Given that she kept the last chapter of her Harry Potter series locked in the attic for years, resisting all attempts to coax her into revealing its contents, it shouldn't surprise any of us that JK Rowling likes secrets.
What else were those stories based on, after all, but long-held mysteries that gradually came to light.
Being secretive is a bad habit, or so we're told as children, but in Rowling's case one can understand why she might have decided to write a novel under a false name, as if it was the work of a rookie writer. Hence her detective story, The Cuckoo's Calling, which was outed last week as being not by shadowy retired military man, Robert Galbraith, supposedly drawing on his earlier career for colour.
While I am not convinced questions were raised over Galbraith's identity because of his precocious knowledge of women's clothing, this apparently being what made some eagle-eyed reader suspicious – a hint from someone in the know seems far more probable – I do believe Rowling when she says she is disappointed the truth has come out so quickly. In light of the furore that greets each of her works, there must have been immense relief in being free of the media circus, and to let the book loose into the wild to have a life of its own.
She is not the first to try this trick. Some years ago, Doris Lessing sent out a manuscript of a novel, under the pseudonym of Jane Somers, to highlight the difficulty for first-time writers – even good ones – getting into print. Lessing's own publisher turned it down, but two more perspicacious publishing houses, in the UK and America, snapped it up, thereby no doubt pleasing and annoying Lessing in equal measure, her stunt having failed spectacularly but kept her literary ego intact.
Lessing's act took courage, and commitment. Had no-one taken her book, she would have lost precious time as well as money and face. Yet Rowling's move is admirable in its own way too, suggesting a writer for whom a novel and the way it's written still matters deeply. Her switch from children's books to adult fiction must have been pretty daunting, especially since, as a guaranteed money-spinner, she could not know if her publisher really thought the book any good, or was simply telling her it was because, no matter how pedestrian it might be, they knew it would fill their bank vault.
Even worse, she could not rely on the unavoidable tsunami of reviews to be fair. Few critics are scrupulously impartial when reviewing a Rowling novel. For some, to dismiss A Casual Vacancy as mediocre was to signal their highbrow literary credentials; for others, it would have seemed too cruel to do a hatchet job on the first title in this new phase of her career. Added to which, such is the race to be first into print with any comment on her works, reviewers would have had to read at breakneck and therefore unreliable speed.
What intrigues me most about Rowling's recent stunt is the insecurity it suggests. Taking a pseudonym hints at someone desperate for an honest response, to find out how she is rated when it's her writing alone, rather than her as a phenomenon, that is being critiqued. It's fascinating that, although established as one of the most successful writers of all time, she has felt the need to do this. It's like a secret millionaire living in a slum. She wasn't doing this to see what starting out was like for a beginner – she already knew that. She seems only to have wanted to throw her dice on to a level board and discover how she fared.
For her sake I wish the adventure had lasted for another book or two. With booksellers predicting The Cuckoo's Calling rocketing into the bestseller charts this summer, I wonder what she will take more pleasure in: the quiet critical praise it won when it was written by a nobody, or the extra cash she'll make now her fans know it's hers. I doubt there's any secret which she'd prefer.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article