A detective story's famous author is unmasked(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A detective story's famous author is unmasked
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/books/a-detective-storys-famous-author-is-unmasked.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
8 comments
I can see how a crime novel would be a perfect fit for her
The better Harry Potter novels basically were crime novels with magic. As a big crime novel fan, I'm eager to read this new one.
The better Harry Potter novels basically were crime novels with magic. As a big crime novel fan, I'm eager to read this new one.
Interesting that the reviews for this book were so much better than The Casual Vacancy. I wonder whether it is in fact better written, or simply that The Casual Vacancy suffered for having J. K. Rowling's name attached to it. (Expectations too high, people wanting to see such a high-selling author take a fall, etc.)
As for this being a publicity stunt: maybe so, but I wouldn't take that as a foregone conclusion. It's easy enough to see that she would want to get away from all the hype and noise and just write books. And it's not like she needs the extra income that this book might bring. (If she were simply interested in cash, she'd certainly do better to write more Potter-related material.)
As for this being a publicity stunt: maybe so, but I wouldn't take that as a foregone conclusion. It's easy enough to see that she would want to get away from all the hype and noise and just write books. And it's not like she needs the extra income that this book might bring. (If she were simply interested in cash, she'd certainly do better to write more Potter-related material.)
I was expecting Rowling to start writing under a pseudonym after the response to Casual Vacancy didn't make it much further than "this isn't like Harry Potter at all!" It's kind of a shame that the secret's out.
After Casual Vacancy I gave up on her. This was not do to the lack of Harry Potter but due to the lack of any magic. By magic I mean likeable characters and a story I could care about.
Casual Vacancy was slow, dull and full of people I wanted no business with.
Casual Vacancy was slow, dull and full of people I wanted no business with.
I actually rather enjoyed The Casual Vacancy, but I did find a few of the characters pretty tedious to read about. The same story from a less powerful and intimidating author would have been able to benefit from some aggressive redaction, but who is going to tell Rowling to lose large chunks of her book? I wouldn't be able to.
I think she is trying to avoid being stereotyped, so she's deliberately trying other writing styles.
For her a failed experiment is worth it because it shows that she can write other kinds of books.
A less wealthy author probably couldn't afford to do that.
For her a failed experiment is worth it because it shows that she can write other kinds of books.
A less wealthy author probably couldn't afford to do that.
I can't say I really understand the desire not to be typecast or stereotyped. I don't see those things as negatives; surely nobody looks down upon Agatha Christie for writing crime/mystery stuff almost exclusively.
If you're good at it, roll with it, unless you aren't happy with it I suppose.
If you're good at it, roll with it, unless you aren't happy with it I suppose.
surely nobody looks down upon Agatha Christie for writing crime/mystery stuff almost exclusively
There are actually lots of "real literature" snobs who look down at genre writers like Agatha Christie. Raymond Chandler's life work was basically to get people to take his books seriously as literature.
There are actually lots of "real literature" snobs who look down at genre writers like Agatha Christie. Raymond Chandler's life work was basically to get people to take his books seriously as literature.
Maybe I am a cynic, but how does a book that is unremarkable in every way besides its hidden true author and only sold 1,500 in the UK get reviewed in the first place?
It seems a little too perfect. Famous author, sometimes painted as mediocre by reviewers and with a history of testy relations with the press, secretly releases a book that gets great reviews. And it all comes out due to Twitter account that gets deleted.
It seems a little too perfect. Famous author, sometimes painted as mediocre by reviewers and with a history of testy relations with the press, secretly releases a book that gets great reviews. And it all comes out due to Twitter account that gets deleted.
I appreciate that someone like this would go to the effort of really trying to improve her craft. The downfall of the Potter books to me was the writing style (lots of "he said angrily" and the like). A billionaire author of a worldwide phenomenon and cultural touchstone for a generation working at upping her game is something to be admired.
IMO this is essentially a publicity stunt in aid of an escape from stereotyping for Rowling. It's a good narrative (the ploy, that is).
While that may have been the publisher's intention, were I in her shoes I would have done exactly the same thing. Those positive reviews she got for her novel when nobody knew who the author was? I'm sure those were worth any amount of lost sales to her.
Totally, and now that this is out the book will skyrocket to the top of every best-seller list on the planet. Well played.
And, she can perhaps differentiate her "grown up" work by continuing to write under a different name. Not all pseudonyms have to be closed secrets. Look at Richard Stark/Donald Westlake.
If it were a publicity stunt, you'd think they'd have more copies readily available on the day of the leak!
Basically. The "anonymous tip" probably came directly from the publisher.
This is kind of brilliant. Famous author, with a lot of pressure to write the next great novel, decides to test out the reaction to her books before announcing who the real author is. Who knows, maybe she released a couple of other books that didn't do well, and we will never know because she didn't take credit for it.
She hasn't really had time to write many more. The writers who churn out books at that pace actually have other people do the writing for them.
That's actually a great point. The cynic in me wants to believe this.
Did the publisher know? Seems unclear from this article.
In fact, this skill for storytelling or narrative is something shared by many "children's authors". Plot sometimes seems to be a dirty word in adult fction, especially literary fiction. You can have a good plot and good characterisation - they are not mutually exclusive. Another British writer, Philip Pullman, has also acknowledged the importance of story. I like this extract from Guardian article in 2000 on Philip Pullman [1]
he...is not afraid to acknowledge the importance of plot in his work. 'When you are writing for children,' he told the Bookseller in 1996, 'the story is more important than you are. You can't be self-conscious, you just have to get out of the way.' Because it is easier to write description and dialogue than tell a good story, very many contemporary novelists write bad plots...Pullman seems to know this...
It's in the importance he attaches to narrative that sets Pullman apart from all those highly-praised contemporary writers who cannot plot for toffee.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/oct/22/whitbreadprize20...