8 minute read
Essay: Male pseudonyms in Literature……………………….………..…...…Page
from The Stag Issue 6
by TheStag.
‘Currer Bell, George Eliot, George Sand, all the victims of inner strife as their writings prove, sought ineffectively to veil themselves by using the name of a man’. Do male pseudonyms represent repression or liberation when used by female writers?
Advertisement
Over the years, women have chosen to mask their identity by using a male pseudonym but whether this represents repression in their society or liberation by their ability to bypass the normalities should first be addressed by understanding some definitions. Repression is the action of repressing, with repress being defined as to “check, keep down or restrain (something bad or objectionable)” and liberation, by contrast, is “setting someone free from bondage or oppression”. Thus, to measure and evaluate how women writing under a male name represent and fulfil the previous definitions an exploration between the individual liberties and place in society is necessary.
Historically, women’s inferiority was reflected in society by their lack of liberties such as their inability to vote until 1918. The nature of this societal inequality significantly prevented women’s work to be published on the same grounds as men. Yet through using a male pseudonym women’s literary work was able to be published more readily with the literature itself being viewed rather than through the lens of gender discrimination. Expanding on this point, the renowned Charlotte Brontë initially sent a bundle of poems to Robert Southey, who was the poet laureate, but when he replied, deliberately stated that “Literature cannot be the business of a woman’s life, and it ought not to be”, which shows repressive nature of literary giants towards women of the time. Yet this did not stop her publishing her novel Jane Eyre under the pseudonym Currer Bell and various poems by herself and her sisters also using male names. The Brontë sisters were now able to place their work among their male peers, defying the oppressive patriarchal society they were living in ultimately fulfilling the definition of liberation. One contemporary writing in the Era newspaper went so far as to say that Currer holds “the gift of being able to write as he thinks and feels” showing that her work was being viewed and criticised for the content only, not the fact she was a woman, clearly showing that the Brontë sisters experienced the freedom to write by using a male mask.
Prior to the 1882 Married Women’s Property Act, any earnings that a woman made became their husband’s property, so even if women were able to publish their work, their facades would not bypass this law so the luxury and benefits of a successful literary career cannot be fulfilled. Thus, by veiling their name in a man’s identity, they are accepting that the patriarchal society makes women unequal by being afraid to submit work with their real names. Furthermore, by being able to name members such as George Sands, George Eliot, Acton, Ellis and Currer Bell, the number of female writers using a male pseudonym is certainly within the minority, which in turn highlights the repression against the rest of women during this period. These women all previously mentioned were literate and had access to education but the illiteracy rate in women in England, by 1840, was 50% therefore these women were not an accurate representation of
the female population. Woolf supports this idea through the imaginary symbol of Judith Shakespeare, William Shakespeare’s gifted sister whom “had no chance of learning grammar and logic” due to the repressive nature of a male dominated society. Woolf portrays this repression through the choice of noun “chance” suggesting the sheer extend of the lack of opportunities given to women still despite speaking decades later. Moreover, the lack of female writers and representation is held and maintained by faking a man’s name as it builds the illusion that women do not write and confirming their status. The lost potential of the future writers by these very women who were hiding behind this mask, will never be known. The number of women who wrote under a male name as well, unless revealed, will never be known so liberation cannot be justified as a definitive conclusion with the repression so much greater.
Currer Bell’s anonymity was short lived, as Virginia Woolf said herself, Charlotte Brontë “ineffectively” veiled herself using a man’s name so her newfound freedom in her career was continued after her true identity came to light. After the release of the preface to her sister’s novel W uthering Heights, Charlotte Brontë revealed their names “we did not like to declare ourselves women, because without at that time suspecting that our mode of writing and thinking was not what is called “feminine” we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked upon with prejudice; we had noticed how critics sometimes use for their chastisement the weapon of personality” clearly indicating that due her perception of society at that time these names were used to punch the through the surface to place themselves on the same page as men. Following this acknowledgement, their works have continued to be studied by students across the globe and recognised showing that their liberation was maintained longer than the initial break through with Charlotte’s in particular as “a work of genius”. Though, it must be noted the subtle undertones in the reviews began to alter; Emily Brontë’s W uthering Heights began to be labelled according to her gender. In the Atheanaeum an implied identifiable difference between male and female work begins to emerge, “female genius and female authorship” which is still regarding the work in a positive manner but alluding to the idea that female “genius” should be separate to male “genius”.
Surely using a male pseudonym is lodged within the confinements of history? Yet women have continued to use them to cover their identity such as Alice Bradley Sheldon (James Tiptree) and Joanne Rowling (Robert Galbraith). Sheldon remarked that her reason for doing so was that “A male name seemed like a good camouflage… a man would slip by less observed” indicative that gender bias is still apparent within genres and by masquerading as a male author her female identity would not influence the everyday sexism among readers. Rowling, however, took a different approach explaining that she wanted to “take my writing persona as far away as possible from me” so implying that it should be the work that is criticised and held in high regard rather than being a woman writing crime fiction or her reputation for being the author of the Harry Potter series. Later this is enforced when Rowling admitted that “Robert’s success during his first three
ESSAY
three months as a published writer actually compares favourably with JK Rowling’s success over the equivalent period of her career” showing that her success is deemed by her writing, but this also could allude to the possibility that men are able to gain quicker success. The editor of the Robert Galbraith books, David Shelly stated that “I never would have thought a woman wrote that” confirming that gender stereotypes are still enforced in literature harking back to the idea that women should not be writing in certain genres. Prior to using the name Robert Galbraith, when first attempting to publish the Harry Potter series J.K. Rowling explained that her publisher asked her to use her initials so the book would appeal to boys who may not want to read a book written by a woman. Similar to the Brontë sisters, Rowling was encouraged to adopt a name which held ambiguity to mask the fact she was a woman for the target audience implying that her gender would hinder her chances. Furthermore, the gender stereotypes start young if the publisher deems it necessary to influence the choices that children make when choosing a book to read. Samantha Howell notes how modern women writers are “often having to prove worthiness and importance of their works” clearly showing that prejudice still lies within the fields of literature.
Women across all aspects of literature are subjected to prejudice, particularly women within the film writing industry. Between 2005 and 2016 only 16% of the 3,310 writers with at least one credit on a UK film feature were female illustrating that women remain firmly within the minority. The report continues to show that 11% of films are written predominately by women and on average the budgets for male-written films are higher than the budgets for female-written films yet female-written films are often more positively received by audiences than those written by their male counterparts. Sadly, a change has not occurred since Woolf remarked that “there are no plays by women” with statistics here which clearly indicate that women’s work is still not being viewed or funded in an equal manner to men, thus illustrating the need for women to adopt a male pseudonym. Here, being a woman automatically places them on the back foot with the mask of a man being harder to craft due to working onset and the working conditions of the film industry.
Though society has changed since the Brontë sisters and is taking steps to ensure that gender discrimination is less, the problem has not vanished. The gender pay gap across all sectors still remains so the ground for inequality (gender pay gap among all employees in 2020 was 15.5%) is still fertile otherwise women would not continue to use a mask to hide behind. Yes, Jane Austen still managed to become famous around the same time as the Brontë sister though hiding behind the veil of “a Lady” but this is only one example of success from a female standpoint. Therefore, it can be decided that in the past, using a male pseudonym represents liberation but only by initially punching through the stereotypes whereas in the longer-term gender divides still remain within society, as Woolf would not have felt the need to write about her concerns in A Room of One’s Own. The mere fact that women still, presently, feel that they need to use a male name to either appeal to a certain audience or have their work published in a certain genre shows that it represents repression.
