Should we really reclaim her name?

In celebration of the Women’s Prize for Fiction’s 25^th anniversary, a collection of 25 classic reads have been re-released with the female authors’ real names, and not the original pen names we’re familiar with.

The modern covers designed by women illustrators from around the world have gained popularity online, with the e-books being released for free and the hard copies donated to the British Library. Controversy has arisen, however, over whether we really should be reclaiming their names.

The historical gender bias that runs on today in many parts of the world resulted in authors including the Brontë sisters and Mary Ann Evans (better known as George Eliot) publishing their works under pen-names, allowing their novels to be popularised and appreciated without the patriarchal prejudice the authors would have inevitably faced had their true identities been known.

Whilst Kate Mosse, founding director of Women’s Prize for Fiction, spoke to the BBC saying she hoped this collection would continue “empowering women, igniting conversations and ensuring they get the recognition they deserve”, critics have rebutted that it is, in fact, disrespectful to the authors to reclaim their names on their behalf, ignoring the struggles they had to face by allowing their pen-names to continue to survive.

The collection includes Fatemeh Farahani, a 19^th century Iranian poet who published under Shahein Farahani, and Frances Rollin Whipper, the first African American to publish a biography; ‘The Life of Martin R Delaney’, released in 1968 under the moniker Frank A Rollin. Baileys, sponsor of the prize and campaign, faced fire for portraying the wrong black abolitionist on the cover – Frederick Douglas instead of Delany. Experts have also critiqued the truth behind the inclusion of Chinese-English writer Edith Maude Eaton, who was merely speculated to be the writer of the book that has now been published under her name.

“This campaign seems to ignore the choices writers made and the personas they created”

While for some authors, writing under the male pseudonym was a matter of choice or experimentation, others had no choice in order to be published or reach any audience. This campaign seems to ignore the choices writers made and the personas they created, something which we should honour rather than transform.

Forcing these accomplished women writers back into their names given at birth seems just as patriarchal as forcing them to change their names in the first instance. For example, the aforementioned Mary Ann Evans/George Eliot actually signed her letters Marian Lewes, as a sign of rebellion, and later, as a married woman, chose the name Mary Ann Cross. Is this any different from many of us (including myself) not knowing the first names of J.K. Rowling?

Similarly, George Sand (the pseudonym of French novelist Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin), also featured in the collection, chose her name to rebel against gender norms, as did her masculine clothing and choice of smoking tobacco. Some popular male writers also hid behind pseudonyms (for example, Charles Dodgson used Lewis Carroll and Eric Arthur Blair chose George Orwell) for fear of embarrassment or want of privacy, yet these active choices are not something anyone today can (or should) undo.

While the Women’s Prize intentions may be true in revealing the identities behind the works, identifying for so many that George Eliot was not her real name (and more importantly, that she wasn’t actually a male writer) raises questions surrounding who is entitled to reveal someone else’s identity.

Meg Amin

Tweet to @_meghnaamin

Featured image courtesy of Garry Knight on Flickr.