posted
This question did not spring from discussions here on JK Rowling but rather from Gene Wolfe's story "Memorare" in the April 2007 issue of F&SF and particularly from Neil Gaiman's introduction to the story.
Gaiman, whose storytelling talent is without par in my opinion, gives 9 tips on how read Wolfe.
Well I've read the story and part of me wishes I'd never read Gaiman's introduction. It biased me to dissect the story while reading instead of simply reading what is a pretty interesting and well written story.
I believe that in part we place expectations of greatness on authors and whether said greatness is there or not we read their work looking for it. Sometimes the reader finds confirmation for greatness sometimes the reader finds no reason to reject the null hypothesis.
I know Stephan King has in the past made use of pseudonyms in order to write more stories than the publisher would let him write as "Stephen King" and the Bachman's novels are just as well written though not quite as successful until the truth came out.
I realize most authors are not/will never be as productive as King but still something can be said for not knowing the authors true identity and just enjoying a good read.
posted
I believe the bulk of the Bachman novels were those King wrote and failed to sell prior to Carrie, but your point is taken, it kind of started as an experiment to see whether his books would sell without the King name on them.
His son has recently published his first novel under a pseudonym as well.
There is definitely a tendency to approach a familiar author with bias, both good and bad, that colors the reading experience.
posted
It is true that readers will have expectations of writing by an author they recognize by name. The best that happens is the reader is satisfied, and the worst is that they are supremely disappointed.
What I wonder is if they could still have made it out of the slush. That would be a real test. Even though they use a different name, they still skip a big step unknowns go through, and that they once did too. Can't blame them for that, but we all know that the most difficult part is to get agents and publishers willing to want to publish unknown works.
posted
If a writer pleases me with one book (or short story, or article), I'm likely to look for other things by the same writer. I'd call it "name value." The reader knows this writer like he knows what brands to buy at the market.
'Course sometimes after reading something good by the writer, I find something less good, or even outright crap. Sometimes the, er, momentum from the first book (or first several books) will carry the reader on through another books---but not forever.
I think some writers, Stephen King among them, have gotten away with publishing some pretty bad stuff on their name alone. I don't necessarily know what, say, King thought of those works---maybe he thought they were fine---but I sure didn't. And what's my opinion compared to his?
(Me? I usually go through a period with a writer where I'm hooked by something-or-other, then spend a lot of time trying to lay my hands on everything that writer published, or at least everything that's easily obtainable. (It happened with me and Stephen King back in, oh, must've been the late eighties. Not that I turned up everything he published---I was too broke to buy too much and had to content myself with library copies.) It doesn't happen as often to me as it used to. But some of it lingers---I still look for a couple of books I never did lay my hands on...or sometimes a new edition of an old book.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
