A few months ago I fell out with a fellow writer about the supposed revelation of the real identity of the author Elena Ferrante. If you recall, a researcher into the author of My Brilliant Friend et al had unmasked her – correctly or otherwise – as a German translator.
Ferrante had asked for privacy, and Claudio Gatti, the researcher in question, made a poor defence of his right to find out more about her. He could have argued that she's made millions, enhanced in part by the secrecy surrounding her identity, for instance.
Instead, Gatti simply outed the German translator, saying that Ferrnate had lied about her past. I won't name the translator here because she, too, is entitled to as much privacy as I can offer. If Ferrante and this woman are not one and the same, then the researcher has ruined two lives, not one.
I suspect that at least part of the outrage amongst Ferrante's (mostly female) readership is that the author has always threatened to give up writing if she were ever exposed. And she undoubtedly has a right to privacy.
But where I disagreed with my writing friend (I'm still not sure we've made up yet) is that she, like many other women, saw something even more sinister in the fact that Gatti is male and Ferrante is (presumably) female: she saw a sexual motive. In the Guardian, psychoanalyst Fiona Sinclair suggested that,
Ferrante had asked for privacy, and Claudio Gatti, the researcher in question, made a poor defence of his right to find out more about her. He could have argued that she's made millions, enhanced in part by the secrecy surrounding her identity, for instance.
Instead, Gatti simply outed the German translator, saying that Ferrnate had lied about her past. I won't name the translator here because she, too, is entitled to as much privacy as I can offer. If Ferrante and this woman are not one and the same, then the researcher has ruined two lives, not one.
I suspect that at least part of the outrage amongst Ferrante's (mostly female) readership is that the author has always threatened to give up writing if she were ever exposed. And she undoubtedly has a right to privacy.
But where I disagreed with my writing friend (I'm still not sure we've made up yet) is that she, like many other women, saw something even more sinister in the fact that Gatti is male and Ferrante is (presumably) female: she saw a sexual motive. In the Guardian, psychoanalyst Fiona Sinclair suggested that,
Gatti tears off Ferrante's clothes, removes her cloak of invisibility, in something approaching a sexual act. Perhaps it was titillating for him.
I'd suggest that anyone who believes that – simply because Gatti is male and Ferrante is female, in other words – is themselves guilty of sexism. As a premise, it would suggest that only men can research the lives of men and women the lives of women. Which would be manifest rubbish.
Today, I came across an interesting parallel case, a woman who has re-branded herself to be known solely by her first name. I don't want to out her either so let's say that her real name is Jessica Lemon, and she wants to be known as "Jessica" in everything – Dr Jessica, Rev Jessica, Dame Jessica, even just "Jessica" on her passport. This isn't a cultural thing, it's purely a branding matter.
It causes problems on certain social media such as LinkedIn which demand accurate name disclosure. And I'm sure I'd be kicked off fast enough if I registered my second name as a symbol, which is what Jessica does. Technically she's not even asked for privacy, and she's choosing to play hide-and-seek with her surname. It's just her marketing ploy.
So does the fact that I'm faintly curious to know her real surname make me a sexual predator? I sure hope not.
Gordon Lawrie
(First posted on www.lawrie.info)
Today, I came across an interesting parallel case, a woman who has re-branded herself to be known solely by her first name. I don't want to out her either so let's say that her real name is Jessica Lemon, and she wants to be known as "Jessica" in everything – Dr Jessica, Rev Jessica, Dame Jessica, even just "Jessica" on her passport. This isn't a cultural thing, it's purely a branding matter.
It causes problems on certain social media such as LinkedIn which demand accurate name disclosure. And I'm sure I'd be kicked off fast enough if I registered my second name as a symbol, which is what Jessica does. Technically she's not even asked for privacy, and she's choosing to play hide-and-seek with her surname. It's just her marketing ploy.
So does the fact that I'm faintly curious to know her real surname make me a sexual predator? I sure hope not.
Gordon Lawrie
(First posted on www.lawrie.info)
