JK Rowling Publishing under a Pseudonym

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by medard

I don't understand why people whant get this book now.

Why is this book interesting out of a sudden? There are thousands of books each year that sell less than 1'500 copies.

I want to get the book now simply because I hadn't heard of it before. It is the type of book I'd be interested in: a mystery that sounds intriguing that garnered good reviews. Granted, now I know Rowling's the author it increases the chances I'll actually pick it up.

I for one thought Casual Vacancy was magnificent. I would encourage anyone put off by the negative reviews to give it a chance if you like character-driven literary fiction. It's really well done. I almost didn't read it because of the reviews. Definitely glad I did.

Rowling is an awesome writer. I will keep dreaming of another series set at Hogwarts. Perhaps a girl protagonist this time? With Harry as Headmaster? One can always hope...

[pidgeon92]

... and here we have a most useful review, as posted on one of my favorite websites, Least Helpful:

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by jackthereader

I agree. Maybe she had no other way but to write under a pseudonym. This would have been too much for some people.

"What? A crime novel? Oh come on, what's next?!"

I'm not convinced that her writing is that good. publishersweekly called it a "stellar debut", and while I'm sure that many are only seeing the word "stellar", it is the fact that it was viewed as a debut that makes me doubt her skill.

The HP books are fine for children, but viewed through the eyes of an adult they aren't that good.

[elemenoP]

>>Kate Mills, fiction editor at Orion Books, admitted she had turned down the crime novel, which she described as "well-written but quiet".

"So, I can now say that I turned down JK Rowling. I did read and say no to Cuckoo's Calling. Anyone else going to confess?" she tweeted. <<

The above from the BBC article. I find this the strangest part. I would assume that she and her editor together planned to publish the book pseudonymously. Or rather that she asked her editor and he agreed. But the above makes it sound like she shopped the book around as if she were a first-time author. And then what? Her current editor happened to be the one to pick up?? What a coincidence!!

eP

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

publishersweekly called it a "stellar debut", and while I'm sure that many are only seeing the word "stellar", it is the fact that it was viewed as a debut that makes me doubt her skill

You're entitled to your opinion obviously regarding the quality of writing, but it wasn't "viewed" as a debut, it WAS a debut. It was the first book published by Robert Galbraith. Publishers Weekly didn't know it was Rowling at the time. Them saying it is a debut is a simple statement of fact, not an assessment of writing skill.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by usuallee

You're entitled to your opinion obviously regarding the quality of writing, but it wasn't "viewed" as a debut, it WAS a debut. It was the first book published by Robert Galbraith. Publishers Weekly didn't know it was Rowling at the time. Them saying it is a debut is a simple statement of fact, not an assessment of writing skill.

What they did know was that Robert Galbraith is a pseudonym since that was in the bio. They can figure out from the writing stile if this is the first book that the person behind the pseudonym published or if this is a person with writing experience.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What they did know was that Robert Galbraith is a pseudonym since that was in the bio. They can figure out from the writing stile if this is the first book that the person behind the pseudonym published or if this is a person with writing experience.

Well clearly they couldn't.
And neither could anyone else until they were tipped off.
Are you expecting each reviewer to perform wholescale textual analysis of each book they review?

[speakingtohe]

If the Bio was accurate which we all know now it wasn't, it would seem to give good reason for a pseudonym as it might be frowned on by employers both military and security for an employee to write a book.

But then again if that was the case, why put it in the Bio?

Still, I think if it was a planned leak by either the author or someone high up in the publishers, I would think they would have a few thousand more books printed and on their way to bookstores before the leak even happened, and less in the hands of the libraries. Sure it would look bad, but money is money.


Helen

[Victoria]

From comments I read here and other places, she seems to have become a somewhat devisive public figure - for whatever reasons.

Imho, I can understand why she'd use a pseudonym. She is not seeking fame or fortune. She has both in abundance. She writes because she written all of her life - she has the heart and drive and soul of an author - writing is her life's calling.

But for the last several years, she has been very reluctant to be a 'public' figure. She values personal privacy, which is very hard to find. A pseudonym would allow her to engage with the world as an author. To me, that is very authentic, because that is who she is - an author, and a damned fine one.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Well clearly they couldn't.
And neither could anyone else until they were tipped off.
Are you expecting each reviewer to perform wholescale textual analysis of each book they review?

Clearly they couldn't because her writing doesn't show maturity.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Sure it would look bad, but money is money.

Authors have been doing this kind of thing for centuries without it previously, as far as I know, being seen as looking bad. Who would have guessed that values had so changed?

As I noted before, Stephen King prevaricated when asked if he was the author of his pseudonymous books. He even had someone else's photo put on the dust covers. Perhaps a few fans were critical, but I haven't yet come across them.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

But then again if that was the case, why put it in the Bio?

Helen

That's ALWAYS done, especially in non fiction exposes.. It communicates the writers credentials and authority while masking the personally identifiable info.

And in the case of fiction:

1. If the pseudonym's bio was exactly the same as the author's bio, it would be a little transparent, no?
2. Maybe the same reason "Bridges of Madison County" had a fake intro/backstory. It helps make the story more immersive and believable, and probably increases sales.
3. Perhaps the pseudonym's bio reflects the bios of people she consulted with on the story.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's ALWAYS done, especially in non fiction exposes.. It communicates the writers credentials and authority while masking the personally identifiable info.

And in the case of fiction:

1. If the pseudonym's bio was exactly the same as the author's bio, it would be a little transparent, no?
2. Maybe the same reason "Bridges of Madison County" had a fake intro/backstory. It helps make the story more immersive and believable, and probably increases sales.
3. Perhaps the pseudonym's bio reflects the bios of people she consulted with on the story.

Could be, or it closely matches the main character's bio. Perhaps she will tell us

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's ALWAYS done, especially in non fiction exposes.. It communicates the writers credentials and authority while masking the personally identifiable info.

But isn't this a type of fraud if the bio is a lie?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But isn't this a type of fraud if the bio is a lie?

Only if people believe everything they read.

More seriously: there is a loonnnggg tradition of fake bios in books, usually in fun. And when pseudonyms are involved most anything goes, the more outlandish the better.