JK Rowling Publishing under a Pseudonym

[Fat Abe]

From another blog on :

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/...m-8710726.html

Of course, the benefit of hindsight is bringing out all kinds of claims of inside knowledge or prescience; Knight said last night that there were “clues everywhere” in the writing to the fact that Galbraith was a woman and that the book was not all it seemed. And what of the name “Robert Galbraith”? The words, if taken back to their Germanic and Gaelic origins, loosely translate as “famous stranger.”

Galbraith may no longer be a stranger but he’s certainly famous. And, along with Rowling, he will be laughing all the way to the bank with the proceeds of his literary heist.


It would have been more interesting if Rowling kept her identity secret until a literary analysis were performed, as was the case with Joe Klein and his book, Primary Colors. But, this is the summer reading season, and she (Rowling) was probably getting impatient with the slow sales. For those who have read the mystery novel, are there Rowling-isms within her book that would have helped you to identify the real author?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

But, this is the summer reading season, and she (Rowling) was probably getting impatient with the slow sales.

Uh, no she wasn't.
The book was selling *well* for what it is. "Quiet mystery" is actually a genre unto itself. Or sub-genre if you want to be precise. Those books sell about the way THE CUCKOO'S CALLING was selling. And 8600 copies total in three months is good sales for that genre.

She was getting exactly what she wanted; a chance to write a book that could find its natural audience without the hysteria that accompanied THE CASUAL VACANCY. The reviews it got were free of Potter expectations, the buyers weren't buying it because it had her name on it; they were buying it because they appreciated quiet mysteries.

The woman is worth north of a billion with a (permanent?) revenue stream in the tens to hundreds of millions without lifting a finger. If she says she wanted the Galbraith brand to be separate there is no reason to doubt *her*. The publisher? Yes. The agent? Maybe.
But a fancy publicity scheme that relies on getting a lawyer to trash his career and reputation is going to cost a lot more than just putting it out under her name. Too much trouble and the return doesn't justify it as a scheme; not with that explanation.

Seriously: if Rowling were that kind of money-grubber all she has to do is take a chunk of the Potter encyclopedia (all profits going to charity) turn it into a short story or novellete and sell it on Pottermore for $5-10. In one day, it would generate more money than the entire Galbraith series of mysteries could ever hope to produce.

Either she really wanted to keep it separate from her Rowling brand or she wouldn't have bothered with tinfoil-hat schemes and gone straight for the money (Casual Vacancy!).

She's the "victim" here; she gets a pile of money she doesn't need but her wishes for a quiet mystery writing career under a pseudonym is lost to her. Probably forever, unless she starts all over again from scratch with new characters and stories; a likely multiyear effort. Money can buy you many things but not lost time. That you never get back.

[samhy]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But a fancy publicity scheme that relies on getting a lawyer to trash his career and reputation is going to cost a lot more than just putting it out under her name.

My thoughts, exactly

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The book was selling *well* for what it is. "Quiet mystery" is actually a genre unto itself. Or sub-genre if you want to be precise. Those books sell about the way THE CUCKOO'S CALLING was selling. And 8600 copies total in three months is good sales for that genre.

Where does that number come from?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...ive-novel.html

The publishers said The Cuckoo’s Calling had sold some 1,500 copies in hardback, but figures compiled by Neilsen Bookscan suggest that the number bought from British retailers was actually 449.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

But it did not sell bad either for a new author. It sold OK.

And there were probably lots of other manuscripts that would also have sold OK. They can't possibly publish them all.
It seems ridiculous to excoriate a publisher for deciding not to go with a book which it seems sold somewhere between 500 and 1500 copies before the author was 'outed'.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And there were probably lots of other manuscripts that would also have sold OK. They can't possibly publish them all.
It seems ridiculous to excoriate a publisher for deciding not to go with a book which it seems sold somewhere between 500 and 1500 copies before the author was 'outed'.

Sure. My point was that I do not believe that the reason was that it would not sell enough and it did sell enough compared to other first publish authors. So if the number of sold copies had been the only reason you cannot say that they were right.

The stated reason was that the book did not stand out. Also when publishing a new author you do not just look at the first book, you look at what can be developed in the continued relation between the author and the publisher.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I too just finished the book. Took me longer than usual as I was trying to note things I never really note, such as style, descriptions etc.

Great use of language IMO, characters you could identify with for the most part, although quite a hodgepodge of character types.
Not really a spoiler story wise but might affect your reading of book.

Spoiler:

It's almost as if she had a list the typical reluctant police contact who is partners with a prehistoric dinosaur, the quiet but useful Watson type, the befuddled witnesses, and countless more
I was a bit disappointed in the ending. Too many things concluded at once with little lead in to some of them. I am sure that all the clues were carefully placed Agatha Christie style, and it was logical but just a bit too much all in one great chunk. I had a feeling of WTF I know you want to finish writing the book today, but maybe a nap would have helped.
.

A very good book if it was by a first author, and I've certainly read a lot I have enjoyed less.

Helen

I just finished it. I gave it 3 of 5. I think some things in the plot did not hold together. You can check a mobile number and see who have been called which at one point in the story would have been the obvious thing to try to do. Also this check could have been used as evidence later but was not mentioned.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sure. My point was that I do not believe that the reason was that it would not sell enough and it did sell enough compared to other first publish authors. So if the number of sold copies had been the only reason you cannot say that they were right.

How much is enough?

The stated reason was that the book did not stand out.

Yes, it didn't stand out, it was a bit average. The particular reviewer at that publisher wasn't grabbed by it.
Or, as I've already said: "And there were probably lots of other manuscripts that would also have sold OK. They can't possibly publish them all."

There is a limited number of titles that a publisher can release at once. Not every book can be published. That doesn't make them idiots.

They will publish books that they think will sell well. Given books they think will sell equally well, they might make a decision based on genres they tend to support or avoid, or, ultimately, just on whether the particular person deciding happened to like the book or not.

They passed on this book.
If it hadn't come out that the author was JK Rowling, would they still have been so criticised for doing so?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

They will publish books that they think will sell well. Given books they think will sell equally well, they might make a decision based on genres they tend to support or avoid, or, ultimately, just on whether the particular person deciding happened to like the book or not.

From what I have heard from publisher they look for writers that they can develop to sell much more of there future books. So the publishing decision is most often not taken from what they thing the first book will sell.

I totally agree with you that you cannot criticize the publishers that did not publish the book.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If it hadn't come out that the author was JK Rowling, would they still have been so criticised for doing so?

I agree that there is nothing special about them passing on the book and it says nothing about the quality of the book or their judgment.

But as to whether they would have been criticized if hadn't come out about JKR, we'll never know. Not many unknown names have runaway best sellers in the first few months of a new hard back, unless it's on some timely or sensational topic.

So maybe this book by this Robert person would have started getting some momentum based on the positive reviews and decent sales, and would have done well enough to warrant some additional promotional dollars, and a paperback edition, and THEN word may have spread, and sales would have spiked, and everyone would look to who had turned it down and say "Fools for not seeing the future!" like they always do.

Or maybe the just OK sales would have stayed just OK and no one would have cared one way or another, just like they always don't with the 99% of first books that DON'T become runaway best sellers.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

From what I have heard from publisher they look for writers that they can develop to sell much more of there future books. So the publishing decision is most often not taken from what they thing the first book will sell.

I totally agree with you that you cannot criticize the publishers that did not publish the book.

This is true. When one of my books was being looked at by a trad publisher, I was asked to submit an outline and/or the first three chapters of the next book by two different publishers. They tend to look at an entire package/scenario and when it is a new author without a sales history, they want to know a lot of things:

Does this person intend to write another in the series?
How far along is that plan?
Is the person reliable?
How long will it take the author to write book 2, 3?
Is the person easy to work with?

It isn't all about the prose. Because there are a lot of good books that get submitted. Most of them have been "vetted" by an agent so the publisher isn't expecting to get bottom of the pile stuff.

And even after that process of discussing books, and future books...there's a whole level of marketing that someone else talked about: How many books does a given publisher have in that genre? Is it a genre we want to continue to pursue? Do we already have 3 on the table? Which of the 3 is best?

And so on.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

"Quiet mystery" is actually a genre unto itself. Or sub-genre if you want to be precise.

I've never heard that term. What defines it and are there other examples of it?

[HarryT]

Sounds like the opposite of an "action mystery". Presumably a novel of the "armchair detective" variety?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by ApK

I've never heard that term. What defines it and are there other examples of it?

I've heard "general mystery" -- those that fall between cozy and thriller. I haven't heard quiet mystery.

I've also heard "pulp mystery, PI mystery, cop mystery..." But all of those are kind of just descriptions to further help people sort. I suppose they are sub-genres, but a lot of people who read cozies aren't even familiar with that term and its a very large category.

[jmilica]

Originally Posted by ApK

I've never heard that term. What defines it and are there other examples of it?

I googled it even before but never found what it is.
Maybe Cuckoo is beginning of the genre