So that's how they publish so quickly

[Chilari]

This article on the BBC reveals that many of the most prolific authors don't in fact do most of the writing of novels published under their names, but write outlines and send them to (often uncredited) co-authors, then edit what they get back.

What do we all think of this? On the one hand, it makes me feel better about producing stuff slowly, and makes me wonder if I could get a job doing that; but on the other hand it doesn't quite feel fair that these authors are getting credit for writing books that in reality, they just planned and edited, they didn't do the legwork. And the uncredited co-authors probably don't get paid nearly a tenth as much as the big-name author whose name ends up on the cover.

 

[BWFoster78]

Makes sense from an economic standpoint. As an established author, your value really becomes your name moreso than your writing. Utilizing that advantage is reasonable.

From an ethical standpoint, I'd prefer they "co-write" the books, though.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, it makes sense from a branding perspective. I know some authors have been doing this for a while now. I don't care for the work of any of them, maybe because of the fact that their writing is so generic that they can hire others to do it for them without making a difference in the writing.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yeah, it makes sense from a branding perspective. I know some authors have been doing this for a while now. I don't care for the work of any of them, maybe because of the fact that their writing is so generic that they can hire others to do it for them without making a difference in the writing.

BTW, I checked out VRoman's in Pasadena this weekend. Is that the place you wanted me to see? I couldn't remember the name, so I Googled independent book stores.

Anyway, it was cool. I liked the sheets with the book reviews. Their children's section is huge.

 

[Steerpike]

BTW, I checked out VRoman's in Pasadena this weekend. Is that the place you wanted me to see? I couldn't remember the name, so I Googled independent book stores.

Anyway, it was cool. I liked the sheets with the book reviews. Their children's section is huge.

Yeah, Vroman's. Good bookstore. I like to drop in when I'm in Pasadena, maybe even get a little work done in the coffee shop area if I need to. I like to shop at independent bookstores when possible. I wish there was a better one close to me.

 

[Mindfire]

Seems a little unethical not to acknowledge that the book isn't being written by the guy whose name is on the cover. Also seems a little unethical that the "assistant" is paid only a small fraction of what the name-brand author gets. There's an idea for a viable system here, but it needs some changes. If the author can't produce books like they used to, why not allow lesser author's to use their brand as a springboard for their own careers? Sort of like "James Patterson Presents" or something. Then everybody wins.

 

[Leif Notae]

This article on the BBC reveals that many of the most prolific authors don't in fact do most of the writing of novels published under their names, but write outlines and send them to (often uncredited) co-authors, then edit what they get back.

What do we all think of this? On the one hand, it makes me feel better about producing stuff slowly, and makes me wonder if I could get a job doing that; but on the other hand it doesn't quite feel fair that these authors are getting credit for writing books that in reality, they just planned and edited, they didn't do the legwork. And the uncredited co-authors probably don't get paid nearly a tenth as much as the big-name author whose name ends up on the cover.

Welcome to the wonderful world of ghost writing. It is a (non) glamorous job where you do all the legwork and watch the "author" get all the credit. The positive side is you can make a LARGE amount of money if you get the right clients.

So, the thing here is, do you support someone like this, and if you were in a ghost writer's shoes, would you do it?

 

[Ankari]

Isn't this referred to as "Ghostwriting"?

To the question of ethics. This is done in every aspect of our modern lives. Cars, computers, foods, and cell phones are but a small list.

Ford designs the car (Outline)

They send the design to part suppliers

The part supplies send the parts to Ford's plant

Ford puts the parts together

Ford slaps their logo on the car

Ford sells it to you.

Again:

Apple designs a phone

They send the design to Foxcon in China

Foxcon sources the parts form other supplies (such as memory chips from Samsung)

Foxcon puts the parts together

Foxcon slaps an Apple logo on the phone

Foxcon sends the phones to Apple's warehouses

Apple sells it to you for 10,000% profit

You walk away whistling a happy tune.

I don't see the problem IF both parties agree.

 

[Mindfire]

I see your point, Ankari. But I think there's a crucial difference between writing and engineering/manufacturing. Ford's cars are still Ford's because they designed them. Apple's tech is Apple's because they designed it. That's how engineering and manufacturing have always worked. It's intrinsic to the field. You design something, it's yours, regardless of who you pay to assemble it. But that's not the case with writing because whereas any company who follows the schematics will build a more or less identical car, the same basic story synopsis can be turned into a theoretically unlimited number of distinct stories depending on who writes them. So in that sense, if you "design" a story and then outsource the "assembly" the result will likely be very different from what you would have gotten had you written the work yourself and in that sense the story isn't really yours. I have a close friend who also writes. He shares most of my values and knows me better than just about anyone, but if I gave him one of my projects and asked him to finish it, the end result would likely be wildly different than what I would have written in both style and content.

 

[Butterfly]

I think that if this were any other industry then the goods would be 'not as described.'

 

[Ankari]

if you "design" a story and then outsource the "assembly" the result will likely be very different from what you would have gotten had you written the work yourself and in that sense the story isn't really yours.

You need to consider this:

This article on the BBC reveals that many of the most prolific authors don't in fact do most of the writing of novels published under their names, but write outlines and send them to (often uncredited) co-authors, then edit what they get back.

So, in the end, the author getting the credit edits the book. He can use his own personal word choices, change the tone of a scene, add details he may only know, etc. In the end it does become his final product. No?

 

[Mindfire]

You need to consider this:



So, in the end, the author getting the credit edits the book. He can use his own personal word choices, change the tone of a scene, add details he may only know, etc. In the end it does become his final product. No?

I suppose you could make that argument, but if that's the case, either every book should have the editor's name on the cover instead of the writer's, or the authors who choose this method should credit themselves as editors or "supervising authors" rather than actual authors. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Chilari]

I find it misleading to claim something is written by author X when in fact it's outlined and edited by X and written by Y. I'd rather see "Great New Novel by X and Y" on the cover than "Great New Novel by X"; at least then the co-author gets some credit and this can boost their solo career. I find it dishonest, and I find the same with artists who hire apprentices who do all the actual work under the direction of the credited artist. It's like crediting only the director in films, not the actors and production staff and writer etc.

Using both names means the big name author's brand remains a key selling point of the novel, but it also enables the co-writer to build up their own brand too.

I get why the co-author doesn't get paid as much; it's the brand name author that people buy the book for, not the co-writer. But not crediting the co-author is misleading to readers and unfair to co-authors. Why shouldn't the co-author build up their own brand, ultimately becoming a big brand name author themselves? Look at openly co-authored books by existing big name authors. Say, The Long Earth by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter. Okay, there's going to be some overlap in the fanbases of those authors, but I bet that it sold more than either Dodger or Bronze Summer (books released at about the same time by the respective authors). Why? Because loyal fanbases of both authors will want to read it. I don't see why that can't happen in hindsight either - with a book published earlier in one author's career continuing to get sales as that author becomes more famous.

I understand why they do it and I can see how similar stuff happens in other sectors, like art, and I can even see how it might well be both lucrative and valuable to an aspiring author. But it is the dishonesty of it that gets me.

But maybe the BBC article isn't telling all there is to tell about this.

 

[tlbodine]

I remember the first time I ever learned about "book packaging" of this sort. I was about 12 and was completely heartbroken to discover that K.A. Applegate wasn't *actually* writing the Animorphs books. I felt totally betrayed. Also, it helped to explain the subtle but significant changes in the way the story's mechanics worked and how characters acted.

Anyway. I've done a fair amount of ghostwriting myself -- I write web content, and a lot of what I write ends up being a blog post for someone with a bigger name. One of my favorite clients has a regular column in Forbes (penned by yours truly). But I draw the line at ghost-writing fiction, because it just feels too personal -- and, in the case of stories in my own genre, a conflict of interests.

I think this is one of the sadder side effects of the "publish or perish" model. Readers have an insatiable demand and there's a push for quantity over quality. I don't really understand it (I'd much rather re-read one truly great book than read a whole string of mediocre ones, if that's what the choice had to be) but it seems to be the way of the world.

 

[Steerpike]

But not crediting the co-author is misleading to readers and unfair to co-authors.

Yes. The publisher is relying on the brand to sell, however. A lot of people who buy James Patterson books are not going to buy a book by David Jones that has the "James Patterson Presents" logo on it, or something similar. I think there would be more overlap in a co-author situation (see, for example, Clive Cussler), but who knows. Maybe Patterson won't put his name on it unless he's listed as the sole author. If you're a big enough name, you can make those kinds of demands.

 

[ThinkerX]

I've been aware of this practice for a long while.

One interesting 'twist' on this from a couple years ago:

George RR Martin is greatly overworked. He writes not just 'Game of Thrones' but a pile of other stuff as well. So, to help with the workload, he hired a personal assistant, Ty. He was very open about this on his 'Not A Blog'. Impression was Ty helped more with the organization / fact checking type stuff than the actual writing.

Then a block buster SF novel gets released. GRRM gets to yakking about said SF block buster in his 'Not A Blog' and reveals that the authors name on the cover is actually TWO people, one of whom is his personal assistant Ty. So Ty, in echange for a bit of writing drudge work, gets a big name boost for his own novel - and maybe some behind the scenes pull as well towards getting it published.

Since then, GRRM has revealed that his workload has grown to the point where he now has THREE personal assistants - and is still buried under a massive amount of work most of the time. I find myself wondering if one or more of them will be getting a boost from GRRM for his/her novel.

However, these personal assistants are not so much 'ghostwriters' as they are...assistants.

 

[flyfishnevada]

How does a writer get "overworked?" Contracts. They promise so many books, they can't keep up and so this stuff happens. It's frustrating actually. How many decent writers are plugging away at their dream novel to see it someday settle comfortably into the high six digit rankings on Amazon and never be heard from again while readers trained to read the latest by so-and-so, slavishly buy a book their "favorite" author never actually wrote?

 

[tlbodine]

How many decent writers are plugging away at their dream novel to see it someday settle comfortably into the high six digit rankings on Amazon and never be heard from again while readers trained to read the latest by so-and-so, slavishly buy a book their "favorite" author never actually wrote?

Especially once you consider the pretty good odds that many of these "assistants" and "co-authors" are probably the exact same people who are trying so hard to break in and/or may be hanging out in those same six-digit rankings.

It really raises the question: What exactly does the reader value in an author? The ideas? The characters? The authority of the name? I wonder that sometimes with my own ghost-writing. Don't get me wrong, it pays the bills and it's way better than my old job as a call center monkey, but sometimes it's more than a little agitating to realize that my words are appearing with somebody else's byline in magazines that I couldn't get into if I queried them myself. (And that, truth be told, is probably exactly the reason I refuse to ghost-write fiction)

 

[Christopher Wright]

Meh. I'm not going to get all worked up about it. Jim Davis does very little of Garfield any more, and everyone knows hit. It's still "Garfield, by Jim Davis" and it still makes him ridiculous sums of money.

And think of the songwriters. Some dude may have written a song, but it's still "x's song" (depending on which artist performs it and makes it famous).

It's just not that scandalous to me.

 

[Chilari]

With songs the writer is credited separately from the performer quite often, including in what shows up on windows media player when you listen to it. Okay, not at gigs and probably not very prominently on a CD cover, but it is there if you look. So I don;t see it as a comparable situation.