Ghostwriting, Part III: Why do it in the first place?

Although the issue of why authors would hire someone else to write their work is a complex and important issue, more fascinating to me is what prompts someone to ghostwrite in the first place. One who provides some interesting insight is Andrew Crofts, allegedly "Britain's most prolific ghostwriter" with 45 books under his belt--but not under his name. He explains to Bookends magazine why he chose this life:

"If I'd designed the new Mini, that would be a pretty staggering achievement, wouldn't it? But I wouldn't expect to have my name plastered across the back of it - 'designed by Andrew Crofts'. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it'll say 'Mini' on it. If I'd baked the new Mr Kipling cake, I'm quite willing for Mr Kipling to take the credit. So why are writers and actors so much more important?

"Isn't building a fantastic modern building more important than most books? But the architect doesn't have 'designed by...' written all over it, he doesn't insist that the building's never mentioned unless he's praised for it. It's very nice if he does get into an architectural journal, but he doesn't expect the public to..." He trails off, leaving the sentence unfinished; something he does quite a lot. It's a bit like his habit of asking questions instead of making statements - a form of unconscious verbal self-effacement. Never mind my opinions, he seems to be saying, what about yours? Perhaps it's something he's picked up from years of being the man behind the Dictaphone, the blank sheet of paper that others can write on.

And how did Crofts get into the business in the first place, and how do people like Kevin Lewis (THE KID) and John Fenton find him?

But where does he find these people? Or, more to the point, where do they find him? Well, one of the ways is through the ads he takes out in the trade press. "My name has got to be constantly around, so that if anyone's looking for ghost-writers, I'm the one they find. Some of the best projects I've had have been from people just going into libraries and asking how to find a ghostwriter. The librarian gets out a copy of Publishing News or the Bookseller, and gives them the number."

It's going to be his number they give out, not only because he's the only person who takes out weekly adverts in the trade press to publicise his ghost-writing services, but because he's just about the only full-time professional ghost-writer in the country; and, so far as he knows, just about the only one who's willing to describe himself as a ghost-writer by trade. "Most writers have done it at some stage, but they don't like people to know. They think they're too important or something, whereas I just think - pfff." He grins a toothy grin, a most contented, self-effacing, ego-free ghost.

In other words, Crofts seems to be the antithesis of Michael Gruber--someone who (perhaps) genuinely has no desire to see his own work published under his own name, who's ready and willing to play the chameleon and let other people's voices supplant his own. Which isn't to judge him, because if he realized that was his true talent, then more power to him.

If Gruber's the angst-ridden one and Crofts is the guilt-free one, Michael Robotham is somewhere in between. He ghosted a number of celebrity biographies (including Geri Halliwell's) but published his first novel, THE SUSPECT, under his own name earlier this year. The Book of the Month Club asked him about the difficulty of "making the switch"

It can be a very comfortable life being a ghostwriter, never having to put your head above the parapet. That's what's so daunting about publishing a novel. This time it's personal.

Is it harder? Yes, absolutely. Instead of having a wealth of material at my fingertips - the interviews and research necessary for an autobiography - writing fiction means starting from scratch. Any writer will tell you how scary that clean white page can be. At the same time, writing fiction has similarities with ghostwriting. Instead of capturing the 'voice' of someone whose life I'm helping write, I had to capture the 'voice' of my narrator, Joseph O'Loughlin. In my head Joe became just as real as the living and breathing subjects I've collaborated with.

In the end it's Robotham who really summarizes the motivations of ghostwriting and writing under one's own name: the former's a job, while the latter--at least usually--involves the writer's own personal history, issues, and desires.

Comments

[Jim Winter]

This statement really galls me:

"If I'd designed the new Mini, that would be a pretty staggering achievement, wouldn't it? But I wouldn't expect to have my name plastered across the back of it - 'designed by Andrew Crofts'. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it'll say 'Mini' on it. If I'd baked the new Mr Kipling cake, I'm quite willing for Mr Kipling to take the credit. So why are writers and actors so much more important?"

Well, let's see. Harley Earl's name was attached to a fleet of Buicks, Chevies, and Oldsmobiles from the Depression through the 1950's. Same with John DeLorean years later (before he created a prop for BACK TO THE FUTURE.)

Architects DO, in fact, have their names on the billboards in front of buildings under construction. But then these are also team efforts. I could design a brand new Corvette, but how many hundreds (Thousands?) would it take to make that happen?

Writing, though, is a solitary endeavor. Beyond the writer, there's maybe a handful of people who look at the book before the agent, the publisher, and the editor see it. Less than a dozen to make a book happen, and even then, it's still largely the writer's own work.

So why does it offend me that James Patterson uses an infinite number of monkeys? Or Robert Tannenbaum? I'll acknowledge Tannenbaum is an attorney. But this isn't Pamela Anderson or Jenna Jameson doing a one-off for publicity. This is a guy saying "I wrote this," and it turns out someone else did.

Like Laura said in the other thread, it doesn't bother me when it's nonfiction. Usually, it's a clear collaboration. One person has the material; the other knows how to organize it. And even in fiction, if the collaboration is acknowledged, then I feel better about it. But why call yourself a novelist when you aren't, but it's your claim to fame? Seems like a waste to me. Let someone else work so I can get the glory? You think I'd trust my name to someone else?

[/rant]

[David Montgomery]

Agreed, Jim. It sounds like this guy has some serious self-worth issues. He must be turning out some real crap if he's not even willing to put his own name on it.

[Jim Winter]

Wouldn't it be a riot if Milli Vanilli lip synched because they were too busy writing for James Patterson?

[Mike]

Sarah, I think you nailed it in Part 2 when you said that the people who read this stuff don't care who wrote it, and the people who do care don't read it. Surely even the dumbest reader of those "V. C. Andrews" novels doesn't believe old VC kicked the bucket around 20 years ago and left 20+ completed novels in a trunk somewhere. And I'd like to point out that some of the writers now being franchised were fairly decent writers in the early days. Back before he became too popular to get proper editing, Robert Ludlum wrote such kickass books as "The Osterman Weekend" which, even today, is virtually impossible to put down. And Lawrence Sanders' "The First Deadly Sin" remains one of the best serial killer novels ever written, despite having been published years before "The Silence of the Lambs", or even "Red Dragon".

[Andrew Crofts]

In answer to Mr Montgomery; I would be perfectly willing to "put my name" on my work should anyone ask, (which they occasionally do), and I have no problem talking about the books I am not legally contracted to remain silent about on my website (www.andrewcrofts.com). I hope they are not "crap", but I have to accept that Mr Montgomery might have other ideas.