A Clarification
7/25/13 UPDATE: Rowling commented on the bio in The Guardian:
“I know a number of soldiers and I’m close to two people in particular who were incredibly generous as I researched my hero’s background,” Rowling wrote. Her military contacts also helped to construct a fake CV for Robert Galbraith. “One of these friends is from the Special Investigations Bureau. So while Strike himself is entirely fictional, his career and the experiences he’s had are based on factual accounts of real soldiers.”
While veterans may take issue with her claiming military experience (and there is still a question of the Stolen Valor law), I confess that makes me feel better. Details get fudged in bios all the time, and personally I think that comes close enough.
(Original post below)
Some people seem to extend what I said in my last post to include bios that are obviously humorous or absurd. Please do not. Anything that is obviously humorous or absurd will and should be read that way. Furthermore, I am not saying that any given reader needs to care at all about author bios. What I’m saying is this:
In the publishing industry, the author bio is a sales tool. Authors use it to draw interest from agents, editors, publishers, reviewers, interviewers, readers, and others. Every one of those groups expects the bio to be honest*, even for a pseudonym. No one cares what name or gender you’re claiming, but that doesn’t mean a pseudonym is a license to invent a false background. A writer who claims real-life expertise he doesn’t have places himself in an actionable position. He can watch a contract get cancelled, receive demands for the complete repayment of any advances, and depending on how far the situation has gone, might even be pursued in civil court for damages.
For anyone else this could have been a career-damaging mistake. Rowling only got away with it because she’s famous and the leak spiked sales into the stratosphere.
*barring obviously humor or the absurd
