Ghosts, Celebrity "novels", and social media bullying: another Guardian brouhaha

Cobalt Jade said:

Who? I know V.C. Andrews wrote something like four books, then died, and the publisher continued her brand with ghostwriters doing the work. Her name is on them, and the themes and continuing characters are hers, but obvious she is not the creative force. I wonder what kind of a deal was signed by her or her heirs.

Click to expand...

James Patterson does this, and John Grisham is rumoured to do a bit of it too.

Back to the Monkees (because I hate to see this fallacy about them not being "real" musicians perpetuated) they all had musical talent. They were not amateurs. All were in bands before and were paid for performances, toured. Their bands might have coffee shop or bar ones, but they still signed contracts, got paid. They weren't just four young guys poached for their looks. That they did not play on their first album was their management's decision, because they wanted to strike while the band and tv show was hot and so hired studio musicians for a quicker and more perfected product. The Monkees had to fight them constantly to play their own instruments on later albums and write their own songs.

From music: Willie Nelson's career: writing songs to be sold to others (probably most famously, 'Crazy' for Patsy Cline), builds his own performing career (many hits), other musicians 'cover' his songs, and now there are Willie Nelson 'tribute' bands, not only playing his music, but attempting to give the audience the whole 'Willie Nelson' experience. Roger Hegyi as “True Willie” does not pretend that he is Willie Nelson: he's an impersonator, a substitute for seeing the actual performer.

I've ghosted a lot of books and find this conversation interesting on many levels. I don't have my name on the cover of any of my books, but don't feel that I'm part of any sort of deception.

jjdebenedictis said:

Those of us offended by this are offended because we work hard at what we do and we just saw someone skip the line.

But it's not any different than a celebrity putting out a fragrance or a clothing line. It's sincerely weird that this is being done with novels now, but that's how celebrity gets used these days: As a shortcut to creating an established brand.

And for that matter, there are famous authors who no longer write their own books because they've chosen to become a celebrity brand instead of a writer.

There's nothing wrong with this; it's a variation on what's been done before. It's just frustrating to those of us with no option to take a shortcut, who must do the work and gain the skill legitimately. We hate seeing someone get the prize without having run the race.

Click to expand...

I don't think the book which sparked this discussion is coming from anyone who has "skip[ped] the line", or has won a prize without having run the race. I agree Ms Hussain doesn't appear to have written fiction before (but does anyone know if this is the case? She might have been writing all along, and she might have some degree of skill already); but from what I've seen of her she's articulate and intelligent and interesting and thoughtful, she's worked her socks off to get to where she is now, and she's achieved things I couldn't dream of doing. Anyone who wants to do well could have followed the path she's taken but the truth is, very few of us could have done it.

It's because of that effort, determination and success that she's where she is now. Not because she's taken any sort of short cut. And that's true of most celebrities, in my experience.

aruna said:

I don't find so. I think it's entirely different -- the celebrity artist is perfectly capable of producing the art but chooses not to do so, chooses to pay lesser artists to do it for him.

The celebrity "writer" can't do the work and chooses to pay a greater writer to do it for her.

It's the very opposite.

Click to expand...

Aruna, it's not always true that "The celebrity "writer" can't do the work and chooses to pay a greater writer to do it for her."

First, it's usually publishers who pay ghosts; and it's their decision to commission the celebrity and accompanying ghost, not the celebrity's.

More importantly, almost everyone I've ghosted for was capable of writing a reasonable book but didn't have the time or opportunity to develop their talent enough to write a publishable book.

Very few ghosts write without a lot of input from the person they're ghosting for: the process of ghosting involves a huge amount of discussion, and drafting and redrafting (often by both the ghost and the subject). It's common, for example, for a subject to produce an outline (of various depth and clarity!) for the book, in some form or another; to write parts of the book themselves; to talk in great detail with the ghost on how things should be presented and treated. I have books on my shelves where I can honestly say I felt more like I was providing detailed critiques than writing the book.

Then there are the people who have the most wonderful stories to tell, whose work has changed the world for the better, or changed someone's life in some sort of amazing way, who just don't have the skill to write their stories themselves: should we deny them the chance to help more people, or to tell their stories, just because they can't write for themselves? I don't think so and having read some of the beautiful reviews these books have received from readers who have been genuinely moved, I think I'm right to have that opinion.

Admittedly, I've only ghosted non-fiction so am not quite in the same situation here as the writer under discussion: but I think ghosted books are often treated far more harshly than they deserve: a lot of care and effort goes into them, and it's dismissive of the ghost-writers behind them AND the people whose names are on the covers to suggest they're not "real" books, and are somehow cheating, and unworthy of publication.

This is interesting OH. I did wonder whether the ghost-writing of a celeb novel (apologies, I don't know this writer - perhaps that show hasn't aired down here) might be a case of a talented celeb writing a book that might have gone through the normal channels and taken its chance except that the celeb factor adds a dimension that needs to be worked quickly for maximum effect.

I'm still unhappy with people having their names on work they didn't do. I'd have trouble saying "oh yeah, you can do that" to my kids which is how I judge that sort of thing. Happy for it in non-fic, where the idea or the story might be theirs - but fic is a diifferent issue. I expect novelists to be novelling under their own name.

mccardey said:

This is interesting OH. I did wonder whether the ghost-writing of a celeb novel (apologies, I don't know this writer - perhaps that show hasn't aired down here) might be a case of a talented celeb writing a book that might have gone through the normal channels and taken its chance except that the celeb factor adds a dimension that needs to be worked quickly for maximum effect.

I'm still unhappy with people having their names on work they didn't do. I'd have trouble saying "oh yeah, you can do that" to my kids which is how I judge that sort of thing. Happy for it in non-fic, where the idea or the story might be theirs - but fic is a diifferent issue. I expect novelists to be novelling under their own name.

Click to expand...

We don't know how much of the book she is or isn't writing; we don't know if she has writing talent; we don't know how much or how little she's going to be involved with the writing of this novel.

I understand how people are so deeply suspicious of ghosted books, but there are lots of books which aren't ghosted, as such, but which have an inordinate amount of editorial intervention, and they don't attract any hostility: why not? It seems to me there's a sliding scale between ghosted books and editing, with "completely ghosted and the named writer had no input at all" at one end, and "the editor corrected a few spellings" at the other. Where's the point at which assistance becomes unacceptable?

(I'm not having a go at you, lovely mccardey: I just find this very interesting, for obvious reasons.)

Old Hack said:

We don't know how much of the book she is or isn't writing; we don't know if she has writing talent; we don't know how much or how little she's going to be involved with the writing of this novel.

Click to expand...

No, that's true. Good point. And the bit about books that have a high level of editorial input is also a good point.

I think what I really need is a nice cup of tea.

Yeah, having gone back and read the Guardian article (er...which I had not done...the discussion here was quite interesting all by itself), there's no indication Hussain didn't, in fact, write her book.

And the writer of the article, Colgan, says this:

Does she really need to put her name to a novel, too, when there’s only so much shelf space to go around?

Click to expand...

I mean, that's pretty clearly sour grapes and territorialism. Hussain can have as many achievements as she can earn, and if publishers are a lot more likely to put out a book by someone who has already made a name for themselves, that's shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But saying, "Don't even try so that I can have an unfair advantage in this arena," is entitled nonsense.

I don't think it's racism, however, so much as a symptom of privilege.

aruna said:

And there's the crux -- to me there's a massive difference between ghosted non-fiction, biography or autobiography, and fiction.

Perhaps it's because at least for me, fiction is so very much a part of my substance. I get that it's not like that for everyone, which is how some big names in fiction, including Patterson and Enid Blyton, can have ghost writers. But I like to read books which I feel have some substance of the author behind them, that aren't just written to a spec. But if a ghost contracts to do it I have to assume that's what they want.

Click to expand...

Many ghosted works have significant input by the people whose names are on the covers. And if the named author has any input at all, it's impossible to ghost a book without a good relationship and a lot of discussion between the ghost and that named author. It doesn't matter if it's non-fiction or fiction: in all but exceptional cases the two writers will talk, the two writers will both contribute, and the resulting text will include work from both of them, so intertwined that it's impossible to separate out who did what.

Yes, there are some named authors who don't get involved in their books until it's time to cash the cheques. But even the much-maligned Katie Price worked with her ghost on producing the plot and the story of her books. Let's not dismiss ghosted works as having no substance, or having been "written to a spec" because as I said before that's dismissive of both the ghost and the person whose name is on the cover. (It's also potentially dismissive of all writers who work to an outline because what is the "spec" you mentioned if it's not a detailed outline?)

mccardey said:

No, that's true. Good point. And the bit about books that have a high level of editorial input is also a good point.

I think what I really need is a nice cup of tea.

Click to expand...

I think there's a world of difference between editorial input and doing the writing.

I've had much editorial input from my agent and from editors – suggestions that a certain segment is unnecessary and slows down the story, suggestions that a certain character needs to be developed more, or that her motivation for certain actions is not quite believable and needs to be strengthened, etc.

Never have I had an editor rewrite any of my prose nor add something of their's to the book. Most writers would view such interference with strong resistance, if not outright disbelief.

If somebody has a great life story to tell but not the words nor ability to do so, I see no problem with a ghost writer. And I can see that without a relationship and considerable input from the subject, the ghostwriter is not going to be able to do a very good job.

If someone has a terrific idea for a novel but doesn't have the ability or perhaps the time to actualize it, it makes perfect sense to have someone else write it. That person needs to be acknowledged. Otherwise, whatever spin you want to put on it, the supposed author is putting their name on a book and pretending that they wrote words actually written by another. That may be justified from a commercial standpoint, but to me it's still a fraud.

Again, remember that for the most part, the reason the book might sell is because of the celebrity of the author, usually a celebrity having nothing to do with writing. If LeBron James decides to write a novel it's going to sell a lot of copies regardless of its merits. If LeBron James makes a deal with someone to secretly write the book and pretend that it's his own words, all those people who are buying the book to see what LeBron has to say and how good of a writer he might turn out to be are being duped.

Confession time: in my novel there is a tiny snippet of dialogue that was authored by my wonderful editor, not me. She presented it as a suggestion, and I liked it. That's leaving aside all the other kinds of less specific input she had.

It didn't seem odd to me, because in the fast-paced newspaper editing I do, I routinely rewrite prose or add whole sentences to clarify what the reporter wants to say. They get final say, and their name goes on it, and they get any awards that result, and that's fine with me. When I work with a writer for a while, I like to think I'm pretty good at channeling their "voice" (though not all would agree with me!).

I still have a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a ghostwritten celebrity novel. Like Aruna, I want to think of novels as personal expression on some level. But here's what I do like about this trend: it seems to indicate the robust health of the fiction market. About 20 years ago, when I was working at B&N and memoirs were king, I saw tons of ghostwritten memoirs. But a novel? Never. Nobody wanted anything but "the real story." I could be wrong, but the very fact that someone like Snooki "wrote" a roman a clef rather than a memoir suggests that the pendulum has swung back toward fiction. (Another indication: now I see tons of self-published "novels" that read like barely fictionalized memoirs. It's like James Frey in reverse, without the ethical issues.)

I'll admit I'm quite perplexed by the idea of a celebrity ghostwritten novel, as opposed to memoir. I don't think its dubious or dishonest, just pretty weird. Mainly I suppose I'm surprised that a celebrity sees fiction as enough of a money-maker to get involved.

While we're talking about celebrity memoirs and ghostwriting, can I just fly the flag for Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen? What a great book! And not ghostwritten, either. Very rarely have I bothered to read a celebritiy memoir, because they're usually just PR pieces. Born to Run, though, feels like another great piece of storytelling that could sit alongside his actual albums.

William Shatner's TekWar novels were ghosted by Ron Goulart. Shatner essentially did plot notes; Goulart wrote the books.

Shatner also wrote a number (nine or ten) Trek spin-off novels for Pocket with udith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.

It wasn't a secret, really; certainly I remember knowing Goulart was the writer before the TekWar books were published. I think the Trek novels say something like William Shatner with Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens on the covers, but it's been a while, and the covers I can Google I can't really read the type.

RightHoJeeves said:

I'll admit I'm quite perplexed by the idea of a celebrity ghostwritten novel, as opposed to memoir. I don't think its dubious or dishonest, just pretty weird. Mainly I suppose I'm surprised that a celebrity sees fiction as enough of a money-maker to get involved.

While we're talking about celebrity memoirs and ghostwriting, can I just fly the flag for Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen? What a great book! And not ghostwritten, either. Very rarely have I bothered to read a celebritiy memoir, because they're usually just PR pieces. Born to Run, though, feels like another great piece of storytelling that could sit alongside his actual albums.

Click to expand...

Haven't read that, but I have read Jimmy Barnes' Working Class Boy. All the way through it, I'd been thinking that if it had been ghosted, the writer had done an extraordinary job in preserving Barnsey's voice. In fact, the voice was preserved because Barnesy had written the whole thing.

(It's interesting to compared Working Class Boy with Don Walker's memoir Shots. Shots is equally graphic, but is in a literary style that is quite difficult to characterise.)

Fuchsia Groan said:

I still have a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a ghostwritten celebrity novel. Like Aruna, I want to think of novels as personal expression on some level. But here's what I do like about this trend: it seems to indicate the robust health of the fiction market. About 20 years ago, when I was working at B&N and memoirs were king, I saw tons of ghostwritten memoirs. But a novel? Never. Nobody wanted anything but "the real story." I could be wrong, but the very fact that someone like Snooki "wrote" a roman a clef rather than a memoir suggests that the pendulum has swung back toward fiction. (Another indication: now I see tons of self-published "novels" that read like barely fictionalized memoirs. It's like James Frey in reverse, without the ethical issues.)

Click to expand...

Naomi Campbell's ghosted novel, Swan, was published in 1994.

Jimmy Nail's ghosted novel, Spender, was published in 1992.

It's always happened.

RightHoJeeves said:

While we're talking about celebrity memoirs and ghostwriting, can I just fly the flag for Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen? What a great book! And not ghostwritten, either. Very rarely have I bothered to read a celebritiy memoir, because they're usually just PR pieces. Born to Run, though, feels like another great piece of storytelling that could sit alongside his actual albums.

Click to expand...

Are you quite sure that book wasn't ghosted, RightHo?

aruna said:

And there's the crux -- to me there's a massive difference between ghosted non-fiction, biography or autobiography, and fiction.
Perhaps it's because at least for me, fiction is so very much a part of my substance. I get that it's not like that for everyone, which is how some big names in fiction, including Patterson and Enid Blyton, can have ghost writers. But I like to read books which I feel have some substance of the author behind them, that aren't just written to a spec. But if a ghost contracts to do it I have to assume that's what they want.

Click to expand...

As someone who ghosts fiction, I can say that I definitely feel there are still bits of me in the books, it's just me filtered through another lens. Alter-Ego me, if you will.

I ghost on the side, between my "original" book deals. I love ghosting because I don't have to do any of the stuff I have to do with my work under my own name. I don't have to do promo or interviews or even maintain social media under that author name. I don't even have to come up with the concept or the outline. All I have to do is do the fun part: write. As a full-time writer, it's a vital stream of income between book deals for my original work. Plus, it's tremendous fun and a unique challenge to write to someone else's outline. It's definitely made me a better writer for my original work.

tsharpe said:

As someone who ghosts fiction, I can say that I definitely feel there are still bits of me in the books, it's just me filtered through another lens. Alter-Ego me, if you will.

I ghost on the side, between my "original" book deals. I love ghosting because I don't have to do any of the stuff I have to do with my work under my own name. I don't have to do promo or interviews or even maintain social media under that author name. I don't even have to come up with the concept or the outline. All I have to do is do the fun part: write. As a full-time writer, it's a vital stream of income between book deals for my original work. Plus, it's tremendous fun and a unique challenge to write to someone else's outline. It's definitely made me a better writer for my original work.

Click to expand...

That's actually the first time I've read something that makes me fully understand the attraction of ghostwriting. (Seems obvious now!)
I wish I was a good enough/disciplined enough writer to be able to do it.

Laurasaurus said:

That's actually the first time I've read something that makes me fully understand the attraction of ghostwriting. (Seems obvious now!)
I wish I was a good enough/disciplined enough writer to be able to do it.

Click to expand...

Oh I completely get the appeal of ghosting, I just don't know where you find the gigs!

As a bit of an aside, I have a huge problem with the amount of grief people like Katie Price (and especially Katie Price!) get for being successful by bringing in experts in their field. Make no mistake - KP has done what a lot of people should do - identified where she needs specialist help and advice, then leveraged that to her own advantage. She's an incredibly astute businesswoman, because she lets people who know what they're doing, do their jobs. She knows how to use her name to make money, and to do it off the back of things like her hobbies (she's one of the few people out there who makes money off horses despite not being a high level competitor/trainer). I'd love to be able to do that!

I feel a bit the same about this kind of thing. The issue for me is that Jenny Colgan barely reviewed the book at all. She attacked the author(s) for having more than one skill! And not only that, she said she got no insight into a different culture whilst saying in the same sentence that the book showed her all big religious families are more or less the same. How is that not an insight? Or is it just not the insight she wanted, because in her head other religions must be 'different' in some way? If she'd done a review of the book (I have very little idea what it's about, or even whether it's aimed at adults or children from the Guardian piece), and had attacked the book and not the author(s), then I doubt she'd have got as much backlash.

PeteMC said:

Oh I completely get the appeal of ghosting, I just don't know where you find the gigs!

Click to expand...

I worked in publishing, had a good reputation for working to deadline, and rewrote a couple of books which were delivered in an unpublishable state. Did that a few times. Ended up being asked to do more. It's not easy but it is lucrative.

usuallycountingbats said:

As a bit of an aside, I have a huge problem with the amount of grief people like Katie Price (and especially Katie Price!) get for being successful by bringing in experts in their field. Make no mistake - KP has done what a lot of people should do - identified where she needs specialist help and advice, then leveraged that to her own advantage. She's an incredibly astute businesswoman, because she lets people who know what they're doing, do their jobs. She knows how to use her name to make money, and to do it off the back of things like her hobbies (she's one of the few people out there who makes money off horses despite not being a high level competitor/trainer). I'd love to be able to do that!

I feel a bit the same about this kind of thing. The issue for me is that Jenny Colgan barely reviewed the book at all. She attacked the author(s) for having more than one skill! And not only that, she said she got no insight into a different culture whilst saying in the same sentence that the book showed her all big religious families are more or less the same. How is that not an insight? Or is it just not the insight she wanted, because in her head other religions must be 'different' in some way? If she'd done a review of the book (I have very little idea what it's about, or even whether it's aimed at adults or children from the Guardian piece), and had attacked the book and not the author(s), then I doubt she'd have got as much backlash.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Naomi Campbell's ghosted novel, Swan, was published in 1994.

Click to expand...

It wasn't exactly great literature, though it seems the reviews were better for it than the Kardashian sisters' opus. Tyra Banks also write a dystopian YA novel, Modelland, that was ghostwritten by Sara Shepard who penned the Pretty Little Liars series (I haven't read Modelland, but by the reviews Shephard did not take it all seriously and had a great deal of fun with it because it was a one-shot.)

Here's another bunch of celebrities-turned-authors. The idea seems to be strike with a novel deal while the name is hot. Really, Fabio?