Hacker News Reader

Comment by joezydeco | Hacker News Reader

Funny coincidence that this 'outing' happened just as the book was headed for the clearance bin.

"just as the book was headed for the clearance bin"

Really? A hardcover that's been out less than 3 months and that got favorable critical attention (and a lot of favorable Amazon reviews before the leak)?

I've heard it had sales of less than 2,000, which last time I checked (a long while ago, I admit) was considered to be OK for the first printing of a hardback and could result in a paperback run.

I welcome someone who knows the current market's number thresholds, not to mention this market segment, which I don't know, to weight in.

those numbers are pretty low. to be considered moderately successful it would probably need to be at least an order of magnitude higher. that being said, it was still early. you never know what could happen. it was reviewed favorably.

Given how much damage this whole incident has done to that law firm I seriously doubt any sane law firm would let themselves be put in that position just for a publicity stunt.

Normally intentionally "leaks" are just "anonymous sources" etc. They're very rarely if ever named.

Plus she doesn't need the money, she is one of the richest women in the world. I suspect she wrote under a different name to see if the book would stand on its own without her big name boosting sales.

"she doesn't need the money, she is one of the richest women in the world."

Never underestimate what the rich and super rich will do to get more money.

Does Warran Buffet need more money? Yet he's still trying to make himself richer.

Do all the top CEO's, VCs, and board members in the world "need" more millions and billions? Maybe not. But it hasn't stopped them from trying to further enrich themselves.

Besides, there could be other motivations for this stunt, such as fame or wanting to be talked about or thought of as a certain type of author.

Totally true! I liked what you said there. This view is not cynicism (as some might say), but this is realism :)

Good one!

That is true. But why would her lawyer be willing to risk his reputation to help Rowling to make more money? Just trying to solve this puzzle.

Rowling actively rid herself of cash and fell out of the top 100 richest last year, I think money isn't that important to her.

http://givingpledge.org/pdf/letters/Buffett_Letter.pdf

This is what she is about (Harvard commencement speech): https://youtube.com/watch?v=wHGqp8lz36c

I feel that you're confusing Rowling with her publisher and maybe even her agent.

Does Warran Buffet need more money? Yet he's still trying to make himself richer.

"I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die."

> she doesn't need the money

Doesn't have to be about money. Success and acclaim as equally addictive.

I really doubt that Rowling was doing this for the revenue. She seemed to genuinely want to just write under a different name/genre without any of the craziness that comes with a Rowling book launch.

She doesn't need the money, so this is probably from the publisher.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com