Another pet peeve - authors with pseudonyms

[matt819]

Okay, I griped in another, little responded to post, about how Robert Ludlum can keep showing up as an author even after his death. Neat trick.

Another pet peeve. I have no problem with authors writing under pseudonyms. I don't even mind all that much being told it is a pseudonym. I can appreciate the desire for privacy or an author writing in a completely different genre from his usual. But what bugs me is when the blurb or the front cover, for that matter, tells me that this is Bob Smith writing as John Jones. WTF? If you want to write as Bob Smith, go ahead. If you want to write as John Jones, have at it. But two names? Seems more than a little pretentious. Or when two authors (usually mother/daughter it seems) write under one name, and then the blurb tells us this. Well, for goodness sakes, if you both wrote it, put your names on it. Don't be cute with initials and a last name or a completely made up name, and then telling the reader who you are.

Sure, the world is coming apart at the seams. I'm sweltering up here in the northeast in January. And this is not a matter of life, death, or anything close to either. But it bugs me.

[Jade Fox]

1. So you're mad at everyone on this board.....

except for Will Pitt? ;)

[pitohui]

2. i enjoy it -- it usually means the author is prolific or diverse

barbara vine is a different product from ruth rendell, both excellent, but just different in flavor although related flavors

i think it's cool

some of it goes back to the day when a publisher did not allow an author to publish more than a book a year under her own name so she was forced into using pseudonyms against her will

others are simply channeling different personalities -- i have a book by joyce carol oates where she is channeling a gay portuguese man, i need to find that book, it's pretty cool but very different from her usual work

[TexasProgresive]

3. Most of those I've seen are books that are being reprinted and

the author has come out. For what ever reason they were originally published under a nom de plume but now the author no longer cares.

[northzax]

4. one other reason is to allow a famous author

the opportunity to try another voice (As has been mentioned) without the pressure of being say, Stephen King. It also allows them to see how their work is really recieved in the marketplace, without the famous name attached (which is what King wanted to do when he wrote the Bachman books) you put the name Stephen King on a blank book, it's going to sell a million copies, using a pseudonym allows authors to go back to the starting place, without the preexisting beliefs of a built in audience.

[LisaM]

5. You mean one writer writing under various names?

Versus a pseudonym like Mark Twain, or George Eliot? I tend to think of those as pseudonyms, though I suppose all the examples you mentioned technically are pseudonyms. However, I think I associate it most with women writers from England in the 19th century (the Brontes are another example). In those instances, the pseudonyms freed the writers to write as they really could, versus just publishing under a bunch of different names.

[matt819]

6. Not Mark Twain or George Eliot

Though I'd be interested to know from more recent English majors out there whether George Eliot (or was it George Sand) was revealed publicly while she was still alive?

My point here regards Stephen King/Richard Bachman or Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine. Or even writers whose blurbs describe them as writing under a pseudonym but they are famous in some other respect (but we're not going to tell you who they are). Yes, I know that using a pseudonym allows an author with an established record as one type of writer to experiment with another genre. Fine. No problem. And I suppose I can go back in history and find that in the early years they were not revealed as being one and the same. But it bugs me anyway. First off, whether their books written under the pseudonym are any good is irrelevant, since the publisher is going to print the book anyway. Sure, you turn down Stepen King. Next, why tell me that a writer is really someone else? Why is that information useful? If they have the guts and the skill to write successfully under another name, great. Have at it. Good luck. How exciting. But then to tell me they're really someone famous? Give me a break. Nothing more than pretentiousness on the part of the writer or (more likely) greed and convenience on the part of the publisher.

[Orrex]

7. Let us consult The Writer's Almanac

The Writer's Almanac

Here, I think, is the relevant bit:

Eliot's first full-length novel Adam Bede (1859) was about carpenter who is betrayed by his love, Hetty Sorrel. Eliot said, " country story--full of the breath of cows and scent of hay." It was an immediate success. People across Europe, including Leo Tolstoy in Russia, called it a work of genius, and everyone wondered who this George Eliot was. Mary Evans decided to reveal her identity, and went on to become one of the most renowned writers of her lifetime. In 1871, she published her masterpiece, Middlemarch, which has been called one of the greatest English novels of all time.

HTH

[krispos42]

8. Well, some people have bad names.

Mine, for example. I have a single-syllable first name, and a single-syllable last name (thanks, Mom...).

I would not want to write under my name because, quite simply, it's abrupt and a little generic-sounding. Not to protect myself, because my name is safely generic, but because it's boring!

And some authors don't have good-sounding names. My favorite author is Harry Turtledove, but his early works were published under names like Dan Chernenko, Eric G. Iverson, Mark Gordion, and H.N. Turteltaub. Why? 'Turtledove' sounds kinda fake and wussy!