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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.