I was orignally going to use a pen name Zane Aether... then I decided that name was slightly pretentious lol, and then was going to go by Alistair Aether...still pretentious...there was another one, can't remember it now. Then I decided that my own name was good enough. Only time I would use a pen name is if I didn't want people to know I had written something.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting from everybody over at the Absolute Write forums. Pretty sure you're right.
My first and last name where as not difficult to pronounce are often misspelled so i would probably use a pen name if published
I use a pen name, as my last name is hard to pronounce, and my married name is very boring and has never suited me. Isadora Zee, it is.
Hey, old thread but, can you expound on this? What is their reason for pushing an author to do this? Thanks!
Hi, Definitely an old thread - I'd forgotten what I posted three years ago! However just to add to that the last three years have taught me one thing about names - pen or otherwise. I call it the Highlander Rule. There can be only one. Seriously! I know it sounds silly, but if you want to have a career as an author, you have to keep the same name. Changing it for different books and different genres is the biggest mistake you can make in most cases. In essence if you use a different name for your sci fi from your fantasy from your romance etc, then readers won't jump from one book to another. They won't know you. And an author needs brand recognition. Look at it this way. If Barabara Cartland wrote a book on fridge repair, people would recognise the name and look. If she wrote it under her pseud of John Smith, no one would look. And meanwhile as she's been spending all that time writing her fridge repair book her name as a romance writer has been slipping because the Dame has not put out anything as far as her readers know. So, pen name or real name - it doesn't really matter. What does matter is sticking with it for life. So decide carefully. Cheers, Greg.
I disagree about sticking to the same pen name, and obviously quite a few authors agree, as they use different names for different genres. I don't think most readers jump between different genres anyway - I certainly haven't had any luck persuading them to do so, even when I've used the same pen name. I agree that it's important to build name recognition, or even "brand" recognition, but I think it's best when there's a clear link between the brand and the type of product. I like buying Lexus cars, but I don't want to buy Lexus tomatoes. Times I think it makes sense to have multiple pen names: When an author is productive enough to manage more than one, or else is willing to abandon one and move into a new field; When different genres are incompatible (eg. erotica and children's books); When it may not be easily distinguishable what "type" of story is being written, leading readers to read something they don't enjoy because it's not what they expect from a certain name (eg. if someone writes literary and also genre); When someone is taking a chance (self-pubbing, publishing something they're not really sure about) and doesn't want the sales record to impinge on the sales numbers for their main name. There may be other reasons, too.
Hi, I know a lot of authors do use multiple pen names. It's still a basic marketing mistake. I get that you wouldn't buy Lexus tomatoes. They don't make them. But when you're browsing Lexus why don't you browse what else they sell. Luggage, watches, stationary and the list goes on. And they sell them. You want to guess how much of a premium they get for products with their name on them? Or for that matter Porsche, MG, Ferrari etc. Take a look at the prices of a porsche ten speed or a Ferrari jacket. And then ask yourself how much they're creaming the market with these products. Yes there are reasons to have multiple pen names, but they are few and far between. And the only one of the list you gave that I would consider valid would be the incompatible genres where you could risk losing your good name by being associated with something seedy etc. The others don't count. Multiple genres don't matter because what you're trying to get is not crossover sales so much, its name recognition. You want potential readers to see that name and say - I know that name! And if the story is so different in genre that one lot of readers may not like it, that should be clear from the blurb. As for someone self pubbing something they aren't sure of - they shouldn't be doing at all until they are sure. You should never put out less than your best. Cheers, Greg,
I've been thinking about that lately. Do I want a pen name or my real name? What pen name do I want to use? My real name isn't particularly interesting or long or colorful. And the only two pen names I like are: Cole Dun (play on words of my real name) Cole Quette (Again, play on words of my real name and Quette because a) it sounds good and b) it reminds me of the old fashioned word "coquette" and I find it amusing) I don't want people I know personally recognizing my name on books on one hand, but on the other, just the idea of having my actual name printed on a book is extremely exciting. Assuming, of course, that I will be published one day.
I just went with my official initials and surname: A.W.Black Hopefully the "W" invokes thoughts of a classy writer, like William Shakespeare, and not George W Bush.
It's not just 'seedy' genres... One person's seedy is another person's gold, is the problem. Writing literary fiction after a success in bodice rippers will lead to that established reader base's disappointment and brand corruption and - most importantly - massive returned stock, if it's not made explicit on the cover. In which case, if it has to be made explicit on the cover "The Robot Who Had Feelings, by the author of the bestseller The Bodice Rippeth - BUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!" It's not really leveraging the past success... why bother saying it's the same author if it's a fresh market foray? I'd say it's a very useful arrow in Marketing's quiver, and explains why it remains very popular in the top tier professionally marketed publishing segment. One way to preempt the problem is to build a brand around 'writer' instead of 'thriller writer,' but that's easier said than done, and hard to do retroactively if you break out in genre first. ETA: relevant interview in Writing Excuses podcast: [Marketing 201 - Branding for Authors]
Hi Kevin, You answered your own question. Make it explicit on the cover that the books in a completely different genre so that you won't piss off readers. But do not use a different name. And the why is about brand. You never change your brand. Go back to the Dame Barbara Cartland fridge repair manual example. It doesn't matter that the genres are completely different and that you'll be unlikely to get much crossover. Even if you get none, its valuable. What does matter is that the name Barabara Cartland is out there in the public eye, being noticed / remembered. So romance readers when they next look for a read, have her name in the back of their minds. If they have only her pseudo in their memories, that doesn't happen. Why do you think Ferrari is selling leather jackets for thousands of bucks? Because of the money? Well partly. But a huge part of it is that it keeps the name Ferrari out there. As for the literary example, hell no. If you make a hit in a particular genre than write a book of greater literary merit, it will do better not worse because of your name. Good grief - If Douglas Adams wrote a new "War and Peace" do you imagine it would get less readers than if it was written by John Smith? Of course not. What does happen among the literary snobs is that they want to think that their literary work is of so much greater value that to use their populist name would degrade it. But that's just self defeating vanity. Academics tend to do it. Academics who want to succeed as authors don't. Cheers, Greg.
I think maybe you're letting a personal prejudice influence your thinking on this. JKRowling is hardly a 'literary snob', and her publisher's marketing staff are probably among the best in the world. They have decided that her sales will benefit from striking a pseudonym for her detective genre work, and this strategy is consistent with many top tier authors who have done the same over the years. This is something that each author should probably discuss with their Agent, Editor, Publisher, &c, to determine whether it is appropriate for their marketing model. Their customer of consideration is the book chain buyers, not the end reader, and they have to decide purchasing volume based on different factors than how many books the author sold last time. When genres change, sales expectations can also change, and starting fresh with a pseudonym is a very practical way to simplify each genre's sales expectations for the channel. I expect it's more complicated for a self-published author, as they often are forced to reduce costs by stepping into the marketing role themselves, rather than outsource it as they would a copyeditor and printer, so may not have the experience in identifying when a pseudonym could work vs when it will not. In my case, the decision to use pseudonym was not about branding, so much as protection from my employer. When I did standup, there were a lot of complaints (submitted by my competitors I suspect) about my subjectmatter. Rather than shape my performance to be 'safe for work' I opted to shift from performance to published work, and use a pseudonym to reduce the risk of employer retaliation.
Hi, Oh, to have JK's troubles! No. According to what I've read the decision to write under the pseudo Robert Galbraith was JK's idea. Presumably something to do with having to live up to the stress of expectations for the author of Harry Potter to put out a detective noir book. Typically the book did poorly (it was in fact rejected by publishers) - until it was leaked to the press that RG was in fact JK at which point sales took off. While we're at it Stephen King during the 70's / 80's wanted to see if his work was as good as he hoped, or alternatively it was just down to luck etc, and pubbed under the pseudo Richard Bachman. Again his decision, was not a commercial one, and again sales of Bachman took off once the secret was out. Others have done the same, but by and large it's not the publishers / agents decision. When you become an award winning best seller you get to have more say in your marketing etc. It doesn't mean that you'll make good commercial decisions or that your publishers / agents won't try to do an end run around you by leaking your real name! Cheers, Greg.
I'm not sure we know the rationale for Galbraith, but my reason for using Rowling as an example is that the motives don't seem to be an attempt to shield a 'sophisticated' brand from negative impact associated with publishing in a 'common' category. You seemed to be speculating that was a big reason for pseudonyms, and I disagreed. As you point out, the sales of the book responded to her main brand, but for a lot of writers, that's the point: poor quality prior output or low sales would have the opposite effect, and a pseudonym would bypass the reputation and allow a bookstore buyer to judge a new offering on its own merit. In a way, that's what I'm doing... my prior work (in standup) that negatively impact my brand is not linked to my new works (in writing). Yes, I don't want to get too stuck on famous authors (nobody's mentioned Donald E Westlake's 20+ pseudonyms yet - gotta throw that example in), I cite them because the names would be recognizeable and support the position that it is very common among writers who take their branding seriously and approach writing as professionals. And this is aside from pseudonyms for collaborative (Grant Naylor) or syndicated (Franklin W Dixon and Carolyn Keene) or ad hoc teams (David Agnew). Hopefully I'm not unintentionally coming across as an advocate for all writers to rush out and publish under pseudonyms, but rather, I want to support the view that it can be the right choice in some circumstances and is not 'always' a marketing mistake.
I definitely want a pseudonym; my writing is a very private affair that I'd rather not show to those around me. For one it gives too much of my soul away, and for another I'm sure the genre I'm most comfortable with won't sit well with them anyway. Publish and only be half-damned—I hope. For multiple pseudonyms, I go with the consensus here in that it's too confusing. There is the measure though that Iain Banks took and that is to keep the same name name... just add a middle initial to indicate writing of a different classification.
Nora Roberts/JD Robb? If you're committed to self-publishing, do what you want. I think readers appreciate the clarity of separate pen names, but self-publishing is a fairly new field and I don't think best practices are really established, there. But if you're working with publishers, be aware that they look at past sales history by pen name. If you're a midlister, taking a chance on a new idea or genre, and you write something that tanks, you can mess up your career because publishers won't want your next book under that pen name. I agree that branding is important, but that means it's important to protect the brand, not dilute it.
It might even make more sense in self publishing, if only because of its association with 'low quality' product. A beginning writer who is on a career arc that starts with being pretty bad, but improving over time, might benefit from writing their early stinkers under a pseudonym. I would expect self-published are also more likely to have 'a day job' they would want to keep in the dark about moonlighting. I think a market foray is a good example of when to experiment with a pen name. This is a strategy used in traditional marketing pretty frequently. eg: Orbit or Tab, which were Wrigley's and Coke, respectively, testing the market's taste for intense sweeteners. Of interest: Orbit was resurrected, having originally been used to protect Wrigley's brand during WWII, when taste was affected by low quality ingredients that had to be substituted due to rationing. Most examples I've come across recently are considering pseudonyms with brand protection in mind. Again, there are other reasons, such as collaboration. I just watched the pilot for The Expanse, which is based on books written by James S. A. Corey, which is a pseudonym for coauthors Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck.
I am about 90% sure I will use a pen name or a version of my name. Ashley-Ann Smith is just way too common and I think there is a newscaster turned writer with that name. My maiden name is not desirable either. Ashley Chin or since being adopted by my step dad as a child it was changed to Ashley Chin-Leung. I want to keep the family in my name so I might use A.J. Lucas, Lucas being my youngest sons name, J because the initial for my older son's name. I may also go by Ashley Ann, so Ann being my "last name." My list so far Ashley-Ann Smith A.A. Smith A.J. Lucas A.A. Leigh (play on Leung)
