Fiction Writers as "Brand Names"

[MaggieScratch]

I would think the guest/ghostwriter would strive for a similar style, for just that reason. If they didn't achieve it, the readers would stop buying and the "brand" would go away.

But I agree the publishers should be more open about it. Probably the various imitators would develop their own fan base eventually.

[HarryT]

Try "Tale of the Fox" and its sequel "Sentry Peak". Both "military fantasy" and very good indeed (IMHO). Both available from Baen.

[ischeriad]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Not entirely on point, but related: I've always gotten annoyed when the author's name is printed in larger type than the title of the book. Always seemed a bit backward to me.

Let me pick this post to comment to this thread .

We should not forget that the concept of authorship is a modern one. In the Middle Ages most literature had no known author, and this is because the roll of the author was not important in comparison to today. But even for this early literature, we would like to know who wrote it - but the attribution of some works to some authors is sometimes questionable.

But of course, for contemporary literature I also prefer to know the true author's name

[vivaldirules]

I've found several sources of info about this widespread practice (one article suggests it comprises 40% of what you read) which seems always to be defended as both legal and ethical but alway by people who have something to gain from the practice. Their arguments read like rationalizations not explanations. They stress that no one is harmed since there is a contract between the publisher, "author", and ghostwriter. Apparently, the consumer, who is the clear target of the deception in hopes that some will buy a book which they otherwise would not buy, is of no concern. I was hoping to find and report here some specific court cases that established legal precendence for the practice but I have failed. I'll have to defer this to some future law students who I hope to ask some day.

A victimless crime? I don't buy that for a moment. Twenty bucks spent on something which is not what it was advertised to be is simple fraud. I don't care whether someone else thinks it was a good product or not. And I don't care if authorship attribution is a modern trend which some think is "nice" to have but which isn't really important. Sorry, but if it's a lie done with the intent to deceive others for monetary gain then it's fraud IMHO. Not much harm? I could easily imagine the damages to an individual consumer might not be small. Well-known literary critic Sally Bigwords from the NYTimes writes a column about well-known author Joe Blowhard and in it she writes at length about the progression of Blowhard's literary style over the years culminating in his most recent work "The Big Bang." After Sally's column appears in print it comes out that Blowhard has Alzheimer's and that "The Big Bang" was written by a teenaged ghostwriter from a middle school in the Bronx. Sally is now a public fool, loses her lucrative job, and begins her new job delivering pizzas door-to-door. If I was Sally, I would want to sue the pants off of Blowhard, his publisher, the on-line vendor who sold the book, and anyone else involved in the deception. It would not surprise me if something like this has actually happened.

The bottomline is that I'll be more careful about what I buy. Tally another reason for having limitless faith in mankind. I'm hoping for a new species soon!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I've found several sources of info about this widespread practice (one article suggests it comprises 40% of what you read) which seems always to be defended as both legal and ethical but alway by people who have something to gain from the practice. Their arguments read like rationalizations not explanations. They stress that no one is harmed since there is a contract between the publisher, "author", and ghostwriter. Apparently, the consumer, who is the clear target of the deception in hopes that some will buy a book which they otherwise would not buy, is of no concern.

In at least one case - that of the "celebrity autobiography" - ghostwriters are commonly used because the nominal "author" has neither the inclination nor the ability to write a decent book. The book would not exist at all were it not "ghostwritten"; we can leave to another day the question as to whether or not this would be a good thing, but I think that the book buying public is well aware that when they buy the autobiography of some sport's star (or whoever) it was almost certainly not penned by its nomimal "author".

[nekokami]

@vivaldirules, could you post a link to that "40%" claim? As cynical as I can be at times, that seems a bit high to me.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In at least one case - that of the "celebrity autobiography" - ghostwriters are commonly used because the nominal "author" has neither the inclination nor the ability to write a decent book. The book would not exist at all were it not "ghostwritten"; we can leave to another day the question as to whether or not this would be a good thing, but I think that the book buying public is well aware that when they buy the autobiography of some sport's star (or whoever) it was almost certainly not penned by its nomimal "author".

Usually those are attributed "by <celebrity> WITH <ghostwriter>," at least in the US. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Do they attribute these differently in the UK?

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by nekokami

@vivaldirules, could you post a link to that "40%" claim? As cynical as I can be at times, that seems a bit high to me.

From: http://static.scribd.com/docs/80hjiscecldzk.pdf

I would assume this is no more than someone's wild guess combined with a little bragging. But if the order of magnitude is correct, it's pretty sad.

Originally Posted by nekokami

Usually those are attributed "by <celebrity> WITH <ghostwriter>," at least in the US. .

Perhaps this is so, but to the consumer buying the Andrews book on-line from Amazon or B&N mentioned yesterday, such an attribution is not available at the time of purchase.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In at least one case - that of the "celebrity autobiography" - ghostwriters are commonly used because the nominal "author" has neither the inclination nor the ability to write a decent book. The book would not exist at all were it not "ghostwritten"; we can leave to another day the question as to whether or not this would be a good thing, but I think that the book buying public is well aware that when they buy the autobiography of some sport's star (or whoever) it was almost certainly not penned by its nomimal "author".

Yes, the fact that everyone does it and should be assumed knowledge to all is an excellent defense. Not!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Usually those are attributed "by <celebrity> WITH <ghostwriter>," at least in the US. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Do they attribute these differently in the UK?

I've never opened one to have a close look, not having any interest in the genre, but the true author is certainly not obvious from a glance at the cover.

[vivaldirules]

Sorry for my ranting. I'm surprisingly agitated over this subject. Please carry on. I'm going to find some Prozac and lay down with my Reader to read the new Clapton autobiography which, by the way, he claims to have written himself after sacking the ghostwriter he originally hired - he thought he could do a better job himself!

[JSWolf]

Finally an autobiography written by the actual author.

[HarryT]

You believe something that one of these "celeb autobiographies" tells you?

[ischeriad]

They should call them biographies, not autobiographies, and nobody would complain.

[vivaldirules]

I couldn't bring myself to buy Clapton's book whether he wrote it or not. Not much different from buying something of Britney's, Paris Hilton, etc. Ick. I read a Joseph Campbell book instead. Yes, it was one I scanned myself this summer. Some enjoyment after all that effort.