E-book sales top 5 million for James Patterson

[Kali Yuga]

There was a big article in the NY Times about Patterson a year or two ago.

They are in fact collaborative writing sessions, he is involved in the writing, and the idea is that he's giving his co-writers exposure and access (as well as income). It's a much better arrangement than hiring ghost writers.

I don't see why his work should bother you. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There was a big article in the NY Times about Patterson a year or two ago.

They are in fact collaborative writing sessions, he is involved in the writing, and the idea is that he's giving his co-writers exposure and access (as well as income). It's a much better arrangement than hiring ghost writers.

I don't see why his work should bother you. If you don't like it, don't read it.

It should bother people when the quality and style is different from his earlier books. It would be mislabeling.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There was a big article in the NY Times about Patterson a year or two ago.

They are in fact collaborative writing sessions, he is involved in the writing, and the idea is that he's giving his co-writers exposure and access (as well as income). It's a much better arrangement than hiring ghost writers.

Or at least that is the impression he wants to give in a newspaper puff piece.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It should bother people when the quality and style is different from his earlier books. It would be mislabeling.

How is it "mislabeling" when the co-author's name is right there on the book?

I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't like his latest work," or "I don't like the co-written stuff," that's fair. I just don't see that criticizing his working methods is all that valid. I'd think it would be worse if, like so many writers, he just used a ghost writer.

[J. Strnad]

The headline should be, Ebook Sales Top 5 Million for "James Patterson".

All of the meetings and plotting sessions and note-givings in the world do not make up authorship. Butt in chair, hitting keys, makes one an author.

Which is not to say I wouldn't do the same as James Patterson if given the chance. I just don't see him as the "author" of anything anymore.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

All of the meetings and plotting sessions and note-givings in the world do not make up authorship. Butt in chair, hitting keys, makes one an author.

Again, he is writing, he just uses co-writers instead of ghost writers.

I mean, if you don't like his stuff, that's fine, but I see no particular reason to begrudge him his success.

Here's the profile by the way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/ma...pagewanted=all

[Quexos]

This guy strikes me more as a businessman than a real writer, making business deals with other writers to sell as much as possible. Does not feel for one second that this guy cares about the art itself.

[afa]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Again, he is writing, he just uses co-writers instead of ghost writers.

I think the criticism is that most people feel that these "co-authors" are, in reality, ghost writers. That they are the ones who do the actual writing, and Patterson merely adds his name on the cover.

The advantage for Patterson is that he gets to make millions off his name while doing minimal work. The advantage for the co-author is the ability to make hefty royalties by attaching themselves to a big name author.

I have no idea to what extent that is true, but even if it is, I have no problem with it (not that I really read his work; I read a couple of his books years ago and wasn't too impressed). Neither party is really suffering here; they're both using each other for mutual benefit.

So what?

[orlok]

My issue is that the quality of his writing has deteriorated horribly. Whether this is a result of his collaborations, or just too much output, I don't know, but it is an issue for me, as I used to be an avid reader of his early works.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by orlok

My issue is that the quality of his writing has deteriorated horribly. Whether this is a result of his collaborations, or just too much output, I don't know, but it is an issue for me, as I used to be an avid reader of his early works.

I have only read _Along Came A Spider_ since it was recommended to me but I did not like it so much and the writing was not especially good. Is this a book before or after the books started to deteriorate?

[orlok]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have only read _Along Came A Spider_ since it was recommended to me but I did not like it so much and the writing was not especially good. Is this a book before or after the books started to deteriorate?

That's actually one of the earlier and better ones. If you didn't like that, I wouldn't bother with any of the others. Particular lowlights for me were London Bridges and The Murder of Kig Tut (which was laughable in it's inaccuracies and huge leaps of logic).

[Ken Maltby]

This could be OT, but I remember being surprised to find that some of my favorite authors
from the Golden Age Of Science Fiction, were collaborations, where two known authors
would use a new name for their collaborative efforts.

And there is Mercedes Lackey, who could be the Queen of collaborations.

Luck;
Ken

[J. Strnad]

Me, I'm a big Kenneth Robeson fan.

[leebase]

He's a formula writer, but it's a good formula. Don't care how the books come to be.

Lee

[afa]

Originally Posted by orlok

My issue is that the quality of his writing has deteriorated horribly. Whether this is a result of his collaborations, or just too much output, I don't know, but it is an issue for me, as I used to be an avid reader of his early works.

But apparently, not enough people feel the same way, judging by the sales numbers he continually puts up.