

A detective story's famous author is unmasked - Aissen
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/books/a-detective-storys-famous-author-is-unmasked.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

======
chestnut-tree
Whether you like Rowling's writing or not, one thing she excels at is plot. I
can see how a crime novel would be a perfect fit for her. In fact, the Harry
Potter books were quite brilliant in the way they threaded clues throughout
the story - all of which unravelled so cleverly at the end of the final novel.

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...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/oct/22/whitbreadprize2001.costabookaward)

~~~
MartinCron
_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.

------
snewman
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.)

------
MartinCron
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.

~~~
lurkinggrue
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.

~~~
ars
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.

~~~
jlgreco
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.

~~~
MartinCron
_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.

------
Kylekramer
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.

------
MattGrommes
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.

------
barrkel
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).

~~~
91bananas
Totally, and now that this is out the book will skyrocket to the top of every
best-seller list on the planet. Well played.

~~~
MartinCron
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.

------
sixQuarks
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.

~~~
derefr
So basically, she gave the book a "soft launch"\--and only put the PR machine
behind it now that its position as well-reviewed has been cemented.
Entrepreneurs in some other industries could learn from this :)

~~~
sixQuarks
exactly! well put

------
math0ne
Did the publisher know? Seems unclear from this article.

