I'm not sure what I think about this piece in the Guardian. What are your thoughts.

Not sure this should be an issue . Women have written as men and vice versa. How many times do authors use ghost writers etc . Thisisn't newsworthy but I suppose others will disagree.

I agree with the PP. Authors have written under different sex pseudonyms for a long time. I’m not sure this is something that bothers me at all.

The only thing wrong with it is they probably should have kept up the story. Pseudonyms are not a new thing especially for genre writers.

The only annoying thing is them getting onto a list of top female writers.

They obviously wanted to appeal to the audience of Elena Ferrante which is odd as she doesn't write macabre thrillers.

The only annoying thing is them getting onto a list of top female writers.

Yup.

Using a pseudonym doesn’t bother me per se but developing a whole persona for the author, using a woman’s photo and the fact that they are all already established published writers in their own right and have taken up places for women writers & new talent does

Well, it's the identifying into an oppressed class problem, isn't it? So anything you gain, such as appearing in lists, prizes, or special sections in bookshops, is potentially taking away from that class.

It is a problem if the area you are in is default male or male dominated and if the lists /prizes /special areas exist for safety or to begin to address inequality.

Is publishing male dominated?

I read about this earlier and felt uncomfortable. Female writers have used pseudonyms to avoid the perceptions/issues that female writers face. These men didn't face those barriers. They didn't need to pose as a woman.

I dunno. I get your point about creating an actual person that doesn’t exist.
That’s a bit weird. Why not just be a name. JK Rowling created Robert Galbraith but as far as I am aware she did not have a photo of a random man etc and her reasoning for doing it was to be anonymous not to try and trick people. One of the Bronte sisters did the same but that was because she wouldn’t have been published as a women.
These men seem to have done it to appeal to female readers that liked Elena ferrente and that does feel a little fraudulent. Like they are jumping on a bandwagon.
And they shouldn’t be accepting any women fiction prizes. That should go without saying.

One of the Bronte sisters did the same but that was because she wouldn’t have been published as a women.

All three of the Brontë sisters chose non feminine pseudonyms, but they avoided commonly used male forenames. Acton, Ellis and Currer Bell.

For me these bits are a problem-

' million euro literary prize has lured three Spanish men out of anonymity, to reveal that they are behind ultra-violent Spanish crime thrillers marketed as the work of “Spain’s Elena Ferrante”

The men had published under the pseudonym Carmen Mola, which roughly translates as “Carmen’s cool”.'

'Their lead character in the Carmen Mola novels is detective Elena Blanco, a “peculiar and solitary woman, who loves grappa, karaoke, classic cars and sex in SUVs”, '

Using a female name to write about a female character who in those parts sounds very much like a male fantasy doesn't sit well with me.

Why did JKR choose a male pseudonym for her Strike novels? Just curious.

I think as stated above Women have struggled to be published in the past, forced to ultimately write under a male or Unisex name in order to be taken seriously. Fair enough, they have now admitted what they have done and people evidently enjoyed the books but as they are not Female they should not accept any awards and return any awards already given, as it is deceitful and almost mocking the hardships of Women in education and the workplace by choosing to hide behind a character. I personally believe they should have to reenter all competitions and return any prize fund money received as they have fraudulently sold books on the basis of pushing an entire character narrative to the audience and luring the audience in - not just simply using a name as they are claiming.

In general a man (or group of men) using a feminine pseudonym to write doesn't both me.

What I find distasteful is creating a whole fake persona for this non-existent author.

I haven't read the books but their description seems quite run of the mill male fantasy. So I wonder if they deliberating chose a feminine name to be a sort of shield.

I agree with OP, I find it distasteful and unsettling, not just simply using a pseudonym (which is fine), but the fact that there are three of them, all men, and they have created this whole female persona.

It is also this bit that doesn't sit well with me, which sounds like a male fantasy:

'Their lead character in the Carmen Mola novels is detective Elena Blanco, a “peculiar and solitary woman, who loves grappa, karaoke, classic cars and sex in SUVs"

Writing about a character like that is absolutely fine, but pretending you are a woman writing a female protagonist this way just seems a bit strange (as I think most women wouldn't?)

There's no explanation as to why they chose a female pseudonym to write under. And I don't think it's right that they have been included for awards in women's fiction.

No-one would care if it was a female with a male pseudonym so it feels sexist to have she issue the other way round

It's not sexist because women are an oppressed and under-represented group. That is why we have prizes for Women's fiction/ Black fiction etc, but not men's fiction. Men don't really need it because they have automatic privilege.

I don't agree that authors can't write about something outside of their personal circumstances, but, and it's a big but, it should be very transparent when they do and they probably have a duty to demonstrate what research they have done to ensure they are being fair and accurate. I would imagine they would be prepared for that as they would be raked over the coals if they made sweeping statements and relied on lazy stereotypes.

This appropriation feels utterly wrong. By any definition it's performative, they pretending to be a women and they wrote something that would be unusual for a women. Now, don't get be wrong, Im not against women writing whatever the hell they like and there are women authors who write violent or sassy stories, but men doing it and passing it off as a women's work is BS. It's tacky, cheap and they should be called out for it.

Robert Galbraith, well yes, JK was known for writing kids stories so there's a certain sense to adopting a male pseudonym to make the leap into a new, male dominated genre. It didn't take long for the truth to come out and it was more of an "ahhhh, nice one" moment than "ewww, seriously".

As you can read I am no word smith and hope someone else better articulates this.

I don't think as a concept this bothers me. There are other "writers" who are actually not only the other sex, but are really more than one person, so that is not so odd.

I also don't think it's always true that female writers write as men to be taken seriously in quite the same way that was true in the past. I don't think JKR's Strike series is really a good example of that, it was hardly even a secret who the real writer was and if anything she was trying to get away from being a writer for kids rather than a woman writer.

There are lots of women writers now and the goal more of a name change often seems to be to appeal to genre readers who are often very heavily weighted in one direction or another. The romance "life stories" genre is read almost exclusively by women, cowboy stories which are basically the same are read almost exclusively by men mysteries are divided by cozy (women) hard-boiled or spy thriller types (mainly male) and some, like the Strike novels, that appeal to both. In fact in t

In the very weighted genres I think authors would see an advantage in writing under a name associated with the sex that tends to read them, and in fact both romance and westerns seem to have as many fake names as real ones for their authors, and some write under more than one name.

Creating a persona is a little unusual, but maybe it just seemed like a neat idea. I think it's right that they shouldn't get an award intended for women writers but I don't imagine they anticipated that possibility. Being on a list of women writers is a little odd but I'm not sure that is so big a deal in itself.

I think it's right that they shouldn't get an award intended for women writers

Wikipedia does not mention that Planeta Prize is intended for women and winners were of both sexes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premio_Planeta_de_Novela.

Also, for whatever reason, they submitted their novel under the male pseudonym, from Daily Mail: "The prize's organisers said that in the case of Friday's win, there was a 'pseudonym behind a pseudonym', since The Beast was submitted under the pen-name Sergio López, which was then revealed to be Mola - and subsequently unveiled as Díaz, Martínez and Mercero."

It's just cringey and tasteless and insulting to genuine members of that group - be it women, an ethnic group, etc. - to assume you can write from their voice without any of their life experiences

Oh fgs. They are writing fiction. Are you seriously saying no-one should ever write about anything unless they have "lived experience"?

What nonsense.

I don't agree that women do suffer prejudice in publishing- the Booker winners are pretty much equally split.

These writers didn't falsely claim a "women's prize"