[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
literature

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 5259)
Message
File  []
close
images.jpg
525952595259
>> No. 5259 Anonymous
14th July 2013
Sunday 9:01 pm
5259 spacer
So JK Rowling writes a book under a nom de plume in an obvious attempt to prove she can succeed as a serious adult fiction writer. The book manages to sell 1500 copies in 3 months, even with writer friends and reviewers plugging it. The story then gets leaked that she wrote it and sales jump 150000%.
I wonder if it got nominated for a few awards and sold 50k+ would she have been so quick to reveal.
Surely this just proves she is shite at adult fiction and coasting on her name.
God I hate this woman.

Thoughts lads?
Expand all images.
>> No. 5260 Anonymous
14th July 2013
Sunday 9:14 pm
5260 spacer
>I wonder if it got nominated for a few awards and sold 50k+

How often does this happen in the space of 3 months for completely unknown writers who, for obivous reasons, can't do any form of publicity in person?
>> No. 5261 Anonymous
14th July 2013
Sunday 9:21 pm
5261 spacer
>>5259
1500 copies in 3 months and nice reviews (some of them even from strangers) would be a remarkable success for an unknown first time novelist. I think you underestimate the obscurity of life at the bottom end of literature. Just saying. Zero interest in JK Rowling here and never read any Potter books.
>> No. 5262 Anonymous
14th July 2013
Sunday 9:23 pm
5262 spacer
I would hazard a guess that it isn't great. However, in fairness, a first book from an unknown author failing to become an overnight sensation is not an indication that anything is wrong with the book.
>> No. 5263 Anonymous
14th July 2013
Sunday 9:27 pm
5263 spacer
>>5261
I have the feeling, from the articles etc about this, that the reviews and favorable quotes from other authors are from Rowling's background influence. Which I think suggests that she had a huge advantage on your unknown author.

I think my main point really was that I suspect she had this fantasy in her head that the book would become a MASSIVE overnight success and vindicate her as literary genius, rather than the passable storyteller who got lucky. I enjoy the fact this did not happen.
>> No. 5264 Anonymous
14th July 2013
Sunday 9:30 pm
5264 spacer
>>5261

>even with writer friends and reviewers plugging it

Which the total unknown novices wouldn't have. Nor would they have her networks, etc.

J K is an overblown turd, as this exercise has proven.
>> No. 5265 Anonymous
14th July 2013
Sunday 11:44 pm
5265 spacer
I don't see the problem here - the fact was that she proved a point - it was getting good reviews and selling well for a first time novelist.
>> No. 5266 Anonymous
16th July 2013
Tuesday 10:28 pm
5266 spacer
>>5265
>with writer friends and reviewers plugging it
>> No. 5268 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 5:26 am
5268 spacer
>>5266

You've just assumed that she's gone out of her way to get people to plug it, rather than those friends and reviewers being given the book to review without being told it was a Rowling.

Your proposition is ridiculous. What's the point in sabotaging your own experiment? She could easily have just released it in her own name if she wanted to and saved all the trouble.
>> No. 5269 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 10:10 am
5269 spacer
>>5268

Yeah, sure I bet none of her friends had any idea what she was up to.
>Hey Jo, what've you spent the last year writing? Is it that crime novel you were talking about?
>NO! SECRET! PS PLS REVIEW THIS CRIM BUK WOT MI ARMY M8 ROTE U NEVA MET HIM BUT ITS R8 GUD

It's a little beside the point, anyway. Most first time author's books simply won't find their way into the hands of friends and reviewers in the industry.
>This isn't bad for a début novel.
It's her eleventh novel.
>> No. 5270 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 1:33 pm
5270 spacer
>>5269
'68 is right, there's no reason she'd do this for money - if she wanted money she'd just do it in her own name. If she was doing it as an experiment, there'd be no purpose in her informing critics she knows, etc.
>> No. 5271 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 1:58 pm
5271 spacer
>>5270

Where did I say she was doing it for money?
>> No. 5273 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 2:43 pm
5273 spacer
>>5271
You didn't, but I can't see any other reason why you lot think she'd get her m8s to plug it. If she was doing it to validate her ability as a writer she wouldn't get her m8s to review it, and if she was doing it to validate her ability as a writer in other people's eyes then it'd be extremely obvious that she'd done that to anyone in the industry. Ergo the only conclusion I can come to is that this is a silly thread that comes to all the wrong conclusions, since the most obvious and most logical conclusion would be that she simply did it as an experiment and the result was that it got good reviews and sold relatively well as debut novels go, despite not having the Rowling branding attached.
>> No. 5274 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 2:55 pm
5274 spacer
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/books/a-detective-storys-famous-author-is-unmasked.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&smid=tw-share&

>The story of how The Sunday Times uncovered the truth is an odd one that involves, as seems so often the case these days, Twitter. It started on Thursday, said Richard Brooks, the paper’s arts editor, after one of his colleagues happened to post a tweet mentioning that she had loved “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” and that it did not seem as if the book had been written by a novice.

>“After midnight she got a tweet back from an anonymous person saying it’s not a first-time novel — it was written by J. K. Rowling,” Mr. Brooks said in an interview. “So my colleague tweeted back and said, ‘How do you know for sure?’ ”

>The person replied, “I just know,” and then proceeded to delete all his (or her) tweets and to close down the Twitter account, Mr. Brooks said. “All traces of this person had been taken off, and we couldn’t find his name again.”

>It is, of course, possible that the anonymous tweets were part of a sneaky campaign by the publisher to get the story out. But The Sunday Times’s curiosity was piqued, and Mr. Brooks decided to work surreptitiously at first, not alerting Ms. Rowling’s publisher or agent for fear of having the possible news leak to a competitor.

Sounds like the most likely answer to me. Rowling has no need to do it herself.
>> No. 5275 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 3:01 pm
5275 spacer
>>5273
>If she was doing it to validate her ability as a writer she wouldn't get her m8s to review it
Why not?
>if she was doing it to validate her ability as a writer in other people's eyes then it'd be extremely obvious that she'd done that to anyone in the industry
But not to the general public. In fact you're now arguing that it does validate her ability as a writer, or at least continuing an argument that began on that premise. So there's a motivation.

It sold okay. Of course it got good reviews, she's not an awful writer and she's had a lot of practice by now. For a début novel, it's good. For an eleventh, it's stagnation.
>> No. 5276 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 3:52 pm
5276 spacer
>>5275
>Why not?
Because you don't ask your mum if she likes your painting if you want a proper critique.
>But not to the general public
If there was a gigantic disparity between what JK Rowling's friends say and what other reviewers say then it would be very obvious very fast to those in the industry, and the press would jump on that fact once they get a hint of it.

>It sold okay. Of course it got good reviews, she's not an awful writer and she's had a lot of practice by now. For a début novel, it's good. For an eleventh, it's stagnation.
I'm not commenting on her literary ability.
>> No. 5277 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 4:52 pm
5277 spacer
>>5276
>a proper critique
Who said she wanted that?

I'm not talking about a disparity. I'm saying she and her fans now have something to point to as "evidence" that she's not just overhyped, she's actually a good writer. All these good reviews for an impressive "first" book.
When in reality, it's not a good first novel, it's an average eleventh. A competent writer won't get lots of good reviews, simply because they're not in a position like hers where they can get the book reviewed. It's actually quite a poor showing.

>I'm not commenting on her literary ability.
It's relevant.
>> No. 5278 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 5:06 pm
5278 spacer
>>5277
>Who said she wanted that?
Well, she did it for a reason - what do you suggest?
>> No. 5279 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 5:09 pm
5279 spacer
>>5277
>A competent writer won't get lots of good reviews, simply because they're not in a position like hers where they can get the book reviewed.
But she isn't in a position to get any reviews, all she has is the agent. Galbraith wrote this book as far as reviewers are concerned.
>> No. 5280 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 5:53 pm
5280 spacer
I think the idea that it's a "debut novel" or an "eleventh novel" is irrelevant, the idea is that it's a novel by a random person who people won't recognise the name of. Most people only take the author name into account when they know that they like those books and ignore it otherwise until they learn they like it.
>> No. 5281 Anonymous
17th July 2013
Wednesday 6:22 pm
5281 spacer
>>5278
>I'm saying she and her fans now have something to point to as "evidence" that she's not just overhyped, she's actually a good writer.
An ego boost in other words.
Not to say that is definitely her reason, but why on earth do you think we can necessarily guess her reason? Fuck knows what goes through her mind. It could be anything.

>>5279
As far as I can tell, the book had more reviews than one would expect due to who she was. Do you think she'd have been able to get that agent if she wasn't JK Rowling? Would the agent, knowing who she was, have risked their reputation by sending it to as many influential people as they did?
If an agent sends out a mediocre book by a nobody to be reviewed, they lose prestige as an agent and reviewers are less likely to review their books.
If an agent sends out a mediocre book by a nobody who later turns out to be JK Rowling, it's the reviewers who have egg on their faces.

>>5280
A good first novel is more impressive than a similarly good eleventh novel. Any given writer may receive more acclaim for a mediocre first novel than a mediocre eleventh novel because it's more of an achievement.



Oh I don't even care. I don't think how well it sold proves anything.
I think I'm just arguing because it's hot and I'm hungry.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password