JK Rowling Publishing under a Pseudonym

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Business Rusch has a detailed analysis of what Rowling was doing.

Thank you for that excellent link.

I'm surprised to see the apparent parallels between criticisms of Ms. Rowling in this thread and among publishing professionals. I guess it's something in the zeitgeist.

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Still, one point that is interesting in all that--publishers don't necessarily go to big names like Val McDermid for a blurb for just any author. So even with a different name she had the marketing dept behind her. Getting blurbs is big business too.

Well they both had the same publisher (Little, Brown). I think it's common for a publisher to ask one of their established authors to blurb a new author in their stable.

eP

[samhy]

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.

For me, it's because I've just heard about it. Good reviews and a genre that I like, it makes me want to read it.
I did the same thing after reading many praises on Stephen King's 11.22.63 here (it wasn't released in France at that time).

[HarryT]

More from the BBC:

JK Rowling has said she feels "very angry" after finding out her pseudonym Robert Galbraith was leaked by a legal firm.

The Harry Potter author was revealed as the writer of crime novel The Cuckoo's Calling in the Sunday Times.

She found out the leak came from law firm Russells, whom she had assumed she "could expect total confidentiality from".

"I feel very angry that my trust turned out to be misplaced.

"To say that I am disappointed is an understatement," she said in a statement.

"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.

Russells Solicitors said it apologised "unreservedly".

In a statement, it said one of its partners, Chris Gossage, had told his wife's best friend, Judith Callegari, that Robert Galbraith was really Rowling.

The company said it was revealed "during a private conversation" adding "the disclosure was made in confidence to someone he trusted implicitly".

It has been reported Ms Callegari subsequently revealed Rowling's identity to a Sunday Times journalist via Twitter on 9 July.

Russells continued: "Whilst accepting [Gossage's] own culpability, the disclosure was made in confidence to someone he trusted implicitly. On becoming aware of the circumstances, we immediately notified JK Rowling's agent."
...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23366660

[Billi]

Thanks, Harry! It's interesting to learn her own opinion about it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by kakistos

Looks like the leak came from a law firm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...m_hp_ref=books

Rowling said that "only 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."

As it turns out, one of The Sunday Times’ writers had read The Cuckoo’s Calling recently and tweeted her appreciation of the book. Shortly after, an anonymous person replied to her on Twitter and told her that J.K. Rowling was the real author.

When the editor replied to the Twitter user asking “How do you know for sure?” the user said “I just know,” and then proceeded to delete all of their tweets as well as the account.

If the tweet was from an anonymous person how did Rowling know that it was a woman?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If the tweet was from an anonymous person how did Rowling know that it was a woman?

Read my post #109 above. It has more information.

[Nancy Fulda]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Generally speaking, that probably doesn't work as most publishers insist on "right of first refusal" with "next book." Now, she has the power to have that taken out of a contract, but if it's in there, she would have had to submit it to her current publisher first.

Any agent worth her salt will fight to limit those options clauses to the next book *within the same genre*. Hard to know what Rowling's actual contract said, but it wouldn't be unusual for a mystery book to be free for submission elsewhere even when an author is contractually obligated to keep her YA fantasy with its original publisher.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

Any agent worth her salt will fight to limit those options clauses to the next book *within the same genre*. Hard to know what Rowling's actual contract said, but it wouldn't be unusual for a mystery book to be free for submission elsewhere even when an author is contractually obligated to keep her YA fantasy with its original publisher.

There is every indication that the Galbraith project started *before* Casual Vacancy found a home. If we go back around release of Deathly Hallows in 2007, Rowling clearly said she intended to work on a mystery title and said she might use a pseudonym.

Five years is about the right timeframe for her to have written the book, have it bounce around, find a home, and get published. It also explains while Casual Vacancy and not the promised mytery was released first.

Really sad her attempt to step out from under the shadow of her reputation got shortcircuitted by a blabbermouth revealing a secret he had no right to reveal.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

Any agent worth her salt will fight to limit those options clauses to the next book *within the same genre*. Hard to know what Rowling's actual contract said, but it wouldn't be unusual for a mystery book to be free for submission elsewhere even when an author is contractually obligated to keep her YA fantasy with its original publisher.

Agreed. And at her level, I'd expect she had a good agent and freedom. And she always works via lawyers so I'm sure it's all possible. I just like throwing stuff in there when we're all madly speculating. A lot of agents these days have complained they are having a much harder time getting things taken out of contracts.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Really sad her attempt to step out from under the shadow of her reputation got shortcircuitted by a blabbermouth revealing a secret he had no right to reveal.

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.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

Well they both had the same publisher (Little, Brown). I think it's common for a publisher to ask one of their established authors to blurb a new author in their stable.

eP

It is common, but they use their silver bullets carefully, especially when it comes to their biggest authors. My point is that they DID get a big name author to blurb it and that MIGHT not have happened for just Joe Schmoe New author. Some authors won't do blurbs at all (they get asked from all kinds of places for blurbs--agents, other authors who are friends, etc.)

I've nothing against the book. I'm hearing it's quite good.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Read my post #109 above. It has more information.

The information was in the link given in post #99, the one that I quoted.

It was the law firm that told what happened, and in previous stories it was claimed that the tweet was anonymous. The only way in which Rowling could have known that the author of the tweet was a woman is if the unmasking was a fabrication.

[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.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

You are sooo right. None of us, not a one of us, would make up a story.

Tbh, the above was kinda tongue in cheek since I never read author bios until after I've read a book, liked it and want to know more about who wrote it (even then I'd probably google it instead).

Only time I do tend to research authors and base a book decision on that is buying reference books, for those I'd be pretty miffed if an author made up a bio (although again, I'd be more likely to use google than a bio when making a decision). I can see some people getting wound up but it doesn't really bother me that much. I guess it's a tough issue to solve when using a pseudonym though.

Putting the Bio aside though, I think it's quite a good thing for her to write under a pseudonym for numerous reasons, many of which have been touched on in this thread. Shame the info leaked.