Final Paper for Critical Theory Class
My final paper for my Critical Theory discussed J.K. Rowling and her use of a pseudonym to write new novels. This paper is titled: The Death of J.K. Rowling’s Name and the Importance of Distancing Herself from Harry Potter
In 2013 a man by the name of Robert Galbraith published his debut novel, The Cuckoo’s Calling. Shortly after the release, it was revealed to the public that the name Robert Galbraith is in fact a pseudonym for the renowned author, J.K. Rowling. This revelation had many asking why such a famous author would want to publish under a pseudonym. It’s simple: J.K. Rowling has moved past Harry Potter and wants to write something new and different. By publishing under a pseudonym, she was allowed the freedom of publishing a book without the bias surrounding what she’s previously written because her name wasn’t attached to it. This action is a clear demonstration of the author-function, which is to attach a classification to a text. But such an attachment should not confine an author to a brand. The author should be able to break free of the name (or reputation) he or she has made for his or herself and be able to produce something new without being judged by his or her previous works.
J.K. Rowling’s anonymity lasted for all of 2 months after publication. This is in effect because of her success and respect in regard to literature. J.K. Rowling’s function is as a popular author of a story that changed the world. But that isn’t the bar she wants to hold her future works accountable to. The author-function as Foucault describes in his essay “What is an Author?” is “tied to the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine, and articulate the realm of discourses” (1266). Foucault argues that the author-function is controlled by these institutional systems, but there is no way to confine it to a certain culture or an individual, or determine the way it operates; the author-function operates in many different ways. The function that Rowling desires from her position as an author is to distance herself from the fame so as to write pieces without critics comparing them to Harry Potter. Foucault acknowledges this dilemma: “The author of a novel may be responsible for more than his own text; if he acquires some ‘importance’ in the literary world, his influence can have significant ramifications” (1266). Indeed, Rowling’s Harry Potter has taken the world by storm. With 7 books, 3 companion novellas, 8 movies, the website Pottermore.com, and The Wizarding World of Harry Potter Theme Parks, J.K. Rowling’s imagination has made a significant impact on the world. There is no denying that Rowling is a force to be reckoned with. But amid all of the fame over her first book series the question arises whether Rowling can write anything new without judging it based on the success of Harry Potter. The problem therein lies in her name. “An author’s name is not simply an element of speech. . . . Its presence is functional in that it serves as a means of classification” (Foucault 1263). This statement is accurate in describing many genre fiction authors. One can classify a certain group of texts just by stating the name of the author. J.K. Rowling’s name works in much the same way. Harry Potter will forever be attached to her name. Because the success of Harry Potter is so astronomical and abnormal in comparison to other famous literary works, it is very difficult for her to write anything new without readers and critics comparing them to Harry Potter.
J.K. Rowling’s intention of publishing anonymously was to set her apart from Harry Potter, or the brand by which everyone knows her name. In their piece “The Intentional Fallacy,” Wimsatt and Beardsley state “intention is [a] design or plan in the author’s mind. Intention has obvious affinities for the author’s attitude toward his work, the way he felt, what made him write” (1027). The action of J.K. Rowling releasing a novel under a pseudonym suggests the intention to separate her name from Harry Potter. There is an obvious attitude by Rowling in deviating from the name she has made in order to prevent this so-called Harry Potter bias. This action suggests that she may hold a feeling of bitterness for how her name is associated with Harry Potter, and begs the question whether her future works will get the same treatment as any other author in the genre she publishes in. The literary world is saturated with authors, but it’s difficult to determine which authors will attain success upon the release of his or her novel. This is especially hard for debut authors. “The design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art” (Beardsley & Wimsatt 1027). Though Rowling’s intentions were pure, it is hard for the critic or the reader to know the author’s intent, and it should not be used as a way to judge or critique an author’s work and the success of it. Rowling’s name is associated with immense success. When readers hear that J.K. Rowling wrote a new book, they figure it must be good because she wrote it. But this is exactly what Rowling wanted to avoid by publishing under a pseudonym. She wants to be judged by the content alone, not by her name. Interestingly enough, before Rowling’s name was attached to Galbraith’s, sales of The Cuckoo’s Calling had sold just 1,500 copies. Once Galbraith’s true identity was revealed, “Rowling’s publishers [had] reprinted 140,000 copies to meet demand” (Meikle). Wimsatt and Beardsley suggest “the work [should be] measured against something outside the author” (1030). These numbers suggest that that’s not what happens. Rowling’s intentions were good and smart to publish a book anonymously so as to have her work critiqued apart from her name, or outside of herself, but that intention came crashing down once her identity was revealed.
Foucault takes Wimsatt and Beardsley’s arguments a step further by discussing anonymity:
‘Literary’ discourse was acceptable only if it carried an author’s name. . . . The meaning and value attributed to the text depended on this information. If . . . a text was presented anonymously, every effort was made to locate its author. Literary anonymity was of interest only as a puzzle to be solved as, in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereignty of the author. (1264)
Though J.K. Rowling wrote under a pseudonym, the idea is still the same. When Rowling was ousted as the true author behind The Cuckoo’s Calling, she “revealed that a partner at Russells law firm was the cause of the disclosure by telling his wife’s best friend who Galbraith really was” (Meikle). Imagine keeping that secret! You know that one of the most famous authors of our time has published a novel under a pseudonym. It was irrational of the lawyer to reveal the secret surrounding Robert Galbraith, but a secret like that would be hard not to tell. Foucault’s explanation about anonymity gives the reason why: we, as humans, will do anything to uncover secrets, and a secret as good as this one was just too good to keep quiet. In a society dominated by Rowling’s name and her works, it only made sense to disappear behind another name in order to gain some sort of credibility by publishing a new book.
Ultimately, J.K. Rowling’s anonymity caused the “death” of her name. Her function as the author of Harry Potter disappeared. With Harry Potter completely out of the picture, her death gave her the opportunity to be judged and critiqued on the work alone. In “The Death of the Author” Roland Barthes says “the removal of the Author . . . is not only a historical fact or an act of writing: it utterly transforms the modern text” (1257). This is true for Robert Galbraith. Though an author’s name is still attached to the book, it wasn’t originally J.K. Rowling. The absence of her name from the text transformed the way it was perceived by the critic and the reader. It wasn’t until her name was attributed to Robert Galbraith’s that critics and readers had all the more reason to draw comparisons to Harry Potter. Barthes calls the actions by critics and readers to find the true identity of the author “futile. To assign an author to a text is to impose a brake on it, to furnish it with a final signified, to close writing. . . . once the author is found, the text is ‘explained,’ the critic has won” (1257). Though Barthes refers to any author, he argues that the language of a work speaks for itself. The author should not matter in a text, because the author is dead. This is a similar notion to what Rowling wanted from The Cuckoo’s Calling. By distancing herself from the book, she allowed for her work to be judged solely by the writing and not on the basis of who wrote it. The death of her name in association with her new project allowed someone new to take control. Robert Galbraith was a debut author with no previous works to be held accountable to. Galbraith had no name, no reputation in the literary world, but the second Rowling’s name was attributed to his, that all changed.
With Rowling’s name attached to The Cuckoo’s Calling, the demand for the book went up because she was the author. In this, Foucault agrees with Barthes, “If we wish to know the [author] in our day, it will be through the singularity of his absence and in his link to death, which has transformed him into a victim of his own writing” (1261). J.K. Rowling certainly became a victim of her own works. Even in her good intentions to publish under a different name to divert the Harry Potter bias, her true name was revealed to the public and she fell victim again to Harry Potter. The more authors that attain success like Rowling and still wish to publish new and different works will fall to the same victimization, unless the critics and the reader set aside the judgments surrounding an author’s first works in order to rightly critique and review his or her future works. The author will pass away, but his or her works will not. Books will live forever, insomuch allowing the author-function to attach a name to wonderful pieces of work for all of time and eternity. By then, what the reader and the critic think and say need not matter; the work will speak for itself.
Works Cited
Adams, Hazard, and Leroy Searle, eds. Critical Theory Since Plato. 3rd ed. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2005. Print.
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Adams and Searle 1256-1258.
Beardsley, Monroe C., and W.K. Wimsatt. “The Intentional Fallacy.” Adams and Searle 1027-1034
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” Adams and Searle 1260-1268.
Meikle, James. “JK Rowling directs anger at lawyers after secret identity revealed.” The Guardian. Guardian News., 18 July 2013. Web. 4 May 2015.