The news that Robert Galbraith, author of The Cuckoo’s Calling, is actually J. K. Rowling, has overnight propelled the crime title from 5,076th position to the top of Amazon’s sales charts. Amazing what a name can do. I applaud Joanne Rowling, not just for her writing (chapter one of The Cuckoo’s Calling reads beautifully) but for her bravery in putting a book out without the Harry Potter marketing machine behind it. It must have been a joy to write in private for the first time in so many years. But in choosing a male pseudonym again (she was advised to use initials instead of her first name for the Harry Potter series, to encourage boys to read the books) she is doing women – and women writers in particular – a disservice.
We have a long history of women writing as men: the Brontë sisters famously wrote as the ‘Bell brothers’, because ‘we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice’ (Charlotte Brontë), and Mary Ann Evans is far better known by the pen name George Eliot. One would hope that society had moved on sufficiently to ensure that authors were not judged on gender, but it would seem that is too much to ask. Women writers are still viewed as less ‘literary’ than men, despite the successes of women such as Hilary Mantel and A. M. Homes, and we are more likely to be pigeon-holed as the writers of superficial chick-lit than of hard-hitting, thought-provoking works of literature. In general, men read books by men, whereas women read books written by men and women. I am not surprised that J. K. Rowling chose a male pen name for her crime novel, but I am disappointed that she felt it necessary to do so.
I can honestly say that the gender of an author has never had any bearing on my decision to read a book. The Cuckoo’s Calling is on my ‘to be read’ list, and I wish Ms Rowling great success with it.