The views expressed in the Writer-in-Residence blogs are those held by the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Open Book: Toronto.
On pseudonyms: Q&A With Michael Redhill
Submitted by sandraridley on September 26, 2014 - 8:58am
On pseudonyms a.k.a. aliases a.k.a. handles a.k.a. avatars a.k.a. monikers a.k.a. sobriquets ak.a. epithets a.k.a. pen names a.k.a. nicknames a.k.a. noms de guerres a.k.a. anon.:
Q&A with Michael Redhill, on writing under “Inger Ash Wolfe”
Sandra Ridley: What drew you to using a pseudonym for your work?
Michael Redhill: I wanted to lead a secret life and watch it unfold from a distance. And I liked the idea of being two people for two distinct purposes. I also found that it allowed for a “performance” as a different writer. Writers are always getting into character, anyway, so why couldn’t the writer also be a character? That was perhaps the most satisfying part of the process, seeing how Inger wrote.
SR: What are the benefits and/or disadvantages for you?
MR: The benefits were that I got to see what happened. It was interesting and a lot of it was unexpected. The disadvantage is that using a pseudonym made it difficult to promote the books, and in Canada the pseudonym was predictably turned into a parlour game of both guessing and accusing. What wasn’t predictable was that I had a kind of stalker: someone who was hellbent on not letting me get away with being anonymous. This person sent letters to every books editor and agent in Canada, each letter containing a white piece of paper with my picture on it and the words: The cat is out of the bag! Michael Redhill is Inger Ash Wolfe. Very creepy, and there were other incidents—about eight in number, ending with a direct threat against me—that very much destroyed the joy of publishing the first book. I had to come back to Canada while living in France to do an event in Toronto, and I spent the whole week worrying I was going to be attacked. I know who did it now, although they don’t know that I know (I guess unless they read this).
SR: Do you see yourself as being part of, or extending, or arguing with a particular tradition of writing under a pseudonym?
MR: No, none at all. I abjure all discussion of genre vs. “literature” and I don’t play sides.
.jpg)
