Very good points. I agree on all of them. It's good reflection, that a lot of people haven't met lately and aren't used to. Very happy I subscribed to you!
I totally agree with the respect of separation of pen names. Where I first encountered this was Nora Roberts vs JD Robb. They have different topics they cover, different feelings, and allow these artist to express all aspects of their craft.
I really enjoyed this video!! I love that you talk about giving author's pen names the same respect that we give their works under their own name. I agree that chick-lit is offensive as well and I think you did a great job at explaining your views on the topic.
Great video! The term chick-lit has always bothered me but I've never quite been able to put words on it, but you did it :) I hope your neck is feeling better :)
I love these discussion videos. You are so good at organizing your thoughts. The thoughts on respecting pen names is interesting. People have such a kinship with Rowling and she is so engrained into the lives of so many readers that I understand why many feel the need to connect these stories with her. It's funny you will never hear people do the same with George Eliot, Robin Hobb and the like. No argument over 'Chick-lit' -- the whole idea is outdated and offensive. I am hoping it is a term that will continue to fade with time especially as the time of chain bookstores comes to an end. As for Harry Potter, I read the series as an adult and am far from a HP fan but I can picture myself returning to the series as an old dude. I hope you are enjoying the process!
I regretted forgetting to talk about how no one refers to Robin Hobb as Megan Lindholm as I was editing, so I'm glad you brought it up! Thanks for agreeing on the chick lit!! I'm enjoying rereading Harry Potter, yes! I was surprised to find Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite book of the series. I was certain it would be Goblet of Fire.
Im always in the mood for negativity rants ^_^ You are a great post structural soldier!! The way we talk about reality does indeed structure this! But ohhh Im so sorry to hear about your neck - though it is a bit funny ^_^
Thank you for the thoughtful video! I hadn't given much thought to the implications of using J K Rowling instead of Robert Galbraith when discussing the Comoran Strike series, and I very much appreciate you bringing those to my attention. I too, find the term Chick Lit offensive. I personally don't read a lot of books that fall into that category (because I am stone-hearted and don't particularly enjoy books with romance as a focus haha) but I remember being a teen and hearing my girl friends' voices dip in volume when they talked about how they loved reading "chick lit". I could hear their shame, and it's so wrong that that exists. I very much appreciated your rant, and your funny/tragic story of neck strain in the name of book love. #booknerdproblems I hope the neck pain has receded so you can continue devouring Harry Potter!
This is really important and interesting and it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I remember editing my 'Authors To Complete' video and wondering if I'd made the right choice including the Cormoran Strike series. I'm definitely interested in reading the series despite DNF'ing it, but more so as a gateway to crime fiction than an allegiance to Rowling. I do think that gateway is an important one. I certainly agree, however, that ignoring the decision to use a pen name is disrespectful. Totally agree with your thoughts on chick lit. Entirely.
+Amanda Center (IntrovertX) It's more that having crime fiction written by an author I knew I had enjoyed in the past encouraged me to give it a go, rather than Galbraith's novels being the best place to start with the genre :) In fact, what I've found is that I couldn't get into Galbraith's work, so my enthusiasm to eventually read everything by a person I greatly admire has spurred me onto delve into the genre more in order to prepare. Anyhoo! This video certainly left me with lots of things to think about, one of the best discussion vids I've seen in a while :3
You: If you're not in the mood for negativity... Me: Hang on...*Comes back with popcorn and settles in to enjoy with evil glee* Hooray for the return of pajama monday!
i want to work on not associating gender with adjectives at all, it's brainwashed into us from literally the second we're out of the womb and it's so problematic, the idea that your genitalia or hormones can determine anything about your personality or person in general is such an ignorant outdated idea, it's something i really want to focus on when i'm communicating with others (or even thinking for that matter!) it's so much work to break through the brainwash that society does to you that you could be nearly on your death bed before you've even began to have it all figured out, thanks for making this and encouraging as all to me mindful, i think we all need reminders every now and then
You're quite welcome. I really agree with what you had to say. While we can't ignore our biology affects how our bodies and minds work, most of the differences between men and women (and I believe this dichotomy to be harmful on its own) is due to culture. Culture can be changed, fortunately :)
I love this video! I think that the use of author pennames is such an interesting method of defining and discerning your audience, and it's such an important aspect that so frequently gets ignored. There are so many authors that write under pseudonyms (not just Lindholm/Hobb but also Seanan McGuire/Mira Grant, for instance) that few to anyone really knows about and it does no disservice to the reader. They're used for a reason, and to ignore their use is disrespectful to the entity of the published work. I fully agree that the choice of using a pseudonym is both to define different audiences as well as to get out of the possible expectations that an audience may have of the work - something like the Cormoran Strike series will need to have different expectations than those looking to read Harry Potter. As for your other two rants - I hate the term 'chick lit'. I also hate 'commercial women's fiction'. I really don't think that assigning a gender to a genre of writing does readers a huge disservice - there are no 'men's lit' sections at book stores, for example. It implies that men can take no interest or value in literature focused on women and the issues women commonly face. I'm also really sorry that Harry Potter has caused you such grievous injury!
I enjoyed your thoughts on Galbraith/Rowling because I've had a related topic on my mind recently. You've given some lovely suggestions for handling the specific Galbraith situation. I feel strongly that a person's chosen name - be it pen name, a legal name change, or a preferred nickname - needs to be honored because it feels disrespectful otherwise. It's been on my mind because of an interview I watched where a romance author and a documentary film maker were discussing a joint project, and even after the interviewer clarified that the romance author preferred being called by her pen name, the film maker called her by her birth name multiple times. I'm sure the film maker was simply blurring the line between her friend/colleague and the romance "persona" and meant no harm, but it bothered me each time. On another topic, I agree that chick lit seems like a dismissive term, and I also try to stay away from even saying things like women's fiction because that makes it feel like "real" fiction is meant for men and to get women to read you need to only talk about families, mothers, and getting or keeping a love interest. I'm all for any person reading whatever they want and not assuming a person's interests line up with some gender checklist. I'm equally annoyed by people who act as though young boys can't enjoy books with female protagonists, which is something I seem to notice more and more.
I agree about Galbraith! Just today I saw a tweet from JK that said something like, "When I write as Robert..." I always try to refer to pen names even if the author's name is known. I think there are a couple known/popular authors here on Booktube where they have two different names. For example, VE Schwab has published some books as Victoria Schwab. Also, Robin Hobb is completely made up, but everyone calls her Robin Hobb.
yay!! sending you applause through the internet right now haha. It also bothers me when people refer to Robert Galbraith as JK Rowling. I think JKR learned the hard way that she needed to use a pen name when she released "The Casual Vacancy" under the name JK Rowling and everyone just assumed it would be a fun kids' book and it was soooo far from that. Like, I saw people buying that book for little kids without even knowing the plot of it. So yeah, I think it makes so much sense that she decided to use a pen name, and we need to respect that. Never thought about chick lit that way...but I definitely see your point and I agree. It really does imply that fiction aimed at women is trash. :( *sigh* I hope your neck feels better^^ but getting hurt because of HP is probably worth it hahahaha
Thank you for the applause :) And I completely agree with you regarding the mistaken marketing of The Casual Vacancy. People just assume Rowling write children's fiction. Not so anymore!!
I agree with many of your comments on chick lit and women's lit. I think it was Rebecca Solnit who said that books about women are about women and books about men are about humanity. While I don't like that genres force readers into boxes, or persuade some that they are not welcome to enjoy the genre, I also think there is a great deal of responsibility on the part of readers to be conscious of this marketing, and to actively choose not to buy into it. We need to stop assuming that topics are gendered. Great fiction can exist in any section of a bookstore, we need to actively open our minds to that fact and not place all the responsibility of change on the publishers. I do think genre is useful in many ways, as a younger reader I would browse by genre for lack of a better understanding of how to find books, so while the idea of lumping books about women in one section is extremely demeaning, perhaps a label like "Feel Good Books" or other non gendered descriptors would be more useful.
I agree with you that people need to make their own informed decisions. However, most people don't reflect on how things are marketed to them and absorb messages unknowingly over and over again. In our consummerist society, which influences our lives in ways we cannot even fathom, we can work within that system to change how we view things. Moving forward, I hope publishing houses stop gendering publications and genres because it is a step toward gender and sexual equality.
I agree on the chick-lit thing so much. The word chick used to describe a woman makes me feel a bit sick in general, and I hate the term chick-lit too. I think it makes a book sound throw-away and probably badly written, just from the way people dismiss it and I'm sure there's probably some really well written books that are labelled as chick-lit that aren't taken seriously which is a shame. I do feel like if I see a book tagged as chick-lit on goodreads I tend to not add it to my TBR, which is probably wrong of me and dismissive, but I feel like the reputation of these books is pretty bad and I think without meaning to I judge a book for being labelled as that. I don't really know what chick-lit even means really, all I know is we should just get rid of that phrase, I don't mind the phrase contemporary romance and I think that does just as good of a job as putting it into a genre that is easy to understand, but it sounds a lot less condescending to me. And I think you made some great points about the issues with putting things into genres aswell, and gendering books or even whole genres as being for men or women, I think it's something that people probably don't think about too much, but whenever I describe a book or review it I never mention it being a "men's" or a "women's" book, because I think that just puts people off for no reason or makes people feel like they shouldn't read something, which is really sad. I've had conversations with people who have dismissed something I've recommended because they think it's for girls just because the main character is female, and that just confuses me and makes me so mad. Anyway, hopefully in the future people won't feel the need to gender books or genres and people can read and write whatever they want :)
excellent discussion video with some great points made. totally agree with your chick lit points, it's so offensive to label books this way. I had never thought about the pen name thing but now that you've brought it up I think you are correct in that it is inappropriate to not respect an authors decision to use a pen name. I hope people will take your advice and use the name the author has chosen to write a particular book under. also, just finished my reread of the entire harry potter series, it was amazing as usual.
I do so agree and found your "rant" so enjoyable. I have a particular aversion to referring to men and women as "male" and "female" as if we are lab rats. As far as readers and what we like to read without judgement of a particular genre or dismissing certain cadre of literature...ha. I am a 57 year old man that loves the short stories of Lucy Maud Montgomery and the works of Sarah Orne Jewett, so....humm. And I am sorry about your neck. Too funny..I hope it gets better. I think you can call it an occupational hazard. I read in bed too....I sleep with books..ouch.
Oh my goooooood. Yes. What a great video. I wish I could vocalize my thoughts so clearly. I never really thought about the JK Rowling/Robert Galbraith pen name thing, but you make a lot of sense. I wonder, from what I read after watching this video, if she also didn't want to use her name because it might make her loyal readers like her less? Not that she's 'marketing' herself or whatever, but it sounds like kind of a gruesome novel with really iffy portrayals of women that I'm just like??? No thank-you. There are enough murderous horrible men in the real world I don't need to read about it. I'm totally with you about not liking being called girl. You have totally hit the mark for WHY I don't like being called a girl. My feelings about that have always just been inexplicable ~feelings~ so, thank-you for that! And also, I have never liked the term "chick" for women. I remember being in elementary school and hearing my older cousins (all boys) say it and feeling, like ... straight up offended. I read/saw somewhere (on the internet) about how gendering products means more profit, which only further adds to my theory that EVERYTHING is about money and capitalism is The. Worst. .....(i spent like 30 minutes trying to make this comment make sense so hopefully? it's not all over the place? like my mind?)
You got your point across perfectly! And I completely agree with you that the gendering of genres is the evils of capitalism. Not good. And yes, I think the Galbraith pen name was about trying to separate her audiences, knowing her Potterheads wouldn't perhaps get on with the new books she wanted to write. I'm sure she was hoping to not disappoint her readers because they picked up her new book expecting X and getting Y. I'm glad my explanation of my irritation at being called a girl helped you articulate what you've been feeling. I had a mini-epiphany whilst I was filming, actually, and finally could put words to what I'd been feeling, too :)
Yes Yes Yes on the ChickLit thing. It is almost hard to believe that I have been watching Booktube for this long and you are the first one I have seen addressing this issue. Aside from been offensive, I also find ChickLit completely useless as a category. All it tells me is that a woman has written female characters, which is not to be taken seriously and I should feel ashamed about reading and/or liking it. There are books put in this category on goodreads that I never would have thought to find there and I am absolutely certain that they would be classed as Literary Fiction (maybe even award winning Literary Fiction) had the author been male. But as it stands, people (especially guys) are not only excused from reading about these 'petty women's issues', but actively discouraged. Needless to say, ChickLit is not among the gazillion tags I use on goodreads. Sorry for ranting right back at you ;) You're also spot on about the Galbraith issue.
Rant away! I'm pleased you're pleased I spoke up about the issue of chick lit. And I agree with you completely with the idea that some chick lit, had they been written by men, would have been classed as general/literary fiction. AND I agree the "subgenre" of chick lit tells you very little about the books that fall into that category. It only spreads prejudice and restrictive gender norms.
I like the wink method :). This was interesting! I just read through the Wikipedia article for Robert Galbraith - and Jo Rowling published a statement when she was "outed" as Galbraith - that she was disappointed and angry, and that she had enjoyed writing under a pen name. Good reasons to respect her choice! As for women's literature - I agree. The frustrates me that there are so many TV shows, books, movies etc that are geared towards men (and lots of women like them) as well as shows that are geared towards women (and definitely not men.) ugh I never thought about Nicholas Sparks! That is totally bullshit! I went to a used book sale recently and fortunately they didn't call this genre women's lot or chick lit - they called it "Beach reads" and it was clearly only those disposable paperbacks... But I thought that was a better category name at least. Although obviously everyone might like to read different things on the beac... What do you think?
Beach reads depends on each individual reader's preferences. When I read it public I have to choose something I don't need to intensely focus on. Inevitably I'll be distracted, so I need something to pull me in. I like that beach reads is not a gendered term, but it's still not quite right.... Was it only books aimed at women in that section?
I know... that's how I felt - not quite right still because it seems to look down on that genre still somehow... although it wasn't aimed at any specific gender.
So, (Hi It's Michaela doing some branding things with the channel ... video to come on that soon ... hopefully [damn you anxiety]) I wanted to throw in my two cents here. I experienced something along the lines of your second topic the other day. There was a guy I was interested in and I suggested he come over and watch a film I wanted to see. He responded with, "That's such a chick flick, I don't watch that sort of movie, I find them boring." The later half of that sentence was perfectly fine. There are some types of movies I don't enjoy ... not many, but some... it was the first half that through me off. I hadn't described the film as a chick flick I had simply said, "It's a romantic comedy blah blah blah..." describing the specific movie. I think that for me, this is something along those lines. I don't describe films as being for certain audiences usually, and I didn't even think that he wouldn't like it simply because he had guy bits stuck to his crotch. I think that the way most people would call a romcom a romcom is that step you are talking about. "Chick Flicks" is a term I am hearing less and less and I love that, so language is definitely important and while it is still there, removing it from our everyday use is step one to removing the prejudice attached to that. I would also like to point out that "chick lit" is often shelved in with general fiction. Romance is a whole other bag of worms, but "chick lit" is just a sub category of general fiction. Perhaps part of the problem is that the general fiction covers so much ground the publishing industry needed a way to market their books. If you walk into a general fiction section you will find literary fiction, translated fiction, horror, thriller, romance, magical realism, etc. etc. There are certain marketing tropes necessary for people to navigate those sections. Cover art and buzz words namely, but its definitely more toward the necessity for publishers to make their product accessible to the audience they are trying to reach. Not sure if I made a whole lot of sense. I feel like I just word vomited at you... hmmm.
It made sense! Good point on "chick lit" being part of the hodge podge that is general fiction. However, I do think it's stereotyped in the same way as romance, which is why I started talking about romance in my rant. I just got off topic! :) And thank you for bringing up "chick flicks" and they're dismissal!! "Chicks" just can't catch a break, but I hope both those derogatory groupings are becoming more and more out of fashion.
Sorry to hear about your neck (though that's probably irrelevant by now). I think I agree with everything you said in both of your rants. I personally have no interest in contemporary romance (well that's not strictly true, as I read contemporary romance fanfiction), but I feel like calling it chick-lit is demeaning to both women and the genre. In a sort of similar vein, I'm worried about becoming known as a "gay romance" author. Not that I would have a problem with being labelled as such if it were true (and I do intend to write a few gay romance novels) but I feel like my books which feature male protagonists that end up with males will get them labelled as gay romance, when the romance in those books is mostly an incindental thing with no drama attached. My books are urban fantasies, sci-fi/dystopias, high fantasy/dystopias, and they just happen to feature main couples of people who are both male. Does that make sense?
That absolutely makes sense. From what you're describing, calling your work "gay romance" is the lazy way of labeling it correctly, but not fully. This is the general problem with genres. They want every book to fit into a neat box, when a good book will dip into a couple of different boxes!
Finally got to watch the end of this. Had to break for foam fighting for a few hours. Anyway, I totally agree with you about everything. Though I call myself a chick, and refer to other gals as chicks (if I know they don't mind) I can definitely agree that the name "chick-lit" does the work zero favors. It is frustrating to see that the 'male experience' is still considered to be the 'right one' and everyone, regardless of gender, should be able to relate and want to read about it. The female experience is weird and icky. For some reason it cannot be well written or meaningful. *Rolls eyes for days* As a writer I find that often I will be describing my book to someone (it has a female lead) and they'll stop me and say "so this is for girls?" And I want to pull out my hair as I try to patiently counter, "no. It's for anyone who wants to read it." I don't write to a gender demo, I just write and whoever likes it should be whoever likes it!
(Boo, forgot there are character limits on RUclips) ...Frankly, I tend not to call anyone a "girl." (I've also made the mistake of using the wrong pronouns for people in the long ago past and try to avoid them altogether now.) **(thankfully "chick" seems to be more and more outdated.) I love how you brought the two topics together in the end: Unfortunately, the use of pen names is often to cross the lines from one genre market to another, and those lines are often determined by the gender expectations set by the the marketplace and reinforced by the public. Have you read much Adrienne Rich? I recommend you do if you haven't.
I've not read any Adrienne Rich, but I'll be looking up her works now! Thanks for your thoughtful comment! I'm glad I got my point across well enough that you thought it could be a sort of lecture :)
I have never believed that the "outing" of Galbraith was an accident.. I think it was a strategy to make more money - on the side of the publisher. When she said she wanted to use a pen name I think they were nodding their heads and holding their hands behind their backs with their fingers crossed. Personally, I have no interest in that genre and don't want to read it. But I really like your view on respecting the pen name. The term chick lit needs to die. I cringe when I see people list it as their favorite genre. How about we just call it contemporary? I think that suits. Very good points!
Hmmmmm... interesting theory on the publishers always intending to reveal Rowling as Galbraith. I'll have to think about that some more. I think contemporary fiction is a good start to renaming "chick lit" :)
Rant#1 - It must be acknowledged, in someway, that JK Rowling is the author just to keep the comment threads from clogging up with insulting explanations, "Actually, it's really JK Rowling you dummy." I might opt for an annotation. My argument for BookTubers to change their wording: just because she was outed by the big business of bookselling and that outing will certainly be perpetuated by the general population doesn't mean that the literary word, (readers and writers,) have to be party to this identity theft. Rant#2 - *(I don't think this is multiple "rants" but rather one long presentation, and I have to wonder if you've considered teaching?) Though I think most people using the term, "chick," are ignorant to the idea of the infantilization of women and are instead leeching their vocabulary from the broader culture and should maybe be given, (I don't want to say a break, because they not what I am getting at,) a talking to instead of a lashing I do understand...
Why not just ask Rowling what she prefers? I know a lot of writers who have used various pen names for whatever reason. However, once discovered who they truly are, does it change the quality of the writing? I don't think so. So, Rowling used Galbraith for her adult novels. I can understand her doing that to get away from Harry Potter fame and be valued on a different level of writing. It was inevitable that she was going to be discovered with the way social media rolls. In the end, it's still Rowling (not some guy named Galbraith) who wrote the books. Call a spade a spade. Now, coming from the point of view of a male household (except me, I'm the sole woman) I've had to view things through the eyes of my family. Without me saying anything my boys know what is too feminine for them and what is more up their ally. They don't like books that have touchy-feely romantic "girl" bits in them. My husband doesn't mind those kinds of books/movies, but they are not the thing he heads for when he's at the bookstore or cinema. Come to think of it, most of the guys I have had as friends don't veer in that direction either. Most of the books my men buy are by Tom Clancy, Patrick O'Brien, Eoin Colfer, Charlie Fletcher, etc - all having to deal with male characters and very male issues. Since I majored in European literature, most of my books cover a huge range of topics which could cover both male and female audiences, but there are some that I will clearly admit are geared more towards feminine readers (or male) than not. Is there anything wrong with that? Nope. Is there anything wrong with writers pandering more to a particular type of audience. No, there isn't. The whole gender issue has become a bandwagon buzzword that seems to have sprung on the scene out of nowhere. I'm always skeptical when that happens.
The problem is that people may feel pressured to like things our culture says aligns with their gender, even though their natural preference may differ from gender norms.
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. I'm twice your age and have never once felt pressured to like something simply because it was geared towards my being a woman. The only times I have ever felt pressured to conform to a certain mindset was when I was in college. Feminism was the buzzword then. At first I bought into it, but as I approached my 30s (and had many eye-opening conversations with people much older than I) I realized that feminism actually hurt my being a woman more than it helped, so I walked away. Today it's still being brought up, but so too is the gender issue in a very heavy way. I have to wonder why? Ten years ago the gender issue wasn't even an issue, yet suddenly there is this huge push for everyone to jump on the political bandwagon to support this. I won't.
I'm sorry, but I'm half you age and I still think you're wrong. Gender equality is one of the most important things to attain in human society. I don't care what it's being called or what your personal experiences have been, gender inequality is not right.
Pen Names are such a funny thing. I have seen, a few times, where books will say "So-And-So writing as So-And-So" and I'm like "Why have a different name if you're going to just tell us anyways?" Also, when the authors real name is a bigger font size than the pen name...that's just odd and confusing and seems pointless. It's weird that people "correct" Galbraith into Rowling, but you never ever hear people talking about A Series of Unfortunate Events as being written by Daniel Handler. They still call him Lemony Snicket. Are they just more used to it? Still ignorant that it is a pen name? Or is it some subtle (or not so subtle) sexism going on? I have never read any of the Harry Potter books, or any of the connected books, but I have read all of the Cormoran Strike novels that have so far been published, as well as Casual Vacancy and Very Good Lives. That being said, I have still been accused of being a "Potterhead who only likes those books because Rowling wrote them". Um...Nope! The fact that her pen name was spoiled actually infuriates me. She wanted to see what she could do in another genre, wanted to see what she could do without baggage and expectations...but now she will never know, we will never know. Unless she gets sneaky and tries again with something else. Some people say that the "leak" was just a publicity stunt and she was always going to tell people...but then why did she go through the trouble of creating an entire false author bio to match her pen name? I have a UK first edition of Cuckoo's Calling and it says: Robert Galbraith is married with two sons. After several years with the Royal Military Police, he was attached to the SIB (Special Investigation Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for protagonist Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who have returned to the civilian world. Robert Galbraith is a pseudonym" In later copies and in The Silkworm and Career of Evil, it explicitly states that Galbraith is a pseudonym for Rowling and lists some of her other books. Also seems worth saying that Rowling's own name is a bit of a pen name, using initials to hide her gender so that the book would be more widely accepted, by publishers and book buyers alike. OMG That is the longest comment I have ever left on RUclips ever!
YES, YES AND YES!! Such good thoughts here! I regret not bringing up other pen names of famous authors (Lemony Snicket is a great example. I was also thinking of Robin Hobb being the pen name of Megan Lindholm.) You should have made this video with me ;) I agree with you in completely disagreeing with the idea that the pseudonym leak was a publicity stunt. That's just unfair to suggest. And you're so right with J.K. hiding her gender to get more people to read the HP series, at least before it blew up in popularity. She's been having to play around with her identity from the start to get her books published and read. It's unjust as eff.
Amanda Center When I saw Galbraith in the title of the video, I was excited to hear what you might have to say. Such an awesome video. I was sitting here talking at my laptop screen like a silly person, relaying my agreement out loud. I love videos that make you think.
I'm so pleased you enjoyed the ranting/discussion! You had many intelligent things to add. I appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughtful comments!!
(and since i didn't have space in the other comment...) Yeah, Chick Lit and also Chick Flicks is such a dismissive and annoying term. And it forces women to defend their choice of entertainment, whether they are someone who loves that type of thing or hates it. It's a double edged sword. If you love it, you are bubble-headed and flighty, but if you dislike it you are antagonizing and hipster. No winning with some people. And wow, I had never thought of "chick" that way before you read that definition...kind of relates back to the British slang "Bird" that women were (still are?) often called...because what is a chick? A baby Bird...a little woman...wow! Mini Mind-Blown. And the idea that Romance novels and the like are without value...like...no. My grandmother is a voracious reader. She loved Nora Roberts and read all of her books...she has also read everything under Robert's pen name J.D. Robb. On the flipside, as it were, she also reads classics and modern classics and her favorite book ever is A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. She has also suffered THREE strokes and keeps on reading, so fuck anyone who judges my grandmother for reading "chick lit" because at least she is reading and hasn't given up on her love for it despite her obstacles.
Bravo!! We are so of one mind on these topics. And, yes, the connection to "bird" as slang for a girlfriend, very astute. Then we can get into the idea of "bird brain" and how that relates to infantilized women. It's just so deeply rooted in wrong. Your grandmother sounds awesome! Judging people because they read "chick lit" reminds me of the uncomfortable high/middle/low brow distinctions of art, literature and culture, which has major racist overtones and is tied up in class and intelligence. It is, of course, outdated and horrid, but those categorizations and prejudices are going strong today. It's just so icky and bad. Urgh!!
Very good points. I agree on all of them. It's good reflection, that a lot of people haven't met lately and aren't used to. Very happy I subscribed to you!
Thank you :)
I totally agree with the respect of separation of pen names. Where I first encountered this was Nora Roberts vs JD Robb. They have different topics they cover, different feelings, and allow these artist to express all aspects of their craft.
Absolutely :)
I really enjoyed this video!! I love that you talk about giving author's pen names the same respect that we give their works under their own name. I agree that chick-lit is offensive as well and I think you did a great job at explaining your views on the topic.
Thank you :)
Great video! The term chick-lit has always bothered me but I've never quite been able to put words on it, but you did it :)
I hope your neck is feeling better :)
Thank you :)
I love these discussion videos. You are so good at organizing your thoughts.
The thoughts on respecting pen names is interesting. People have such a kinship with Rowling and she is so engrained into the lives of so many readers that I understand why many feel the need to connect these stories with her. It's funny you will never hear people do the same with George Eliot, Robin Hobb and the like.
No argument over 'Chick-lit' -- the whole idea is outdated and offensive. I am hoping it is a term that will continue to fade with time especially as the time of chain bookstores comes to an end.
As for Harry Potter, I read the series as an adult and am far from a HP fan but I can picture myself returning to the series as an old dude. I hope you are enjoying the process!
I regretted forgetting to talk about how no one refers to Robin Hobb as Megan Lindholm as I was editing, so I'm glad you brought it up! Thanks for agreeing on the chick lit!! I'm enjoying rereading Harry Potter, yes! I was surprised to find Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite book of the series. I was certain it would be Goblet of Fire.
Im always in the mood for negativity rants ^_^ You are a great post structural soldier!! The way we talk about reality does indeed structure this! But ohhh Im so sorry to hear about your neck - though it is a bit funny ^_^
Indeed, it's a fun thing to say "I strained my neck by reading too much Harry Potter!" :)
Thank you for the thoughtful video! I hadn't given much thought to the implications of using J K Rowling instead of Robert Galbraith when discussing the Comoran Strike series, and I very much appreciate you bringing those to my attention. I too, find the term Chick Lit offensive. I personally don't read a lot of books that fall into that category (because I am stone-hearted and don't particularly enjoy books with romance as a focus haha) but I remember being a teen and hearing my girl friends' voices dip in volume when they talked about how they loved reading "chick lit". I could hear their shame, and it's so wrong that that exists. I very much appreciated your rant, and your funny/tragic story of neck strain in the name of book love. #booknerdproblems I hope the neck pain has receded so you can continue devouring Harry Potter!
I'm glad you enjoyed the video and that it made you think :)
This is really important and interesting and it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I remember editing my 'Authors To Complete' video and wondering if I'd made the right choice including the Cormoran Strike series. I'm definitely interested in reading the series despite DNF'ing it, but more so as a gateway to crime fiction than an allegiance to Rowling. I do think that gateway is an important one. I certainly agree, however, that ignoring the decision to use a pen name is disrespectful.
Totally agree with your thoughts on chick lit. Entirely.
Not sure if Galbraith is the best gateway into crime fiction, but that's something I hadn't considered before :)
+Amanda Center (IntrovertX) It's more that having crime fiction written by an author I knew I had enjoyed in the past encouraged me to give it a go, rather than Galbraith's novels being the best place to start with the genre :) In fact, what I've found is that I couldn't get into Galbraith's work, so my enthusiasm to eventually read everything by a person I greatly admire has spurred me onto delve into the genre more in order to prepare. Anyhoo! This video certainly left me with lots of things to think about, one of the best discussion vids I've seen in a while :3
+Leanne Rose I'm still working out my thoughts on the whole thing actually! :P
You: If you're not in the mood for negativity...
Me: Hang on...*Comes back with popcorn and settles in to enjoy with evil glee*
Hooray for the return of pajama monday!
I'm glad you enjoyed the ranting :D
i want to work on not associating gender with adjectives at all, it's brainwashed into us from literally the second we're out of the womb and it's so problematic, the idea that your genitalia or hormones can determine anything about your personality or person in general is such an ignorant outdated idea, it's something i really want to focus on when i'm communicating with others (or even thinking for that matter!)
it's so much work to break through the brainwash that society does to you that you could be nearly on your death bed before you've even began to have it all figured out, thanks for making this and encouraging as all to me mindful, i think we all need reminders every now and then
You're quite welcome. I really agree with what you had to say. While we can't ignore our biology affects how our bodies and minds work, most of the differences between men and women (and I believe this dichotomy to be harmful on its own) is due to culture. Culture can be changed, fortunately :)
I love this video! I think that the use of author pennames is such an interesting method of defining and discerning your audience, and it's such an important aspect that so frequently gets ignored. There are so many authors that write under pseudonyms (not just Lindholm/Hobb but also Seanan McGuire/Mira Grant, for instance) that few to anyone really knows about and it does no disservice to the reader. They're used for a reason, and to ignore their use is disrespectful to the entity of the published work. I fully agree that the choice of using a pseudonym is both to define different audiences as well as to get out of the possible expectations that an audience may have of the work - something like the Cormoran Strike series will need to have different expectations than those looking to read Harry Potter.
As for your other two rants - I hate the term 'chick lit'. I also hate 'commercial women's fiction'. I really don't think that assigning a gender to a genre of writing does readers a huge disservice - there are no 'men's lit' sections at book stores, for example. It implies that men can take no interest or value in literature focused on women and the issues women commonly face. I'm also really sorry that Harry Potter has caused you such grievous injury!
I agree with everything you said! Neck strain has healed up pretty well :)
Workers comp!
HAHAHHAHA!!!
I enjoyed your thoughts on Galbraith/Rowling because I've had a related topic on my mind recently. You've given some lovely suggestions for handling the specific Galbraith situation. I feel strongly that a person's chosen name - be it pen name, a legal name change, or a preferred nickname - needs to be honored because it feels disrespectful otherwise. It's been on my mind because of an interview I watched where a romance author and a documentary film maker were discussing a joint project, and even after the interviewer clarified that the romance author preferred being called by her pen name, the film maker called her by her birth name multiple times. I'm sure the film maker was simply blurring the line between her friend/colleague and the romance "persona" and meant no harm, but it bothered me each time.
On another topic, I agree that chick lit seems like a dismissive term, and I also try to stay away from even saying things like women's fiction because that makes it feel like "real" fiction is meant for men and to get women to read you need to only talk about families, mothers, and getting or keeping a love interest. I'm all for any person reading whatever they want and not assuming a person's interests line up with some gender checklist. I'm equally annoyed by people who act as though young boys can't enjoy books with female protagonists, which is something I seem to notice more and more.
Yep, people need to feel like they can be themselves and enjoy whatever movies/books/hobbies they want to no matter their gender identity :)
I agree about Galbraith! Just today I saw a tweet from JK that said something like, "When I write as Robert..." I always try to refer to pen names even if the author's name is known. I think there are a couple known/popular authors here on Booktube where they have two different names. For example, VE Schwab has published some books as Victoria Schwab. Also, Robin Hobb is completely made up, but everyone calls her Robin Hobb.
Totally! I wish I had remembered to bring up the fact that Rowling is the only author whose pen name people make sure to ignore :)
yay!! sending you applause through the internet right now haha. It also bothers me when people refer to Robert Galbraith as JK Rowling. I think JKR learned the hard way that she needed to use a pen name when she released "The Casual Vacancy" under the name JK Rowling and everyone just assumed it would be a fun kids' book and it was soooo far from that. Like, I saw people buying that book for little kids without even knowing the plot of it. So yeah, I think it makes so much sense that she decided to use a pen name, and we need to respect that.
Never thought about chick lit that way...but I definitely see your point and I agree. It really does imply that fiction aimed at women is trash. :( *sigh*
I hope your neck feels better^^ but getting hurt because of HP is probably worth it hahahaha
Thank you for the applause :) And I completely agree with you regarding the mistaken marketing of The Casual Vacancy. People just assume Rowling write children's fiction. Not so anymore!!
I agree with many of your comments on chick lit and women's lit. I think it was Rebecca Solnit who said that books about women are about women and books about men are about humanity. While I don't like that genres force readers into boxes, or persuade some that they are not welcome to enjoy the genre, I also think there is a great deal of responsibility on the part of readers to be conscious of this marketing, and to actively choose not to buy into it. We need to stop assuming that topics are gendered. Great fiction can exist in any section of a bookstore, we need to actively open our minds to that fact and not place all the responsibility of change on the publishers. I do think genre is useful in many ways, as a younger reader I would browse by genre for lack of a better understanding of how to find books, so while the idea of lumping books about women in one section is extremely demeaning, perhaps a label like "Feel Good Books" or other non gendered descriptors would be more useful.
I agree with you that people need to make their own informed decisions. However, most people don't reflect on how things are marketed to them and absorb messages unknowingly over and over again. In our consummerist society, which influences our lives in ways we cannot even fathom, we can work within that system to change how we view things. Moving forward, I hope publishing houses stop gendering publications and genres because it is a step toward gender and sexual equality.
I agree on the chick-lit thing so much. The word chick used to describe a woman makes me feel a bit sick in general, and I hate the term chick-lit too. I think it makes a book sound throw-away and probably badly written, just from the way people dismiss it and I'm sure there's probably some really well written books that are labelled as chick-lit that aren't taken seriously which is a shame. I do feel like if I see a book tagged as chick-lit on goodreads I tend to not add it to my TBR, which is probably wrong of me and dismissive, but I feel like the reputation of these books is pretty bad and I think without meaning to I judge a book for being labelled as that. I don't really know what chick-lit even means really, all I know is we should just get rid of that phrase, I don't mind the phrase contemporary romance and I think that does just as good of a job as putting it into a genre that is easy to understand, but it sounds a lot less condescending to me. And I think you made some great points about the issues with putting things into genres aswell, and gendering books or even whole genres as being for men or women, I think it's something that people probably don't think about too much, but whenever I describe a book or review it I never mention it being a "men's" or a "women's" book, because I think that just puts people off for no reason or makes people feel like they shouldn't read something, which is really sad. I've had conversations with people who have dismissed something I've recommended because they think it's for girls just because the main character is female, and that just confuses me and makes me so mad. Anyway, hopefully in the future people won't feel the need to gender books or genres and people can read and write whatever they want :)
Yes, let's hope for a better bookish future! Thanks for commenting :)
excellent discussion video with some great points made. totally agree with your chick lit points, it's so offensive to label books this way. I had never thought about the pen name thing but now that you've brought it up I think you are correct in that it is inappropriate to not respect an authors decision to use a pen name. I hope people will take your advice and use the name the author has chosen to write a particular book under. also, just finished my reread of the entire harry potter series, it was amazing as usual.
I'm so glad you enjoyed your reread :)
I do so agree and found your "rant" so enjoyable.
I have a particular aversion to referring to men and women as "male" and "female" as if we are lab rats.
As far as readers and what we like to read without judgement of a particular genre or dismissing certain cadre of literature...ha. I am a 57 year old man that loves the short stories of Lucy Maud Montgomery and the works of Sarah Orne Jewett, so....humm.
And I am sorry about your neck. Too funny..I hope it gets better. I think you can call it an occupational hazard. I read in bed too....I sleep with books..ouch.
Hahaha! Those corners must make themselves known in the middle of the night!!
Oh my goooooood. Yes. What a great video. I wish I could vocalize my thoughts so clearly.
I never really thought about the JK Rowling/Robert Galbraith pen name thing, but you make a lot of sense. I wonder, from what I read after watching this video, if she also didn't want to use her name because it might make her loyal readers like her less? Not that she's 'marketing' herself or whatever, but it sounds like kind of a gruesome novel with really iffy portrayals of women that I'm just like??? No thank-you. There are enough murderous horrible men in the real world I don't need to read about it.
I'm totally with you about not liking being called girl. You have totally hit the mark for WHY I don't like being called a girl. My feelings about that have always just been inexplicable ~feelings~ so, thank-you for that! And also, I have never liked the term "chick" for women. I remember being in elementary school and hearing my older cousins (all boys) say it and feeling, like ... straight up offended.
I read/saw somewhere (on the internet) about how gendering products means more profit, which only further adds to my theory that EVERYTHING is about money and capitalism is The. Worst.
.....(i spent like 30 minutes trying to make this comment make sense so hopefully? it's not all over the place? like my mind?)
You got your point across perfectly! And I completely agree with you that the gendering of genres is the evils of capitalism. Not good. And yes, I think the Galbraith pen name was about trying to separate her audiences, knowing her Potterheads wouldn't perhaps get on with the new books she wanted to write. I'm sure she was hoping to not disappoint her readers because they picked up her new book expecting X and getting Y. I'm glad my explanation of my irritation at being called a girl helped you articulate what you've been feeling. I had a mini-epiphany whilst I was filming, actually, and finally could put words to what I'd been feeling, too :)
Yes Yes Yes on the ChickLit thing. It is almost hard to believe that I have been watching Booktube for this long and you are the first one I have seen addressing this issue. Aside from been offensive, I also find ChickLit completely useless as a category. All it tells me is that a woman has written female characters, which is not to be taken seriously and I should feel ashamed about reading and/or liking it. There are books put in this category on goodreads that I never would have thought to find there and I am absolutely certain that they would be classed as Literary Fiction (maybe even award winning Literary Fiction) had the author been male. But as it stands, people (especially guys) are not only excused from reading about these 'petty women's issues', but actively discouraged. Needless to say, ChickLit is not among the gazillion tags I use on goodreads. Sorry for ranting right back at you ;) You're also spot on about the Galbraith issue.
Rant away! I'm pleased you're pleased I spoke up about the issue of chick lit. And I agree with you completely with the idea that some chick lit, had they been written by men, would have been classed as general/literary fiction. AND I agree the "subgenre" of chick lit tells you very little about the books that fall into that category. It only spreads prejudice and restrictive gender norms.
I like the wink method :). This was interesting! I just read through the Wikipedia article for Robert Galbraith - and Jo Rowling published a statement when she was "outed" as Galbraith - that she was disappointed and angry, and that she had enjoyed writing under a pen name. Good reasons to respect her choice!
As for women's literature - I agree. The frustrates me that there are so many TV shows, books, movies etc that are geared towards men (and lots of women like them) as well as shows that are geared towards women (and definitely not men.) ugh I never thought about Nicholas Sparks! That is totally bullshit! I went to a used book sale recently and fortunately they didn't call this genre women's lot or chick lit - they called it "Beach reads" and it was clearly only those disposable paperbacks... But I thought that was a better category name at least. Although obviously everyone might like to read different things on the beac... What do you think?
Sorry for all the typos - left this comment on my phone... :P
Beach reads depends on each individual reader's preferences. When I read it public I have to choose something I don't need to intensely focus on. Inevitably I'll be distracted, so I need something to pull me in. I like that beach reads is not a gendered term, but it's still not quite right.... Was it only books aimed at women in that section?
I know... that's how I felt - not quite right still because it seems to look down on that genre still somehow... although it wasn't aimed at any specific gender.
So, (Hi It's Michaela doing some branding things with the channel ... video to come on that soon ... hopefully [damn you anxiety]) I wanted to throw in my two cents here. I experienced something along the lines of your second topic the other day. There was a guy I was interested in and I suggested he come over and watch a film I wanted to see. He responded with, "That's such a chick flick, I don't watch that sort of movie, I find them boring." The later half of that sentence was perfectly fine. There are some types of movies I don't enjoy ... not many, but some... it was the first half that through me off. I hadn't described the film as a chick flick I had simply said, "It's a romantic comedy blah blah blah..." describing the specific movie. I think that for me, this is something along those lines. I don't describe films as being for certain audiences usually, and I didn't even think that he wouldn't like it simply because he had guy bits stuck to his crotch. I think that the way most people would call a romcom a romcom is that step you are talking about. "Chick Flicks" is a term I am hearing less and less and I love that, so language is definitely important and while it is still there, removing it from our everyday use is step one to removing the prejudice attached to that.
I would also like to point out that "chick lit" is often shelved in with general fiction. Romance is a whole other bag of worms, but "chick lit" is just a sub category of general fiction. Perhaps part of the problem is that the general fiction covers so much ground the publishing industry needed a way to market their books. If you walk into a general fiction section you will find literary fiction, translated fiction, horror, thriller, romance, magical realism, etc. etc. There are certain marketing tropes necessary for people to navigate those sections. Cover art and buzz words namely, but its definitely more toward the necessity for publishers to make their product accessible to the audience they are trying to reach. Not sure if I made a whole lot of sense. I feel like I just word vomited at you... hmmm.
It made sense! Good point on "chick lit" being part of the hodge podge that is general fiction. However, I do think it's stereotyped in the same way as romance, which is why I started talking about romance in my rant. I just got off topic! :) And thank you for bringing up "chick flicks" and they're dismissal!! "Chicks" just can't catch a break, but I hope both those derogatory groupings are becoming more and more out of fashion.
Sorry to hear about your neck (though that's probably irrelevant by now).
I think I agree with everything you said in both of your rants. I personally have no interest in contemporary romance (well that's not strictly true, as I read contemporary romance fanfiction), but I feel like calling it chick-lit is demeaning to both women and the genre. In a sort of similar vein, I'm worried about becoming known as a "gay romance" author. Not that I would have a problem with being labelled as such if it were true (and I do intend to write a few gay romance novels) but I feel like my books which feature male protagonists that end up with males will get them labelled as gay romance, when the romance in those books is mostly an incindental thing with no drama attached. My books are urban fantasies, sci-fi/dystopias, high fantasy/dystopias, and they just happen to feature main couples of people who are both male. Does that make sense?
That absolutely makes sense. From what you're describing, calling your work "gay romance" is the lazy way of labeling it correctly, but not fully. This is the general problem with genres. They want every book to fit into a neat box, when a good book will dip into a couple of different boxes!
Finally got to watch the end of this. Had to break for foam fighting for a few hours. Anyway, I totally agree with you about everything. Though I call myself a chick, and refer to other gals as chicks (if I know they don't mind) I can definitely agree that the name "chick-lit" does the work zero favors. It is frustrating to see that the 'male experience' is still considered to be the 'right one' and everyone, regardless of gender, should be able to relate and want to read about it. The female experience is weird and icky. For some reason it cannot be well written or meaningful. *Rolls eyes for days*
As a writer I find that often I will be describing my book to someone (it has a female lead) and they'll stop me and say "so this is for girls?" And I want to pull out my hair as I try to patiently counter, "no. It's for anyone who wants to read it." I don't write to a gender demo, I just write and whoever likes it should be whoever likes it!
Indeed! Everyone should just read what they like because they like it, gender norms or biases aside! I hope the foam fighting was victorious :)
It was fairly victorious :)
(Boo, forgot there are character limits on RUclips)
...Frankly, I tend not to call anyone a "girl."
(I've also made the mistake of using the wrong pronouns for people in the long ago past and try to avoid them altogether now.)
**(thankfully "chick" seems to be more and more outdated.)
I love how you brought the two topics together in the end:
Unfortunately, the use of pen names is often to cross the lines from one genre market to another, and those lines are often determined by the gender expectations set by the the marketplace and reinforced by the public.
Have you read much Adrienne Rich?
I recommend you do if you haven't.
I've not read any Adrienne Rich, but I'll be looking up her works now! Thanks for your thoughtful comment! I'm glad I got my point across well enough that you thought it could be a sort of lecture :)
I have never believed that the "outing" of Galbraith was an accident.. I think it was a strategy to make more money - on the side of the publisher. When she said she wanted to use a pen name I think they were nodding their heads and holding their hands behind their backs with their fingers crossed. Personally, I have no interest in that genre and don't want to read it. But I really like your view on respecting the pen name.
The term chick lit needs to die. I cringe when I see people list it as their favorite genre. How about we just call it contemporary? I think that suits. Very good points!
Hmmmmm... interesting theory on the publishers always intending to reveal Rowling as Galbraith. I'll have to think about that some more. I think contemporary fiction is a good start to renaming "chick lit" :)
Rant#1 - It must be acknowledged, in someway, that JK Rowling is the author just to keep the comment threads from clogging up with insulting explanations, "Actually, it's really JK Rowling you dummy." I might opt for an annotation.
My argument for BookTubers to change their wording: just because she was outed by the big business of bookselling and that outing will certainly be perpetuated by the general population doesn't mean that the literary word, (readers and writers,) have to be party to this identity theft.
Rant#2 -
*(I don't think this is multiple "rants" but rather one long presentation, and I have to wonder if you've considered teaching?)
Though I think most people using the term, "chick," are ignorant to the idea of the infantilization of women and are instead leeching their vocabulary from the broader culture and should maybe be given,
(I don't want to say a break, because they not what I am getting at,)
a talking to instead of a lashing
I do understand...
Why not just ask Rowling what she prefers? I know a lot of writers who have used various pen names for whatever reason. However, once discovered who they truly are, does it change the quality of the writing? I don't think so. So, Rowling used Galbraith for her adult novels. I can understand her doing that to get away from Harry Potter fame and be valued on a different level of writing. It was inevitable that she was going to be discovered with the way social media rolls. In the end, it's still Rowling (not some guy named Galbraith) who wrote the books. Call a spade a spade. Now, coming from the point of view of a male household (except me, I'm the sole woman) I've had to view things through the eyes of my family. Without me saying anything my boys know what is too feminine for them and what is more up their ally. They don't like books that have touchy-feely romantic "girl" bits in them. My husband doesn't mind those kinds of books/movies, but they are not the thing he heads for when he's at the bookstore or cinema. Come to think of it, most of the guys I have had as friends don't veer in that direction either. Most of the books my men buy are by Tom Clancy, Patrick O'Brien, Eoin Colfer, Charlie Fletcher, etc - all having to deal with male characters and very male issues. Since I majored in European literature, most of my books cover a huge range of topics which could cover both male and female audiences, but there are some that I will clearly admit are geared more towards feminine readers (or male) than not. Is there anything wrong with that? Nope. Is there anything wrong with writers pandering more to a particular type of audience. No, there isn't. The whole gender issue has become a bandwagon buzzword that seems to have sprung on the scene out of nowhere. I'm always skeptical when that happens.
The problem is that people may feel pressured to like things our culture says aligns with their gender, even though their natural preference may differ from gender norms.
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. I'm twice your age and have never once felt pressured to like something simply because it was geared towards my being a woman. The only times I have ever felt pressured to conform to a certain mindset was when I was in college. Feminism was the buzzword then. At first I bought into it, but as I approached my 30s (and had many eye-opening conversations with people much older than I) I realized that feminism actually hurt my being a woman more than it helped, so I walked away. Today it's still being brought up, but so too is the gender issue in a very heavy way. I have to wonder why? Ten years ago the gender issue wasn't even an issue, yet suddenly there is this huge push for everyone to jump on the political bandwagon to support this. I won't.
I'm sorry, but I'm half you age and I still think you're wrong. Gender equality is one of the most important things to attain in human society. I don't care what it's being called or what your personal experiences have been, gender inequality is not right.
Pen Names are such a funny thing. I have seen, a few times, where books will say "So-And-So writing as So-And-So" and I'm like "Why have a different name if you're going to just tell us anyways?" Also, when the authors real name is a bigger font size than the pen name...that's just odd and confusing and seems pointless.
It's weird that people "correct" Galbraith into Rowling, but you never ever hear people talking about A Series of Unfortunate Events as being written by Daniel Handler. They still call him Lemony Snicket. Are they just more used to it? Still ignorant that it is a pen name? Or is it some subtle (or not so subtle) sexism going on?
I have never read any of the Harry Potter books, or any of the connected books, but I have read all of the Cormoran Strike novels that have so far been published, as well as Casual Vacancy and Very Good Lives. That being said, I have still been accused of being a "Potterhead who only likes those books because Rowling wrote them". Um...Nope! The fact that her pen name was spoiled actually infuriates me. She wanted to see what she could do in another genre, wanted to see what she could do without baggage and expectations...but now she will never know, we will never know. Unless she gets sneaky and tries again with something else. Some people say that the "leak" was just a publicity stunt and she was always going to tell people...but then why did she go through the trouble of creating an entire false author bio to match her pen name? I have a UK first edition of Cuckoo's Calling and it says:
Robert Galbraith is married with two sons. After several years with the Royal Military Police, he was attached to the SIB (Special Investigation Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for protagonist Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who have returned to the civilian world. Robert Galbraith is a pseudonym"
In later copies and in The Silkworm and Career of Evil, it explicitly states that Galbraith is a pseudonym for Rowling and lists some of her other books.
Also seems worth saying that Rowling's own name is a bit of a pen name, using initials to hide her gender so that the book would be more widely accepted, by publishers and book buyers alike.
OMG That is the longest comment I have ever left on RUclips ever!
YES, YES AND YES!! Such good thoughts here! I regret not bringing up other pen names of famous authors (Lemony Snicket is a great example. I was also thinking of Robin Hobb being the pen name of Megan Lindholm.) You should have made this video with me ;) I agree with you in completely disagreeing with the idea that the pseudonym leak was a publicity stunt. That's just unfair to suggest. And you're so right with J.K. hiding her gender to get more people to read the HP series, at least before it blew up in popularity. She's been having to play around with her identity from the start to get her books published and read. It's unjust as eff.
Amanda Center
When I saw Galbraith in the title of the video, I was excited to hear what you might have to say. Such an awesome video. I was sitting here talking at my laptop screen like a silly person, relaying my agreement out loud. I love videos that make you think.
I'm so pleased you enjoyed the ranting/discussion! You had many intelligent things to add. I appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughtful comments!!
(and since i didn't have space in the other comment...) Yeah, Chick Lit and also Chick Flicks is such a dismissive and annoying term. And it forces women to defend their choice of entertainment, whether they are someone who loves that type of thing or hates it. It's a double edged sword. If you love it, you are bubble-headed and flighty, but if you dislike it you are antagonizing and hipster. No winning with some people. And wow, I had never thought of "chick" that way before you read that definition...kind of relates back to the British slang "Bird" that women were (still are?) often called...because what is a chick? A baby Bird...a little woman...wow! Mini Mind-Blown.
And the idea that Romance novels and the like are without value...like...no. My grandmother is a voracious reader. She loved Nora Roberts and read all of her books...she has also read everything under Robert's pen name J.D. Robb. On the flipside, as it were, she also reads classics and modern classics and her favorite book ever is A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. She has also suffered THREE strokes and keeps on reading, so fuck anyone who judges my grandmother for reading "chick lit" because at least she is reading and hasn't given up on her love for it despite her obstacles.
Bravo!! We are so of one mind on these topics. And, yes, the connection to "bird" as slang for a girlfriend, very astute. Then we can get into the idea of "bird brain" and how that relates to infantilized women. It's just so deeply rooted in wrong. Your grandmother sounds awesome! Judging people because they read "chick lit" reminds me of the uncomfortable high/middle/low brow distinctions of art, literature and culture, which has major racist overtones and is tied up in class and intelligence. It is, of course, outdated and horrid, but those categorizations and prejudices are going strong today. It's just so icky and bad. Urgh!!