Fiction Writers as "Brand Names"

[nekokami]

I still think it's bizarre that "Tom Clancy" and "Robert Ludlum" are set in the largest text. Particularly in the case of the Bourne books, you'd think that would be enough of a "brand" to be worth highlighting more. (And I agree, Eric Van Lustbader is perfectly capable of selling books via his own name. But I've known of a number of quite capable authors who take this sort of work to pay bills between their own creations.)

[kilohertz53]

Originally Posted by igorsk

"Ghostwriter" is by definition anonymous. These examples are not ghostwriters. "Guest writers" maybe?

You're right igorsk, "guest writer" is probably the more appropiate term, but it still seems like a sleazy practice.

I wonder who initiates it, the writer or the publisher?

Scenario #1: The Writer

The writer goes to the publisher and says, “I’ve made you a ton of money over the years, but I’m kind of burned out on writing this shlock for you. I want to continue to live in the style to which I am accustomed, however. So I’ve decided to become a registered trademark. I will now be known as Joe Blowhard® . I want you to license my name to talented but unknown writers who can mimic my style and continue to produce books under the Joe Blowhard® brand. Pay them a flat fee and give them a credit in small type on the cover as co-authors. I’ll take a percentage of the sales along with the licensing fee. Of course, my name will appear in very large type over the book title. I can’t disappoint my loyal fans.”

Scenario #2: The Publisher

The publisher goes to the writer and says, “You’ve made us a ton of money over the years, but we could be making much more if you could produce more books for us. We would like you to trademark your name. As Joe Blowhard®, we can license your name to talented but unknown writers who can mimic your style and continue to produce books under the Joe Blowhard® brand. We’ll pay them a flat fee and give them a credit in small type on the cover as co-authors. You’ll get a percentage of the sales along with the licensing fee. Of course, your name will appear in very large type over the book title. Your loyal fans will never know the difference. You can continue to write your own books under your previous contract terms.”

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by BenG

They are simply authors writing sequels to someone else's books. Much like L. Sprague de Camp did for Conan the Barbarian and John Gardner did for James Bond.

Not much different from Fan Fiction I suppose, although the legal implications may be different.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I'm pretty sure it's primarily publisher-driven, specifically to attach a big name to a small- or no-name in order to drive sales. Don't forget, far too much of the public will stop cover-surfing after they see the famous name or character in 50-point type on the cover, and won't even realize they've bought someone else's work until long after they've purchased the book (which is all the publisher is interested in). Works at the mall and the grocery store, too.

To me, it's like fake branding, and after being disappointed by such packaging before, I generally avoid them. I'd be much more swayed by authors "recommending" or "endorsing" a new author, if I didn't already know that those endorsements are provided due to contractual obligations. Bottom line, something to be avoided unless you have a realiable, objective third-party recommendation as to its content or quality.

[JSWolf]

Now if they put something like "based on the characters and situations created by Robert Ludlum" in a small enough font, then it would be ok. It would just sorta be like writing a media tie-in.

[BenG]

Not much different from Fan Fiction I suppose, although the legal implications may be different.

In Gardner's case, Ian Fleming's estate chose him to write new James Bond novels.

[mogui]

Originally Posted by BenG

They are simply authors writing sequels to someone else's books. Much like L. Sprague de Camp did for Conan the Barbarian and John Gardner did for James Bond.

Originally Posted by BenG

In Gardner's case, Ian Fleming's estate chose him to write new James Bond novels.

In the case of the James Bond novels by Gardner, I became convinced that Gardner was making each one worse than the previous one deliberately to get out of his contract.

More recently I was unable to finish a Clive Cussler novel because the writing was so offensively bad. I suspect the publisher's employees' middle-school students are ghosting them.

I have always admired John D MacDonald. maybe I will start writing Travis McGee stories.

Nope. I like him too much.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I used to read the Doc Savage monthly series of books (FYI, the Bantam paperbacks. I'm not that old!), all attributed on the cover to "Kenneth Robeson." The name was in fact a house pseudonym used by a number of authors (Lester Dent wrote most of the Doc series, but there were at least half a dozen others who wrote one or more of the stories between 1936 and 1945), as well as for a number of other series.

This is similar to the subject of the thread, though in this case, the name itself doesn't belong to a person, but a publishing house. Still, it's used as a recognizable brand name: The buyer assumes that a Kenneth Robeson story will be of a particular style and quality, whichever series they buy.

The method did have merit... it put aspiring and unknown writers to work. It didn't garner those authors any fame, but it paid a lot of bills. It also allowed writers who were unpopular or struggling (for instance, those blacklisted during the McCarthy era) to get work "under the table."

Most importantly, it gave authors the chance to get into the publishing house, prove their ability and worth, and possibly make it on their own original material, breaking out of the anonymity of the Pseudonym system.

[vivaldirules]

I'm still struggling with this, so please help me out with this example case. Amazon.com sells a newly released (Sept., 2007) paperbook published by Pocket Star entitled "Secrets in the Attic". The author shown on Amazon's web page is V. C. Andrews. There is no information from Amazon indicating any other authors or any comment that might indicate others might have been involved in writing it. The cover says "New York Times Bestselling Author V. C. Andrews" who died in 1986. Below that it says "From the creator of "Flowers in the Attic" which is a title that really was written by Andrews. You can't see the title page of the book from the web page so you don't know if there's additonal info there. From the product reviews, some customers seem to understand that the real author was Andrew Neiderman who apparently has been the ghostwriter for many V. C. Andrews titles. A search of Andrew Neiderman on Amazon does not list this or most of the other titles that he apparently admits to ghostwriting for Andrews.

Now one can argue all day about the ethics of this practice (personally, I'm appalled!), but I'm more curious about the legality of it. If the publisher doesn't provide the true author's name on the cover, what makes this practice legal? Even if that is legal, if the true authorship is known from some disclaimer inside the book but Amazon does not provide correct authorship info, how is that legal? Any ideas?

[JSWolf]

What you could do is tell Amazon that this is not legal and if they don't fix it, you'll take legal action. That way, they will have to check with their lawyers and if it isn't legal, they will end up changing it (I hope).

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What you could do is tell Amazon that this is not legal and if they don't fix it, you'll take legal action. That way, they will have to check with their lawyers and if it isn't legal, they will end up changing it (I hope).

But it's not just Amazon. I checked Barnes and Noble and they do the same with this very same book. So I assume most if not all vendors do this. I'm really not interested in starting a campaign to fight this practice. I'm just really curious as to how it is legal - which I assume it must be since it appears to be standard practice.

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Possibly this is something that hasn't been challenged before... I'm guessing that Amazon and B&N simply use the basic information provided to them by the publishers, and it's the publishers that are giving them this information without being accurate. If you asked Amazon or B&N, they'd probably counter with "That's what the publisher told us!" And we all know how shaky the "truth in advertising" laws are where the web is concerned.

But maybe the publishers are negotiating contracts with the authors that allow them to use the name essentially as a pseudonym for certain works. As long as there's a contract with the author that says it's okay, it's legal (though certainly misleading).

[MaggieScratch]

Speaking as a writer...it depends if you have an ego. If you're not overparticular about having your name on the spine, getting $50,000 for writing a book for the Ludlum/Andrews/Patterson brands beats getting $5,000 for a MMP original thriller, and both take around the same amount of time--in fact, the brand-name is probably easier as the setup is done for you. Art is a wonderful thing, but we've all got bills to pay.

Or you could do both--one for your own satisfaction and one for your bank account.

As a reader, if it's a good story, does it matter who wrote it? (I wouldn't call V.C. Andrews stories, whether written by the late authoress or her ghostwriters, good, but tastes differ. I thought Flowers in the Attic was fabulous when I was 13.)

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

As a reader, if it's a good story, does it matter who wrote it?

I'd say it does (all ethical considerations aside) if I wish to read more written by that author.

Besides, the style is nearly as important as the story.

I read Harry Turtledove's Guns of the South some years ago, I picked it up because the question of what would happen if modern weaponry were dumped into a historical setting -- like what if Custer's boys had H&K MP5s?

That book looks at what might happen if the South had AK47s during the U.S. Civil War. The premise was intriguing, and the story was compelling (as well as as historically accurate in the details as could be expected), but I doubt I'll ever read another book by Turtledove because I found his style dry and mildly annoying. Pure personal preference, and I recommend that book to others who might be interested without reservation: it's a good book, I just didn't like the way it was written.

So on the other side of the original topic of this post, I'd also like to be able know which books I want to avoid because the writer's style isn't pleasing to me. Both of those are hard to do if you don't know who the author is.

[JSWolf]

I did read Guns of the South and yes it was a little bit dry. But I want to read something else by Turtledove just to see if it might be less dry. Anyone have an idea what to try next?