Celebs Cashing in Writing Fiction

JJ Cooper said:

Without naming names over here in the Aus market, there is one ex-celeb who is making some nice cash writing crime fiction - manages to get a lot of the 'right' type of interviews and television appearances too. I have no doubt this author works very hard to produce the books, and to be honest the quality isn't all that bad.

So, what's your thoughts on celebs in the fiction market?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if they're still ghostwritten more often than not. Ghostwriting fiction isn't the norm for regular folks like us, but I'm pretty sure it happens with celebs. (For the right kind of money, and if I believed the story was good, I'd ghostwrite fiction for a celeb, myself! LOL!)

JJ Cooper said:

Isn't that called 'collaboration' with fiction rather than ghostwriting?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but that might depend on whether the ghostwriter gets included in the byline. This is just my personal speculation, but to me, byline = collaboration, and no byline = ghostwriting.

I only expect the best out of the books I read. I don't care if an actor or an unknown wrote it.

I absolutely love the two books that Ethan Hawke wrote---The Hottest State and Ash Wednesday. I bought the first one based on the back cover synopsis...read it and loved it. The second one...I watched for the release date and bought it in hardcover the day it came out, because I was a fan of his writing. If and when a third is written, I will buy it on its release date. Not because he's an actor. Because he's an amazing writer.

JJ Cooper said:

So, what's your thoughts on celebs in the fiction market?

Click to expand...

I know I already posted...but I wanted to respond to the question in a more universal way. It makes sense to me that celebs (who are usually celebs because of a creative bent, right) would often have writing desires. So, because of this, I would take each instance on a case by case basis. It just makes sense to me that actors would gravitate toward writing. Sometimes it's clearly a case of someone cashing in on their fame...but other times it's just another creative outlet that they are exploring. Case by case. I wouldn't want to use a broad brushstroke. If I did, I would have missed out on Hawke's work.


ETA: Would actors on an acting forum ask 'what do you think of this writer becoming an actor/actress/celeb?'

I find it interesting that a celebrity I've never heard of has enough material to fill 3 autobiographies.

And, to be honest, if I was offered the chance to "collaborate" on a novel with a celebrity, I wouldn't so much mind the less notoriety for the larger payday.

If the celebrity writes well enough on his or her own to get published, fine. If he or she is hiring a ghostwriter to cash in on celebrity without personal effort, then I think it sucks. I tend to be suspicious of "collaborations," also. I imagine most are just books that acknowledge the ghostwriter, rather than a real collaborative effort.

On the other hand, re collaborations, if the celebrity acknowledges a lack of writing skill or experience, hence the collaborator, I feel much less prickly about it.

I have no problem with famous people writing fiction if they're writing it themselves and it's not simply selling on the basis of their name. I do have a problem with the countless number of pointless wastes of space such as Jordan churning out autobios every other week.

But then I also have a jolly daydream in which Jordan explodes into flame and dies, leaving the world a better place.

If the "collaborator" thinks they're going to get a fair share of the money or acknowledgment they've got another thing coming.

But, Wayne...ghostwriting CAN be very lucrative. The acknowledgement? Not so much...but it could be a hefty contract, monetarily. It all depends.

Celebrities will see their name as the selling point and want a bigger share.

Yep. But that's not what I said. The ghost won't get the biggest share, but at times their share can be BIG.

I don't think I'd do it. If the book sold oodles, I'd feel cheated.

Wayne K said:

If the "collaborator" thinks they're going to get a fair share of the money or acknowledgment they've got another thing coming.

Click to expand...

It's not about being fair, it's about a contract. Do you think script writers for example get the fair share of movie profits? Not even close. What about article writers?

It comes down to being a job. If a celeb offers a chunk of money and a contract, the writer decides whether or not it's worth it.

If the celebrities want to hire writers to do their work so they can get more fame and money, at least that means another real writer is getting paid.

If a celeb wants to pen a novel go them. As long as they earn their advances, it doesn't take my spot in fiction.

If the ghostwriters start to demand 50% of royalties, maybe the celebrities will consider writing the books themselves and realize, "oh, this is harder than I thought."

Personally, I have no problem with celebrities writing fiction or anything. Steve Martin is a very good writer, so is Ethan Hawke. But they don't sell millions of copies, because they don't write "sensational" stuff.

As long as they actually WRITE the books.

Ghostwritten autobiographies are different -- the celebrities are selling their own life stories. The celebrity status is what intrigues people in the first place, and their fans want to know about their lives. That's fine. And if the celebrity wants someone else to write their life stories for them; it's cool. Ultimately, it's their stories no matter who wrote it.

But fiction is a whole different ballgame. It becomes simply "selling products" (such as celebrities putting their names on a jewelry or clothes line designed by other people).

Not that it hasn't been done already. Tom Clancy doesn't write his books anymore. It's a product line -- he has a factory of writers and he slaps his name on the cover. Hello, capitalism.

The problem I have with these other celebrities who write "hot" books -- but in fact, they have ghostwriters -- is that they're only in it for fame and fortune, and it is very disingenuous. Some of them don't even deny the fact that they didn't write the books. And the problem is, the general public doesn't care. They buy because "ooh, So-and-so's name is on the cover." Unfortunately, in a capitalist world, cash is king, and fame is queen. There's nothing we can do about it. So why fight it?

I, however, won't jump onto the bandwagon. America has a celebrity-obsessed culture. It's always so big that I don't need to contribute to that.

JJ Cooper said:

Isn't that called 'collaboration' with fiction rather than ghostwriting?

JJ

Click to expand...

It's ghostwriting for fiction, if the celeb pretends to have written the book.

As for celeb books, I really like a fair number of celebrity novels.

This aside, I'm all for anything that puts a profit in the publisher's till. They need profit in order to offer advances and take chances on books by new writers. Celeb books go a long way in making this happen.

Reading-wise, I'm with KTC - I'd take each book on its own merits, rather than worry about who wrote it.

Writing-wise - I for one wouldn't take a ghostwriting offer, not because of the pay but because you can't claim it on your writer's CV. I'd rather do unpaid work that I could claim (and I am doing) than well-paid work that I couldn't.

That position could change though.

JJ Cooper said:

So, what's your thoughts on celebs in the fiction market?

Cheers,

JJ

Click to expand...

If they make enough money for the publishers, then the publishers might be more willing to give noncelebs a shot.

As maestrowork says, there's a difference between fiction and nonfiction here. I don't have the same problem with ghostwritten or collaborated nonfiction that I have with ghostwritten or collaborated fiction.

Celebrities or experts might have nonfic stories to tell, autobiographical or otherwise, that they don't feel competent to write themselves. Good for them and good for writers that they don't have to. I would prefer that the "name" give the writer collaborator's credit, though, rather than leave the writer's name off the book entirely.

I prefer fiction to have the integrity of idea and execution coming from the same person*. As for an "author" who ponies up neither ideas nor execution, only a celeb name, that's an execrable notion to me.




*An exception would be the relatively rare writing team, where the partners are both writers.

I picked up a book last summer specifically because Hugh Laurie wrote it. The prose is sharp and clever, exactly the kind of writing I'd expect from him.

But otherwise I don't pay much attention to celebrity writers. If the book is there to extend that celebrity's brand, so be it, but like Jamesaritchie said, those sales put more money in the publisher's pocketbook and I can't complain about that.

MGraybosch said:

If they make enough money for the publishers, then the publishers might be more willing to give noncelebs a shot.

Click to expand...

Or they might just contract with more celebs.

Phaeal said:

Or they might just contract with more celebs.

Click to expand...

Shh! I'm trying not to be cynical this morning.

katiemac said:

I picked up a book last summer specifically because Hugh Laurie wrote it. The prose is sharp and clever, exactly the kind of writing I'd expect from him.

Click to expand...

But you picked up the book because it was Hugh Laurie's.

What if you found out he didn't write the book. Some nameless writer actually did it for him for $20,000?

Would you still feel the same way about the book, even though you bought it because you thought he wrote it? Would you feel deceived?

And would you have bought it if you knew it was ghostwritten?


Like I said, I have no problems with celebrities actually writing and selling their books (e.g. I enjoyed Ethan Hawke's). I also have no problem with celebrities selling their life stories that are ghostwritten -- because their "life stories" are the selling point, not the writing. But I do have a problem with celebrity slapping their names on fiction that is written by someone else (especially uncredited). To me, that's deceit, and it's a symptom of this celebrity-obsessed world when nothing, including truth, matters as long as a well-known person's on the cover.