All of the publicity information released about Robert Galbraith indicate that this identity is a male. I believe the coding in the NAR is correct. For example, see http://www.robert-galbraith.com/
"Why did you choose to write it as a man? Did it influence your writing in anyway?" I certainly wanted to take my writing persona as far away as possible from me, so a male pseudonym seemed a good idea. I am proud to say, though, that when I ¡unmasked¢ myself to my editor David Shelley who had read and enjoyed 'The Cuckoo¢s Calling' without realizing I wrote it, one of the first things he said was ¡I never would have thought a woman wrote that.¢ Apparently I had successfully channeled my inner bloke!
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:31:00 +0000
> From: Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: authorities for alternate identities
> Calling Robert Galbraith (pseudonym for J.K. Rowling) male doesn't seem correct. I notice George Eliot, 1819-1880 is listed as female, so a person's real identify seems to take precedence over the way a person presents herself in a pseudonym.
> I think it's questionable that you can even infer gender from a person's name in many cases. For example, I revised an authority for a Jean Wilson recently. As an American, you would expect that to be a woman, but he is a male, based on photographs I found.
> The 375 is another field I don't think we should fill in routinely unless we find it's useful.
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 1:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] authorities for alternate identities
> Comparing the RDA authorities for Lewis Carroll, J.K. Rowling, and Mark Twain and their alternate identities, I see three models of practice.
> The 3XX fields describing Lewis Carroll and Charles Lutwidge Dodgson describe them identically--e.g., both are identified in 372s as working in Writing, Mathematics, Teaching, and Photography.
> The 3XX fields describing J.K. Rowling and Robert Galbraith describe distinct identities--e.g., Rowling is identified as working in Fantasy fiction and Young adult fiction, and as female, while Galbraith is identified as working in Detective and mystery stories, and as male.
> The RDA authorities for Mark Twain and his alternate identities might represent a third model. Only the Twain authority has 046 and 3XX fields, while the Clemens, Conte, and Snodgrass authorities have none.
> Are these all correct, and if so, what criteria should we use when deciding which differences between two identities for the same person should be expressed and when attributes should be expressed identically or left unexpressed?
> Or is Carroll a special case? So much of the Dodgson corpus has been reissued under or in conjunction with the Carroll name that one could make a case for making Dodgson a 400 under Carroll. A similar case could be made for merging Clemens into Twain.
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Technical Services, University Libraries
> University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]