Along with recent scandals about plagiarism, we’ve also seen a new focus on an age-old completely-legal practice— ghostwriting.
We all know there are celebrity “autobiographies” that weren’t written by the name on the cover. And many well-known classic series under a single name were the work of many ghosts. “Franklin W. Dixon” from 1927 wrote the Hardy Boys across 90 years and close to a hundred titles and revisions, penned by a crew of writers.
When it comes to modern works of fiction, the practice is still common. James Patterson openly has created over 130 novels by often farming the actual writing of his plot synopsis to 23 different authors. But Patterson credits his co-writers on the cover (albeit in smaller print), sometimes launching their careers. It’s a far better-kept secret that other author names are also the collective cover for a crew of writers who don’t get the credit.
Secret ghostwriting gets ethically murky. Many authors quite legally do ghostwriting on contract, as a way to survive and make money at their craft. There’s also nothing illegal about hiring someone to write a book that will be released under your name, or your pen name, as long as the signed contact specifies that the actual author won’t get the credit. There’s nothing illegal about hiring a multitude of such writers.
But for readers, it may seem like the works of this supposed author are uneven. They may be frustrated with liking some and not others. And if the practice is revealed, the readers realize they were robbed of the chance to discriminate between the ghostwriters they liked and those they didn’t, by grouping them all under one concealing blanket pen name.
Prolific ghostwriting also manipulates best-seller lists, making the work of a group look like the work of a single popular author. And when discovered, the reader unhappiness can rebound on single authors who really are that prolific. There are real authors dedicated and imaginative and fast and driven enough to write a dozen good books each year. Whenever a new collective ghostwriting pen name is revealed, those authors may stand accused of doing the same, just because they’re prolific. How do they prove a negative?
It’s a difficult problem to address, because the last thing we want is someone insisting every book must have the author’s legal name on it. We need our pen names. Co-writers often use a single name (like the husband and wife team of Ilona Andrews, or the two M/M authors who are Kindle Alexander.) Those folks don’t choose to use a separate pen name for each author involved, but there’s no deception intended.
But not being able to tell books written by one author from books written by another is a disservice to readers, trying to make good choices about where to spend their money. We all know favorite series that got farmed out to new authors and lost that indefinable something that made them auto-buys. If Dick Francis’s mysteries had not had his son’s name in the credits of later collaborations and solo efforts, how many more would I have paid for before deciding that a favorite author no longer had the right stuff?
In these days of branding and logos and chain businesses, you could look at ghostwriting under one pen name as a natural commercial endpoint – chain writing. But in a field where that’s still the exception, where tastes are so personal, where choices are so wide, and where the clues to finding good books are so heavily based on author name, unrevealed ghostwritten collectives feel unfair to readers, and to other authors.
How much does it bother readers to find out their “favorite” author is a group of silent workers?
Is there a way to limit this practice, or should we even try? Are we being unfair to those who make a living that way and don’t feel victimized by it, when we decry the practice?
Are we stuck with a cycle of reveal and anger when some collective is exposed?
Is there a feasible way for very prolific single authors to validate their work and protect themselves from accusations of ghostwriting?
Is there a way to create a “truth in labeling” law for creative work (because this is done in other art as well) that doesn’t expose artists’ privacy in undesirable ways?
Does technology and textual-analysis have the potential to be a tool, to let people screen the opening of a book to see if the style is consistent? Do we want a tech tool telling people “this is too different; this author may be a ghostwriter”? What if the accusation isn’t true?
Small businesses the world over are finding it hard to compete with chains. They try to do so with quality, with uniqueness, with personalization. In many ways, single authors dealing with ghostwritten collaboratives are in the same boat, although with books, the “chains” are harder for readers to detect. I’m not sure this is a problem with any real solution, but I’d be interested in your thoughts.
– Kaje Harper
March 2019
I’ll admit that I can see this from both pov. As a reader, I would be extremely disturbed to find that there is “truth in Twitter” and some of my ‘authors’ are actually not, as I believe, the creator of their stories.
At the same time, I’m a believer in collaboration and I don’t need to know the names of the collaborators. It is a brand that I expect. If I go to a salon, Ulta, we’ll say, I expect it to be much like every other Ulta. McDonalds in the US are all very similar.
It does bother me when I start reading stories from a new author and like them and recognize that after the first 3 or 4 they are not the same, not the same writing style, voice or feel.
I surely don’t know the answer but as a reader I do expect a story by one of my preferred authors to be written by the same person/s as the others. I don’t need to see them do the work but there is a level of creativity, talent and style that I do come to pay for the work that recognize, expect and appreciate.
This I think is where the main issue for readers comes – that using ghost writers hides the possibility of unpredictable product variability.
Of course, there’s another side to it. What if that ghost writer you love is also writing for some other pen name (or names) – wouldn’t you like to be able to know that and put those on your auto-buy list too? Hiding creator information behind more than an individual pen name does take some decision-making ability away from the reader/consumer of the product.
As a reader I want to know that the name on the cover, irrespective of whether it’s a pen name, is the person sweating it out and putting their efforts, their heart and soul, on to a book if they’re expecting me to pay for it.
I don’t care about knowing “who” they are so much as “what” – the one writing the words.
Yes. This came up with visual art too, like with Damien Hirst whose dot-paintings were planned by him but actually painted by assistants. He said “It amazes me that I still get asked these questions. You have to look at it as if the artist is an architect, and we don’t have a problem that great architects don’t actually build the houses.”
And yet the value of creative work feels tied up with the person, as you say, putting in the sweat and effort. His works dropped in value when his extensive use of assistants was revealed.
If we bought art, or books, solely for the outcome (like we usually buy houses) then it shouldn’t matter if the planner was not the one who did the work. For some people, it is just the outcome that matters – how good the book is, on its own. For others, there’s emotional investment in being a supporter of the author who made the effort to bring that vision to fruition (and even of an author community competing for readers on what should be a level field.) I think in M/M, because our community is small, there is perhaps more investment in who the authors are and supporting them as creators as well as enjoying the books.
I’m not sure I have an answer for you. In fact, I have no idea how we would approach this as a collective of authors trying to decide on a code of practice. Don’t get me wrong, it would be nice if there was one, and not just about this subject, but I’m not sure how you’d reach such a thing without all clauses getting watered down so much you end up with basically what you had before you started.
On a personal level, as a reader, I have to admit that I don’t really care. After a first book I read authors based on (what in my eyes is) quality. If subsequent books turned out to be of a lesser quality, I’d probably give up buying that author, regardless of the name on the cover.
You mention James Patterson. I love what he does to spring board other authors. I have no doubt it makes a world of difference for those who get to cooperate with him. But, I don’t read the books anymore. It’s not the James Patterson I fell in love with years ago, so I stopped buying and not just his collaborations.
What I wish for is less curiosity as well as less suspicion. Because, apart from those cases where authors are blatantly using and abusing their followers/readers, I honestly don’t care about the ‘real’ life behind the author I read/interact with on social media.
I agree, definitely one negative is the backlash against productive authors that they must be “cheating” to bring out so many books.
But you bring up social media. What if someone you “interact with” is revealed not to be a single individual, but a corporation employing a stable of authors? Does that make you rethink them, if you have chatted online, even if they carefully stick to only banal or book-related topics (ie. not classic catfishing.) When does a single author name representing a group feel like deception to you?
I personally don’t really care about this business with using ghostwriters. I think people have to do what they have do to survive (PLEASE don’t think I’m lumping plagiarism in here, no one has to do that to survive). If authors want to be truthful about using ghostwriters and the ghostwriters themselves don’t care to be credited or want to be credited that’s cool. It’s not up to us what others do, whether we accept it or not is up to us. We all have choices and those choices should be respected. I liken it to rating or JUDGING ones profession inferior to another (ex. sex workers being thought to be inferior and less profitable whereas modeling, showing off nude or almost nude photos, are more acceptable and profitable). Is there more stigma involved, why yes, but I think it’s because we’re taught to work hard for the things we want in life and we’re also taught some professions are less inferior than others. I think I can respect an author more if they admit or want to be truthful about using ghostwriters, it probably won’t be on par as an author who works hard as hell to write their own books but what matters to me is quality and consistency of the writing and as a reader I’m more than willing to sift through books for a fantastic read. I also want to ass that some or maybe all the time a reader can see an author has a tell/signature style with their writing (a good example is Mary Calmes or Cardeno C.).
Now for plagiarism, it’s a horrible practice. Cheating and stealing is a horrible way to live life when there are so many other better options out there. No one becomes a great writer overnight, that’s why English classes are there and tutors if that’s the route you want to take. I’m not eloquent with words and I’m managing just fine banging out a reply to this post. Start small, go big and write your heart out and if you can’t make it flow hire a ghost writer, give them some pointers about how you would like your story to go. Don’t lift passages or paragraphs or half a book from other authors or ghostwriters just to make a buck. Plagiarist, in most if not all cases always get caught.
I’ve also seen some things I don’t like associated with this whole snafu. Lynch mobs or individual people trying to discredit writers or trying to get to the heart of whether they have multiple pseudonyms or not, if they’re trans, bi, male, or female. Authors should be able to create online personas as long as it’s not for nefarious means (ex. Josh Lanyon) or to catfish someone (Santino tho I think there was another one a couple of years ago) for donations and sympathy. As a reader I use an alias online and I don’t always want to talk about myself in fear I pick up a stalker. I do give half truths or avoid giving out all the details if personal questions are asked (I never make up something, that’s too much work and I’m too damn lazy for it). I would think a author wouldn’t want a deranged person figuring out where they live or put themselves in a situation to endanger their families.
Absolutely, there’s no comparison between using ghost writers under legal contract just to write books, and crimes like plagiarism or catfishing. We do need to have safe, anonymous identities available for those who write and read, especially in a genre where it could be actively dangerous to be identified. Pen names are necessary.
It’s cool that you say “as a reader I’m more than willing to sift through books for a fantastic read” – of course, some pen names being ghosted does not keep us from researching each title, reviewing, recommending and sharing which books are good, without reference to author reputation.
I do worry about the mob mentality that is prone to denounce with the flimsiest of evidence. Because once a rumor gets started (“X’s books are written by other people”) it’s hard to disprove it without big effort or losing essential privacy. Thanks for your comment. <3
I have to admit that I have become way more suspicious since this was brought to my attention some time last year. Now, before buying a new-to-me author, I check how often they publish books and if they have new releases every (other) month, I most likely won’t buy it. I know I might hurt ‘real’ authors who really are capable of writing fast and releasing often and that’s why I also check for online presence (websites, Twitter, FB – and I absolutely don’t mean that the author has to have their real picture online or share things about their real life. I just mean that those ‘authors’ that are suspicious to me don’t have any online presence at all, although they have been releasing books for years, not even to promote their books). I also check if the book is categorized correctly at Amazon (I have heard that sometimes Amazon messes up the categories without the author’s intention but nobody can tell me that an author doesn’t check when their books go live on Amazon and if the book is still wrongly categorized after having been published for quite some time, I have to assume it was intentionally.) I definitely don’t use the 1-Click Button as fast as I have in the past.
I don’t care about pen names or writing duos under one name or an author using different pen names for different genres/content but I want to support authors who actually put their time and hard work into the story I’m going to read.
Of course, it’s not a guaranty for my liking each and every book because writing styles might change over time or the author might try out something new but I believe I have a better chance of not ending up disappointed when I know that the person(s) who wrote book #1 is/are the same person(s) who wrote book #5 (if we are talking about a series).
Ghostwriting is a legitimate business but as a reader, I, personally, would like to know if the book was ghostwritten. I don’t necessarily need to know the name of the ghostwriter because I know there are many out there who don’t want to be credited. How about a short statement at the beginning of the book – something like “This book was created in collaboration with a ghostwriter.”? Why not be honest about it if there is no shadiness going on?
I don’t think the question if a book was written by a ghostwriter or not would be such a huge deal right now if it weren’t tied directly into gaming the Amazon / KU system. And that’s something I absolutely don’t want to support. Those who are paying ghostwriters not enough money for their work and are trying to secure top spots in the Amazon rankings with releasing 12 or more books in a year (often while presumably also buying reviews, using click farms, and putting books in the wrong categories) just to make more profit aren’t ‘authors’ I want to give my money to.
This is a sad thing about it, that it engenders suspicion from readers who worry about uneven ghost written titles. (And of course, a single writer can and will be uneven too – few of my own readers love all of my books without exception. )
I will say that the wrong-categorization thing is a bit tricky. I have had books of mine recategorized by Amazon – sometimes years after their release, God knows why – in some convoluted error based on title or a keyword. And I’ve failed to notice, sometimes for months or more. (I’m a bad author when it comes to the tracking and business side – sometimes I don’t want to look at my own stuff, and don’t, especially older stuff. 🙂 ) I know one contemporary/fantasy M/M book that AZ, two years after release, without the author’s input, probably due to the title, put into non-fiction historical – the author had no idea until I spotted it while looking at a related title. Then it took weeks for him to get AZ to fix it. So be careful with this as a criterion.
It is unfortunate that AZ, being so algorithm-driven and so incredibly dominant, amplifies the effect of all kinds of practices from the legal to the questionable to the ethically-shady to the illegal. If they cared, AZ could do a lot to reduce plagiarism and stuffing and more. But of course, they mainly want to sell books and spend a minimum of effort on keeping a fair playing field. And that leaves readers in the difficult position of trying to support the authors they love (thank you, readers <3) by being suspicious enough that they may avoid other legitimate books they would enjoy. You're right that if it didn't lead to AZ best-seller listings and increased promotion it would feel less unfair to have the work of many writers secretly grouped under one name.
Thank you, Kaje! I didn’t know the re-categorization could happen even years after the book was published. I will certainly keep that in mind!
LOL!! Of course it happens that I don’t enjoy every book by an author even though I’ve already read many of their books. Sometimes it’s just the theme or a character I don’t gel with and that’s totally fine 🙂 I don’t immediately suspect a ghostwritten book when that happens. But knowing it was indeed written by that author I usually enjoy, makes it easier to forgive and I look forward to their next book instead of dreading it.
I know AZ doesn’t really care. But I was surprised that they changed their TOS after the bookstuffers were brought to their attention. Still, I always look at the page count and if it’s unusually high, I check reviews for clues if it’s a stuffed book. But they sure need to do more in order to avoid plagiarism! The latest big plagiarism scandal in the romance genre could have easily been avoided or detected much earlier if AZ had checked for it.
Anyway, these days, I try to avoid Amazon as best I can at least when it comes to new-to-me, self-published authors – not only because of the things I already mentioned but also because of authors selling their previously published books to other ‘authors’ and those books appearing as new books on AZ with barely any changes made. In the last few months I bought two books that I had read before not knowing that they were previously published by a different author. But I don’t want to distract from your post about ghostwriters so I won’t say more about this 🙂
It’s sad that my suspicion will most likely mean that I will miss out on good, original books written by legitimate authors but for now I have to say better safe than sorry if I want to support those authors who (I believe) actually write their own words for us readers to enjoy.
I hadn’t heard of authors selling previous works to someone else, (although I have seen re-releasing old work under new pen-names.) I’m surprised it’s common enough to be a concern. If I came across that with no mention of the old title, I’d want to check reviews and, if it’s not clearly mentioned as a known issue, see if it might be a case of plagiarism instead?
Re-releases should definitely say that in the blurb (“previously released as”) – I guess this was a known practice with major publishers too. I was just reading about 3 different titles a Joseph Hansen book had over 40 years; that shouldn’t be something readers have to figure out after buying.
And those of us who do write our books solo (or with a credited partner) do appreciate the support of readers like you. <3
Again, I didn’t mean to distract from your original post and I apologize for leading the conversation to a different topic!
I hadn’t heard of it either and that’s why I started digging. It could be a case of plagiarism but from what I’ve found, this seems to have been going on for quite some time now.
It came up again recently with the latest plagiarism scandal and authors Shiloh Walker, Nora Roberts, and Suzan Tisdale wrote blog posts about it including screenshots. I don’t know if it’s allowed to post the links here. If it is, I will be happy to provide them if you want to have a look.
Apparently there are ‘secret’ forums where authors offer their books for sale and those books are then published by the author who bought them. Most times, it seems, only the cover is changed and there is no indication anywhere that those are re-published books. I have no idea if it’s legal but even the copyright dates are changed so a reader would have no way of knowing that they have bought a previously published book.
According to some of the comments made on those blog posts, there are people/’authors’ who think that this is perfectly fine and legitimate. That this is going on at all in addition to all the other shady things we have seen over time doesn’t help me being less suspicious and in the end it’s not only hurting readers but legitimate authors as well 🙁