Monday 12 May 2014

What's in a name?

Following on from my acclaimed previous blog post (What's in a word?), I proudly present to you What's in a name?

(Suggestions for future episodes in the series are welcome. At the moment, I can only think of What's in a packet of crisps? - which, I think you'll agree, is unlikely to be of the same standard.)

Let's pretend, for a moment, that there's a truly great, prolific, much-loved, award-winning and popular author called Archibald Flange.

(A quick Google search suggests that I'm safe to do what I like with this name. However, if it is your name and you feel offended by what follows, then let me know and I'll come up with something even less likely.)

Archibald Flange

For reasons that are no one else's business, Archie has got fed up with the whole writing circus. He's simply not going to write any more. He's earned enough to make himself comfortable and his back catalogue continues to sell well enough to keep him in food, wine and spirits.

He's looking for mischief.

He's going to do the exact opposite of J K Rowling.
She used the pen name Robert Galbraith to see whether her writing would sell without her real name on it. Turned out it did. Not in earth-shattering numbers, but very respectably for the genre. (Of course, then the cat tore its way out of the bag, at which point some serious print runs were needed.)
Archie is going to allow me to use his name for my next book. Thank you, Archie.

Fast forward

Let's go forward a couple of years. Without his usual blaze of publicity - anecdotes on chat shows, readings at book signings, shaking hands with the Pope, etc - Archie has a new book out. (It's really mine but don't tell anyone.)

He blames new hips for his reluctance to venture out.

The sales are great.

Maybe the numbers aren't as high as for his previous few books.

The critics note a change in style, a new direction. The fans buy it regardless. Some of the less fervent fans decide to sit it out and wait till they can get it from the library or borrow it from a friend or hear at least three of their mavens tell them they just have to buy it, darling.

I offer to pay Archie a percentage. He laughs and tells me not to be so stupid. He asks me when the next one is coming out. He hasn't told anyone. Even his agent doesn't know.

Of course, this means that I have to be paid by Archie but that's no problem for him. Means I get a bit less because he's in a higher tax bracket but I'd rather have 60% of the royalties for my book with his name on the cover than 100% of the royalties for my book with my name on the cover.

How about my place in history? Ask me in ten years.

Would I be that mercenary?

Yes.

Anything else?

Dear Reader, would you feel cheated if you thought you'd bought Flange and got Tarnofsky? Even if you liked it?

What are the rules of adopting pen names? There must be plenty of examples of authors who genuinely have the same name - and someone must have accidentally adopted a famous pen name at some point.

It must be to do with the intention.

Maybe so - but why is misleading someone any better if you didn't know you were doing it?

I've been told that my short stories are reminiscent of the work of bestselling author Etgar Keret.

I would not do this

If I republished my short stories under the pen-name Etgar Keret (I really WOULD NOT do this) - and people bought them, and liked them, and thought that he'd written a really super collection of stories, then what harm has been done?

Plenty, clearly. Deliberate misleading of readers, potentially tarnishing Mr Keret's blameless and hard-earned good name.

It just feels wrong. But who has been harmed? People buying short stories that they thought they would like got short stories that they liked.

But I still wouldn't do it. It would feel like cheating.

What ever happened to Polaroid?

Was that too sudden a change in direction? Stay with me. I'll draw it together.

Polaroid was a world-famous, well-respected company for many years. They made instant cameras. (If you're under 25, you may wonder what I'm talking about. Try Wikipedia.)

Digital photography killed off their core business and the company was in various death throes for a while. It still hasn't died but its name has been sold off to be used on all sorts of ventures.

I have in my hand the box of a Polaroid light bulb. It says 'Polaroid' on the box and has their logo and contained one of the worst built light bulbs that I personally have ever had the misfortune to put into a light fitting. Yes, it came apart. You really don't want that from a light bulb.

A company which has been making high quality stuff for many decades - you'd trust them to know how to make a good light bulb. I mean - a light bulb! How hard can it be to churn these out? They're not exactly new technology. And this one was an old-fashioned hot bit of wire in a glass shell. The sort that Thomas Edison would have recognised.

His might have been better than this one.

But a company you've never heard of - would you buy their bulb? Instead of Phillips or Osram? Really?

I guess that's why they bought the right to use the word Polaroid.

I'm not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. They bought the name - they're entitled to use it. But maybe, just maybe, some people don't quite get what they're expecting.

So if I did the thing I said I wouldn't do...

...then I certainly wouldn't be the first. Hey Etgar - what percentage would you want? I'll have my people talk to your people.

No comments: