J.K. Rowling outed as writer of acclaimed crime novel

I found this pretty interesting! http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/14/entertainment-us-britain-rowling-idUSB...

I can't wait to read it!

That's been on my audible wish list for a couple weeks now. I've never read a Rowling before and now my reaction to the book will be different. I think I'll be more sensitive to blunders than I would a real debut author.

"An astonishing debut... it reads as if the author has already published seven--no--eight books!"

I do have some sympathy for her. I'm sure it's hard to be judged fairly in whatever new project she wants to take on.

I wonder if there will now be a new round of negative reviews, now that she has been identified as the author.

It is interesting to ponder the extent to which our reading experiences are influenced by our expectations. To what extent do we like or dislike a book simply because of who the author is, as opposed to judging each book strictly on its own merit.

I first saw this news this morning (Sunday) about 7:30 am on Twitter and went straight to my public library's website to put a hold on the book. I'm #45 in line. Will be interesting to check how many holds there are when this news has had longer to propagate through the reading population :)

My library doesn't have it. I wonder how long, now the secret's out, before they decide to order copies.

Yes - a lot of public librarians are running around screaming either 'we don't have any copies or we only have 1!!'

My library has 6 on order, and the hold list is up to 121 as of 5pm.

I bet bookstores are screaming for it, too!

Hmm, my library doesn't have it, and not yet available as a library ebook, so it probably will take a while before I get a chance to read it.

I got notification yesterday from Amazon that it's available for kindle for $9.99

Our library doesn't have it, but people have certainly noticed - we've been getting requests all day long.

It sounds like an interesting read, and more along my likes than her other adult work was. I wonder if the response to that was her main inspiration to stay incognito for this one. I do feel for her - everyone has expectations of her, and I imagine that trying to lay low and not worry about a media circus for that particular book would have been a nice feeling. Now it's all backfired and that has to be stressful.

I just picked it up on the kindle... figure it's worth a try.

Great, now I'll have to remind our customers that we're a used bookstore.

Forbes has little love for her.  The Real Winner Of The Cuckoo's Calling Was Amazon, Not J.K. Rowling.  What a jerk.

I first heard the story on the radio yesterday when it was reported that sales had jumped by 400,000%, not the mere 158,000% reported in the article by Ewan Spence.

I remember hearing criticism of Rowling's Harry Potter success from authors on a panel at the 2005 WorldCon. The criticism was along the lines, "...not well written", "...it's much the same story as is in my books", "...all derivative stuff", etc... (Don't get me wrong. There were plenty of authors at WorldCon who were delighted about her success and who were very positive about the impact on the overall market for fiction, especially genre fiction.)

My reaction, fairplay to her. Not one of those authors would refuse the success she has had. At the end of the day publishing success is so dependent on imponderables. One cannot plan success like J.K. Rowlings.

Whether or not the leaking of her being the person behind Robert Galbraith was deliberate, or premature, or whatever, it has succeeded in boosting books sales and is likely to encourage people to actually read some of those books.

I agree that a publisher with J.K. Rowlings on its list is going to be assured success, and that the organisation will have planned a marketing coup knowing it would have a great sales boost when the news came out, but so what? People are buying books. Some people will enjoy these books. Others will hate them. Others will describe how bad they are, possibly without having read them.

Will I read her new book? Yes.

Good luck to J.K. Rowling, and any other author that manages any degree of success, even Stephen Donaldson, whose books I detest.

Generally I agree good luck and success to all brave enough to write and publish. I do resent, a little bit, feeling manipulated by the "leak" and the sudden surge in sales, and the stampede to read this book now that it is known to be written by Rowling. I don't think I'll bother reading it as I already have more TBR books than I can read in this lifetime.

Fun to watch all the hoopla.

I was thinking that if the publisher was being totally cynical that there would be stockpiles of the book available immediately after the leak. On that basis I had a look at Amazon(co.uk) and the physical book is not available there until the weekend. That would suggest to me that the leak came a bit earlier than they had expected.

Given the money that will be involved it would not be impossible for massive print runs to be arranged in a matter of hours given that the book is already in print format.

I suspect a leak was planned, but I also suspect that someone jumped the gun. I would think the biggest losers in this situation will be the physical bookshops. The on-line version will require no manufacturing and physical distribution so many people will downoad it immediately. Physical books working through to the bookshops will be slower.

I agree that it is fun to watch the hoopla.

:-)

#16 I agree with you. I understand her not wanting the hoopla while writing/releasing the book. Whether the identity reveal was planned or not, she is successful with her writing. Kudos to her, although it's not on my must read list. Your reaction to her critics is the the same as mine. I reacted the same way when I first heard a lot of criticism of George Lucas (SW geeks here). I don't like all the choices he's made, but so what. When I first heard "Lucas only had one good idea" I think "yeah, we all wish we had one idea like that."

She wrote another book--good for her. And whether HP was well-written or not, it certainly encouraged reading in a whole generation of kids, especially boys (my opinion). I wish the media would chill out about it--she's not the first author to use a psuedonym.

#16/19 - I feel the same.

In Sweden it's not unusual for known authors to publish new works using a pseudonym. We're a small country, with a minuscule population and an obscure language, and it's easy to get locked into a specific niche.

Her Lawyer foolishly told "A friend of his wife", a phrase that made me laugh out loud.

yes, let's all e sure to blame the women, who we know "talk too much". )-:

#22 Perhaps "A friend of his wife" was not a woman.

the "friend of his Wife" was Judith Callegari, but the fool who talked too much was Chris Gossage.

“We, Russells Solicitors, apologise unreservedly for the disclosure caused by one of our partners, Chris Gossage, in revealing to his wife’s best friend, Judith Callegari, during a private conversation that the true identity of Robert Galbraith was in fact JK Rowling. Whilst accepting his own culpability, the disclosure was made in confidence to someone he trusted implicitly. On becoming aware of the circumstances, we immediately notified JK Rowling’s agent. We can confirm that this leak was not part of any marketing plan and that neither JK Rowling, her agent nor publishers were in any way involved.”

I find that a bit weird. Ok that they mention the name of the guy, but to also mention the name of this Judith? His was a work-related error, hers was a private one. That seems odd (and wrong) to me...

25: As I understand it, the friend tweeted the news under her own name after being sworn to keep it quiet. I think she deserves to be named. Not that her action makes her source any less culpable.

Is it an error when someone past the age of accountability consciously violates a confidence?

nope. not an error. It is a wrong act. wrong. wrong. wrong. Almost makes me want to believe in sin, but I don't. It was just wrong, grievously wrong.

It is that old temptation to be the bearer of news no one has heard yet. It gives you a moment of the limelight just because you are the bearer. I'll bet we've all done it at one time or another, perhaps not with such big finances at stake, but frequently someone's reputation, etc.

26: she TWEETED it! Ok, that is monumentally stupid. I do believe people can commit a 'wrong act' that is an error by the way. Mistakes come in all types and sizes...

While we all give way to momentary temptations. I think the distinction to be made is that unlike Ms Callegari, Chris Gossage's profession is founded on the ability to respect client confidentiality and he was paid handsomely to do that.

Two wrongs...

I was in B&N today and there was a big display of the books with Rowlings' name prominently on the covers. It certainly didn't take long for the publishers to change it. It makes me just the tiniest bit suspicious that it was a planned marketing ploy. But then, I am sometimes of a suspicious nature...

Not to mention it was right at the 90 day mark where booksellers (b&n in particular) return copies of books that haven't had a copy sold in 90 days.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't think it was a ploy at all. If anyone doesn't need gimmicks to make a sale, it's Rowling. All she would have had to do was put her name on the cover in the first place and it would have been a presale best-seller. Why would she stage a charade like this?

I've been a celebrity in the tiniest possible way, for a short time only, a big frog in a very small pond. I can tell you that for me, at least, it got old almost within minutes, and I quickly grew to hate the unnatural way that people looked at me, approached me, and spoke to me. I can very easily imagine how someone who's world famous would relish not only a little relative anonymity but a sense of having her work judged (and favorably, to boot) on its own merits.

I agree with zjakkelien that it's possible to commit a wrong act by mistake--isn't that what a mistake is?--but this by no means works in reverse: a wrong act can be committed in full knowledge of its wrongness, in which case it's no error. I don't think that idea can be stretched to cover breaking a promise and violating a trust by deliberate choice, no matter how one might be tempted. Being overcome by a desire to show off secret knowledge is not what we usually mean by extracting information under torture.

32> no the lesser of two evils.

In other news The book is in my opinion well written and enjoyable. though it is too early to comment on the plausibility of the mystery's solution.

I have to say I agree with Meredy, I don't see why she would stage it all as a marketing ploy as to just claim it as her own from the start would have made it a best seller from the get go. I can see why a hugely famous writer whose previous book was heavily criticised by a lot of people would be curious to see how people would receive a book that they didn't know was written by her. I think I would have done the same thing in her position.

she has said all royalties for the next three years are going to charity.

https://www.thebookseller.com/news/rowling-donate-royalties-soldiers-charity.htm...

J.K. hasn't had a failure in my eyes yet. I really enjoyed this book.

By an odd chance, I got bumped to the front of the library's waiting list for this book and brought it home on Thursday.

By the time this copy was issued, the back flap of the dustjacket said: "ROBERT GALBRAITH is a pseudonym for J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series and The Casual Vacancy."

What did the dustjacket say about the author before Rowling's cover was blown?

by the time I ordered the book about three or days after the outing it was already on the third reprint. but the original author bio on the publishers website read.

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.

Which made me think of Lionel Fanthorpe.

And yes I will buy the next Cormoran Strike. It was a good read.

I had a discussion about this with my book club. Clearly I'm familiar with the practice of writing books under a pseudonym. I didn't know it was allowed or condoned to so blatantly lie about the author's life, though. I wouldn't care so much if the lies were not related to the book, (in which case I believe the author bio is irrelevant anyway), but if the bio has an impact on the book, like in the case of The cuckoo's calling, then I feel cheated as a reader.

I completely agree with zjakkelien's post #41. My wife and I have a mutual friend who is retired from the FBI. He has written a pair of self-published crime novels, and his author biography reveals his truthful past as a field agent. Rowling's original bio for Robert, emphasizing "out of his own experiences" is a cheat.

As you say, if she had just used a pseudonym, that would have been fine.

I didn't realize the original bio lied, having only read it after JK was outed. I still love the book. I found Cormoran's experiences credible, so obviously JK either researched heavily or relied on friends and contacts for information.

Shrugs it is not uncommon for pseudonym's to be accompanied by a false bio. It is merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic
verisimilitude to a bald and uninteresting narrative. as Poobah would have said if Ko-Ko had let him.

#44 It was on the little list.

Whilst I defend J.K. Rowling's right to publish under a pseudo name, and some basic biographical information would be required to back that up and not ring alarm bells, I do think it was a mistake giving him a military and police career suggesting a level of first hand experience of the material that she does not in reality possess.

I wouldn't condemn her too harshly though, it was an error of judgement that's all.

It does seem to be a forgivable "offense"; however, today it is so hard to find any authority which commands 100% believability. Who is not questioned? Is there any one who, when they speak, is always believed? Perhaps this is the child in me who wishes for a Father or Mother who I can trust all the time, but it does seem sad there is no one.

Rocketed to earth as an infant...

Well, I stayed out of this thread for a while for fear of spoilers. I'm back because I finished the book this morning and thoroughly enjoyed it. I never in a million years would have guessed at Rowling as the author, mainly because there is little humor throughout this book. It reminded me a bit of Kate Atkinson's Jackson Brodie series, only I prefer those a bit more. But if Rowling plans this as a series I would be quite happy.

Nice to know.

Minority report: neighbor insisted on lending it to me...
I did a "speed read" and was sorry. (Perhaps just not to my taste.)

I very much want to read it, but so far word is that it's very noir, so I have to wait til next summer. I can't handle dark reads during the winter.

The original jacket blurb (when everyone thought it really was Galbraith) seemed to indicate that it was planned to be a series - but now that she's been "outed" she may not be as interested in following up.

On the other hand, it has to be gratifying to know that critics and a lot of readers do think it's good, completely unbiased by name recognition.

On the third hand, :) she's working on the screenplay for the Potterverse movie, and I imagine that her paycheck from Disney for that is a LOT bigger than a publisher's advance for the second "Galbraith" book, regardless of how much they want it. She may not be in a good position to work on it for a while.

and I imagine that her paycheck from Disney for that is a LOT bigger than a publisher's advance for the second "Galbraith" book

I can't imagine J.K. Rowling doing anything at this point in her life for the money as opposed to doing exactly what she wants to do.

Oh, sure, but I'm of the opinion that at this point she probably wants to do BOTH of them, and the real decisions are simply of the scheduling variety.

Further, I just have this feeling that Disney is chock full of people who are very good at persuading people to do things in the way that most benefits Disney. Money is the most obvious of those. If that doesn't work, they've got scads of other options to bring to bear.

I did not find it hugely Noir. Not particularily optimistic it is true. but at heart it is rather too golden age to be noir. I suspect that If I had read it as by anonymous I would have guessed at a female author or at least aimed at a female audience.
As to Disney v Galbraith. it is I think a matter not of money but of contracts.

Agree with SimonW11 - I also didn't find it terribly noir. I didn't come out of it feeling even slightly depressed :)

54> Has Disney bought Warner Bros now? It seems like they own everything.