Ghostwriting, Part II: Motivations and agendas

I'm not surprised to see that yesterday's Michael Gruber post provoked the beginnings of an interesting discussion, with David Montgomery one of the ones in the fray. He'd posted many of his views a few days ago in the Crime Fiction Dossier:

[W]hen someone like Tannenbaum puts his name on a book he didn't write -- and then shows up at signings to personalize it with his signature -- no one cares. Or do they?

Put me down as someone who does care. This is a disreputable practice that publishers should cease. Authors might be commodities to sell books, but they're more than that. The great tradition of literature demands that they be more than just brand names. Otherwise, why doesn't Putnam just slap "Patricia Cornwell" or "Tom Clancy" on everything they publish and just dispense with the pretense of art.

If we can't trust that the name of the author on the book actually wrote it, it undermines and diminishes both publishing and literature. At a time when tragically few people actually buy and read books, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Passionate sentiments, and valid ones. But I wonder if there's just a strong sense of cyncism (in those readers who are well-informed) or apathy (in the vast majority of those who read books) that creeps in. Those who might care probably don't read those books, and those who don't will do what they please. Hell, when I was a youngster reading the SWEET VALLEY HIGH books, I first didn't realize that Francine Pascal had farmed them out to people (who then farmed them out to other folks, for example) until a few books in. Then I got suitably upset, and then I got jaded. So I managed to combine apathy and cynicism in one fell swoop by the tender age of ten.

Still, there are certain upcoming projects that raise a lot of red flags, and not just involving James Patterson and his infinite number of monkeys. The one I'm thinking of specifically is Richard Clarke's debut "geopolitical thriller" slated for the Fall of 2005, following on his non-fiction book AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that Clarke could have written the book himself? Of course not, but considering the timing and the high-profile nature, I have to wonder.

Comments

[John Rickards]

As a small point of note, James Patterson doesn't have an infinite number of monkeys.

We figured if it takes an infinite number to create the complete works of Shakespeare, then you'd probably only need forty or fifty to create the complete works of Patterson.

And that's without paying them overtime.

[David Montgomery]

I'm not sure why this whole thing bothers me so much, but it does.

You're right, though, Sarah... I don't think most people give a hoot one way or t'other.

[Bryon]

Don't you mean the complete "work" of James Patterson. Didn't we agree the monkeys wrote one novel and now all they do is replace character names and in the case of the romance novels, replace kill with love? That's five or six monkeys at the most.

[Laura]

I think the ghostwriting discussion is a subgenre (can't help myself) of a larger problem -- people who get book contracts for nothing other than publicity value. I'm thinking on the fly here, always dangerous, but if Kevin Costner wants to play for the Chicago White Sox, they don't automatically say: "Hey, come on down, it will be great publicity and sell a few tickets." (Heck, Jim Palmer couldn't get back on the Baltimore Orioles when he made a late-in-life comeback.) Kevin's got to get the ball across the plate. And if Willard Scott decides he wants to be a movie star, the industry doesn't open its arms and say: "Here's the perfect part and here's a world-class coach and you can have your choice of director." Oh, a really big star might get a few movies based on that stardom (see Madonna, film career of) but, eventually, real ability will be required.

But when a famous/notorious person decides he/she wants to write a novel, with or without a ghost writer, the stakes are so small that the tiny blip of potential publicity is worth taking a flier. Stephen Glass got a contract, for Christ's sake, and there is no one more at odds with novel-writing than a journalist who makes shit up. Glass's alleged journalism was incredible, but that's okay when it's assumed you're trading in facts.

This doesn't bother me as much in nonfiction, as long as the relationship is acknowledged. And readers who buy books by dead people, believing them to be part of some huge secret store of manuscripts, get what they deserve. I'm not even saying publishers are wrong to do this; they're just wrong to overpay for such stuff.

But it certainly is part and parcel of those endless social encounters in which people offer their brilliant ideas -- with all proceeds to be split 50-50, of course.

[David Montgomery]

Nicely put, Laura. Hadn't thought of it in those terms, but you're right.

For all practical purposes, anyone who gets their name in the newspaper enough times can get a book deal. Just proves once again that publishing is a crazy, screwed-up business.

You'd think that, if nothing else, the publishers would realize that those books almost never sell. (Do YOU really want to read Paris Hilton's idea of a good story?)

The truth is, even the gullible non-book-buying public realizes that a novel "written" by Triumph the Comic Insult Dog isn't fit for him to poop on.

[John Rickards]

Quite right, Bryon, I'd forgotten about the replacement of names and places.

So yeah, forty or fifty monkeys at most for that first work, then a skeleton crew of five or six since. All of whom hate him with a passion. At least, until they are free to create his next arch-villain, The Monkey, who lurks up trees and flings poisoned feces at passers-by. A kind of vicarious revenge.

Laura said: "Stephen Glass got a contract, for Christ's sake, and there is no one more at odds with novel-writing than a journalist who makes shit up."

Actually, that sounds like ideal training to me. Sure, he's got to get the hang of making himself believable *without* having a major newspaper banner over his every piece, but he's at least got plenty of experience of creating fictional events... :-)

[Bryon]

Laura, you bring up in interesting point that ties to what was being discussed in my graduate writers workshop yesterday and that's training as a writer. When anyone, famous or not, wants to play baseball, they don't wake up one day and show up for open tryouts for the Tigers...well, maybe for the Tigers, but that's beside the point...they learn how to play the game first. Before you write a symphony you need to learn music composition, before you attempt a painting you at least take an art class. But anyone who has taken high school English feels qualified to write the great Amerian novel (or, as I'm seeing more and more in the undergraduate writing classes, screenplay). There is no respect for the craft of writing.

[Sarah]

Well, in Stephen Glass's case, he was a crap journalist *and* a crap novelist (I gave it five pages. Why, I don't know. But I did and it was a waste of time.)

I also think Laura's got a great point about book deals based on publicity, and also on what's essentially the germ of an idea without a completed manuscript to back it up. The news of the day is that Ana Marie Cox (aka Wonkette) is shopping a proposal for a comic novel around via an agent and there is, naturally, some form of interest. I've no doubt she'll be able to sit down and write the book, but a first novel selling on proposal? It's a topic that's long troubled me, and is probably due for a fuller treatment at some point.

[Ray]

Sarah, you should've stayed with that Stephen Glass book. Honest. He turns into Darth Vader at the end.

[John Rickards]

Once again, Bryon tars me with his brush (ooh, matron!), in so much as my last English tuition was at the tender age of 16. And that and Eng Lit were my worst mark in my GCSEs.

Of course, I could point out the time I spent trying to improve my own work, or the effects working as a journalist had on my writing, but those would cut into my righteous indignation, dammit! :-p

[Bryon]

John, you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about. Anyone who has read your "novel" would agree with me.