# J K Rowling has been unmasked as the author of a new crime novel.



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

J K Rowling has been unmasked as the author of an acclaimed new detective novel.

Writing under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith, the Harry Potter creator wrote a 450-page crime novel called _The Cuckoo's Calling_.
The book is billed as a "classic crime novel", written in the style of P. D. James and Ruth Rendell, according to the Sunday Times.

Full story here:
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/j-k-rowling-unmasked-as-author-of-acclaimed-detective-novel-20130714-2pxqh.html

................

How marvellous for her to know her success with this novel has come without relying on her established name. I wish her all the best.

JB


----------



## Shane Ward (Jan 25, 2013)

So, thats what she's been doing in her spare time.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm going to be selfish for a moment and wish her pseudonym wrote YA novels set in a magical world with wands and gryffindors.


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

Yes, without an established name, but most definitely with an established marketing team and big budget


----------



## whatdanwrote (Oct 18, 2012)

And only 23 reviews on Amazon. I just bought it, can't wait to read it.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

That's cool that she was able to release something under a different name and keep it a secret for a while.

That said, does anyone else have a problem with the "About the Author" section?


> After several years with the Royal Military Police, Robert Galbraith was attached to the SIB (Special Investigative Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who returned to the civilian world. 'Robert Galbraith' is a pseudonym."


I'm all for pseudonyms. I'm all for protecting your identity. However, making up a background like this in order to lend credibility and sell a crime novel seems, at the least, unethical, and possibly even fraudulent. It's like writing a weight loss book and saying you lost 200 pounds when you've never had a weight problem in your life. Why not just give a bio that's actually closer to the truth and not try to make people think the author has life experience that will make this book a realistic look into the life of a private investigator?

Is it common practice to lie about the life experiences of an author in order to lend credibility to a book? It seems like she could have accomplished what she wanted to without the deception.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

caethesfaron said:


> That said, does anyone else have a problem with the "About the Author" section?
> I'm all for pseudonyms. I'm all for protecting your identity. However, making up a background like this in order to lend credibility and sell a crime novel seems, at the least, unethical, and possibly even fraudulent.


I agree.

Perhaps it is allowed because this is fiction. Let's hope trade publishers aren't foisting fake experts on us in non-fiction!


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

DWS says that, even when writing pseudonym bios, you should stick as close to the truth as possible - you can shade what you say, but you should always tell the truth.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

J.K. Rowling's Curse: 

Publish under J.K. Rowling = Sell well. Mixed critical response.

Publish under pseudonym = Positive critical response. Low sales. 


Solution: Publish under pseudonym for positive critical response, then reveal identity for mega sales.


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

Selina Fenech said:


> Yes, without an established name, but most definitely with an established marketing team and big budget


Yes, that passed through my mind as well.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

JB Rowley said:


> J K Rowling has been unmasked as the author of an acclaimed new detective novel.
> 
> How marvellous for her to know her success with this novel has come without relying on her established name.


Not really. According to one source, it has only sold 1500 copies since April. Now that the word is out, it will probably shoot to #1.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Wansit said:


> I'm going to be selfish for a moment and wish her pseudonym wrote YA novels set in a magical world with wands and gryffindors.


+1


----------



## whatdanwrote (Oct 18, 2012)

caethesfaron said:


> That's cool that she was able to release something under a different name and keep it a secret for a while.
> 
> That said, does anyone else have a problem with the "About the Author" section?
> I'm all for pseudonyms. I'm all for protecting your identity. However, making up a background like this in order to lend credibility and sell a crime novel seems, at the least, unethical, and possibly even fraudulent.


Darn, I wish I had read that. I don't mind pseudonyms, but don't lie about who you are.


----------



## Sever Bronny (May 13, 2013)

Wow, thanks for sharing this news! Will pick it up asap; very interested to see what it's like.


----------



## rod redux (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweet! I love old fashioned detective novels. I've got to check this out! Didn't really care for her small town political novel A Casual Vacancy. Thought it was slightly dull. This sounds a bit more up my alley.


----------



## Meka (Sep 8, 2011)

caethesfaron said:


> That's cool that she was able to release something under a different name and keep it a secret for a while.
> 
> That said, does anyone else have a problem with the "About the Author" section?
> I'm all for pseudonyms. I'm all for protecting your identity. However, making up a background like this in order to lend credibility and sell a crime novel seems, at the least, unethical, and possibly even fraudulent. It's like writing a weight loss book and saying you lost 200 pounds when you've never had a weight problem in your life. Why not just give a bio that's actually closer to the truth and not try to make people think the author has life experience that will make this book a realistic look into the life of a private investigator?
> ...


I thought the same thing when I read the bio. I mean really, why such an elaborate fake bio? 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "That said, does anyone else have a problem with the "About the Author" section?"


No.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Crap. The book's not selling. Now what?

Let's leak the news. Maybe that'll boost it.

Good thinking.

Might be good for a few weeks so we can make at least a few bucks.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

caethesfaron said:


> That's cool that she was able to release something under a different name and keep it a secret for a while.
> 
> That said, does anyone else have a problem with the "About the Author" section?
> I'm all for pseudonyms. I'm all for protecting your identity. However, making up a background like this in order to lend credibility and sell a crime novel seems, at the least, unethical, and possibly even fraudulent. It's like writing a weight loss book and saying you lost 200 pounds when you've never had a weight problem in your life. Why not just give a bio that's actually closer to the truth and not try to make people think the author has life experience that will make this book a realistic look into the life of a private investigator?
> ...


Honestly, I find that really not cool. I'm rather shocked in fact. Sure she'd have to skirt a bit around the facts but lying to that extent to try to increase her credibility about the genre seems to me to cross a line.


----------



## Aya Ling (Nov 21, 2012)

Wansit said:


> I'm going to be selfish for a moment and wish her pseudonym wrote YA novels set in a magical world with wands and gryffindors.


This. Her new book sounds interesting and has great reviews, but I'd like more novelty than a typical crime novel. I'd still pick it up some time anyway, I admit I read anything Rowling writes


----------



## NicoleSwan (Oct 2, 2011)

I have conflicting feelings about this.  First selfish one is "Nooo, there goes a few million dollars out of the pool of spending that we might have had a chance at", to the "She has every right to use every resource and do every thing she wants".


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

I don't know much about Rowling's personal life. Is there any chance she (or someone close, like a father) really did serve under the Royal Military Police and work as a private investigator, inspiring her story idea? If not, I don't think it was right to fib about that. I'm going to assume/hope she just adopted the bio from someone close to her, maybe as a nod to a deceased relative or something.


----------



## Linda Barlow (Jul 5, 2013)

The book, which I'll confess I bought a few hours ago when the story broke, has already shot up in the Amazon rankings. I wonder how many hours it'll take to hit #1. I'm reading it now. It's fine so far, but there's nothing notably original so far, at about 10 percent in. But I'm curious to see how it develops...

I didn't read her first non HP book, which didn't sound like the sort of thing I'd be likely to enjoy. But a detective story -- hey, always willing to give one of those a try.

I'll be interested to see what other folks think of the book.


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

Jude Hardin said:


> Not really. According to one source, it has only sold 1500 copies since April. Now that the word is out, it will probably shoot to #1.


I wasn't equating success with sales. I was thinking about the favourable review from Sunday Times and the book's Amazon average review rating of 4.5.

However, things have changed since this morning; there's now a 1 star review which does not seem to have anything to do with the author's writing skills. That saddens me. However, the book has now shot up to #1 so I guess J. K. Rowling won't be too sad.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

OH GREAT ... more competition for the top 100   hahahah


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

Dara England said:


> I don't know much about Rowling's personal life. Is there any chance she (or someone close, like a father) really did serve under the Royal Military Police and work as a private investigator, inspiring her story idea? If not, I don't think it was right to fib about that. I'm going to assume/hope she just adopted the bio from someone close to her, maybe as a nod to a deceased relative or something.


There is a "Robert Galbraith" listed as a Medal of Honor winner in a Wikipedia listing. Coincidence or tip of the hat??

As far as the fake bio, in the words of my daughter, "Lame."

There are plenty of bios that say essentially nothing: XX lives in Birmingham with his two Irish setters and is hard at work on the next book in the series.

Could have gone with something bland like that...


----------



## KerryT2012 (Dec 18, 2012)

Jude Hardin said:


> Not really. According to one source, it has only sold 1500 copies since April. Now that the word is out, it will probably shoot to #1.


It has shot to number 1, which is probably why she came out and said it was her. 
Can´t see about the author


----------



## Shane Ward (Jan 25, 2013)

Perhaps it was fake at the start to make the whole "new author" feel real, but now the word is out, she will change the bio later to suet the news. 

Or perhaps the media have it wrong and that that IS the author of the book and J K Rowling has nothing to do with it.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Crap. The book's not selling. Now what?
> 
> Let's leak the news. Maybe that'll boost it.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> +1


+2

So if, as another poster stated, she "only" sold 1500 before news hit, does that mean it only takes 1500 unit sales to become a bestseller in the media's eyes? 'Cause there's a boatload of folks on here who do more than that in a month, and without the big marketing budget.


----------



## KerryT2012 (Dec 18, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Crap. The book's not selling. Now what?
> 
> Let's leak the news. Maybe that'll boost it.
> 
> ...


It´s worked - so obvious it was a marketing strategy. I mean if she released it in April 2012, then fine. Can imagine the publishers, it´s not selling, just tell people it´s you. Quicker and cheaper!


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Lady Vine said:


> +2
> 
> So if, as another poster stated, she "only" sold 1500 before news hit, does that mean it only takes 1500 unit sales to become a bestseller in the media's eyes? 'Cause there's a boatload of folks on here who do more than that in a month, and without the big marketing budget.


Look at all the editorial reviews. Those don't happen for a 1st time author. Publisher's Weekly? Award-winning authors? Amazon Vine program? Please.... Don't we all wish that could really happen for our first-time books? I sure do.

Her publishers pulled out all the stops to make this book a success (other than revealing her real name to the public at first), including putting up that B.S. profile that makes you think the book is based on a real story (secret spy stuff, really cool), and putting the book in front of all the big names that could tell the world the book is awesome (and I'll bet they knew it was her; otherwise, why would they read it?); and yet, even after all that, the book went basically nowhere. At least in the U.S. market. It's #1 in the UK but only has 29 reviews, so that suggests it got to #1 recently up from someplace really far back in the rankings. It's racing up the US charts too. It'll be #1 by this week.

They had only one strategy left to recoup their investment (you know that advance was a whopper): attach Rowling's name to it. I wonder if there was a clause in her contract that allowed them to reveal her name if the sales weren't to a certain point by a certain time. What a fun deal that would have been to negotiate!

Anyway, good for JK Rowling. I'm glad she's spreading her wings and writing things that interest her as a writer. A part of me feels sorry for her that she'll automatically have people hating what she writes just because that's what happens to really successful people when jealous idgets have access to computers. Hopefully, the gajillion pounds she has in the bank eases that pain.


----------



## Shane Ward (Jan 25, 2013)

Oh well, I read further into this and guess she did write it. I must admit, why did she do such a thing? Its not very nice and will probably piss a lot of people off, and those editorial reviews, gosh.... For a first book and such, surely the big men high up in the chain know that to make a new author look realistic, you don't do things like that. Even then whole amazon page looked fishy from all those praises from high class places...

Why all the secrecy, why just write under your normal name, I'm sure it will generate some level of hate, all this seeking around, really!


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Look at all the editorial reviews. Those don't happen for a 1st time author. Publisher's Weekly? Award-winning authors? Amazon Vine program? Please.... Don't we all wish that could really happen for our first-time books? I sure do.


All that happened to my first book (POCKET-47), except for Amazon Vine, which didn't exist at the time. Those things are nice, but they don't really help sales much.

Brand name authors, big print runs, co-op placement, online visibility...those are the things that sell a lot of books. Last night when I first heard the news, THE CUCKOO'S CALLING was 36,000 Paid in Kindle Store. Now it's #29 there, and #1 in Books. And it has nothing to do with the book itself or all the great reviews. It's selling because J.K. Rowling wrote it. No other reason.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

#29 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

    #3 in Books > Mystery, Thriller & Suspense > Mystery
    #4 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Genre Fiction > Mystery & Thrillers > Mystery
    #4 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Genre Fiction > Mystery & Thrillers > Crime Fiction

$11.04 for an unknown author (since nobody knew who the author really was) and he/she sold 1500 since April? Something's screwy here.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

$11.04 is pretty much the standard price right now for new books from major publishers.  Remember, even if it's a debut novelist, the publisher has resources to get the book out to a lot of folks if they want to bother. Obviously, in this case, they did want to bother.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> $11.04 is pretty much the standard price right now for new books from major publishers. Remember, even if it's a debut novelist, the publisher has resources to get the book out to a lot of folks if they want to bother. Obviously, in this case, they did want to bother.


Yeah, you're right. I just get sticker shock when I browse outside the indie market.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Ok, you caught me. I admit it. I'm actually a JK Rowling pseudonym too. 


Now send my books to #1


----------



## Natasha Holme (May 26, 2012)

I have never read any Harry Potter, but have just been knocked sideways by The Casual Vacancy--now one of my favourite books of all time. So, I'll be adding this one to my reading list, thanks


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Where is the 1,500 sales figure coming from?


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

There have been some authors who have been completely ostracized (and shamed by Oprah) for making up their credentials, or even embellishing them. When I saw this bio, I lost complete respect for Rowling and probably won't ever read anything she ever does again. Not that she cares, as she lives in a fantasy world that prints money faster than I can type words, but up until this point I thought only good things about her.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Where is the 1,500 sales figure coming from?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/jk-rowling-pseudonym-robert-galbraith_n_3592769.html


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Jude Hardin said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/jk-rowling-pseudonym-robert-galbraith_n_3592769.html


Thanks - Huffington Post quotes the The Leaky Cauldron who cite no one. Interesting.


----------



## Shane Ward (Jan 25, 2013)

sarbonn said:


> There have been some authors who have been completely ostracized (and shamed by Oprah) for making up their credentials, or even embellishing them. When I saw this bio, I lost complete respect for Rowling and probably won't ever read anything she ever does again. Not that she cares, as she lives in a fantasy world that prints money faster than I can type words, but up until this point I thought only good things about her.


maybe she was not the one who made the profile, it could have been someone in the publisher... Do you think she would have the time to invest in a new amazon account when someone at the agency can do it?

Shane


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Shane Ward said:


> maybe she was not the one who made the profile, it could have been someone in the publisher... Do you think she would have the time to invest in a new amazon account when someone at the agency can do it?
> 
> Shane


Regardless of whatever or not she set up the author account herself (which I doubt) she should of had approval of her own author bio for marketing purposes.


----------



## Mel Comley (Oct 13, 2010)

caethesfaron said:


> That's cool that she was able to release something under a different name and keep it a secret for a while.
> 
> That said, does anyone else have a problem with the "About the Author" section?
> I'm all for pseudonyms. I'm all for protecting your identity. However, making up a background like this in order to lend credibility and sell a crime novel seems, at the least, unethical, and possibly even fraudulent. It's like writing a weight loss book and saying you lost 200 pounds when you've never had a weight problem in your life. Why not just give a bio that's actually closer to the truth and not try to make people think the author has life experience that will make this book a realistic look into the life of a private investigator?
> ...


Totally agree. Is that fraud?


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

What's the point of publishing under a pudendum and then telling everyone it's JK Rowling right after it's published?

Oh, yeah, because it wasn't #1 on the list.


----------



## Rusty Bigfoot (Jul 6, 2011)

A friend has three pens names w/ diff. bios, all slanted to that particular genre.

Only thing is, each bio is real. She's done a lot of things. She didn't have to lie about her life to have 3 diff. bios.

Not so siure I think the lying thing Rowling did was so cool. Seems pretty deceptive to me.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Yesterday, when I first read the article, the book was around 40K in rankings, and now it's #29. Amusing. I was a bit surprised by the "1500 sold too" figure, too; that strikes me as fairly poor for a genre novel's sales, but maybe I haven't been in the traditional world for too long. And it does have a fairly high sticker price for an unknown; even if that's the standard price among trad publishers, a new author has to slog it out and earn reader recognition just like the rest of us.

I will say that in my opinion, making up an identity with false details is just not cool. I have two different author blurbs for my two different identities (Meg and Gem use the same blurb), but everything I say in them is truthful. I don't know if it's fraudulent to outright lie, but it's wrong. The only time this hasn't bothered me is for "Richard Castle," because everyone already knows he's a fictitious character, so his author blurb is clearly a joke. But this is... misleading.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

justsomewriterwhowrites said:


> Agreed. I can't believe people are not calling this out for what it is--lying and fraud.


All my Facebook peeps are too busy with the Zimmerman verdict.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

I agree with the latter. If she'd released it originally as J.K. Rowlings, it would have been sitting at the top of the charts since the beginning. Harry Potter may have made her millions or billions, but it's like she will never be able to get out from behind his shadow. I see this as her trying to make it writing in another genre on her own, without her name, and then when that didn't work, the publisher probably said we need to let the world know who you are because we're in this to make money.



NicoleSwan said:


> I have conflicting feelings about this. First selfish one is "Nooo, there goes a few million dollars out of the pool of spending that we might have had a chance at", to the "She has every right to use every resource and do every thing she wants".


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

The story behind the revelation of the pen name:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/books/a-detective-storys-famous-author-is-unmasked.html?_r=0


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

I just read the NY Times article. Knowing how the media manipulates, I'm sure it wasn't a leaked anonymous tip at all and that the whole thing was planned from start to reveal. It was designed to cause an "uproar" and get everyone talking. I'm not bothered about the pseudonym, but the bogus blurb is deceptive and I don't like being deceived.


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

Because of the inflated fake bio, I wonder if they didn't intend to reveal the real name (hard to believe, I know) but why would you do that, unless it's to create more controversy. Okay that may be the answer. 

Also, don't you love how the reporter in the Times article manages to slam debut authors, army vets, and civilian security workers--none could have written "a book as good as this."


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Since the unmasking, I notice she's received 2 one-star reviews. Probably what she was afraid of.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

I don't know I feel kinda bad for her.
I mean, that one author who had to appear on Oprah did so because the book he had published under his own name had been mostly fiction when he actually sold it as truth yes? Now, THAT'S blatant lying.

It's a fact that there are a number of authors who use a pseudonym simply because they want to stretch their creative wings and write in a different genre and we the public won't let them because we tend to pigeon hole authors into one genre. Just look at the flack she got at first over that first non-Potter book she wrote (Casual Vacancy). And she did that with her own name! In fact this hate over some authors trying different genres is so poisonous to a writer that I bet there are a number of surprisingly famous talents out there hammering out some books under different names with strict instructions in the contract to never reveal their identity because it might affect the sales of the brand genre that brings in the cash.

IN fact if people want to discuss stretching the truth in order to make a sale she is on record saying that she felt she had to use her initials ( JK) because that's what men did in order to sell books. So from day one she when she was submitting Potter she was posing as a man because she feared that nobody would touch the book if she used her full name because the business itself seems to prefer male writers. Which is ironic since- if memory serves- there are more female READERS in most of the genres than there are male readers.

And now the poor girl wanted to feel like a legit writer again and get what she felt would be a few honest reviews from the writing itself and not just based on her name power. And she did. For a few months. But now she's been outed so I have no idea what she'll do now.

And yeah she is a billionaire and yet look at what she had to resort to in order to feel the simple joys that come with being a writer.

As for typecasting we do the same to actors. Though it isn't the same as changing the name many actors have to take pay cuts on small budgeted films in order to do a project outside of their comfort zone. Like a comedian will do a dramatic role ( with a cut in pay) and take the chance on it not making money simply because they want to experience that role for a few months and hopefully their public will embrace them in a different kind of role.
Many times it doesn't work out eventually they give up and settle into the type of film they are financially secure in- poor Jim Carrey suffers this fate. People just won't plunk down their 9 bucks if he isn't up there making goofy faces or doing pratfalls. And yet look how many times he tried to do something different. Sure it worked to a degree ( with Truman Show) but then, Man in the Moon was a financial flop despite being a critical success.

So I dunno..... I hope she finds a bit of peace with her personal creative pursuit. I mean, while she's set financially, perhaps she's not quite at peace internally. That's not fair.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

FrankZubek said:


> I don't know I feel kinda bad for her.
> I mean, that one author who had to appear on Oprah did so because the book he had published under his own name had been mostly fiction when he actually sold it as truth yes? Now, THAT'S blatant lying.
> 
> It's a fact that there are a number of authors who use a pseudonym simply because they want to stretch their creative wings and write in a different genre and we the public won't let them because we tend to pigeon hole authors into one genre. Just look at the flack she got at first over that first non-Potter book she wrote (Casual Vacancy). And she did that with her own name! In fact this hate over some authors trying different genres is so poisonous to a writer that I bet there are a number of surprisingly famous talents out there hammering out some books under different names with strict instructions in the contract to never reveal their identity because it might affect the sales of the brand genre that brings in the cash.
> ...


I agree with all this, but the fake bio? No. That's not OK with me.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't know if I'm particularly bothered by the alter ego she adopted, although that might just be because I'm so used to authors adopting different names, personas, and genders when they write in the erotica genre!

I can certainly understand why she might want to distance herself from the image of J. K. Rowling, though. Even an insignificant little indie prawn like me gets paranoid at times that people will make a connection between the style of pieces written under my real name and my pen name, so I can totally empathise with a global celebrity like Rowling having similar concerns.

I imagine the minor backstory and persona behind her pen name was more about protecting her anonymity than trying to mislead readers. I'm not intimately familiar with the novel, but it doesn't sound as though she's overtly trying to pass off fiction as reality or anything like that.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

It's weird and in poor taste to create a military background to sell a crime novel. People have lost their jobs over fake military credentials, and I'm shocked she would knowingly go along with that. That said, she can and should be able to do whatever she wants creatively. I can understand the draw of a pen name and to put things out in the world without her name and the Harry Potter comparisons attached. Writers must keep writing.  I can also see making up a bio when making up a name, but it's the false military credentials that I think push the boundary of acceptable and think that bio should be scrubbed. The book does sound interesting.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Thanks - Huffington Post quotes the The Leaky Cauldron who cite no one. Interesting.


LOL!!!!


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Thanks - Huffington Post quotes the The Leaky Cauldron who cite no one. Interesting.


The number was probably an estimate, based on rankings, Bookscan, etc. Only the publisher would know the exact figures.

But it doesn't really matter. The point is that the sales were not stellar, and now they are.


----------



## Rusty Bigfoot (Jul 6, 2011)

Well, since you can't trademark a book title or author name, and Rowling doesn't mind being deceptive, this settles it for me:

I'm writing my next book using the pen name of J.K. Rowling.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Cherise
I agree with you on the fake bio part and yet I will argue ( though not defend ) that maybe she- even with her name power and perks- may have had to compromise with the publisher and go with a fake bio in order for them to agree to publish the book. Who knows.... even now she might be quietly behind the scenes ripping them a new one because they weren't careful enough making up a mild enough or "safe" pseudonym background bio.

After all, the publisher holds the purse strings and usually has the ultimate final word. I would think there is always an amount of give and take behind the scenes ( the kind of stuff in contract you and I will never hear about)  with each book- especially in this case since it isn't in the fantasy genre. 

I'm guessing the marketing department fumbled the ball on the bio.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> J.K. Rowling's Curse:
> 
> Publish under J.K. Rowling = Sell well. Mixed critical response.
> 
> ...


That's just it. She wasn't selling that well as an unknown. This shows someone can write a quality novel and never make it to selling as a bestseller. Even with her publisher behind her, her book was languishing at the 166,000 level and may have sunk further. I think the "outing" was on purpose.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

If one genuinely desires to be anonymous and just be appreciated (or not) for the work done, it really isn't hard. Self pub, keep you lips together, and let the work find it's own level. Anything else is self-delusion and/or outright deciet. But here we are, the deed is done, the book is number one in the hit parade and no one is surprised.

JK was a better writer, imho, before her editors took an interest and added their influence. She had good instincts, in story, structure, and style and a sure hand. I would tend to think that the influence of editors was on the whole detremental to her development as a writer. I would guess that is probably still true. And that it all I have to say on this.


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

FrankZubek said:


> Cherise
> I agree with you on the fake bio part and yet I will argue ( though not defend ) that maybe she- even with her name power and perks- may have had to compromise with the publisher and go with a fake bio in order for them to agree to publish the book.


Even as a mid-lister, I get to review and approve my bio for my traditionally pubbed mysteries. Hard to believe that someone like JK Rowling wouldn't have the same opportunity. Just saying...


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Claudia King said:


> I imagine the minor backstory and persona behind her pen name was more about protecting her anonymity than trying to mislead readers. I'm not intimately familiar with the novel, but it doesn't sound as though she's overtly trying to pass off fiction as reality or anything like that.


It specifically says:


> The idea for Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who returned to the civilian world.


That has nothing to do with protecting anonymity and everything to do with selling books under the pretense that the author has some life experience and perspective that will enrich the book.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Her fake bio is insulting to all who've served.  If she wanted to be a "nobody" then be nobody.  Don't invent a persona of accomplishments others have really done and she hasn't.

And her book wasn't selling at all, despite "critical acclaim" until she was "outed".  Does she really need to pull this publicity stunt?  Glad she feels good about it.


----------



## Rusty Bigfoot (Jul 6, 2011)

^^^^THIS^^^^

What Bob said.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm afraid I also agree with Bob. And I doubt the "outing" was accidental.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I also wonder how many of those authors giving rave blurbs would give one to an unknown, unpublished, anonymous author?  The whole thing stinks and we'll never know where the truth is.  Are the reviews real?  The starred review from PW?  

Really, how much of an ego stroke does she need?

But she does owe all British military an apology for claiming to have done what they do day in and day out.

Or she can always enlist, go through basic, work for rank, get the jobs she claims to have had.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Sara    I'm just suggesting that since this was - in the publishers eye- a risky project --that maybe they "insisted" on a more macho-ish sounding bio.

Again..... since they have the power of the key to the bank vault on their side it may give them a bit of leverage in final word on certain  areas of marketing

I am not saying it was the right choice ( either by her or the publisher) but maybe that's what happened. There are ( most likely) very very very few top line authors who have complete say-so on every aspect of a book rollout.

Unfortunately, despite her billions and the legend ( and windfall) of the Potter books .... perhaps she still doesn't have as much complete hands on control over everything in her world as we readers and fans might assume that she does. I might be wrong on that point but again I am just placing it on the table as a possible reason. Hopefully it won't affect sales of the book itself and the folks who'd like to read it for what it is and enjoy it for what it is will have the opportunity to do just that.


And.....  if she did play an active part in the outing simply because the book wasn't selling as well as she herself might have thought it should - instead of simply enjoying the fact that a few thousand people bought it for the plot and not the "name" ( and hopefully a few of the pre-outing reviews ARE genuine) then yeah, she should be ashamed of herself for not giving the book the chance it deserved on its own merit.


----------



## Kenneth Rosenberg (Dec 3, 2010)

I think I've come up with a new marketing strategy.  Anybody want to help me spread the rumor that one of my books was actually written by J.K. Rowling?


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Chris Northern said:


> *If one genuinely desires to be anonymous and just be appreciated (or not) for the work done, it really isn't hard. Self pub, keep you lips together, and let the work find it's own level.*


Agreed.

It was very easy for her to do the whole ebook thing alone. She could have hired her own editors, put a company on the PR, and uploaded to Amazon, Createspace et al like the rest of us. Simple. No one would have known anything unless she told them. I mean, she owns the ebook rights to HP, doesn't she? She knows what she's doing.

That being said, I do understand why she would have wanted to keep her anonymity. But then again, I do believe the publishers appeased her decision to come out under a pen name by having her agree to the leak, if sales started to lag. Before the news got out, that was probably as good as it was going to get. Now she is *only* selling because of her name. So, for three months she did know what it felt like to be average. Three months was long enough for her publishers; they want to make some money now.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> Her fake bio is insulting to all who've served. If she wanted to be a "nobody" then be nobody. Don't invent a persona of accomplishments others have really done and she hasn't.
> 
> And her book wasn't selling at all, despite "critical acclaim" until she was "outed". Does she really need to pull this publicity stunt? Glad she feels good about it.


This. You don't claim to have military experience when you don't. Those who do, and are outed in other careers based on fake military experience here in the US are shamed, and usually any ill-begotten privileges from the fakery are revoked.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Lady Vine
I agree with you. But ( and not knowing all the ins and outs of the traditional publishing) is it possible that she may have a binding clause IN her contract- which could cover the next 3 or 4 books over say, 5 years- that forbids her to self publish ( even under another name) during the length of that contract? 

After all - if she happens to try to come here and self publish even one book and then it makes millions....then arguably that money goes directly to HER and none of it goes to the publisher. And since they have given her an advance already....they naturally expect a return on that cash.

And if this theory is true.... she certainly has the financial foundation to crank out a few books FOR the needs of the contract and wait it out and then once she is free OF the contract she'd be free to self publish.

But again- I have no idea if I'm right on this. But if I am that may be an explanation.


----------



## Hilary Thomson (Nov 20, 2011)

Judging from the wall of enthusiastic early reviews, I'll bet that the publisher told the reviewers that the author was a well-known bestselling writer using a pseudonym, but didn't say who it was.  This would be a simple way of getting the result the publisher wanted, namely a bunch of enthusiastic, bandwagon-jumping reviews by a lot of reviewers who were afraid of looking stupid when the author's identity was revealed.  

Publishers have their way of pulling strings, no matter what the situation is.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

I wish someone would leak that George R.R. Martin has written my books.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

A lot of debut authors get starred reviews from PW and blurbs from major players. I did. There's nothing fishy about that.

That bio, on the other hand...


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

Perhaps she'll donate her royalties to a disabled war vets' fund.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> This. You don't claim to have military experience when you don't. Those who do, and are outed in other careers based on fake military experience here in the US are shamed, and usually any ill-begotten privileges from the fakery are revoked.


And the reason we now have the Stolen Valor law in the US, to have solid consequences for lying about your service or what you earned in the service.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

JK Rowling unmasked as seriously insecure multi millionaire who wants it both ways. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

Maggie Dana said:


> Perhaps she'll donate her royalties to a disabled war vets' fund.


+1


----------



## DooneyKat (Jul 24, 2012)

Dara England said:


> I don't know much about Rowling's personal life. Is there any chance she (or someone close, like a father) really did serve under the Royal Military Police and work as a private investigator, inspiring her story idea? If not, I don't think it was right to fib about that. I'm going to assume/hope she just adopted the bio from someone close to her, maybe as a nod to a deceased relative or something.


I thought the same thing.... maybe the bio is a nod to someone who helped her or a relative.


----------



## Linda Barlow (Jul 5, 2013)

Getting a good review by PW, even a starred one, can and does happen to unknown authors, so I don't think there's anything suspicious about that. And the book IS good (reading it now). But I agree that the leak was probably orchestrated by the publisher. I doubt Rowling had anything to do with it...I can absolutely see why she relished the chance to write without expectations and hoopla after all the pressure she was under as she worked her way through the HP series. She doesn't need the money, so it probably didn't matter a whole lot to her whether the book was selling. But I'll bet she felt good about the reviews, particularly since she switched genres.

From the point of view of the publisher, though, "outing" her is clearly a plus. According to the NYT article, some mysterious person tweeted that Rowling was the author, then deleted his/her Twitter account. The Sunday Times, took the bait and pursued the story. If that Tweeter wasn't someone associated with the publishing house, I'll eat my witch's hat! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/books/a-detective-storys-famous-author-is-unmasked.html


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

FrankZubek said:


> Lady Vine
> I agree with you. But ( and not knowing all the ins and outs of the traditional publishing) is it possible that she may have a binding clause IN her contract- which could cover the next 3 or 4 books over say, 5 years- that forbids her to self publish ( even under another name) during the length of that contract?
> 
> After all - if she happens to try to come here and self publish even one book and then it makes millions....then arguably that money goes directly to HER and none of it goes to the publisher. And since they have given her an advance already....they naturally expect a return on that cash.
> ...


If that's the case (about the binding contract with her publisher) why did she shop it around first, looking for a publisher? She was turned down by at least one, I believe. So she couldn't have been under such a contract.


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

DDark said:


> I absolutely see why she did this (not the bio, but the pen name). Stephen King did it as well. When you're "that" big, sometimes you don't want the magnifying glass on you and you want to see how the public reacts to other books you put out. I can't imagine how hard it must be walking in the shadows of your first novels which became mega-worldwide bestsellers. People cannot get over it and everything you do is held up to those books' standards because your name and those titles are synonymous.
> 
> She probably wanted to publish a book to get reviews (not amazon, but from critics) to see if people can judge her work on its own merit and not her name. Perhaps once it began getting good reviews, she decided to reveal her name (or leak) to boost sales. I would imagine if the book had bombed that might have never come to light. But I get it.


Yes; I get it, too.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Linda Barlow said:


> From the point of view of the publisher, though, "outing" her is clearly a plus. According to the NYT article, some mysterious person tweeted that Rowling was the author, then deleted his/her Twitter account. The Sunday Times, took the bait and pursued the story. If that Tweeter wasn't someone associated with the publishing house, I'll eat my witch's hat! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/books/a-detective-storys-famous-author-is-unmasked.html


Obviously someone connected to the publisher leaked it because the book while getting good reviews on its own merit, wasn't selling. Time to go to the fail safe plan-letting everyone know so they will purchase it, since it wasn't going to get to the top on its own.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Bob Mayer said:


> Her fake bio is insulting to all who've served. If she wanted to be a "nobody" then be nobody. Don't invent a persona of accomplishments others have really done and she hasn't.
> 
> And her book wasn't selling at all, despite "critical acclaim" until she was "outed". Does she really need to pull this publicity stunt? Glad she feels good about it.


I served. I'm not insulted. It's a completely fictional author persona. We have a fictional character who was in the military. That is very different from the folks who attribute military service to themselves under their own names.



> "And the reason we now have the Stolen Valor law in the US, to have solid consequences for lying about your service or what you earned in the service."


The US Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

caethesfaron said:


> It specifically says:
> 
> 
> > The idea for Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who returned to the civilian world.
> ...


I still have a hard time believing it was for the sake of selling books, though. I mean, as the news story has very clearly shown, shooting up the sales rankings was as simple as revealing her original name. I doubt that the intention behind it was to try and give the book a false hook.

I just think it's a little harsh to come down so hard on her for this, is all. The quote implies that (at least some of) the military experience comes from friends, and isn't Rowling known for having past family members in the military? I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that she would completely lack a perspective that would enrich the book. She could have thoroughly researched it by interviewing dozens of military personnel for all we know.

I would 100% agree with the ill sentiment if she'd written a military memoir and implied it was fact based on personal experience, but when we're dealing with a work of fiction it doesn't bother me any more than the dozens of other authors who've concocted (often far more elaborate) fictional personas. It just doesn't strike me as a decision that hurts anyone in a big enough way to make a fuss about it.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> This. You don't claim to have military experience when you don't. Those who do, and are outed in other careers based on fake military experience here in the US are shamed, and usually any ill-begotten privileges from the fakery are revoked.


She also claimed to be a man. Her penis should be revoked.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

It's probably a cultural difference, but I don't quite get the uproar about the supposed military credentials of Rowling's pen name. Over here we had compulsory military service until two years ago, so military service is nothing special, cause most men have done it. And if you served in WWII or in the East German people's army, you usually downplayed your military service for obvious reasons. Germans get really upset about fake academic credentials (lots of cases in recent years, mostly involving politicians), but there's very little upset about fake military credentials (can't remember anybody who tried, either), because that's not considered something to brag about.

And writers lie about their bios all the time. I don't see all that much of a difference between Rowling's fake bio and Stephenie Meyer's much peddled story about poor little Stephenie, the regular housewife and mother, who never watched a vampire film and never took a writing class in her life and then she had that dream one night... It's a nice story, but obviously untrue, since it's known she was one of Dave Farland's students and explicitly asked him about strategies for writing a popular YA series. Or how about E.L. James, supposedly another regular suburban mother who never wrote a word in her life and never heard of BDSM before she suddenly decided to write _Twilight_ fanfiction. Only that E.L. James is not just a suburban mother, but also a successful TV producer married to a successful screenwriter who has written screenplays for _Wire in the Blood_, a crime drama which had several BDSM related plotlines. Lots of official writer's bios don't add up when you look closely.

That said, it is problematic to claim that Robert Galbraith based his crime novel on his military experiences which he never had, cause he doesn't exist. Plus, military records are easily checked, so claiming false military credentials is easily exposed. Something along the lines of "Robert Galbraith lives in Edinburgh with his family and works in publishing" would probably have been much better (and closer to the truth). I wonder if this isn't a consequence of the fact that for some reason novels, particularly in the crime, thriller and military genres, are considered much more believable, when based on personal experience. Which is silly of course, cause it's called fiction for a reason.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I served. I'm not insulted. It's a completely fictional author persona. We have a fictional character who was in the military. That is very different from the folks who attribute military service to themselves under their own names.
> 
> The US Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.


They struck down the 2005 law, but Obama signed a new one which is in effect that makes it a crime in the US. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/03/obama-signs-new-stolen-valor-act.html

Part of the new law states:


> The law signed Monday at the White House includes such a provision, making it illegal to make the claims with the intent to obtain money, property or other tangible benefits.


It was really a poor choice on her publisher's part to include a fake military history in the bio. It's insensitive to all the families that have had relatives and friends die in service to their country. They risk their lives for our freedom and those who serve deserve more respect. I'm glad for those who come out of military service healthy and whole, but that is not the case for many tens of thousands.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> It's probably a cultural difference, but I don't quite get the uproar about the supposed military credentials of Rowling's pen name.


I think it probably is a cultural thing, yeah. It's certainly not a massive deal here in the UK, which is probably why I find it a little baffling as well. Given Rowling's nationality, I doubt it would've been on her radar either.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I think the law was struck down.  And also, it was about wearing ribbons and uniforms and that crap.

Faking an author bio isn't illegal.  Claiming to have served isn't illegal.  I just don't get the way the bio is phrased-- slanting a fictional bio to indicate the author has experience to write that particular story.  Where is the line?  If I write a medical thriller, can I claim to be a heart surgeon in my bio?  Can I claim to be JK Rowling writing under a pen name?  Bet we'll see the lawyers coming out of the woodwork for that one.

Oh well.  Tempest in a teapot.  She's had her fun, her book is #1, and life goes on.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Observations:

People with lots of money do lots of strange things with lots of money.
Status is an expensive drug.

B.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Lady Vine- my bad I missed that part of the story ( about her shopping it around)

To all....
I do wonder why the publisher didnt do a small marketing campaign with a few noted trades? Kind of hedge the bet on sales?

But now that the secret is out.... before next week is over there'll be an announcement that the film rights have been sold


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Yes.  I've decided. I am now adding my alien abductions to my bio.  I know what mothership looks like.  I know why they're here.  And the probe-- well, that's TMI


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Claudia King said:


> She could have thoroughly researched it by interviewing dozens of military personnel for all we know.


If that's the case, then keep your integrity and say that. What's wrong with, "Robert Galbraith has an intense interest in the military and interviewed dozens of military personnel in preparation for this novel?"



Bob Mayer said:


> Faking an author bio isn't illegal. Claiming to have served isn't illegal. I just don't get the way the bio is phrased-- slanting a fictional bio to indicate the author has experience to write that particular story. Where is the line? If I write a medical thriller, can I claim to be a heart surgeon in my bio? Can I claim to be JK Rowling writing under a pen name? Bet we'll see the lawyers coming out of the woodwork for that one.


Exactly.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "They struck down the 2005 law, but Obama signed a new one which is in effect that makes it a crime in the US. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/03/obama-signs-new-stolen-valor-act.html"


Makes what a crime?

The law 2013 Obama signed prohibits claims of having been awarded twelve specific medals in an effort to gain tangible gain from such claims. Neither the 2005 nor the 2013 law prohibited claims of military service.

The original law outlawed all false claims to awards. The 2012 SC ruling left an an avenue for prohibiting using the claim of awards for tangible benefits. That's what the new law is tailored to.

So, if an author wants to go on Oprah and make false claims that he was in the Navy, that's legal. If he wants to say he was awarded a Medal of Honor, that's OK. But when he tries to use the Medal of Honor claim to raise money from the claim to the medal, that's a problem under the 2013 law. It demands an action designed to garner tangible benefits directly from the claim. There is a good case that much of this this is covered by other laws

So all those folks claiming military service and accomplishments simply have to avoid mention of twelve specific medals in an effort to get money. I don't know if there have been any convictions under the 2013 law, but I doubt there will be many since it is so easy to circumvent. It may never be tested in court. Anybody know of any convictions?

I think the larger issue is the First Amendment speech protection, and that's something many people served to protect.. We don't have to like the speech to protect it.


----------



## Shane Ward (Jan 25, 2013)

Prehaps J K Rowling should visit this forum and explain herself.... Ummmmmmmmmm.......


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

As a veteran I am offended that she pretended to be a veteran of the armed forces.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

As a veteran I don't give a damn if her fake bio or anyone else's fake bio says they were in the military.

And another thing, you know how often I read author bio's _before_ reading the book? Never. Therefore, it has no impact on whether I believe the book's accuracy, and it also has no impact on whether or not I buy the book.


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

It's all part of the squishy meaning of the author's name on a book these days.  I didn't know some Romance imprints demand their authors use a pen name (perhaps so they can keep the franchise going after the original writer is dead). And there are so many team-ups these days between one marquee name and one workaday writer.  I assume that's so the marquee name can get more product to the market by using a team of assistants doing the heavy lifting.  And then there are writers using pseudonyms for each genre they work in. I imagine some PHD student has written a very interesting thesis on author names.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

According to this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/world/rowling-secret-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t4



> On Amazon.com, sales soared more than 507,000% after Rowling acknowledged being the author.


That's a pretty decent increase.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Shane Ward said:


> Prehaps J K Rowling should visit this forum and explain herself.... Ummmmmmmmmm.......


In most forums I would laugh at that, but here in the KBoards Writers' Cafe? It wouldn't surprise me a bit if she did exactly that. This place is that big.


----------



## Linda Barlow (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm reading the book, and it strikes me that the "bio" really describes her main character pretty well.

"After several years with the Royal Military Police, Robert Galbraith was attached to the SIB (Special Investigative Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who returned to the civilian world. 'Robert Galbraith' is a pseudonym."

Cormoran Strike, the protagonist, is a former military man who is now working in the civilian sector as a poorly-paid private investigator. He still has friends in the military and in the shadowy intelligence world, with whom he consults. Fictional character, fictional persona behind the pen name. But there is a confession that it's a pen name. It's certainly not the first time in literary history that a female author has found a better critical reception by masquerading as a man. It still happens far too often.

BTW, if the linked story is true, the novel was submitted anonymously and rejected by at least one publisher, who thought it was well-written, but lacked any obvious marketing hook. It's sure got a marketing hook now!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10178960/The-Cuckoos-Calling-publishers-embarrassment-at-turning-down-JK-Rowling-detective-novel.html


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Thanks - Huffington Post quotes the The Leaky Cauldron who cite no one. Interesting.





> 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.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10178960/The-Cuckoos-Calling-publishers-embarrassment-at-turning-down-JK-Rowling-detective-novel.html


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

I'm sort of surprised at how upset people are over her author bio. I mean I want to be sure my cardiologist's credentials are legit before I go under the knife. I want my mechanic to be straight up about his or her experience before they tear my transmission apart. I even want to know that an author bio is accurate when I'm reading non-fiction since I don't want accounting advice from a plumber.

But when it comes to fiction, I'm not particular about the author's bio. All I want is for you to tell me a good story. That's why I bought the book. You could say you're the Queen of England and I wouldn't care as long as you spin a good tale.


----------



## S. Shine (Jan 14, 2013)

JessieVerona said:


> I'm sort of surprised at how upset people are over her author bio. I mean I want to be sure my cardiologist's credentials are legit before I go under the knife. I want my mechanic to be straight up about his or her experience before they tear my transmission apart. I even want to know that an author bio is accurate when I'm reading non-fiction since I don't want accounting advice from a plumber.
> 
> But when it comes to fiction, I'm not particular about the author's bio. All I want is for you to tell me a good story. That's why I bought the book. You could say you're the Queen of England and I wouldn't care as long as you spin a good tale.


Amen!


----------



## Lanie Jordan (Feb 23, 2011)

I'm a huge, huge Harry Potter fan, so this disappoints me slightly as a fan who is greedy for more Harry Potter. Otherwise, my first thought was: Good for her. Until I read the bio. That kind of...irked me. But to be fair, I'm irked by people who use fake author images. It's very misleading, at least to me. I can't say why, though. 

But yeah, I agree the only reason it hit #1 is because she was outed as being the author. 

And yes, I'm still silently (okay, not-so-silently) hoping/praying/wishing/dancing-naked-under-a-full-moon-to-increase-my-odds that she'll write another Harry Potter book.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

CNBC did a brief report this morning on her new book stating it had sold slowly until the revelation of her identity. It has now sold out in bookstores throughout England, and the publisher wishes they had done a larger print run.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

Sapphire said:


> CNBC did a brief report this morning on her new book stating it had sold slowly until the revelation of her identity. It has now sold out in bookstores throughout England, and the publisher wishes they had done a larger print run.


There was also a segment on the Today show this morning (could've been the same one). They were talking to a bookstore owner about how demand for it had exploded this week, after it had only sold like 1500 copies, I think, since release. What caught my eye were the *two copies of WOOL * on the shelf behind him. For real.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Have any of you cats read it yet? The blurb sounded a bit average, with no voice in the blurb, but I admit to being curious!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

JessieVerona said:


> I'm sort of surprised at how upset people are over her author bio. I mean I want to be sure my cardiologist's credentials are legit before I go under the knife. I want my mechanic to be straight up about his or her experience before they tear my transmission apart. I even want to know that an author bio is accurate when I'm reading non-fiction since I don't want accounting advice from a plumber.
> 
> But when it comes to fiction, I'm not particular about the author's bio. All I want is for you to tell me a good story. That's why I bought the book. You could say you're the Queen of England and I wouldn't care as long as you spin a good tale.


I don't think many people are exactly upset, but it was quite definitely a tacky thing to do. I would expect more class from Ms. Rawling.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Sapphire said:


> CNBC did a brief report this morning on her new book stating it had sold slowly until the revelation of her identity. It has now sold out in bookstores throughout England, and the publisher wishes they had done a larger print run.


Actually since the ranking was setting around #4000 or so, the sales weren't slow. That's fairly decent sales by an unknown author. It just wasn't best seller status and book publishers are convinced that everything has to be a best seller or it just doesn't count.

I personally do NOT believe that who the author was being discovered was anything like accidental.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Actually since the ranking was setting around #4000 or so, the sales weren't slow.


When I first saw the book after the news broke it was ranked at 36,000 something.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

caethesfaron said:


> When I first saw the book after the news broke it was ranked at 36,000 something.


Same here.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Actually since the ranking was setting around #4000 or so, the sales weren't slow. That's fairly decent sales by an unknown author. It just wasn't best seller status and book publishers are convinced that everything has to be a best seller or it just doesn't count.
> 
> I personally do NOT believe that who the author was being discovered was anything like accidental.


I posted a link a few spot up top from the Telegraph in the UK. According to them:

"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."

When this thread first popped up, I looked and her Amazon ranking was at #46,000 (Kindle ebook, and that was after the news broke) the next day #1, so I don't think it was selling very well, which is probably why her publisher "leaked it". Especially for a book that the publisher probably paid a huge million dollar advance.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

N. Gemini Sasson said:


> There was also a segment on the Today show this morning .... What caught my eye were the *two copies of WOOL * on the shelf behind him. For real.


That's great! Congratulations, Hugh Howie!


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

44K around 9:00pm on the 13th https://twitter.com/TEdunWrites/status/356221246922428416


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> That's great! Congratulations, Hugh Howie!


I went to their website, interesting segment:

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/52478358

And...


----------



## Dan Fiorella (Oct 14, 2012)

Claudia King said:


> I think it probably is a cultural thing, yeah. It's certainly not a massive deal here in the UK, which is probably why I find it a little baffling as well. Given Rowling's nationality, I doubt it would've been on her radar either.


It's just that we've had so many actual politicians claiming military service, it's become a sore point in the US. But that's mostly among non-fictional people.

ETA

I'm seeing a very special episode for "Catfish; The TV Series."


----------



## Tyler Cook (May 11, 2013)

I purchased the book as soon as I had found that that she wrote it.  I had never heard of the book before so I would have never had known that it had existed.  Read up to chapter 5 so far, and its good.


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

Alan Petersen said:


> When this thread first popped up, I looked and her Amazon ranking was at #46,000 ...


That is my recollection too.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Here is my takeaway from this affair. (Note: I haven't scanned the many preceding posts here to see if others have also made this point, so forgive me if I'm being repetitious.)

http://www.bidinotto.com/2013/07/so-you-think-you-need-a-publisher/


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Here is my takeaway from this affair. (Note: I haven't scanned the many preceding posts here to see if others have also made this point, so forgive me if I'm being repetitious.)
> 
> http://www.bidinotto.com/2013/07/so-you-think-you-need-a-publisher/


Brilliant article, Robert, and spot on.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Alan Petersen said:


> When this thread first popped up, I looked and her Amazon ranking was at #46,000 (Kindle ebook, and that was after the news broke) the next day #1, so I don't think it was selling very well, which is probably why her publisher "leaked it". Especially for a book that the publisher probably paid a huge million dollar advance.


This makes sense.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Gee, Maggie, thanks. Maybe I should turn this link into its own post here on KB. It's such an obvious point to me, and I think it's being overlooked:  

This incident does NOT make traditional publishing look like the great option for authors that the industry proclaims, now, does it?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Actually since the ranking was setting around #4000 or so, the sales weren't slow. That's fairly decent sales by an unknown author. It just wasn't best seller status and book publishers are convinced that everything has to be a best seller or it just doesn't count.
> 
> I personally do NOT believe that who the author was being discovered was anything like accidental.


The sales weren't that good. Her ranking was at #166,000 when the news leaked, based on estimates of 449 sales to book shops. After the mysterious tweet, sales picked up to the 4400 rank as news people tried to confirm the tweet. Once confirmed, her sales picked up.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Here is my takeaway from this affair. (Note: I haven't scanned the many preceding posts here to see if others have also made this point, so forgive me if I'm being repetitious.)
> 
> http://www.bidinotto.com/2013/07/so-you-think-you-need-a-publisher/


Very insightful and a warning to new authors. They probably won't get all the support the valiant Robert Galbraith got.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Exactly. Which is the point of the new thread I just put up -- a point I think is so important that it deserves focused attention.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Exactly. Which is the point of the new thread I just put up -- a point I think is so important that it deserves focused attention.


I just tweeted your article. I think it shows that quality books can be, and are, overlooked. It also shows marketing isn't the only cog in the wheel that is important. If you aren't having the mavens of your genre get on board, a book, no matter how good, isn't going to take off.


----------



## Kate Argyll (Oct 1, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I don't think many people are exactly upset, but it was quite definitely a tacky thing to do. I would expect more class from Ms. Rawling.


Agreed!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

I agree with Bob: the fake bio reeks. It’s one thing for some pathetic prestige-craving fool to feign military credentials. It’s quite another for a billionaire to steal other people's prestige for the sake of adding legitimacy to a pseudonym. Not enough being rich? Had to be a military hero too, JK?

Those who see the fake bio as a white lie should explain why she didn’t choose the bio of a baker, a plumber, a veterinarian or some other life story unrelated to the content of the book. They can’t, because the bio wasn’t to disguise her (the penname did that); the bio was to add credibility to the story—to persuade readers and reviewers alike that this story was based on experience. 

I also don’t buy the “great reviews” crap. Reviewers know how to read signals. Even if they didn’t know who was behind the book (I’m skeptical of that too), I have little doubt they knew it was “someone” based on push the publishers put behind it.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Exactly. Which is the point of the new thread I just put up -- a point I think is so important that it deserves focused attention.


Agreed. Your post was an excellent take on this whole narrative that I hadn't thought about, but you're spot on. "Galbraith" had all the muscle of a big publisher, renowned editor, publicists, and marketing people, yet all they could muster was less than 2,000 books sold since April. Heck, I sold more than Galbraith from April until the reveal, as a true unknown (Kindle ebooks). 

As unknown Galbraith on Kinde, that book was selling about one per day according to KDCalculator info and a rank of 88,500 according to KindleNation's eBook Tracker.










Then came the "leak" about Rowling, and boom...


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

For those who haven't yet clicked on Robert's article (see above) on this, it's well worth reading imo http://www.bidinotto.com/2013/07/so-you-think-you-need-a-publisher/


----------



## Shane Ward (Jan 25, 2013)

I am lost, did this thread go off topic?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Shane Ward said:


> I am lost, did this thread go off topic?


A little, yeah, but how many different ways can we say JK Rowling used a pen name before the conversation is going to wander?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

J.K. Rowling cleared - she *did not* leak her pseudonym.

Story here:

J.K.'s identity, as written under the alias Robert Galbraith, was only disclosed to those in the publication process and her lawyers. Her law firm Russells was responsible for the leak.

Though the Sunday Times reported the news, it seems Russells partner Chris Gossage opened up to his wife's best friend, Judith Callegari - the woman who wrote the tweet outing the book's true author.

Russells "[apologized] unreservedly" and released a statement confirming its part in the leak:

"We can confirm that this leak was not part of any marketing plan and that neither J.K. Rowling, her agent nor publishers were in any way involved."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/law-firm-admits-leaking-rowlings-alter-ego


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

Any fool would know better than to reveal a secret to the 'wife's best friend'!


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

JB Rowley said:


> Any fool would know better than to reveal a secret to the 'wife's best friend'!


  Bet she's not the best friend anymore.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Those who see the fake bio as a white lie should explain why she didn't choose the bio of a baker, a plumber, a veterinarian or some other life story unrelated to the content of the book. They can't, because the bio wasn't to disguise her (the penname did that); the bio was to add credibility to the story-to persuade readers and reviewers alike that this story was based on experience. "


I don't explain it, and don't see any reason I should. I dont know. I don't care why she did it. I'm perfectly happy with her choosing the persona she did.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

JB Rowley said:


> Any fool would know better than to reveal a secret to the 'wife's best friend'!


Ugh, I am terrible at secrets! I would have to never be told something as big as this.

I mean, really. How many of YOU could have kept this big of a secret? Yeah, you might not have tweeted it, but you would have told SOMEONE.

ETA:

HEY! I was on the Robert Galbraith site, and there are a whole bunch of FAQs answered on there, if you're interested, including:



> Why did you choose for the "author" to have a military background?
> It was the easiest and most plausible reason for Robert to know how the Special Investigation Branch operates and investigates. Another reason for making him a military man working in the civilian security industry was to give him a solid excuse not to appear in public or provide a photograph.


and



> Was revealing the true identity of Robert Galbraith not simply an elaborate marketing campaign to help boost sales?
> If anyone had seen the labyrinthine plans I laid to conceal my identity (or indeed my expression when I realised that the game was up!) they would realise how little I wanted to be discovered. I hoped to keep the secret as long as possible. I'm grateful for all the feedback from publishers and readers, and for some great reviews. Being Robert Galbraith has been all about the work, which is my favourite part of being a writer. This was not a leak or marketing ploy by me, my publisher or agent, both of whom have been completely supportive of my desire to fly under the radar. If sales were what mattered to me most, I would have written under my own name from the start, and with the greatest fanfare.
> 
> At the point I was 'outed', Robert had sold 8500 English language copies across all formats (hardback, eBook, library and audiobook) and received two offers from television production companies. The situation was becoming increasingly complicated, largely because Robert was doing rather better than we had expected him to, but we all still hoped to keep the secret a little longer. Yet Robert's success during his first three months as a published writer (discounting sales made after I was found out) actually compares favourably with J.K. Rowling's success over the equivalent period of her career!


http://www.robert-galbraith.com/


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Three people can keep a secret . . .





. . . if two of them are dead


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Steeplechasing said:


> Three people can keep a secret . . .
> 
> . . . if two of them are dead


Sounds like a tag line for a book.


----------



## Lanie Jordan (Feb 23, 2011)

Mimi said:


> Ugh, I am terrible at secrets! I would have to never be told something as big as this.
> 
> I mean, really. How many of YOU could have kept this big of a secret? Yeah, you might not have tweeted it, but you would have told SOMEONE.


I would have told my cat. Okay, I lied, I would have told all 3 of my cats and my turtle.

Now, if the news had been something along the lines of JK Rowling writing a new HP book...that wouldn't have lasted more than half a second. My squeeing would give me away. Or the whole 'shouting it from the rooftops' thing. Of course, I couldn't get to my roof, but dude, I would have told EVERYONE.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Sounds like a tag line for a book.


You're right. I might use it in my next blurb!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I would love it if the REAL real story was that JK was just doing a solid for her buddy Rob.

Also, I'm glad this happened so as to draw attention away from speculation on who _I_ really am.


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

Mimi said:


> HEY! I was on the Robert Galbraith site, and there are a whole bunch of FAQs answered on there, if you're interested, including:
> 
> _Why did you choose for the "author" to have a military background?
> It was the easiest and most plausible reason for Robert to know how the Special Investigation Branch operates and investigates. Another reason for making him a military man working in the civilian security industry was to give him a solid excuse not to appear in public or provide a photograph._


....which begs the question: How does J.K. Rowling 'know how the Special Investigation Branch operates and investigates'?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JB Rowley said:


> ....which begs the question: How does J.K. Rowling 'know how the Special Investigation Branch operates and investigates'?


JK Rowling is actually the latest in a long line of aliases created by an immortal Ian Fleming. Much like James Bond, Harry Potter is _also_ semi-autobiographical, documenting his experience using Hocruxes.


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> JK Rowling is actually the latest in a long line of aliases created by an immortal Ian Fleming. Much like James Bond, Harry Potter is _also_ semi-autobiographical, documenting his experience using Hocruxes.


Of course!


----------



## FranklinNoble (May 14, 2013)

I find this whole business to be wholly despicable.

First, she decides that she needs to hide under a pseudonym so that she can enjoy anonymity... fine... no problem there.  

Then, she crafts a wholly false biography that borders on reprehensible in its nature - haven't we burned a few Oprah Book Club authors for less?

Then, when she sells a measly number of copies (and, let's be honest, there are PLENTY of authors on this board that can boast more sales than her book had a few weeks ago), she and/or her publisher decide to hit the panic button and leak the dirty little secret, which is so obviously an attempt to stimulate the otherwise pathetic sales of the book, it completely defeats the purpose of the pseudonym in the first place.

In short, it should be pretty clear to Ms. Rowling that she ought to stick to Harry Potter novels, because everything she's sold since she decided to quit doing them has been riding on their coattails.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I have to completely disagree.

- Her pseudonym might be a bit problematic, but it isn't reprehensible. The sort of problems that inspired the attempts at Stolen Valor laws involve taking actual, tangible benefits meant for former service members. Rowling took nothing from any service members at all.

- The idea that she or her publishers 'hit the panic button' is pure speculation that everyone is running with because it makes the story more fun. There's no actual proof and people should not be trying to base opinions on that any more than they should the idea that the illuminati rule the world in secret.

In short, all of this is blind panic, over dramatization and a rush to demonize a famous person because that's a thing the internet does.


----------



## Shane Ward (Jan 25, 2013)

Poor girl Rowling, she must be used to these types of debate by now... Pitty she is not here to clear a few things up...

Shane


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

Mimi said:


> HEY! I was on the Robert Galbraith site, and there are a whole bunch of FAQs answered on there, if you're interested, including:
> 
> http://www.robert-galbraith.com/


That's got to be a new site--it wasn't up a few days ago. Anyway...

Is it odd that she refers to her author personas individually ("J.K." and "Robert") and doesn't use the word "I?"

"Yet Robert's success during his first three months as a published writer (discounting sales made after I was found out) actually compares favourably with J.K. Rowling's success over the equivalent period of her career!"

Is this how authors think/refer to themselves when they write under pen names? Is it to help keep the identities separate? I don't use a pen name, so I don't know. Just curious...


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

_Yet Robert's success during his first three months as a published writer (discounting sales made after I was found out) actually compares favourably with J.K. Rowling's success over the equivalent period of her career!"

Is this how authors think/refer to themselves when they write under pen names? Is it to help keep the identities separate? I don't use a pen name, so I don't know. Just curious..._

Who knows how JK now sees herself? A friend of mine had some success here in the UK on TV/Radio quiz shows (He won a million on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, then Brain of Britain, then Mastermind). I was with him for the Mastermind final, and afterwards he was swamped with congratulations in the green room. As we were driving home he said, 'I can now understand for the first time how stars lose their sense of perspective on the world'. Having 90% of the people you meet calling you genius, brilliant, fantastic, unbelievable can have a strange effect.

I can't recall the exact quote, nor whom it's from, but it's something like . . . 'Most men can handle adversity. If you really want to test a man's character, give him power'.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JB Rowley said:


> ....which begs the question: How does J.K. Rowling 'know how the Special Investigation Branch operates and investigates'?


When you reach a certain level as a famous author, you can pick up the phone and call some high-level friend, and the Special Investigation Branch will send someone to your house to explain how they work.

Stephen King gets a special guided tour of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, while us indie shlubs have to rely on Google.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

FranklinNoble said:


> I find this whole business to be wholly despicable.
> 
> First, she decides that she needs to hide under a pseudonym so that she can enjoy anonymity... fine... no problem there.
> 
> ...


I agree about the point on lying about one's credentials. That's been bugging me the most about this whole situation, and I'm finding it quite interesting how many people are giving her a free pass because she's Rowling (and they love HP and all other such excuses). Lying about one's credentials is a mortal sin to me. Apparently, I'm the only one, but that's all I have to say about that.

As for the marketing angle, it's looking more and more like she was outed by someone in the legal office, which basically leaves me with one question (before I even believe it). Is she going to fire her legal team, or even more important, is someone, specifically the guy who sold her out, going to be fired? Without that happening, I see it all as a marketing gimmick. I want to believe it's not, but if no heads roll over something THIS big, then they're just playing games with the public. I don't care if she loves her legal team; if they breached her trust that big, there's NO WAY to salvage that kind of a relationship.


----------



## Liz Davis (Dec 10, 2011)

DDark said:


> This makes me want to publish under a pen name and put something in my bio stating I'm a bestselling author writing under a pseudonym. Wouldn't that just drive readers nuts?


I almost fell off my chair laughing . That is a good one.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Try to imagine experiencing so much discontent that you decide you have to run away from yourself—and so much success that you can't. I can't. Harper Lee can. It's rarefied air up there. I'd just request that they keep stars and bars off their catfish.

B.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

sarbonn said:


> I agree about the point on lying about one's credentials. That's been bugging me the most about this whole situation, and I'm finding it quite interesting how many people are giving her a free pass because she's Rowling (and they love HP and all other such excuses). Lying about one's credentials is a mortal sin to me. Apparently, I'm the only one, but that's all I have to say about that.


I'm not giving her a free pass because she's Rowling - whatever gave you that idea and can you substantiate it? - but because I don't think it's all that important or interesting. I find the subject about as riveting as how many angels can copulate on the head of a pin.
Really, anybody surprised that a storyteller tells stories about her pen name?

This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23366660) summarizes what she herself has to say about the subject.


----------



## gonedark (May 30, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I'm not giving her a free pass because she's Rowling - whatever gave you that idea and can you substantiate it? - but because I don't think it's all that important or interesting. I find the subject about as riveting as how many angels can copulate on the head of a pin.
> Really, anybody surprised that a storyteller tells stories about her pen name?
> 
> This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23366660) summarizes what she herself has to say about the subject.


I think you're a little paranoid here. I said that people are giving her a pass. Didn't say you did. As a matter of fact, my response wasn't even to you or about you (the quote I quoted is from someone else). I'm responding to a LOT of postings I've been reading on all sorts of boards where people are posting all sorts of defenses of her because of who she is.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Lanie Jordan said:


> I would have told my cat. Okay, I lied, I would have told all 3 of my cats and my turtle.
> 
> Now, if the news had been something along the lines of JK Rowling writing a new HP book...that wouldn't have lasted more than half a second. My squeeing would give me away. Or the whole 'shouting it from the rooftops' thing. Of course, I couldn't get to my roof, but dude, I would have told EVERYONE.


I have a feeling the lawyer in this case is falling on his sword (or being thrown onto it). I just plain -- admittedly with no evidence -- don't believe the story they're putting out that this lawyer divulged confidential client information to his wife's best friend (not even his own) which she then created a Twitter account to divulge. Ha. Nope. Don't buy that one for a second. Hope he's being well paid for taking the fall because his career is over in law.

I posted KKR's post on this whole brouhaha in a separate thread. She has some very interesting points but I will say this: the novel was NOT doing badly for a mystery novel from an "unknown" author and Rowling had EVERY RIGHT to write under a pseudonym if she wanted to. I don't like the bio thing but let's not blow that out of proportion. It was a mistake which she shouldn't have done, but she's human. People make mistakes.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I have a feeling the lawyer in this case is falling on his sword (or being thrown onto it). I just plain -- admittedly with no evidence -- don't believe the story they're putting out that this lawyer divulged confidential client information to his wife's best friend (not even his own) which she then created a Twitter account to divulge. Ha. Nope. Don't buy that one for a second. Hope he's being well paid for taking the fall because his career is over in law."


OK. What's the real story?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

swolf said:


> When you reach a certain level as a famous author, you can pick up the phone and call some high-level friend, and the Special Investigation Branch will send someone to your house to explain how they work.
> 
> Stephen King gets a special guided tour of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, while us indie shlubs have to rely on Google.


Yeah. Tom Clancy got a week-long ride-along in a Trident nuclear submarine. Unheard of for most civilians.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. What's the real story?


Something, something, lizard people.

Look, why can't you accept my wild conspiracy theory on face value, okay?


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

DDark said:


> She is not the only famous author who has come up with a fake bio for her pseudonym. I think she's the only one NOT getting a free pass because of it.


There's a difference between a fake bio (which doesn't bother me a bit) and claiming expertise in the field you're writing for when you don't have an iota of it. All that aside, I still think it's pretty messed up that her pen name was blown open by someone she pays a great deal of money to be discrete.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. What's the real story?


That the agent or agent-and-publisher or publisher only wanted it out for obvious reasons and the lawyer did the dirty work? That's a sort-of guess. I just find the public explanation a lot less than credible. Come on. This is an attorney at a pretty successful firm who blabs to his_ wife's friend_ (something *so* serious it can keep him from continuing to practice)? *snort*

Yeah, I'm a cynic. I figure money was involved somewhere and suddenly, just coincidentally, everyone is making a heck of a lot more of it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> That the agent or agent-and-publisher or publisher only wanted it out for obvious reasons and the lawyer did the dirty work? That's a sort-of guess. I just find the public explanation a lot less than credible. Come on. This is an attorney at a pretty successful firm who blabs to his_ wife's friend_ (something *so* serious it can keep him from continuing to practice)? *snort*
> 
> Yeah, I'm a cynic. I figure money was involved somewhere and suddenly, just coincidentally, everyone is making a heck of a lot more of it.


If its implausible that a lawyer at a successful firm would tell his wife's friend, how does it become plausible that an attorney and his successful firm would lie about being the leak?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> If its implausible that a lawyer at a successful firm would tell his wife's friend, how does it become plausible that an attorney and his successful firm would lie about being the leak?


I didn't say he lied about being the leak. I suggested he was PAID to leak. I find a dishonest successful lawyer more plausible than a stupid one. And that would be an amazing level of _stupidity_ for an attorney to break client confidentiality for an immensely important client that casually. Considering the money involved in pushing a novel to multi-national best seller status, someone could afford to pay.

So either he was paid, or he really is TSTL.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

justsomewriterwhowrites said:


> I find the level of stupidity in a lawyer willing to risk the entirety of his career for a one-time payoff higher than the stupidity it would take to tell a wife's bff a big secret, because I can't believe anyone would do that for an amount of money that isn't absolutely obscene, won't-need-any-money-ever-again obscene. I find it hard to believe so many people are making this assumption.


I would say a speculation rather than an assumption. But who necessarily says a one-time payoff? An obscene amount of money IS involved in a Rowling best seller. We don't know the lawyer's financial status, how much he may have needed ready money, or anything else, but one thing is absolutely clear: Rowling is an author who was made a BILLIONAIRE by her writing and the amounts that go to her agent, etc are enough to make this not necessarily implausible at all.

I have no insider knowledge, obviously, but the cynic in me in not persuaded by the "it was an innocent accident" scenario. WAY too much money is involved. This was turned from a book that would make a few thousand to one that is making millions.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I suspect it's more probable none of us know what we're talking about. I guarantee I don't.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I suspect it's more probable none of us know what we're talking about. I guarantee I don't.


Well, certainly speculation and I freely admit to being a cynic. Especially when it comes to lawyers.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

It’s not like I stay up nights tossing and turning with rage over JKR’s fake biography, but I do find her response about as plausible as a billionaire's PR guy could make it. She pretended to be a retired member of a special military branch because that’s the only way people would buy the author’s knowledge of it? Just like Asimov had to pretend to be an extraterrestrial to make his knowledge of extraterrestrial civilizations plausible. And H. G. Wells had to pretend he had a time machine because...Puh-lease!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> It's not like I stay up nights tossing and turning with rage over JKR's fake biography, but I do find her response about as plausible as a billionaire's PR guy could make it. She pretended to be a retired member of a special military branch because that's the only way people would buy the author's knowledge of it? Just like Asimov had to pretend to be an extraterrestrial to make his knowledge of extraterrestrial civilizations plausible. And H. G. Wells had to pretend he had a time machine because...Puh-lease!


So what's the problem? She publicly lived her life as JK Rowling, attributed no incorrect credentials to JK Rowling, wrote a book under a pen name, and invented a fictional biography for the pen name.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So what's the problem? She publicly lived her life as JK Rowling, attributed no incorrect credentials to JK Rowling, wrote a book under a pen name, and invented a fictional biography for the pen name.


I'd love to hear that defence in court:

"Wait a minute, Judge! I, John Smith, did not claim to be a doctor. Not at all! I just made up a fake name for myself, Dr. Bill Jones, and pretended _he _ was doctor. _He's _ the one who wrote the phony prescriptions, not me. So, I did not _pretend to be _ a medical doctor. I just _impersonated _ someone who wasn't a doctor. Big difference, Judge, big difference."


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I'd love to hear that defence in court:
> 
> "Wait a minute, Judge! I, John Smith, did not claim to be a doctor. Not at all! I just made up a fake name for myself, Dr. Bill Jones, and pretended _he _ was doctor. _He's _ the one who wrote the phony prescriptions, not me. So, I did not _pretend to be _ a medical doctor. I just _impersonated _ someone who wasn't a doctor. Big difference, Judge, big difference."


We are not in court, and the issue is she publicly lived her life as JK Rowling, attributed no incorrect credentials to JK Rowling, wrote a book under a pen name, and invented a fictional biography for the pen name.

So what's the problem?


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Just read an article about the name of the game. I don't want to believe that the traditional process of agent/publisher is broken because many of us writers wouldn't mind doing both traditional and indie publishing to get the best of both worlds. But could this article be saying that it's all a hit or miss?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/21/opinion/greene-rowling-author/index.html


----------



## Dan Fiorella (Oct 14, 2012)

WHDean said:


> It's not like I stay up nights tossing and turning with rage over JKR's fake biography, but I do find her response about as plausible as a billionaire's PR guy could make it. She pretended to be a retired member of a special military branch because that's the only way people would buy the author's knowledge of it? Just like Asimov had to pretend to be an extraterrestrial to make his knowledge of extraterrestrial civilizations plausible. And H. G. Wells had to pretend he had a time machine because...Puh-lease!


We live in a world where most people think the TV and movie actors make up their dialogue as they go along, so yeah.


----------

