JK Rowling Publishing under a Pseudonym

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There seems no reason to suppose that there's any deception here. It was the law firm which contacted Rowling's agent about the disclosure. Perhaps Ms Callegari subsequently told Mr Gossage that she had leaked the information. She wasn't breaking any law by doing so, but Mr Gossage very likely was breaching the solicitor's code of professional ethics by breaking client confidentiality in this way.

This is what you quoted yourself:

"A tiny number of people knew my pseudonym and it has not been pleasant to wonder for days how a woman whom I had never heard of prior to Sunday night could have found out something that many of my oldest friends did not know," she added.

If the author of the tweet was anonymous, then how did Rowling know that it was a woman she never heard of before?

Before the law firm contacted her with the explanation there was no reason for her to assume that the tweet was written by a woman that she had no previous contact with. If there was anything to wonder for days about it would have been whom among the tiny number of people that knew her pseudonym leaked the information.

[HarryT]

She knew who it was at the time she issued that statement. There's no mystery here.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

She knew who it was at the time she issued that statement. There's no mystery here.

In order for her to have wondered for days about how a person she never heard about before know her pseudonym, she would have had to know the name of the person who tweeted before the law firm told her about it.

[HarryT]

Oh for heaven's sake, you do get worked up about trivia. Ask her if you're so worried about it .

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If the author of the tweet was anonymous, then how did Rowling know that it was a woman she never heard of before?

I saw a news article at the beginning of the week with the name and photo of the woman who blabbed, since it was easy for journalists to track her down from the twitter account she used, which contained her full name. It would hardly be surprising if the Times journalist who received the tweet asked Rowling if she knew the woman when he contacted her for comment before the story broke last Sunday.

[Apache]

There isn't any Anonymity on the Internet, if you are really determined to find out.
Apache

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I imagine that the Law Society (the professional oversight body for the legal profession in England) might well have something to say to the gentleman concerned about this breach of client confidentiality.

In my state, someone was disbarred just a couple of days ago for having written a book in which he disclosed a some information told to him by a client that was confidential. Writing a book is worse, of course, and the disclosures were more embarrassing and substantial - but violating a client confidence is a pretty big deal as it sort of undermines the legal system.

[tompe]

The author bio in books are often part of the fiction so I really do not understand people here thinking that it is always 100% truthful.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

In order for her to have wondered for days about how a person she never heard about before know her pseudonym, she would have had to know the name of the person who tweeted before the law firm told her about it.

She did. Everyone did. There was a newspaper article about her.

But it took a couple of days to figure out how she found out; the newspaper article identifies her as a suburban housewife in Surrey. But no one knew how she would have found out the information, including Rowlings, who, as she said, had no idea who the woman was.

A couple of days after the name of the leaker was made public, Rowlings's law firm figured out that the woman was the best friend of the wife of a partner who knew the information; at this point they called Rowlings and apologized. After this, Rowlings made her statement.

[cmargm]

Same here. I put the ebook on hold after I had read a positive review of this book. I was #2 on a list of 2 and the library had only 1 copy. The next time I looked I was #1 out of 45 on hold and the library now has 41 copies available. Today there are 134 individuals on a hold for this book.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

It is on the Vancouver public library website with 73 reserves already.

Makes me wonder about the dynamics behind library purchases. Is it Twitter based perhaps?

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

She did. Everyone did. There was a newspaper article about her.

But it took a couple of days to figure out how she found out; the newspaper article identifies her as a suburban housewife in Surrey. But no one knew how she would have found out the information, including Rowlings, who, as she said, had no idea who the woman was.

A couple of days after the name of the leaker was made public, Rowlings's law firm figured out that the woman was the best friend of the wife of a partner who knew the information; at this point they called Rowlings and apologized. After this, Rowlings made her statement.

I can't find it. I've googled "Rowling The Cuckoo’s Calling suburban housewife in Surrey" and only got two relevant results, one from 21 hours ago and one from one day ago. The other search results seem to come up because of ads for stories about Rowling on pages that mention suburban, housewife or Surrey.

I've seen many stories that said that the tweet was anonymous, even as close as two days ago:

the initial tip came from an anonymous Twitter account that was deleted almost immediately following the tweet

So can you give me a link to this story?

[elcreative]

Try Rowling galbraith leak - 144,000 results, many relevant

[Loosheesh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh for heaven's sake, you do get worked up about trivia. Ask her if you're so worried about it .

I could hug you ... but I won't

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So can you give me a link to this story?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-8714109.html

[KNI]

I finished reading it an hour ago. Overall - a truly great read.

Comments - the first couple chapters are a little unpolished - like she had not written for a while and was getting back into the groove - but after that the writing is absolutely superb. The descriptions are stunning in many cases.

The plotting is pure Rowling at her best - complex and flawless.

The one discouraging factor - that some idiot publisher turned the book down, of course not knowing who really wrote it - but that a work of this quality could be rejected by any qualified publisher is truly an indictment of the publishing industry. No wonder so many newer authors go to self publishing via the electronic route.

I surely hope Rowling favors us with many more books, making this into a series.

Cheers

KNI