature Ellis Bell.
That both women, arguably two of the world’s greatest literary geniuses, adopted male pseudonyms was a necessity of the age. It must not, however, be consigned to the realms of history. J.K. Rowling’s decision to publish her recent crime novel debut under the pen name Robert Galbraith demonstrates the permanence of the issue. According to the FAQs on Galbraith’s official website, the name was selected as an amalgamation of Rowling’s hero Robert F. Kennedy and her childhood invention of the name Ella Galbraith. The choice of a male pseudonym was, according to Rowling, entirely purposeful. The acclaim received by The Cuckoo’s Calling has led its author to proclaim, “I successfully channelled my inner bloke.” Rowling’s decision to submit to such preconceptions is hardly a surprise given that her editor, David Shelley, confessed upon reading the book that “I never would have thought a woman wrote that.”
I take issue with the idea that particular books could be the product of only a male or female mind. But it is such prejudice that drives the need for disguise and the supposition that concealing gender will generate critical recognition. Unfortunately, women find themselves side-lined in virtually every literary arena. Joanna Scutt’s guest article for The Riveter discusses one example: the bias against female book review editors. In publishing, there is a certain trend of masculinisation, a fact worsened by the loss of Random House’s Gail Rebuck and Harper Collins’s Victoria Barnsley in July. The UK’s four publishing giants are all now headed by men.
That the National Book Awards and the Man Booker Prize have recognised the importance of celebrating female literary talent is news to be celebrated. It is dangerous, however, to presume that this establishes a new precedent for gender equality in the field. Substantial battles remain in order to secure adequate representation of women’s contribution to literature. From editing, to reviewing, to authorship, the trend is arguably one of reinforcing male dominance. Revelation of the identity behind The Cuckoo’s Calling’s Robert Galbraith has thrown light on the prejudice that continues to dominate critical assessment of fictional works and their authors. With concerted effort, one must hope that it will be only a short while before no female writer must conceal her identity behind a male pen name. Yet this will only happen when the prejudice becomes as archaic as the practice.
Laura Clarke is a full-time PhD student and part-time writer living in London. Although she is studying human rights, Laura finds plenty of time to indulge in her love of all things literary. She is known to travel the length and breadth of the UK in search of bibliophilic hotspots and headlines. You can catch more of her literary adventures at The Book Habit.
