"Okay for author's false pen name history ?" Topic

I have nearly all of the late Digby Smith's books but spotted one of his early books that I did not have in a second hand store at a really cheap price. It was Armies of the Napoleonic Area by Otto von Pivka. The seller was asking about the author and did not seem to believe me that the author's real name was Digby Smith. He looked at the back of the book, which showed a picture of the author, which was fine. But the write up stated that he was born in Germany in 1920, joined the German Army in 1938, fought in North Africa and Russia and was wounded at the Battle of Tobruk! I'm not surprised he wasn't convinced Digby Smith was actually the real author and was born in Britain. LOL
However, although I can understand why some writers prefer to use a pen name I'm not sure I agree with inventing a false history to go with it?

No, the false history is simply wrong. This isn't a work of fiction. Who the author is matters.

Agree with Grattan

I read somewhere that some "ancient writers" practiced some sort of "reverse plagiarism".
They would try to attribute their work to a more famous writer.
I don't know if this is true or not. 🤷
But they did things differently back then. With no mass production printing, who knows?

My favorite crime writer is Donald Westlake. Google him to see how many pseudonyms he has. He had a practical reason. His hard boiled books were by "Richard Stark". The more comical bumbling Dortmunder books were by Westlake. There's a comic in-joke about the fake name that Dortmunder uses. "‘Diddums'. It's Welsh."
High volume writers may wish to separate works for Reasons.

Actually I think the author's biography doesn't matter at all. It is the sources he uses. And reading the book, we realise whether the author is intelligent and thoroughful or not. Whether he spent the years between 1939 and 1914 in a trench or a tank or a brothel, means nothing. Having been a soldier is no guarantee that you understand how other soldiers experience(d) their life.

Because Digby Smith was on active duty in the British military, there was (maybe still is?) a regulation stating that anyone who writes a book for profit cannot use his/her real name while on active duty. Otto von Pivka was his pseudonym so he could have his works published. As Gazzolla mentioned, his works since he retired goes by his name Digby Smith. Have enjoyed his work regardless of what name he used at the time.

I'm fine with a fiction author having a separate name for each series--and indeed do not shelve my Jane Haddams with my Orania Papazoglous, nor my John Dickson Carrs with my Carter Dicksons. But an author's biography has relevance when it comes to experience, perspective and credibility. And, of course, there's credibility. If he's lying to me about his life, what else is he lying to me about?

Use a pseudonym if you must, but invent biographies only for fictional characters.

I'm guessing that it was all intended as a joke. He was writing about the Napoleonic Wars, so whether or not he was really in the German army in WW2 probably didn't have a lot of relevance to his credibility as an author.

There are more people caught in a lie and insisting that it was a joke than there are TMP members. Probably more than there are historical miniatures gamers. As far as I'm concerned, it only flies if the bio itself tells the alert reader it's meant as a joke. Put yourself down as a Miskatonic U graduate, say you worked in the BPRD, or served in the West Yorkshire Fusiliers (or the South Essex) and fair enough. You notice false bios hardly ever do that.

I suppose we on TMP might laugh at it because we know who Otto von Pivka really was, but the seller probably thought I was making it up to try and get the price down even lower when I said his real name is Digby Smith and he is actually British. In terms of done as a joke, not sure I agree with that. A joke aimed at who? Those he wanted to buy his books? Red tape? It seems a little too much and deceptive for a joke. But no problem with his pen name and it was amusing to find out he was really Smith not Pivka when he started publishing as Digby Smith. Anyway, as far as I know, we all enjoy his books and I will certainly try to buy those I do not yet own, at some point, such as the 4th volume in the Napoleon's German Division in Spain series. But I guess I will have to take a book in by Digby Smith to show the seller that Digby Smith was indeed Otto von Pivka and none of the information offered was true and that I was not offering false information! LOL

I think some people need to lighten up…

link

An impressive list of books but a shame the link did not include the four volume series Napoleon's German Division in Spain. Gotta get that fourth volume!

Cedric – any lighter and I'll be floating! LOL

Cerdic, may I ask in what other contexts fraud on the part of a historian--and an author attempting to sell me stuff--is just good, clean fun? Waterloo: New perspectives, anyone?

Sven Hassel, the author of popular fiction about the German Army of WWII, was the pen-name of Borge Willi Redsted Pedersen, who also had a false biography on the dustjackets of his books:

'Hassel claimed his authorship was based on being a veteran of the German Wehrmacht who had fought in the Battle of Berlin in 1945 until he surrendered to the Soviets. However, numerous post-war investigations have proved his claims to be false and outright fabrications. In fact Hassel (as Pedersen) was a Danish criminal who did join the German Army but was incarcerated for having lied about his convictions. He was not captured in Berlin because he was in prison in Denmark. In the post war period he gave false testament which led to the arrest and imprisonment of innocent people.'

[from Wikipedia]

Hassel created a false biography to suggest his books were based on personal experience, so he was definitely trying to deceive his readers.

I don't accuse Digby Smith of doing that, but it seems a strange thing to do.

If Otto von Pivka had a fake biography, does st makes his books inaccurate?
What if they were by "Anonymous"? Would that make it any better?

John the OFM – No one is bothered about the pen name, plenty of authors use it, for whatever reason – but to create a false history for the false name could be considered as deceiving the buyer no matter how good or accurate the contents of the book might be. For a start, it gave the seller I bought the book off a different view of who the author was and his life during the war as a German soldier who had had actual experience of war. I thought at first that it might have been the publishers who did it and I'm surprised they allowed it in the first place, since I'm assuming they knew Digby was British and not German. All a bit odd. We can laugh at it now and, as far as I am aware, no one has been harmed by the deception, which is what it was. It is just a shame Digby is not with us any more and can't explain the reason for doing it.

Yes, "Anonymous" would be a considerable improvement. It's always better to know you're ignorant than to proceed confident in false knowledge.

And if the author's background has no impact on the book, why do they keep including them? It matters to me even in fiction that Heinlein was a Naval Academy grad and engineer with active service in the fleet, but knew ground warfare only by study, and that Barbara Hambly is a trained historian who lived in and studied New Orleans and Los Angeles, but never really worked on 20th Century history otherwise. Does it not matter to you?

The late Allen Curtis RIP had a BIG problem with Dale Dye being an expert on everything. Dye did have a military background. Allen thought his recreation of FIW drill was pure rubbish. Allen also had a military background. So we have "dueling experts".

If he couldn't publish under his own name whilst serving a career in the British army, then making up a cheeky bio as a German veteran seems a perfectly suitably entertaining and cheeky option.

From Napoleon Series Archive link

"The curious Nom De Plumbe of Otto Von Pivka has suffered from much conjecture regarding its origin. As a member of H.M.Forces, any published work had to go through a convoluted process of Whitehall bureaucracy. In order to avoid this, Digby sought anonymity behind the name Otto Von Pivka. The name was entirely of his own making. The Otto came from his school days German lessons. All students in class were referred to by the German translation of their names. There being no obvious substitute for 'Digby' he was simply named 'Otto'. The Pivka refers to a Prussian Drum Major of the 1870's who, to the Austrians, represented everything pompous, overbearing, bullying and ridiculous about the Prussians.

Regarding the 'Von'
"Oh, I stuck in the Von to satisfy my burning social deprivation imposed on me by my – unfortunately – common birth in the class ridden British Society". As over 50% of any inter-personal communication is non verbal, I must add that the above was accompanied by a wry smile."

Prince of Essling – I don't think anyone has a problem with the pen name. I certainly haven't. It is just the strange creation of a false bio for the pen name, which seems over the top for whatever reason. Pen names do not affect the quality of books and their contents. But I really can't see a good enough reason for anyone inventing a bio for a pen name?

MinoMo – cheeky? Did the British Army check everyone involved with the British Army just in case they were doing something they shouldn't? That's a 'cheeky' excuse in my opinion. But sadly, I guess we'll never know the real reason why the author decided to invent a false bio. I guess Digby is having the last laugh on us! LOL