# Ghost writers for writers. I call B.S. on this. But I'm not sure why.



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I saw a post on an author's Facebook page.  She was having a thrill attack over another better-known author contacting her and asking her if she'd be interested in writing a book for her as a ghost writer.  We're talking fiction, I believe romance.  She was over-the-moon excited.

James Patterson does it.  And I know there have been others in the past.  But regardless, it still irks me big time.

I'm trying to figure out why.

Is it because the readers will be mislead?  I don't know.  What difference does it make if they get a good book they enjoy?

Is it because the author who actually did the work won't get credit (or full credit or enough credit)?  I don't know.  What difference does it make if they sign up for that deal and know full well that's how it will go?

Is it because these authors have decided that they don't care whether the book is told in their voice, only that they have a lot of books being published?  What difference does it make since it's not my life or my career being affected?

Is it because an author is taking advantage of a lesser-known writer for her own benefit?  What difference does it make if they're both consenting adults?

I don't know.  I can't figure out why it bugs me so much, since obviously I have decent answers for all my concerns.  It just does.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Seems everyone wins, and nobody loses.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Yeah, so what's my problem? Why does it bug me?


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

It bugs the hell out of me too. Whether or not anybody is hurt by the process, it doesn't set well with me when writers get credit for something they didn't write. I've never read James Patterson (and outside of 'celebrity' memoirs, I don't know if I've ever read a ghostwritten book). 

Ugh.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

I can see what you are saying. In a way it is annoying to some readers, you can tell when it isn't the real author writing the book.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Patterson doesn't use ghost writers. He uses collaborators. They get their name on the book and from the interviews and articles I've read, he's very involved in the process of co-writing (providing extensive outlines, working through multiple revisions, etc), so I don't think I'd call it ghosting at all in the traditional sense of the word. It isn't like he just hires someone to write a book and that's it.

I figure if readers like what they get, no one is really screwed. However, it does seem kind of sad for authors if they don't get good terms, which a lot of ghosting projects don't give (mostly they are pay one time, often not that great though usually better than first time or low level advances).


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Bugs the hell out of me, too. Regardless of the results, it's still appallingly dishonest if a book carries one author's name and NO clue that it's written by a ghost writer. James Patterson seems to be fairly clear about it (James Patterson & ...) - hell, if he just writes the outline and someone else does the hard yards and gets credited, I can cope with that. But the classic, 'let's get someone else to write the entire book and outright lie about the authorship' - nuh uh. *grumpy face*


----------



## EllenWaite (Dec 4, 2013)

Meh. Doesn't bother me at all. It's an age old practice. I ghostwrote a book for someone once. Last I checked it didn't sell too terribly well, but the person I wrote it for didn't know what the heck they were doing with it. But they were happy with the final product and I was happy with my fat check. So it all worked out. It got some nice reviews and readers called his work "phenomenal". Yeah, well, in truth the guy could hardly write, but whatever helps him sleep at night. Doesn't bother me that someone else got credit for my many hours of work because I was fairly compensated for my time. And heck, my heart wasn't in that book anyhow. I wrote it strictly for the money.

Writers gotta eat, you know?


----------



## micki (Oct 8, 2010)

I can see why it bugs you. But why would one call themselves a writer when they aren't......  I suppose it's like getting someone to write ones exam paper and taking credit for the high marks.......


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Patterson doesn't use ghost writers. He uses collaborators. They get their name on the book and from the interviews and articles I've read, he's very involved in the process of co-writing (providing extensive outlines, working through multiple revisions, etc), so I don't think I'd call it ghosting at all in the traditional sense of the word. It isn't like he just hires someone to write a book and that's it.
> 
> I figure if readers like what they get, no one is really screwed. However, it does seem kind of sad for authors if they don't get good terms, which a lot of ghosting projects don't give (mostly they are pay one time, often not that great though usually better than first time or low level advances).


Here's a quote about how he characterizes his "collaboration". _James Patterson admits he is simply more proficient at dreaming up plots than crafting sentence after sentence. _

Anyone can dream up a plot. It's that tedious "crafting [of] sentence after sentence" that is _writing_. Plotting ain't it and editing ain't it. Sorry, but I'm not buying it, James Patterson.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

EllenWaite said:


> Meh. Doesn't bother me at all. It's an age old practice. I ghostwrote a book for someone once. Last I checked it didn't sell too terribly well, but the person I wrote it for didn't know what the heck they were doing with it. But they were happy with the final product and I was happy with my fat check. So it all worked out. It got some nice reviews and readers called his work "phenomenal". Yeah, well, in truth the guy could hardly write, but whatever helps him sleep at night. Doesn't bother me that someone else got credit for my many hours of work because I was fairly compensated for my time. And heck, my heart wasn't in that book anyhow. I wrote it strictly for the money.
> 
> Writers gotta eat, you know?


I wonder if you would feel the same way if it was a runaway bestseller and he made millions off it.  Perhaps your fat check would look puny in comparison.


----------



## EllenWaite (Dec 4, 2013)

micki said:


> I suppose it's like getting someone to write ones exam paper and taking credit for the high marks.......


Ahh, I used to make a killing doing that, too! For about a year there I had a highly lucrative business writing school papers for college students. The deadlines got to be too much. It's a lot of stress, especially when you've got a ton of clients.

In need of some fast money? If you're a decent writer, and you're good at research/BSing stuff, give that a shot.


----------



## EllenWaite (Dec 4, 2013)

ellecasey said:


> I wonder if you would feel the same way if it was a runaway bestseller and he made millions off it.  Perhaps your fat check would look puny in comparison.


I've considered that, actually. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me. If anything, it would have been a huge confidence boost, lol.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

EllenWaite said:


> Ahh, I used to make a killing doing that, too! For about a year there I had a highly lucrative business writing school papers for college students. The deadlines got to be too much. It's a lot of stress, especially when you've got a ton of clients.
> 
> In need of some fast money? If you're a decent writer, and you're good at research/BSing stuff, give that a shot.


It's not the same as what this author is doing (the reason for this thread). First of all, exam papers don't get you money from readers, sometimes big money. And second, it's completely dishonest and deceitful, whereas ghost-writing isn't. Not really. But it feels that way to me, anyway.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

ellecasey said:


> I wonder if you would feel the same way if it was a runaway bestseller and he made millions off it.  Perhaps your fat check would look puny in comparison.


I think that under the old publishing paradigm, this wasn't a bad way for many super prolific writers to make extra cash. I mean, their publishers aren't going to publish 10+ books per year by one author (publishers used to tell authors to write ONE book a year for a long time, and only in romance it was 2-3 books/year...HQ was up to 4/year, no more, IIRC. I distinctly remember an author saying how her publisher thought she wrote too fast because she was writing 4 books/year).

So let's say somebody can write fast like you, Elle. But because of the publishers' schedule (and non-compete and other crappy contractual obligations and restrictions) they can't publish as frequently as they want, and their publishers pay them only 2x year (and 6-8% of cover if they're published in MMPB)

So what do you do if you want to make some extra cash on the side? Well, you can get a part time job outside of home or you can ghost write ( or write for TV tie-in novels, etc.).

But if you're applying the current paradigm, yes, it may seem crappy for the ghostwriter to do this unless they need some lump sum cash real fast.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I am applying the scenario as the publishing world exists right now, since this "offer" was made just the other day.  There are no restrictions on publishing frequency today.  If you can write it, you can publish it.

But with this author, even though she can't write it, she can still publish it. And she's going to take all the credit for it.

This girl who is being offered the job is thrilled beyond measure because she's an unknown. But this author likes the girl's writing enough to want to use it for herself.  It just feels like the author is taking advantage of her.

The author *could* theoretically say, "I love your writing. Have you ever considered self-publishing?  I think you could do well.  I'd be willing to offer you advice and some exposure."  But instead, she says, "I love your writing.  Could I pay you to write my next book for me?"  I don't like that attitude, I guess.  I prefer the former.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

EllenWaite said:


> Perhaps, but not immoral


I guess it depends how you define morality. I did it once in high school for a guy who sat behind me in English class. Looking back now, I wish I hadn't. It doesn't say anything good about me for sure, except maybe that I can write a hell of an essay. It clearly said that I was a liar, a cheat, and lacking in confidence, so it wasn't worth the cost. I cringe just thinking about it now. Here's the big picture that floats in my head when I think about what I did: anyone who helps cheat our educational system, helps cheat our society as a whole. We don't need people working in important jobs who aren't qualified to be there, who will cheat to get there, who will take shortcuts to win. If I go into the hospital to have surgery, I want to know my doctor studied, worked her ass off, and deserved to get her degree on her own work ethic, not someone else's. Drastic example but you know what I mean.

As I've gotten to this point in my life (the big 4-5 is coming on Saturday), I've decided that proper credit is important to me. It's completely tied up with gratitude and acknowledgment in my mind. For me personally (maybe not for you or anyone else reading this), it's critical to acknowledge the people and contributions from others that got me where I am. I know in my heart that _should_ I forget to do that, should I lose that "attitude of gratitude", the universe will stop providing.


----------



## EllenWaite (Dec 4, 2013)

ellecasey said:


> I guess it depends how you define morality. I did it once in high school for a guy who sat behind me in English class. Looking back now, I wish I hadn't. It doesn't say anything good about me for sure, except maybe that I can write a hell of an essay. It clearly said that I was a liar, a cheat, and lacking in confidence, so it wasn't worth the cost. I cringe just thinking about it now. Here's the big picture that floats in my head when I think about what I did: anyone who helps cheat our educational system, helps cheat our society as a whole. We don't need people working in important jobs who aren't qualified to be there, who will cheat to get there, who will take shortcuts to win. If I go into the hospital to have surgery, I want to know my doctor studied, worked her *ss off, and deserved to get her degree on her own work ethic, not someone else's. Drastic example but you know what I mean.
> 
> As I've gotten to this point in my life (the big 4-5 is coming on Saturday), I've decided that proper credit is important to me. It's completely tied up with gratitude and acknowledgment in my mind. For me personally (maybe not for you or anyone else reading this), it's critical to acknowledge the people and contributions from others that got me where I am. I know in my heart that _should_ I forget to do that, should I lose that "attitude of gratitude", the universe will stop providing.


I don't imagine this is a tangent that you were intending to explore in this thread, so I'm sorry for the derail. IMO, our ridiculous educational system does a great job of cheating society on its own. I personally don't consider the educational system to be an entity worthy of ethical consideration. I understand that others feel differently, and thus the sort of work I mentioned upthread is sometimes frowned upon. An interesting article on the subject of writing schoolpapers, if anyone's interested:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Shadow-Scholar/125329/

But yeah. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Owen (Aug 24, 2011)

To me it depends on the case, if it's like Virginia Andrews and the original author is long dead and it's well known that the name now operates as a brand then it doesn't bother me. If the named author is going out of their way to convince potential buyers that they're getting a book by the same writer, then I do consider that misleading to the consumer and unethical.


----------



## Sarah Stimson (Oct 9, 2013)

OwenAdams said:


> To me it depends on the case, if it's like Virginia Andrews and the original author is long dead and it's well known that the name now operates as a brand then it doesn't bother me. If the named author is going out of their way to convince potential buyers that they're getting a book by the same writer, then I do consider that misleading to the consumer and unethical.


^^ This exactly.

I don't read celeb autobiographies and I hate that they are ghost written. Why not write it as a biography instead and explain that the celeb was closely involved in the writing of the book? Annoys me no end.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I kind of enjoy the idea that big names are tricking the public at large into paying for original flavor fanfiction.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

That sword cuts both ways, and ghost writers can take advantage.

I've been ghostwriting for people coming up on 1 year now.  In that time I've done more than a dozen non-fiction books and a couple novels.  I don't want to say I'm taking advantage per se, but in the vast majority of cases I think I'm the only one who's making money on the deal.  The reason I think this is because I'm sure the book will not perform well enough with sales for that employer to recoup their expenses with hiring me.

I could be wrong (who knows what'll happen in 10 years for them), but many of these employers have known next to nothing about self-publishing other than that they want to get a book up on Amazon.  And that means they often can't get that book sold much more than to family and friends.

That's just my take on it, and I'd be thrilled if I could write for a big name author because it'd mean a big payday (I hope), which would give me the security I need to continue plodding along with my own books.  Not to mention the fact that my writing must be good.  It gets lonely out here in the dark sometimes, remember?


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

I can honestly say I've never had a problem with the idea of collaborative writers. It seems to me Big Name Author and No-Name Collaborator are both getting what they want from the arrangement. As long as readers aren't mislead (my only concern), I see no losers. I can totally understand an author getting more ideas than she has time to write or enjoying the plotting process more than constructing sentences. We all have our favorite aspects of the craft and each is equally necessary. Why shouldn't Big Name Author write the outlines and the scenes she's most excited about and delegate the rest to someone she trusts to stick close to her vision? She's still in final control of what goes into her book. Meanwhile, No-Name Collaborator gets a payday she wouldn't have otherwise seen. Obviously she believes she's incapable of making that kind of money writing under her own name or she wouldn't agree to the deal. Everybody wins.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Greg Strandberg said:


> That sword cuts both ways, and ghost writers can take advantage.
> 
> I've been ghostwriting for people coming up on 1 year now. In that time I've done more than a dozen non-fiction books and a couple novels. I don't want to say I'm taking advantage per se, but in the vast majority of cases I think I'm the only one who's making money on the deal. The reason I think this is because I'm sure the book will not perform well enough with sales for that employer to recoup their expenses with hiring me.
> 
> ...


My thoughts are all over the place on this one, but the overriding one is: how much more money would you make channeling that writing into books for yourself that you promote with your name on them? My guess: A LOT. It seems to me to be a short-sighted and self-defeating strategy. That's obviously just my opinion and not everyone's. I'm merely making an observation.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

It bugs me too. 

I think it's because writing is a creative art form, and we want to believe that, even when making money, our favourite authors actually love doing what they do. Instead, they'd rather pay someone else to do it for them. That annoys me, and if I found out a book I'd read wasn't written by that person, I would feel cheated. It breaks the illusion in some sense.

If you know from the beginning then it's different, but isn't that a co-writer? Co-written books are cool with me, as long as they both get credit.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Dara England said:


> I can honestly say I've never had a problem with the idea of collaborative writers. It seems to me Big Name Author and No-Name Collaborator are both getting what they want from the arrangement. As long as readers aren't mislead (my only concern), I see no losers. I can totally understand an author getting more ideas than she has time to write or enjoying the plotting process more than constructing sentences. We all have our favorite aspects of the craft and each is equally necessary. Why shouldn't Big Name Author write the outlines and the scenes she's most excited about and delegate the rest to someone she trusts to stick close to her vision? She's still in final control of what goes into her book. Meanwhile, No-Name Collaborator gets a payday she wouldn't have otherwise seen. Obviously she believes she's incapable of making that kind of money writing under her own name or she wouldn't agree to the deal. Everybody wins.


I totally get what you're saying. It makes complete, rational sense.

It still really bugs me, though. Maybe because, to me, writing isn't just plotting. That's the easy part. The hard part is "stringing sentences together." I can come up with a complete plot with details in ten minutes. It takes me a month of steady writing to turn that plot into an engaging story. It takes most people much longer than this, sometimes years.

It's not just the story or plot that matters; it's the storytelling that makes a book great. It's the _execution_. Some would argue the telling of the story is _more_ critical than the story itself. If you look at all the literary greats, the bestsellers across all decades, you will see that proven out time and time again. A Tale of Two Cities is just the story of the French revolution we all learned about in history class, but it's ever so much more because of the story_telling_ skills of Dickens.

An author who hires a ghost-writer to take her plot and turn it into a story is not a writer/story-teller. She's a plotter. She's an outliner. I think that's why it bugs me so much. If you get the name on the front page as author, if you get the royalties, you should be the one telling the story and engaging the reader, not the one paying someone else to do that.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I write my stuff, and I self-edit. It's 100% me, yet I don't get double credit for writing and editing. I don't think anyone says, "Yay, that makes it so much better knowing that no other human being touched your words!"

Some people have a group of beta readers who read all their work and give their opinions. I don't do that, either.

Some of us do everything ourselves, and some of us don't. 

Everyone feels annoyed when they see someone else using a business strategy that might give them a competitive advantage. 

I've heard that some indie authors rely on their husbands for much more than making meals for the kids... like the husband runs the technical side. My husband has his own business, and doesn't touch any of my stuff. I don't have a personal assistant or a virtual assistant. A couple times, I've paid a friend for a few hours of work, and that's it. I don't get triple credit for also doing my social media myself and not having an assistant pretending to be me and answering reader emails.

I also do my ebook formatting and covers.

Am I up to 6x credit now? I should get some sort of super-prawn badge.

The more I detail all the things that I do, by myself, the more I wonder how stupid I must be.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

ellecasey said:


> My thoughts are all over the place on this one, but the overriding one is: how much more money would you make channeling that writing into books for yourself that you promote with your name on them? My guess: A LOT. It seems to me to be a short-sighted and self-defeating strategy. That's obviously just my opinion and not everyone's. I'm merely making an observation.


Really? I put out 22 books last year and several pamphlets as well. That's not counting the 13 under my pen name. Little late for Amazon homework this morning? 

Money? The answer is A LOT - less.

And that short-sighted and self-defeating strategy? It's allowed me to write full-time while others are glued to the office chair all day, or worse (and I had worse).

Not all of us can ride the gravy train like you, Elle.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Greg Strandberg said:


> Really? I put out 22 books last year and several pamphlets as well. That's not counting the 13 under my pen name. Little late for Amazon homework this morning?
> 
> Money? The answer is A LOT - less.
> 
> ...


Riding the gravy train? Hmmmm. I call it working my *ss off and building my portfolio, but whatever. You see it however you like.

ETA: I don't need to do any Amazon homework as you call it when you very clearly state in your post that you write novels for other people. If you ghost-write and your name is not on the book, no amount of homework over at Amazon is going to help me find YOUR work, is it? That's pretty much my whole point.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Sarah Stimson said:


> ^^ This exactly.
> 
> I don't read celeb autobiographies and I hate that they are ghost written. Why not write it as a biography instead and explain that the celeb was closely involved in the writing of the book? Annoys me no end.


Yeah, this.
It should be some sort of law where ANY celeb has to at the very least acknowledge ( even joke it off in an offhanded way, BUT ACKNOWLEDGE that second pair of hands was involved. Like say to Jay Leno, "well, I did have some help, the publisher wouldn't accept the manuscript written in crayon.")

And I'm, sure the ghost writer doesn't get a very big check either.
Nor does the ghost writer get any credit for the resume and if thats all he/she does for a living and then decides to break off and do their own first novel how far can they go in publishing if.... by contract.....they aren't allowed to reveal they personally wrote a half dozen best selling celeb books?

WORSE than that for me.....
How about the big fat advances the celebs get?
Many of these guys do this to attract the cerebral crowd. Fine. *But they're celebrities. They already HAVE money. *How about a lower advance *and the bulk OF the advance* going to the actual writer of the book? The celeb can still take full crredit- I'm okay with that- but the person who did the bulk of the work should get the bulk of the cash.

Then this doling out of minimum wage to everyone else the publishers do....
It irks me when they THEN turn around to say, two dozen other writers trying to make a living at this, and only hand them a $5,000.00 advance and claim there isn't more than that because they gave a celeb $ 5 million ( and the ghostwriter got $ 200,000.00 or whatever it is ghostwriters get for the thankless task)

So yeah it's annoying.

And I can see a publisher nabbing the opportunity to sell a few million copies and have the prestige of having the celeb as part of the catalog for a year or two (Don't forget paperback sales) but the actual workload should be more fairly shared.

Then again---- we shouldn't forget the common people out there who HAVE a good idea but just don't have the basic skills to string the thoughts together enough for a smooth reading experience. *Now THOSE people need a ghost writer* and I'm happy the ghost is able to not only make a buck from that but also that the common person's vision can be shared.

But celebs?
Hell no.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Mimi (was Dalya) said:


> ...
> Everyone feels annoyed when they see someone else using a business strategy that might give them a competitive advantage.
> 
> ...


I've clearly stated what I find annoying, i.e., taking credit for work you don't do as a storyteller/writer. I don't see this as a competitive advantage at all. I see it as a short-sighted and eventually damaging strategy. Long term, I don't see any advantage to paying someone else to tell your stories for you. Eventually you will be found out and people will view you as a fraud. And people who write novels for others miss out on the opportunity to have those books in their portfolio. Once a reader likes one of your books, he goes looking for more to buy. He won't find the books that don't have your name on them.

And FWIW, this is not the same thing as co-authoring. Co-authoring, with both authors on the cover (either individually or as a combo pen name) is not the same as ghost-writing. It's not even close. It's completely irrelevant to this conversation, it's so different.



Mimi (was Dalya) said:


> The more I detail all the things that I do, by myself, the more I wonder how stupid I must be.


Mimi, do you really think it's "stupid" to write your books yourself instead of paying someone else to do it secretly? I don't believe it. I think I know you better than this.

You cannot equate paying someone to do your cover art to paying for a ghost-writer. It's totally unrelated. When you put your name on the cover of the book as the author, you are not putting your name there as the artist who did the photoshopping. No one cares about that when they read the story. They care about who wrote it, though. Some readers care a LOT.


----------



## No longer seen (Aug 17, 2013)

Some months ago, Dean Wesley Smith wrote a series of blog posts detailing his writing of a novel. Unfortunately,
it was a novel for a bestselling writer, and he could not reveal its name or the bestseller's identity.

For the ghost, it can have advantages assuming they're paid well. 

I have to wonder: when a bestselling writer seems to be going downhill, as often happens eventually, how much of that is due to their use of 
a ghostwriter instead of old age, illness, burn out, or substance abuse?

Perhaps a lot more than we realize. And perhaps such factors force publishers to turn to ghostwriters to 
turn in books the bestseller contracted for but for some reason cannot finish.

Sometimes the reason is death. I admire the son of John D. MacDonald for not hiring writers to continue 
the Travis McGee series -- even Stephen King.

Since the beginning writer was contacted directly by the more well-known author (instead of by an agent or 
publisher), it's possible the big name is not even planning to report this to their publisher. This could get them
in trouble (unless they're a self-publisher, of course).


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

You're certainly very vociferous in your bashing of ghost writers and those who employ them.  What brought this on?  Is there something else bothering you?  

Usually you give some pretty good advice, but here I think you're just venting about something.  Are you feeling threatened by big name authors in your genre pulling this on you?  Are you kicking yourself for considering the same?

I felt as though your passion has overrode some of your better judgement, and some of those last responses were a bit weak.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Greg Strandberg said:


> You're certainly very vociferous in your bashing of ghost writers and those who employ them. What brought this on? Is there something else bothering you?
> 
> Usually you give some pretty good advice, but here I think you're just venting about something. Are you feeling threatened by big name authors in your genre pulling this on you? Are you kicking yourself for considering the same?
> 
> I felt as though your passion has overrode some of your better judgement, and some of those last responses were a bit weak.


Greg, you need to read more carefully and leave your defensive feelings out of the process. I have not hidden any agenda in my words. Everything is very straightforward in my OP and my responses in the thread.

I don't always give advice when I come on KB. Are you suggesting that is all I should be doing? I can't imagine why you'd do that, because KB is much more than just advice. If you've been around a while and paid attention or read through my old posts, you would see that I come on KB to give advice, to express opinions, to share good news, to congratulate others' successes, to ask questions, to solicit advice, and to just have some laughs. Sometimes, I weigh in on issues and give my opinion, just because I feel like it or because I think it's an important part of the publishing evolution we should all consider. This is one of those cases.

What you are reading in this thread is my opinion based on my values, my thoughts on the industry, and my work ethic. Obviously it differs from yours, since you are an unapologetic ghost-writer who allows other people to put their name to your work and call it their own. If you're happy with that, good for you. You are welcome to share your opinion of course, even though it is 180 degrees different from mine. If I only wanted my opinion on the matter, I wouldn't have posted anything in the first place.

What I wish you wouldn't do, however, is try to turn this into me being a bad guy because I feel differently than you do and am not shy about saying so. Challenging me and calling my responses weak is, well, a matter of opinion. But again, this is your right to express it however you want. If you feel it enhances your reputation to respond to me this way here on the Internets, have at it. But know that you have not given me any information that changes my mind about my OP, and your method of trying to do that is having the opposite effect I think you're going for.

Dara England is the only on saying anything on the other side of the aisle that makes sense to me, and yet it still doesn't change the core of my thoughts and opinions on the matter.


----------



## EllenWaite (Dec 4, 2013)

Look, this is pretty simple.

Who cares what other writers do? They're free to use their skillz however they like. We're all free to write whatever we want. Some readers might feel upset to know that a certain book is actually ghostwritten, but I feel like that kind of misses the point. I can only speak for myself, but as a reader, I enjoy _stories_. I don't read books, personally, because I want to rejoice in any given author's integrity or something. I couldn't care less about the author in many instances-- what I want, and what I focus on most of all, is the story. I feel like this thread is kind of building up writers to be _more_ than writers. Some here seem to believe that there's some sacred bond between author and reader that mustn't be broken or taken lightly. If you ask me (and hey, I'm nobody, so feel free to ignore this), there are only two parts to this puzzle. There are stories, which are written by somebody (even if, in some cases, the true author ain't the name on the cover) and there are readers, who read those stories. That's it. I think we're putting a little too much emphasis on the author here and not enough on, you know, what's actually being produced and sold. No need to be so sentimental or nasty about it. This is a business. A story-telling business. It's entertainment, people. Maybe we need to take ourselves a little less seriously?

I guess my biggest question is: Why do you even care? Like, this doesn't even concern you personally. What other people do with their careers/skills isn't really any of your business, so why give it any headspace if you dislike it so much?


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

EllenWaite said:


> Look, this is pretty simple.
> 
> Who cares what other writers do? They're free to use their skillz however they like. We're all free to write whatever we want. Some readers might feel upset to know that a certain book is actually ghostwritten, but I feel like that kind of misses the point. I can only speak for myself, but as a reader, I enjoy _stories_. I don't read books, personally, because I want to rejoice in any given author's integrity or something. I couldn't care less about the author in many instances-- what I want, and what I focus on most of all, is the story. I feel like this thread is kind of building up writers to be _more_ than writers. Some here seem to believe that there's some sacred bond between author and reader that mustn't be broken or taken lightly. If you ask me (and hey, I'm nobody, so feel free to ignore this), there are only two parts to this puzzle. There are stories, which are written by somebody (even if, in some cases, the true author ain't the name on the cover) and there are readers, who read those stories. That's it. I think we're putting a little too much emphasis on the author here and not enough on, you know, what's actually being produced and sold. No need to be so sentimental or nasty about it. This is a business. A story-telling business. It's entertainment, people. Maybe we need to take ourselves a little less seriously?


Maybe you're right. Maybe it's very simple and it's all just shallow entertainment that has no connection whatsoever to the creator of it.

As a reader, this has not been my experience. When I read a book that moves me, I look for more work by that author. I fall for the voice, the storytelling skill. I go online and find the author's website and learn about her/him as a person. I want to know what it is about them that makes me connect like that. I'm one of those weirdos who actually reads author biographies and cares about whether the author is married, has kids or pets, and where they live. I guess you could say I am an interactive reader. And I can spot when a person's voice is different. When I sense that, I will stop reading that person's work. Voice is very important to me.

If I found out that my favorite author was a person who never wrote any of the stuff I read, I'd stop buying her work. I'd try to find out who the ghost-writer was and then buy her books instead. It strikes of fraud to me, and I don't like frauds. As soon as I learned the Milli Vanilli didn't sing a single word of their songs, I stopped playing their music. So did most of the world. People will tolerate lip-synching to a degree, but they don't tolerate Milli Vanillis.

Same goes for movies with me. Actors are storytellers. When there's an actor I like, I will go find and watch more of her/his movies. Anyone can read a line; not everyone can make me believe it's real.

As writers of novels, we create the lines and the actors and the delivery by the actors of those lines. Maybe to some people that's nothing, no big deal. To me, it's more. To my readers, I believe it's more. Not everyone can do it well. Most can't. If you put 1000 people in a room, how many could write a bestseller? Probably one? Less?

Is it too touchy-feely or old-fashioned to say that if you can't write a book, you shouldn't get to fake it and pay someone else to do it? Are we in a place in our world that pure business decisions should override that idea? I hope not, but maybe we are.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

For some books, the author develops a formula and a brand. For example, James Patterson. Say he discovers the formula for coca-cola in his factory--starting off, he runs the factory himself and makes sure all the coca cola follows his formula exactly. Then his brand becomes bigger and he needs more factories. So he helps to make sure the other factories use the same formula but he doesn't have to run each factory himself. The coca cola drinkers don't notice/care which factory the coca cola comes from.

As Hugh Howey has said, plot is king and prose is pawn. (Plot in this case isn't just the broad plot outline, but character details and motivations;backstory;subtle twists and turns etc.) Although a lot of the work often goes into knitting the sentences together, most of the readers don't notice the finer points of this and care even less. (For example, experts can tell real paintings by the masters from the fakes by the brushstrokes; the average viewer just admires the pictures and colors.)

It isn't true of all types of writer, or all types of reader, that a writer can be subbed in for the finer details of the prose and not make a difference, but it is sometimes the case.

Consider for example, TV series. Different episodes often have different writers, obviously involving plenty of collaboration of course. Each episode will be slightly different depending on which writer writes each episode, but it doesn't matter to the viewers experience. (Some exceptions, like when Sorkin left West Wing.)

As for saying that the ghostwriter will make more money just by putting it under their own name, I wish it were that easy. Do you honestly think that the James Patterson collaborators (for example) would have sold a fraction of the number of copies if they produced that same book under their own name?


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

EllenWaite said:


> No need to be so sentimental or nasty about it. This is a business. A story-telling business. It's entertainment, people. Maybe we need to take ourselves a little less seriously?


I don't get annoyed by 'dilution of the art' or 'breaking a sacred bond', etc - I just consider it irritatingly unethical. I don't like seeing, let alone experiencing, unethical behaviour from a business. Do I take issue with the ghostwriter? Nope. The person making the choice to publish a product that deliberately misleads the public is the person I take issue with.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

EllenWaite said:


> I guess my biggest question is: Why do you even care? Like, this doesn't even concern you personally. What other people do with their careers/skills isn't really any of your business, so why give it any headspace if you dislike it so much?


Why do I care? Because I work in this industry. Publishing is my life. The industry shifts and moves in directions all the time. _Trends_ in my chosen industry certainly do concern me personally. They concern me very much.

If no one ever has conversations about what is happening in the industry, how do we know if we're making the right decisions? How do we know if the shift is good or bad for us and our readers? Hearing more than one opinion (more than one's own) is important if we're to make good well-rounded decisions.

Conversations are valuable. I like having them. They help me sort things out and get different perspectives than one I might have come up with on my own. And I don't just have conversations about what I like. I have them about things that worry me, things that excite me, and things that just generally rub me the wrong way.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> For some books, the author develops a formula and a brand. For example, James Patterson. Say he discovers the formula for coca-cola in his factory--starting off, he runs the factory himself and makes sure all the coca cola follows his formula exactly. Then his brand becomes bigger and he needs more factories. So he helps to make sure the other factories use the same formula but he doesn't have to run each factory himself. The coca cola drinkers don't notice/care which factory the coca cola comes from.
> 
> As Hugh Howey has said, plot is king and prose is pawn. (Plot in this case isn't just the broad plot outline, but character details and motivations/backstory/subtle twists and turns etc.) Although a lot of the work often goes into knitting the sentences together, most of the readers don't notice the finer points of this and care even less. (For example, experts can tell real paintings by the masters from the fakes by the brushstrokes; the average viewer just admires the pictures and colors.)
> 
> ...


I usually agree with Hugh on most things, but not this one. You need both, plot and storytelling/prose. Anyone can take the Wool plot and muck it up terribly. Hugh can wax on for three pages about walking up a set of stairs and I will read eagerly.

I can tell when a TV series' writer team is changing around significantly. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes for the worse. I'm sure you've read people talking about how they stopped watching so-and-so series because it was getting lame. That's the writers at fault right there. The actors haven't changed.

Are you suggesting that James Patterson's ghost writers get royalties? Because I don't believe that's the case. I _do_ know that if Hugh Howey decided to ghost write for a bestselling sci-fi writer instead of writing Wool, his life would be vastly different right now.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

nomesque said:


> I don't get annoyed by 'dilution of the art' or 'breaking a sacred bond', etc - I just consider it irritatingly unethical. I don't like seeing, let alone experiencing, unethical behaviour from a business. Do I take issue with the ghostwriter? Nope. The person making the choice to publish a product that deliberately misleads the public is the person I take issue with.


I feel the same way. As for the ghost-writer of fiction novels, I don't think they're being unethical. I _do_ think they're missing out on more money and on building a reader base, on "brand/name" loyalty, and on a long-term business that brings in income even when the writing isn't happening.

If you're a ghost-writer, you get paid once, and then you don't get paid again until you write something else. Short-term, sure, it can be good, but at what cost? It's not a long-term strategy like writing your own novels can be, IN MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE. I recognize that others will disagree.


----------



## EllenWaite (Dec 4, 2013)

nomesque said:


> I don't get annoyed by 'dilution of the art' or 'breaking a sacred bond', etc - I just consider it irritatingly unethical. I don't like seeing, let alone experiencing, unethical behaviour from a business. Do I take issue with the ghostwriter? Nope. The person making the choice to publish a product that deliberately misleads the public is the person I take issue with.


This is not an ethical issue. Not in the least. If someone were to steal my work and put their name on it, then yeah. That'd be unethical. If I hand over my work willingly in return for cash and they put their name on it, well, then that story is theirs. But seriously? No one is being harmed. The reader, the authors involved. Zero harm.



ellecasey said:


> Why do I care? Because I work in this industry. Publishing is my life. The industry shifts and moves in directions all the time. _Trends_ in my chosen industry certainly do concern me personally. They concern me very much.


Right, but this "trend" has been around longer than the both of us combined. In fact, it's an institution all its own. I care about publishing and trends and all that jazz too. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't discuss this sort of thing if you want to. I just don't see anything constructive coming from such a conversation. Writers have always done this, and they'll continue to do it. I don't understand the outrage, but you're entitled to it all the same. It's just kind of offensive when you talk about ghostwriters like they're scum. At the end of the day, what I do with MY work and how I manage my relationship with my readers is my business. Don't be so quick to judge.

I'm going to head to bed in a bit. I fully expect to see 10+ pages of angry discussion when I wake up.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> I usually agree with Hugh on most things, but not this one. You need both, plot and storytelling/prose. Anyone can take the Wool plot and muck it up terribly. Hugh can wax on for three pages about walking up a set of stairs and I will read eagerly.


I too, appreciate excellent prose (which Hugh has), but I can look at some of the bestselling books of recent years and see that it doesn't matter for many readers.



ellecasey said:


> I can tell when a TV series' writer team is changing around significantly. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes for the worse. I'm sure you've read people talking about how they stopped watching so-and-so series because it was getting lame. That's the writers at fault right there. The actors haven't changed.


Sometimes it's just because a series has run its course.



ellecasey said:


> Are you suggesting that James Patterson's ghost writers get royalties? Because I don't believe that's the case. I _do_ know that if Hugh Howey decided to ghost write for a bestselling sci-fi writer instead of writing Wool, his life would be vastly different right now.


I would suggest that his collaborators are way better off financially than if they had written a book of their own instead of ghostwriting the Patterson book. Of course Hugh is better off to have written Wool--you just chose the 1 in 10,000 outlier. What if you randomly took 1000 sci-fi books that were published to Amazon last year, average their profits and see if the author would be better off getting a ghostwriter's take.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Wow.  Scum is most definitely your word, not mine.  I never even got close to that one, nor do I feel that way.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> I would suggest that his collaborators are way better off financially than if they had written a book of their own instead of ghostwriting the Patterson book. Of course Hugh is better off to have written Wool--you just choose the 1 in 10,000 outlier. What if you randomly took 1000 sci-fi books that were published to Amazon last year, average their profits and see if the author would be better off getting a ghostwriter's take.


Every indie who's made it big as a self-published author *could* have been a hell of a ghost-writer, myself included. You too. I can name a 100. Hell, I don't have to name them. go look at Amazon's bestseller list. Personally, I'm glad they didn't go that route.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

Ghost writing's a job, writing's a career.  

I'm just happy I have a job that allows me to write and improve - most don't.  

Believe me, I've thought of the pros and cons of ghostwriting a lot more than many - I've been doing it for a year.  Would I rather my own books were successful and I could stop taking crummy writing projects that I don't want to do?  You bet - everyday!  But know what?  I can't.  It's that or get a 'real job,' and know what, I'll take this any day of the week.  I think most here would agree with me. 

If you don't like the look of the back alleys of writing town then don't go there.  Would you like to discuss some of the things that go on in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries were writers really get screwed?  How about writing a 50,000 word novel for $30?  How about some of those rip-off artists that strip your book and sell it God knows where?  That's the dark side.

What you're talking about here is a walk in the park.  But really it's just a job like any other.  I don't think the guy flipping burgers 8 hours a day is really worried that he's missing out on future opportunities - he's trying to scrape by and pay that power bill and hopefully not get an overdraft charge this month, maybe two.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I have a friend who has ghost-written bestselling novels.  She seems happy with that, though she's keen to make her own name as an author too, and has released literary fiction that has been very well reviewed.

I don't have any problem with the ghost-authors.  They accept a deal that they are happy with, and they write the book.

I do, however, slightly look down on 'authors' who use ghost-writers as a matter of course.  I can understand a bestseller using one to hit a deadline due to illness, or a chronic case of writer's block.  Celebrity autobiographies or worse, 'novels' though?  It annoys me, because some celebrities ARE perfectly capable of writing their own book, but we'll never know who they are.  We can't admire their multi-talented skills, because we have to just assume that somebody else wrote it.

I have far, far more respect for the authors who list cover credit to a 'co-author' - even if that 'co-author' is basically a ghost.  I don't care, because they are being open that it's not all their own work.

As a reader, substituting ghost written work for the work of the author I thought I was buying - well, it feels like a con.  Unless that author's work has always been ghosted, by the same ghost-writer.

I've bought and read some later books by authors I enjoy where I suspect a ghost - because of a change in tone, style, or character.  I hope I'm wrong.  I'd far rather read an official continuation of someone else's series than something that purports to be by one author but is actually by another.


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

I would be happy to take on a ghost writing job that paid well, up front. For a beginning or intermediate-level writer, it could be a good learning experience.Heck, I can see how it would be fun to write books on behalf of various experts as a career. It's also all about the writing, and the named author can take over for the publicity etc. I don't feel like the writer is necessarily missing out.

But as a reader/consumer, I feel it's deceptive.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm a big cricket fan and read a lot of cricket autobiographies, and they're basically all ghost-written. I don't really care about that though, because all I'm reading about is the story of that player and I don't really care who put the words on the paper. I'd even be happy to ghost write one myself if I got to hang out with one of my favorite players, listening to loads of stories about his career.

For fiction, nope. Don't like it, wouldn't do it. If I write something it's mine, and it gets my name on it. A collaboration is different, but there's no way I'd write a novel for someone else to pretend they wrote.

Sitting there for hours and hours writing out someone else's story is a job. I don't write fiction to do a job. I write it to have a good time doing something I love. I work hard, and I put the hours in, presently for very little reward other than the simple joy of seeing a story I created appear in front of me. But what comes out gets my name on it (or a name I make up!) and that's it.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

EllenWaite said:


> This is not an ethical issue. Not in the least. If someone were to steal my work and put their name on it, then yeah. That'd be unethical. If I hand over my work willingly in return for cash and they put their name on it, well, then that story is theirs. But seriously? No one is being harmed. The reader, the authors involved. Zero harm.


I disagree. It's plagiarism, in my opinion (as opposed to copyright infringement):



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/plagiarize?q=plagiarism said:


> to use another person's idea or a part of their work and pretend that it is your own


... and while I do think it's far more of an issue in academic circles, I still consider plagiarism unethical. But the thing with ethics is... they can differ from person to person. My ethics aren't yours. You'd probably be appalled by some of the areas in which I don't bother to have ethics. 



EllenWaite said:


> I'm going to head to bed in a bit. I fully expect to see 10+ pages of angry discussion when I wake up.


Sleep tight!


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

I think ghost writing can be a very good thing. For instance, if someone has had an interesting life and wants to turn that life into a story, but they aren't a good writer, I don't see any problem with them reaching out to a ghost writer. But if I read a bestseller, who has a string of novels, to find out some have been ghost-written... yes, as a reader, I would be annoyed. 

As a writer I can see why it happens. But as a reader, it would annoy me. I don't think I would ever buy one of their books again.


----------



## Steve W. (Feb 23, 2011)

I don't have a problem with it at all. In fact, I've done a couple work-for-hire gigs, and they've paid pretty good. More than that, they've helped me improve in my own writing.  I'd do more if the opportunity came up. And it's not that I can't write my own stuff - I can, and do, but having the option to write and get money now,  is something that enables me to cut back my day-job hours and do what I really love doing: writing. I am very grateful to those book packaging agencies, and individuals who offer such opportunities to writers. And it's not as if ghostwritten books are new; we've all grown up reading books that were ghostwritten. Franklin W. Dixon, the author of the Hardy Boys series, isn't a real person. It's the name used by any one of the dozens of authors who write in that series. But when I was growing up he was my favorite author.  Patterson didn't always credit his "collaborators" and who knows if he does all the time still. 

I look at it like a net positive for all involved. The writers are getting paid. The person getting credit is getting what they want, and readers are getting access to new books. I see no losers in the scenario.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

It bugs me because the reader is being misled. Lied to. 

If a reader says "I love this author! The way he/she writes really speaks to me. I follow their blog. "
(or any version of the above)
then the reader is connecting with that writer and his/her work. Not with someone they hired. It's like buying a knock-off purse without realizing it. Not to mention that this author will command a better ranking and higher prices, for a book that may otherwise not achieve that, without working for it other than forking over cash.

It's lying to your fans. Making a fool of them.  If I found out some of my favourite authors were doing this, I would not read any more of their titles.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

EDIT: Unlocking now.

Folks:

Interesting discussion, passionate comments... I read the entire thread up until about 3AM last night and then went to bed (I have to sleep sometime), at which point the discussion went pear-shaped. (Makes note to self to look up origins of "went pear-shaped.")

Greg, please stop making personal comments about Elle. I've edited your latest post to remove the personal remarks and, frankly, the post is stronger without them.

Everyone, please refrain from personal commentary. I'm going to reopen the thread, but future posts that include personal commentary about other members will be removed in their entirety.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to PM me rather than post in the thread, so as to not derail the thread any further.

Tone, people, tone.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

I quite like the subtle way the UK deals with ghost writing. Here we separate the ownership rights within copyright from the moral rights.

Copyright can be assigned - by way of sale, gift by deed etc. But moral rights can't be sold - they can only be contractually prevented from being exercised. It's a subtle difference but it means that a ghost writer can sell copyright, but not the right to assert moral rights (which in the UK are the right to be identified, and the right to object to derogatory treatment).

So if you see a book published with "The author asserts his/her moral rights..." or "Moral rights have been asserted" then it's NOT ghost-written.

If it's not there, it could be omission, but it's also a bit of a tell that the book may have been ghost-written.

That gives a useful balance - people can sell copyright, licence parts of it etc, like all intellectual property (and the analogies to other IP are interesting - would people object to selling a trademark or patent on the same artistic grounds?), but they can't sell the right to assert moral rights. They can only contract not to use their moral rights.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I understand your quandry, Elle. I am the same way. From a business perspective, I think Patterson is a genius at making money (and he had ghostwriters before he had collaborators). And ghost writers know the deal going in, although I think they are usually getting the short end of the stick if they're writing for bestselling authors.

BUT...and this is where my emotional, artsy, and extremely overworked side takes over. It feels like cheating. Basically, they're doing the easy part, which is coming up with an idea. Good Lord, I'll never have enough time in my life to write the ideas I have today, much less the ones that will come every day after. Coming up with an idea is the easy part. The hard part is the writing, and that's the part they get away with not doing but taking all the credit for. I think it upsets my sense of fairness.

Then I remind myself that life isn't fair and I shrug and go on. But I get what you're saying.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

ellecasey said:


> Yeah, so what's my problem? Why does it bug me?


I'm not sure, but then again, I'm not sure why it bugs the hell out of me too.

Good on authors getting paid to write, I would never deny any author such a thing.

But yeah, it's something that greatly annoys me.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I gotta admit - I've been thinking about hiring a ghost writer or collaborator or whatever.

I've got two series going, one selling well, the other doing pretty good. I can't keep up. I am way, way behind on a non-fiction project as well.

Hiring someone to take my plot outline and fill in the goodies would really help me out.

But I'm not going to do it. Like so many of you, it bugs me. I almost feel like I would be cheating the readers.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

This thread has really got me thinking. My first reaction is much like Elle's, but after giving is some thought, here's what I've come up with.

First, having an imagination that can come up with good story ideas and writing are two completely different skill sets that have no relation to each other other than that they are complementary. Someone can have great story ideas but not be able to convey them in words in a way that is entertaining. Likewise, someone may be a great writer and love writing, but not have the imagination to come up with story ideas. How many times have you seen writers who just write one book and then say that they have no other ideas, that they just had this one story in them that needed to be told? It's rare for someone to have both skill sets in equal measure. The only proof we need is the rarity of bestsellers that have both an excellent plot and excellent writing. So what's the problem with a skilled writer being hired to write the ideas of a skilled plotter?

*Writing isn't the hard part for everyone. For some people it's the ideas. *Why don't editors quit editing other people's words and write their own? Because it's two different skill sets. I see this as the same situation. Are some editors also writers? Yes. Are some ghostwriters also novelists or writers under their own names? Yes. However, that's coincidental overlap.

Second, ghostwriting is a job. Saying that it's a better long term strategy to write your own stuff is irrelevant if ghostwriting is your job. You can't go to your landlord and say you don't have rent but don't worry because you're following a long term plan that will guarantee you'll have rent in the future. The grocer doesn't care about your long term plans and neither does the utility company. If an aspiring novelist can get a job as a ghostwriter, that can be much more beneficial than working at McDonald's. At least ghostwriting will give them experience that will help in their own writing (and pay better). Bottom line is, almost all people need to have a job while writing. Saying that they should give up ghostwriting to write their own stuff is no different than telling someone they need to quit their 9-5 in order to devote more time to writing their own stuff. I don't think anyone would think that's good advice. Why is it different when the job is ghostwriting? I can see how it feels different, but it isn't.

Third, I'm surprised how many people have a problem with autobiographies being ghostwritten. Most people here will say that writing is a skill that needs to be honed and practiced and improved upon. Yet we expect someone who did something amazing enough in life for us to want to read about it to also devote their time to learning this skill? If someone's a Grammy winning singer, it's not enough that they've devoted their life to honing their singing and showmanship skills, now they also have to become a writer in order to tell their story? Who would take time away from the career they're passionate about and have spent a lifetime cultivating to learn another skill? If you were a famous enough writer that people wanted to see your story adapted to the medium of film, would you quit writing in order to learn how to be a filmmaker to tell that story? Or would you work with people who already possess those skills?

Fourth, as far as readers being deceived or wanting to seek out the ghostwriter's own writing, it is being assumed that the ghostwriter is writing in their own voice. Some writers are skilled at writing in someone else's voice. This also assumes the writer would be able to write interesting stories on their own or that readers would enjoy their voice telling a different story. Some writers need the ideas to come from somewhere else. Even if it's just as simple as an existing world to play in. This is why there is the phenomenon of excellent fanfiction writers who can not/will not write original fiction. They work best when given a framework to work within. Plot and prose cannot be so easily separated. To assume that a book's prose would be just as engaging telling a different story is as crazy as assuming that any of your stories would be just as engaging with someone else's prose. The two are too tightly entwined. There are great writers without their own stories to tell just like their are people who can come up with great stories and plots but lack the skill to come up with the words to get from awesome plot point one to the crazy plot twist to the nail biting climax etc.

I can understand a reader feeling betrayed that the public face of a book is not the person who actually wrote it, but that person is the one who caused that particular book to be published. We don't feel betrayed when people sell their products that they had the idea for but didn't actually craft themselves. It feels different with writing because writing is art and personal, but is it really different?

Anyway, these are the thoughts I had as I read through this thread. My knee-jerk reaction is to be against the concept of ghostwriting, but when I take my emotions out of it and look at it rationally, I can't really find any fault with it. I could never do it because I'm too much of a control freak. I won't let a publisher touch my stuff, much less a ghostwriter .

Ghostwriters getting screwed over with their contracts is a different matter. It happens to them just like it happens to traditionally published writers. No different.

And sorry for rambling. I haven't slept yet .


----------



## KellyHarper (Jul 29, 2012)

Perhaps I'm wrong, because I don't pay strict attention to him, but don't Patterson's books include both author's names?

Like Elle, I'm torn on ghost writing (though I don't think it rubs me quite the same way it rubs her). That said, I think open collaboration is a great thing. I tend to view Patterson as a story teller, not just a writer, per se. He's involved in the creative process that brings the story to market, even though he's not the one crafting the sentences. 

It's the same way I view Hollywood. A movie "belongs" to the director, though he's very far from the only person involved in any aspect of its creation. An author's job is a little different given the medium, though both authors and directors (and everyone involved in both processes) are in the business of story telling. And that's what the consumer is paying for--an entertaining story.

(OK... that was a bit "ranty". The gist of my thoughts are that I'm okay with ghostwriting, I would just prefer that it be publicly acknowledged when someone else has lent a significant hand in the creative process.)


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

90daysnovel said:


> I quite like the subtle way the UK deals with ghost writing. Here we separate the ownership rights within copyright from the moral rights.
> 
> Copyright can be assigned - by way of sale, gift by deed etc. But moral rights can't be sold - they can only be contractually prevented from being exercised. It's a subtle difference but it means that a ghost writer can sell copyright, but not the right to assert moral rights (which in the UK are the right to be identified, and the right to object to derogatory treatment).
> 
> ...


^^^This is really cool.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I can see both sides.

On one hand, if I bought a Picasso and later discovered it was actually painted by one of his students, I'd be upset.

On the other hand, I don't think Alexander Calder did all of his own welding.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Well, I guess I can mark ghosting for Elle Casey off my bucket list...


Seriously, though, my issue w ghostswas always quality. I've read series where the publisher brought in ghosts and some of them just totally sucked. Would've been nice to know who they were so I could avoid their future work. But that was in the days of paperbacks. Wit the ability to return ebooks quality is just a minor inconvenience.

If I had my druthers, I'd be a ghost writer. A highly selective/choosy one.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

KellyHarper said:


> It's the same way I view Hollywood. A movie "belongs" to the director, though he's very far from the only person involved in any aspect of its creation. An author's job is a little different given the medium, though both authors and directors (and everyone involved in both processes) are in the business of story telling. And that's what the consumer is paying for--an entertaining story.


Actually, a movie "belongs" to the producer. If it wins a best picture award, it's the producer who gets it. Producers vary on how creatively involved they get, but they get the credit.

In Hollywood, the writer is the last person who matters. Most people can't name a single screenwriter. And even if they can, it's practically unheard of for just one writer to work on a film. Most screenplays are rewritten by a couple of different people. Yet moviegoers don't complain about being deceived because the name on the credits isn't the person who actually wrote the whole screenplay. I know it feels different with novels, but why? Aren't movies just as much a creative outlet as novels?

I don't know why this interests me so much. I think it's sleep deprivation. The more I think on it, the more it emotionally irks me and the more I'm rationally okay with it, which is a confusing place to be. I think we're all just too close to writing as a craft/profession/passion to really be objective on the matter. Now I'm curious to do some Googling to look for reader opinions and more information.


----------



## Cheyanne (Jan 9, 2013)

I'm super late to this post but I just want to add that it bothers me too, Elle. A LOT. When I was a kid, my teacher had all 280ish Babysitters Club books by Ann Martin and I read every single one. Ann Martin was my favorite author... someone I looked up to. Years later when I discovered that Ann only wrote a few books and the rest were ghostwritten by several authors at Scholastic, it felt like a punch to the stomach. I'm still not over it. I felt betrayed. And that's how I feel about people using ghost writers now. It's just a sham.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

A movie is a collaborative work of creativity with one boss. Most novels are only collaborative once the creative part is done, so it's not a good comparison. A reader's expectation is that the name on the front cover is the person who told the story.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

I understand Elle's point in the general sense. But in reality many of the big names that employ ghost writers are essentially just brands, not authors. V.C. Andrews has been dead for how long, and yet she still has new books coming out. Her fans know she's dead. But it is the brand they follow. 

I think part of the problem, Elle, is you are working from the assumption that any book can sell well. And all things being equal, an author would make more money self publishing than being a ghost writer. But the truth is success in this business is as much dumb luck as it is hard work. You can't say success is ONLY about working hard without insulting every writer who busted their butt, follows the rules, and still doesn't have a bestseller. Luck plays a huge part in it. So does branding and so does money. Darcie Chan spend thousands of dollars on advertising and reviews. John Locke spend thousands buying reviews and promoting his work. And no, I'm not trying to turn this into a "buying reviews" thread. I'm simply pointing out that if neither of them had the cash on hand to afford those opportunities, I suspect we wouldn't be talking about them now. When you look beneath the surface, the actually plucky bootstrapper with $1 in the checking account who hits it big is rare. 

So I'm someone who loves to write, but maybe I don't have the resources to promote. Or I don't have the skill to promote and do all of the administrative stuff. Or I simply have no interest in editing and proofreading and formatting and all of that. Someone comes to me and offers me 5 cents a word to write an 80,000 word book for them. That's $4,000 in hand and I don't have to do anything with it anymore. And if it fails horribly? No skin off my back. It isn't my name on the book. Meanwhile, I can still work on my own stuff and decide down the road to publish if I want to. 

Insofar as if the book becomes a bestseller, it isn't unheard of for ghostwriting contracts to have bonus clauses that give the ghostwriter additional bonuses based on sales. Because if the ghostwriter produces something for you that becomes a bestseller, you want them to write for you again, don't you?

Further, publishers know these books are ghostwritten and know the ghost writers names. So when ghost writer Jane Doe, who has ghost written three books for a publisher that were all successful, finally comes to the publisher with her own idea, the publisher is going to want to publish that book. 

And finally, a successful ghost writer is going to make contacts that she can use down the road if she does decide to self publish. Because again, even if the general public doesn't know who she is, people in the industry will. If you are good at it, it opens a lot of doors when you need to harness resources and contacts down the road. And if you aren't good at it, well, your name was never on the book anyway so you didn't really hurt your own brand.

I do agree that it is easy for a naive writer to get taken in with a bad ghostwriting contract. But it is also easy for a naive writer to get taken in by a bad editor or a bad cover artist or a bad proofreader or a bad distributor. A writer who walks into ANY deal blind can get screwed. There is nothing inherent in ghost writing that makes it evil.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Another interesting question to ask is how the Internet and the ease of self-publishing change our views of ghostwriters. A lot of famous writers used to ghostwrite. However, that was in a time when there weren't the opportunities we have today. The Internet also makes us feel more connected to writers. I stumbled across a blog post asking how betrayed readers would feel if they found out Shakespeare didn't write all of his stuff himself. Answer: I wouldn't care at all. Not one iota. But an author whose face I've seen, whose website I've been to, whose Twitter and Facebook I follow? Yeah, that would bother me. There's more of a "personal" relationship there which is a little crazy because an author's public persona is just that, a persona. Reading someone's books and friending them on Facebook does not mean we "know" them.

Here's a great article I found about why people ghostwrite: http://www.andrewcrofts.com/WhatIs.html
It is geared more toward non-fiction, but I found it interesting.

From the standpoint of the writer, it boils down to a career choice. I notice that a lot of the arguments against working as a ghostwriter are the same ones we give for not taking traditional publishing contracts, yet there are still authors who take traditional deals and it really is the best decision for them.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Patterson doesn't use ghost writers. He uses collaborators. They get their name on the book and from the interviews and articles I've read, he's very involved in the process of co-writing (providing extensive outlines, working through multiple revisions, etc), so I don't think I'd call it ghosting at all in the traditional sense of the word. It isn't like he just hires someone to write a book and that's it.


This. Patterson's method is nothing like ghosting. It's just co-authoring, which is something I'm actually doing right now with a bigger author. We're doing it as a work-for-hire so although my name will be on the cover, she owns the copyright. She's very involved in the co-writing process (synopsis, extensive outline, multiple revisions).

I also know authros who have done some true ghosting and frankly, if they like doing it (and they're getting what they consider to be good or at least decent money for it) then who am I to complain?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

As a reader I read ghost written stores or rathered packaged books when I was a child with no idea. All the books *sounded* different but I thought it was just because the author was being playful. i.e. The Babysitter's Club and The Royal Diaries.

The first five of these series plus a multitude of others were ghost-written, sometimes under a fictional author name. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/childrens-book-series_n_4432884.html?utm_hp_ref=books

As a writer it annoys me to no end. Quite frankly a lot of the co-authors might as well as be ghosts with credit on the cover when 80% is written by them w/ 20% and oversight by the big author.


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

Maybe some people are too lazy to write their own books.


----------



## KellyHarper (Jul 29, 2012)

RM Prioleau said:


> Maybe some people are too lazy to write their own books.


Lord knows I've been, lately.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

EllenWaite said:


> I've considered that, actually. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me. If anything, it would have been a huge confidence boost, lol.


That would be the time to go on Oprah and confess  (Oh, dear - too late)


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

I'm just curious,  I swear this isn't a loaded question and I'm not trying to prove a point with it, I'm just honestly asking.  Is it the power differential that bothers you/us?  Would we feel the same way about it if say one big guy called up another big guy (say Patterson called up Lee Child or something) and said, "Hey, I got this great idea, but I'm slammed at the moment.  If you write it for me I'll give you x amount of dollars."  would be as upsetting as the current trend?  Alternately, what if it were two complete unknowns and one hired the other to ghostwrite a book for them? (actually, this happens a lot.  I've seen lots of authors write memoirs for people that couldn't or didn't have the time or will to do it themselves but who had really fascinating stories to tell)  Would we feel the same about ghostwriting then?  Or does it not matter?


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

It must be a special kind of purgatory to hire someone to write a book for you and pass it off as your own. Listening to praise and receiving accolades, wincing inside because you know it belongs with someone else, like an ugly loser who hires a hot chick from an escort service to accompany him to the reunion. Or, even better, reading something critical and not being able to pass it along.


----------



## Howietzer (Apr 18, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> I figure if readers like what they get, no one is really screwed. However, it does seem kind of sad for authors if they don't get good terms, which a lot of ghosting projects don't give *(mostly they are pay one time, often not that great* though usually better than first time or low level advances).


lol, that sounds a lot like cover design!!


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

It might be bugging you because you're not thinking of it as a brand. I think that's what did it for me. 

If a series of books is a brand, it's no different than a once well-known designer not designing his/her own line of clothing anymore. They've moved on and the line is still connected with the publicized name (since people know and trust it.) 

I used to feel that it was cheating, but then came that painter. Can't remember his name, but he tried to make this statement by hiring interns to paint all his paintings. These art students would get minimum wage for churning out masterpieces, and then he'd sell them under his name for thousands of dollars. I thought it was clever and made a point, but everyone was furious at him. Something clicked when I read the story and I don't feel the same about doing things like that anymore. 

So if romance writer "A" decides to have her books written by young talented authors, mazel tov!


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

caethesfaron said:


> This thread has really got me thinking. My first reaction is much like Elle's, but after giving is some thought, here's what I've come up with.
> 
> First, having an imagination that can come up with good story ideas and writing are two completely different skill sets that have no relation to each other other than that they are complementary. Someone can have great story ideas but not be able to convey them in words in a way that is entertaining. Likewise, someone may be a great writer and love writing, but not have the imagination to come up with story ideas. How many times have you seen writers who just write one book and then say that they have no other ideas, that they just had this one story in them that needed to be told? It's rare for someone to have both skill sets in equal measure. The only proof we need is the rarity of bestsellers that have both an excellent plot and excellent writing. So what's the problem with a skilled writer being hired to write the ideas of a skilled plotter?
> 
> ...


Great post.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

I was an avid Hardy Boys fan as a kid. When I found out much later that Franklin W. Dixon was a rotating cast of ghostwriters, I was a bit miffed. But I don't think that knowing would have stopped me from devouring the series.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Greg Strandberg said:


> Ghost writing's a job, writing's a career.
> 
> I'm just happy I have a job that allows me to write and improve - most don't.
> 
> ...


Greg, I just want to take a minute to remind you of where I come from, so that you don't make the mistake of thinking I can't identify with you. Some of your unkind comments were clipped out by moderators, but I understand from seeing them in my inbox that you have the impression that I was born with money or didn't have to work to get where I am now. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's some clarification for you:

Two years ago I was working for pennies as a teacher. My husband was unemployed. My husband and I got to the point that we were searching couch cushions for change to buy pasta, the cheapest meal I can feed a family of 5, and one-ply toilet paper. I do not exaggerate. This is not the first time I've been in this position, either. I was a single mom for years, and for some of those years had to move back in with my mom because I couldn't support my babies. I have done "without" for about two decades of my life, but at the same time, I've always been the kind of person to just keep hacking away and dreaming big. I can't help myself. I put myself through law school and taught myself how to write books out of sheer will power with a splash of talent thrown in. Are there better lawyers and writers out there? Sure. Lots and lots of them. That doesn't make my opinions or comments worthless or my perspective wrong.

When I wrote my first 15 or so books, I was also working as a teacher, making 15k a year. For a family of 5, that is not much. I wrote books and worked as a teacher for about 18 months (commuting out of town for two days, 6 hours on a train, per week, every week) before I quit my job to write full time. I understand that most people when starting out do not have the luxury of another income or huge savings to support them, because I've lived that life.

If you use ghost writing to be that fall-back income, that's great. Like I already said, good for you. If you find value in it, there's nothing I can say to you since it's your life and your career. What I _will_ say is it is my opinion that authors who pay ghost-writers to write fiction for them, and then pass it off as their own writing, are doing something wrong. I think it's cheating and it misleads readers. I've done an informal poll on my FB page and they seem to agree with me as do some of the readers commenting on this thread.

And now we know that the UK agrees with me. I believe it is the same in France and probably the other EU countries. These places have very long-standing traditions of supporting the literary arts and having deep respect for authors of creative works.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

As a reader, when I find out a book is ghost-written, I feel cheated. As a buisness person, as long as all parties are happy with the arrangement, I don't have an issue with it. I have no issue with co-authored books from either perspective.

I'm like Elle in that I care about who wrote the novel. I also pretty much agree with everything Jana wrote on this subject.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I understand Elle's point in the general sense. But in reality many of the big names that employ ghost writers are essentially just brands, not authors. V.C. Andrews has been dead for how long, and yet she still has new books coming out. Her fans know she's dead. But it is the brand they follow.
> 
> I think part of the problem, Elle, is you are working from the assumption that any book can sell well. And all things being equal, an author would make more money self publishing than being a ghost writer. But the truth is success in this business is as much dumb luck as it is hard work. You can't say success is ONLY about working hard without insulting every writer who busted their butt, follows the rules, and still doesn't have a bestseller. Luck plays a huge part in it. So does branding and so does money. Darcie Chan spend thousands of dollars on advertising and reviews. John Locke spend thousands buying reviews and promoting his work. And no, I'm not trying to turn this into a "buying reviews" thread. I'm simply pointing out that if neither of them had the cash on hand to afford those opportunities, I suspect we wouldn't be talking about them now. When you look beneath the surface, the actually plucky bootstrapper with $1 in the checking account who hits it big is rare.
> 
> ...


Good post. After reading all the good comments on this thread, I'm narrowing down what really bothers me about ghost-writing fiction:

1. With the ability to bring stories to readers with very little "effort" (I mean aside from actually writing the book), compared to the traditional market pre-ebooks which meant you would pretty much never get your book to market, it seems that people who have talent should not feel like they have to let someone else claim their work as their own in order to make money as a writer. But when a big name author comes to an "unknown" and offers this deal, I think it's really easy for the wannabe writer to get all excited and just jump into it without realizing what they could be giving up. Just like some people jump into bed with agents or publisher just for that recognition factor, even though it could make terrible business sense. Because I _know_ better, I believe _everyone_ should be given the chance to know better, to make a decision based on facts, not outdated info.

2. As authors who see someone with writing talent, we have 3 choices. (1) we can offer to have them ghost-write for us; (2) we can show them the ropes with self-publishing and help introduce them to readers; (3) we can open up a micro publishing company, and pay them an advance and royalties while having their name on the cover [a nice businessy compromise], and show them how to promote while doing some of our own for them.

In my world, Choice 1 is just not an option because of the reasons I already gave. Choice 2 is something I've done a few times and will continue to do. Choice 3 is too much work for me, but I think it would be a great compromise for someone who has the time and inclination.



WPotocki said:


> It might be bugging you because you're not thinking of it as a brand. I think that's what did it for me.
> 
> If a series of books is a brand, it's no different than a once well-known designer not designing his/her own line of clothing anymore. They've moved on and the line is still connected with the publicized name (since people know and trust it.)
> 
> ...


If the publisher or author is up front about that, i.e. "you are not getting a book written entirely or even partly by me" or "you are getting a painting done by one of my employees" [Kincaid], and you buy knowing that, fine. More power to them and their brand. It's the passing off of someone's work as your own that bugs me, and it's the writers taking advantage of other writers that bothers me. That's it.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

There's a famous female mystery writer who apparently does this: has ghost writers churning out books under her name. I gather some of the ghost writers have become well-enough known that they're also getting cover credit, but the books are still majorly marketed under the mystery writer's name.

I've stopped reading her because of this. (also, I stopped enjoying her work)


----------



## Jerri Kay Lincoln (Jun 18, 2011)

It's cheating-cheating the reader. Check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/Sidney-Sheldons-Tides-Memory-Sheldon-ebook/dp/B0089LODTQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389110786&sr=1-1&keywords=sidney+sheldon%27s+the+tides+of+memory

It's a book by Tilly Bagshawe, but it looks like it's by Sidney Sheldon. His name is huge, hers is half that size. At first glance it looks like a Sidney Sheldon book. My editor read one of these books, and said it was good, but it wasn't Sheldon.

Cheating. It's cheating, no matter how you look at it.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Interesting question.

We're discussing something that is industry norm, meaning it's accepted. It's also completely legal.

So now we're on the slipper slope of ethics and morality. Why one person's moral line in the sand is drawn at X, another's at Y.

Here's my stance, which is pragmatic: We're all adults. Our primary job in life is to be happy, and to do no harm. So I always look at situations and ask myself, who is harmed? In ghostwriting, nobody I can see, _as long as the product is as good or better than whatever the brand typically consists of_. In that case, the reader isn't cheated - I doubt anyone would feel bad if their next big name book was better than ever, regardless of who wrote it. One could argue it's disingenuous, and it might be, but the point is it's accepted and common, so arguing the morality of it is like arguing the morality of laws you don't agree with. Kind of pointless. They're laws, meaning they're broadly accepted as the norm, whether it aligns with your personal ethics or not.

If X wants to pay an author Y to ply their craft to generate a product, I see nothing wrong with that - if the offer's usurious, the author is under no obligation to take the deal, and if it's generous, they win. As an example, I have no idea who writes code for Microsoft Windows. Nor do I particularly care. I only care that it works, i.e. satisfies my basic need. I presume the more proficient coders there make plenty for their grasp of their craft. In other words, they're paid well.

With books, I view the author as a brand, which it in fact is. As brand managers, we have to make intelligent decisions for our brand. If we don't, the brand integrity denigrates and it loses value.

If a brand manager decides to bring in a different team to keep the brand viable, or increase the production rate, that's a business decision. If quality is affected negatively, it was a poor decision and will dilute the brand. If it's improved or remains the same, it was a good one.

Now to co-authoring. I have no issue with it, and am doing it this year with several authors. I'm doing it to broaden my reach, and in some cases, to enter new genres. We'll share credit, even if the mechanics of who writes what isn't completely clear. But it will be a collective effort, with both parties more than involved in crafting the product.

I view ghost writing differently: A work for hire, nothing more. At that point, it becomes a matter of money. The cover credit is worth a lot to me as an author because I have sufficient money, so the purely financial part of ghosting wouldn't interest me unless we were talking large numbers. But that's me. It certainly interests plenty of others at lower amounts, because they get to make money writing, albeit without the credit.

As a brand manager who creates my product I would never use a ghost writer. My product is in large part not just the story, but the telling thereof. The voice, the prose, the particular way I spin the yarn that nobody else will do quite the same way. I don't actually think it would be possible to ghost for me, for that reason, and because I feel that I owe the reader my voice if they're paying for a Russell Blake book, I wouldn't use one.

But in terms of ghosting for someone else? It becomes a purely financial question at that point. In business, everyone's got a number at which their services could be bought. Mine would just be much higher than some. Could I write something, taking no credit for it, and sleep well? Sure. If I was compensated equitably. I'd have no problem buying that boat or plane, knowing my ability to write bought it for me.

Elle: If you were offered $50K, would you ghost a novel for someone? If not, how about for $50K a month for as long as it took? Or how about for $500K for the book? Or a million?

See, my answer would depend on the number being discussed. My equation would be simple: It writing a novel for which I get credit would make me in a range between X and Y, if someone is willing to pay me Z, which is, say, double or triple what one of my novels would make, best case...I'd be fighting for that chance. I'd be foolish not to, if money was the business objective. Put another way, if writing 75K words typically earned me, say, $5K first year, $2.5K second, $2.5K in the next two, the value of my 75K words is $10K (not saying it is, just using that as an example). So if Random House had an author with a serious crisis who needed a book ghosted, where the world could never know I'd written it, and offered me $5K, I'd laugh at them. If they offered me $10K I probably wouldn't be interested. If they offered me $25K, I might get more interested, especially if it meant more of those jobs down the line, or exposure to their editors and a shot at them taking on my branded product down the road. If they offered $50K, I'd be foolish to decline it.

At that point it's not about morality, it's about making smart business decisions. In essence, I'm establishing a price for my author name. A premium to not have it on the product. That's all. Simple. A commercial exchange of my work for money, and at the end, I walk away with cash, they walk away with product, to do with as they like.

I have no problem with artists declining ghost writing. It's their prerogative. I'm not in charge of their career, so it's none of my business, and my job in life isn't to impose my morality on them. I might disapprove of their choices, but it's their life, not mine, so I don't let it bother me. I also have no problem with an artist ghosting to pay the bills, or to get rich - whatever their objective. It's up to them to determine whether the compensation's equitable. Again, for me, the number might be 3X whatever one of my books might make me. Or 5X. Or maybe 2X if I've got some big bills to pay. Or maybe 1X if I'm desperate. Or even .5X if I need a new liver. Whatever.

There's an old joke about an old man who approaches a gorgeous young woman, who is washing her car in the driveway. He asks, "Would you have sex with me for ten million dollars?" She gapes in disbelief. "What? Ten million? For one go?" He replies, "Exactly." Her eyes narrow, suspecting a trick. "And nobody would ever know?" He nods. "Or course not. Just between you and me." She smiles. "Then sure, I'd have sex with you for ten million."

He grins. "Well, would you have sex with me for $1?" Insulted, she backs away. "A dollar? Are you nuts? What do you think I am?"

He answers, "We've already established what you are. Now we're just talking price."


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

I'm a FORMER ghost writer. Though, I still ghost write the occasional academic piece or other business document, I'm essentially retired from that worl. I can understand why it bothers people. As a reader it bothers me as well. But, it didn't stop me from doing it, as they say, "gots to get paid!"


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> With books, I view the author as a brand, which it in fact is. As brand managers, we have to make intelligent decisions for our brand. If we don't, the brand integrity denigrates and it loses value.


While I recognize that my name is a brand, I don't like to treat it that way and make it such a cold thing that's just all about business and making money. The reader connection and relationship is a very valuable aspect that isn't part of the "brand" per se. And I wouldn't want to make a business decision that failed to take that into consideration which I think un-credited ghost-writing would do.



blakebooks said:


> Now to co-authoring. I have no issue with it, and am doing it this year with several authors. I'm doing it to broaden my reach, and in some cases, to enter new genres. We'll share credit, even if the mechanics of who writes what isn't completely clear. But it will be a collective effort, with both parties more than involved in crafting the product.


Co-authoring is a completely different animal and I obviously have nothing but love for co-authoring since I've already done it and have 3 more in the works. I think it's great for readers and writers where everyone gets credit, and people get exposed to new, exciting things.



blakebooks said:


> As a brand manager who creates my product I would never use a ghost writer. My product is in large part not just the story, but the telling thereof. The voice, the prose, the particular way I spin the yarn that nobody else will do quite the same way. I don't actually think it would be possible to ghost for me, for that reason, and because I feel that I owe the reader my voice if they're paying for a Russell Blake book, I wouldn't use one.


Well said! I feel the same way about my own writing, and I believe my readers do as well. I owe them the Elle Casey experience, not the "Jane Doe pretending to be Elle Casey" experience.



blakebooks said:


> Elle: If you were offered $50K, would you ghost a novel for someone? If not, how about for $50K a month for as long as it took? Or how about for $500K for the book? Or a million?


This question doesn't make sense. Why? Because ... if you were so good as a writer that someone offered you 50k to write one novel, you wouldn't need to use someone else's name to get readers. Ghost-writers don't make nearly that much unless they're writing a celebrity's bio or auto-bio (non-fiction), and they only make that much when they've already proven they can write really well.

But, assuming we live in a strange new world where someone would approach me to ghost-write a novel for them for 500k, I'd look at the numbers and say this:

"No, thank you. While I'm flattered you like my writing, I have determined that if I take the time I would have used to write your book and deal with all the edits and re-writes, and use it instead to write my own book or two, I will eventually make more than that on the book and the whole world will know it because my name will be on it. And then they'll search out my other works and possibly become readers for life, auto-buying anything I write. That's worth more to me than 500k now."

But as Greg has pointed out, I have the luxury now of making a living from my writing and I can do those numbers with some amount of accuracy. Someone just starting out probably would be very tempted. But then, would they get that offer in the first place? Doubtful.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

JVRoberts said:


> I'm a FORMER ghost writer. Though, I still ghost write the occasional academic piece or other business document, I'm essentially retired from that worl. I can understand why it bothers people. As a reader it bothers me as well. But, it didn't stop me from doing it, as they say, "gots to get paid!"


I find this fascinating. I really do! As writers, we will sometimes choose to do things that would really upset us as readers. Well, not all writers will, but some, yes. A few have spoken up here in the thread.

I don't think many readers get upset with the ghost-writer. In fact, I believe readers will seek out the ghost-writer's other work if they can get their name. It's the authors who pass work off as their own when it's not that get the ire. Those are the Milli Vanillis of the writing world.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Jerri Lincoln said:


> It's cheating-cheating the reader. Check this out:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Sidney-Sheldons-Tides-Memory-Sheldon-ebook/dp/B0089LODTQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389110786&sr=1-1&keywords=sidney+sheldon%27s+the+tides+of+memory
> 
> ...


See, this doesn't bother me. The author's name is there and the book description clearly states up front that she was the author, not Sidney Sheldon. Nobody's hiding anything from anyone. I think this is fair and square. No Milli Vanilli alarms going off.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

dkgould said:


> I'm just curious, I swear this isn't a loaded question and I'm not trying to prove a point with it, I'm just honestly asking. Is it the power differential that bothers you/us? Would we feel the same way about it if say one big guy called up another big guy (say Patterson called up Lee Child or something) and said, "Hey, I got this great idea, but I'm slammed at the moment.


Yes, it would still bother me if it weren't made clear who actually wrote the book. I just don't like the dishonest feel of it.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Elle: On your response to the hypothetical question, your answer was essentially, no, because I think I'll make more. So, if they then doubled the offer?

My point is that I think you object to two elements of ghostwriting - that the compensation wouldn't be equitable, and that the reader is cheated.

The equitable thing is a matter of price. Hit me with the right number, I'm all ears.

The brand management thing is harder, but it's not my problem what somebody else does managing their brand. I don't particularly care if someone who is asking me to ghostwrite is doing the best thing for their brand. That's not my job. My job in that case is to do the chore they're willing to pay me for. That's it.

Managing my brand is my job as an author, so I wouldn't hire a ghostwriter. But that's because I think it would be a poor business decision, because the product quality would suffer. While I obviously have tremendous attachment to my work and it means a lot to me, I tend to remove all that when making business decisions. I can't afford that author pride and attachment the second I take my author hat off. Now I'm brand manager/book seller, and I need to do that well. So I don't use a ghostwriter because my brand manager says it would be a poor business decision. I think he's right, BTW.

But if somebody else's brand manager thinks their author kind of sucks on the last three books, and decides that a chimp could write it better than his next, they should bring a ghostwriter in, if they believe the product will be improved, or at least, not harmed.

I believe the market ultimately punishes or rewards brand management, so there's a certain efficiency to it. As long as readers are satisfied with the brand's products, they will buy them. If the brand deteriorates due to ghost writers, the brand ultimately pays for it, especially in these days of ease of return.

So I'd argue that there's a powerful incentive to managing one's brand quality well, and a huge disincentive to doing anything that might cheapen it.

Which is a long way of saying the only time the reader's really cheated is if they get less than they paid for, not more.


----------



## KerryT2012 (Dec 18, 2012)

Ok so is it any different then a songwriter and singer situation.How many times do you hear a song and associate it with who sang it as opposed to who sat down for months on end writing it?

Also, there are dead authors still producing books - Sidney Sheldon, Virgina Andrews to name a few.....


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Someone just starting out probably would be very tempted. But then, would they get that offer in the first place? Doubtful.


Au contraire, my daughters used to offer me money to ghostwrite their homework for them, and I was an unknown.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Sarwah: I've got an even better one. One of my buddies is a top rewrite guy in Hollywood. He gets paid six figures a week to fix bad scripts, usually once they're either in production, or about to go into production.

His name, until recently, never appeared on a credit. Anywhere. And yet he's worked on many hits. Many of them. Some of the scripts were complete rewrites, where the original scriptwriter had virtually no lines left (it's not uncommon for there to be multiple rewrites, by execs who want to leave "their" mark on the script, to multiple specialists like my friend).

And yet he isn't credited. What he is is making a fortune. I say good on him. The studios are happy, moviegoers are happy (presumably, as the films typically do well), and the "scriptwriter" is happy - he got paid and his name is on the film, which is better than the crap he generated in the first place. Big win for everyone.

Is it honest? Dishonest? I'm not sure what the point is in arguing that. It's legal. It's common and accepted business practice. Arguing the morality of legal things to me is a waste of bandwidth. If they're bad, make them illegal. Fraud is illegal. So is theft. If it's not considered fraud or stealing, whether ten people consider it ethically wrong, and another twenty don't care, and ten more think it's awesome, it kind of doesn't matter in the least, and is a waste of breath. Angels on the heads of pins.

My personal ethical belief about honesty and dishonesty are meaningless to most besides me. I don't do things I think run counter to my morality. That's all I can do. And I can try not to judge. Which I confess I fail at more often than not. But at least I'm trying.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Sarwah2012 said:


> Ok so is it any different then a songwriter and singer situation.How many times do you hear a song and associate it with who sang it as opposed to who sat down for months on end writing it?


Totally different. Actors produce our audio books. No one thinks the person doing the production wrote the book. Besides, the songwriters are given credit if anyone cares to look.

To Blake's question about movies, I think for me it's different because reading is such a personal experience. There is a connection to the writer's story and mind that is like no other. Also we have script doctors for our books too. They are called editors.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Elle: On your response to the hypothetical question, your answer was essentially, no, because I think I'll make more. So, if they then doubled the offer?
> 
> My point is that I think you object to two elements of ghostwriting - that the compensation wouldn't be equitable, and that the reader is cheated.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't do it for any amount of money if I had to hide my name. But again, I'm at a different place in my writing career than I was a couple years ago. The problem with this question is that _no one would have offered me decent money without the success I've already had_. See what I mean? It's not a good question to ask me because it has no basis in reality. You get offered peanuts to ghost-write compared to what you can make as the named author, you get it one time, and you cannot build a reader following unless you're given credit publicly. You have to keep up the writing pace every year, year after year, if you want to keep making money. There is no residual income and no guarantee of future income.

What I have a problem with is the money to some degree, because I do think ghost-writers get cheated in some cases, especially when their name and contribution is kept secret. I have another issue with people who fake-write, who put themselves out there as having written something they didn't. Readers feel cheated, yes. Several have already chimed in.



Sarwah2012 said:


> Ok so is it any different then a songwriter and singer situation.How many times do you hear a song and associate it with who sang it as opposed to who sat down for months on end writing it?
> 
> Also, there are dead authors still producing books - Sidney Sheldon, Virgina Andrews to name a few.....


Sometimes, songwriters own the copyright to their work and they are credited on the album, sometimes they convey all or part of their copyright to another entity. Those who don't convey all their rights continue to earn royalties for as long as they are payable. It's not the same as an anonymous ghost-writer, because even those songwriters who have conveyed their copyrights can re-claim them after 35 years.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Elle: Right. But you don't know that is my point. For instance, Dan Brown (hypothetically) might decide he wants his next one ghostwritten. It's entirely possible the publisher would want someone with good chops on that. So they'd have to pay a bunch to get that person. Happens all the time. I know several folks who have done high dollar ghostwriting, and they're acclaimed authors themselves. So dismissing the question as unrealistic misses the point. It does happen. 

But you wouldn't do it. Which is fine. I would. I don't think either stance makes us right or wrong. You have your reasons. I have mine. Now I just need to find someone willing to pay me 3X what one of my novels would make me...

Sarwa: To the dishonesty question, dishonesty that hurts others is generally illegal. Fraud. I don't disagree that it might be dishonest if something appeared under an author's name that was worse than their norm. But what it if was significantly better? How many readers would have been cheated then? I maintain, none. They got more than they expected and are happy. People only feel cheated when they get less than they paid for, never when they get more. So the dishonesty feels offensive because the ghostwriter is generally not up to the job of doing it better. If he/she were, who would be hurt? The reader who got a better book for it?


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Elle: Right. But you don't know that is my point. For instance, Dan Brown (hypothetically) might decide he wants his next one ghostwritten. It's entirely possible the publisher would want someone with good chops on that. So they'd have to pay a bunch to get that person. Happens all the time. I know several folks who have done high dollar ghostwriting, and they're acclaimed authors themselves. So dismissing the question as unrealistic misses the point. It does happen.


I agree. I know a couple of authors who made six figures ghost writing a single book. BUT I think it was far more likely for authors with that level of talent to ghost write before self-publishing became a hugely viable form of income. If you were relegated to the trad midlist, six figures looked like Richard Branson money.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Just chiming in.    As a finiky reader, I refuse to read anything that is written after the author's demise with the exception of Michael Crichton's Micro because I also like the author they got to help finish it, but that author is getting the credit.
Now on ghost-written books, yes I was hurt when I found out Carolyn Keene was not a real person.  (Nancy Drew)

If I was starving and some big name author offered me a contract to ghost-write I would give it some serious consideration.   If I wasn't starving, I would turn down the offer cold because oh hey big name thinks I can write.  Cool, I will write under my own name and see if it goes anywhere.    But sorry Mr Big Name, you will not be making money off of my hard work.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

I bet tons of books are ghostwritten, books you've probably enjoyed, and you'd have no idea.  

If it doesn't lessen the reading experience, who cares who wrote it.  And if the author is willing to pay that GW $$ to write a book for them, then it's win win, IMHO


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Jana: Upon consideration, what I'm hearing from Elle is that her real objection to it is that she is viewing it in terms of an either/or choice. Either you do ghostwriting, or you self-publish. But that's not necessarily the case. You can certainly do both. Just as you could do both if you were traditionally published. In other words, one doesn't need to frame it that way, unless that's one's circumstance.

Here are some other things to consider: Maybe you're exposed to editors who significantly improve your craft in the process. Or maybe they like you, find you reliable and low drama, and so decide to sign you for your own work. Those things certainly do happen. The book business is a small world, and there's no coincidence that a lot of deals go to NY residents who rub shoulders with publishing folk - because it's easier to hire someone you know than an unknown.

I just don't see the big deal, as long as the offer's equitable. And only the author can make that call. Like I said, if the money was right, I'd be on that like white on rice. All the while publishing my own stuff. Why not? It's never a bad thing to have a bunch more cash...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm a cheap date as a reader.  If the book is good, I don't really care who wrote it as far as a ghostwriter or not.  On the other hand, there are authors I follow.  If I found a book or two didn't cut it, I'd stop reading the author.  Maybe the books didn't cut it anymore because the author started using a ghostwriter.  Maybe the books didn't cut it anymore because the author WASN'T using a ghostwriter and should have.   To me, it's a matter between the author and the ghostwriter. *shrug*

As for series that have been continued by not-the-author after the author's death, I've read some.  Again, if the book fits with the rest of the series, I'm cool.  I appreciate someone continuing the work, as long as the author is credited, which usually happens if the author is dead, right?  Otherwise we all wonder if the author is back as a zombie-author.  How is this different than fanfiction or Kindle World?  Some of the Harry Potter fanfiction is quite good, I'm told; and so is some of the Wool fanfiction.  But I see this whole issue as separate from the ghostwriting question.

Betsy


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Jana: Upon consideration, what I'm hearing from Elle is that her real objection to it is that she is viewing it in terms of an either/or choice. Either you do ghostwriting, or you self-publish. But that's not necessarily the case. You can certainly do both. Just as you could do both if you were traditionally published. In other words, one doesn't need to frame it that way, unless that's one's circumstance.


I totally get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that the people I know won't do it again because self-publishing has made it possible for them to make more money than ghost-writing. When they were stuck in the trad midlist, not so much.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

ellecasey said:


> This girl who is being offered the job is thrilled beyond measure because she's an unknown. But this author likes the girl's writing enough to want to use it for herself. It just feels like the author is taking advantage of her.


Of corse she is taking advantage of her. Each is taking advantage of the other. That is what makes it a win/win situation. They freely enter into the enterprise. Each thinks she is getting more out of it than she puts into it.



> The author *could* theoretically say, "I love your writing. Have you ever considered self-publishing? I think you could do well. I'd be willing to offer you advice and some exposure." But instead, she says, "I love your writing. Could I pay you to write my next book for me?" I don't like that attitude, I guess. I prefer the former.


Sure she could say that. But the ghost writers goals, motivations, and preferences are really none of our business. Its her choice. She decides for herself. I suspect she knows she can self-publish.



> If no one ever has conversations about what is happening in the industry, how do we know if we're making the right decisions? How do we know if the shift is good or bad for us and our readers? Hearing more than one opinion (more than one's own) is important if we're to make good well-rounded decisions.


We don't. We don't decide for other authors. Each individual selects her own business model, and consumers decide what they like for themselves.

Producers often want to define the terms under which the competition operates. But the competition doesn't agree.


----------



## Ethan Jones (Jan 20, 2012)

Maybe it's because when we buy a book from Mr. X, we expect Mr. X to have written it, not some ghost writer or another scribe. It doesn't bother me when the other author's name is stated clearly in the cover. I guess it's like buying a car: what if you went to buy a Corvette and found out it was made by Kia and Corvette just slapped their logo on it? 

So, yes, it is misleading to the readers, and yes, the author who did the work will not get their credit.

And it bugs you, and me, and perhaps others, because we're all human beings and we have the sense of right and wrong in us. This is not right.

Ethan


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

Patterson's approach has bothered me ever since I found out about it. In the beginning, I had read a few of the books written under his name (in collaboration with other people) and really liked some of the books, and then I watched a 60 Minutes special about how he was basically creating a factory of publishing by doing this with so many other authors. It left a horribly bad taste in my mouth to the point where I've never picked up another one of his books. Originally, I had blindly assumed that when he co-wrote a book with someone, he was actively involved in the writing process, not just handing someone a story idea and saying "go with it".

Others may have zero problem with this whatsoever. And good for them. Doesn't mean I'm ever going to buy another one of his books again, however. And that really only affects sales he could have achieved from me, which with the amount of money he makes per books, probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans in any plantation.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Elle,

1. I concede that there’s something a little unseemly about the ghostwriting business. But look a little closer at the complaints levelled here. One part of the outrage is just the rose-coloured glasses coming off; another part is that the ghostwritten books aren’t as good. Now ask yourself whether these people would feel the same if the glasses had come off earlier or the books had been as well or better written. Would these people be complaining about feeling cheated by ghostwriting then? Probably not (e.g., see Betsy’s comment above). 

2. Ghostwriters are only cheated when the terms of their contracts are breached. You can’t compare a bird-in-the-hand contract for real money to some possible future earnings from a book you write in the hope of selling and call it a rip-off—that’s “possible” earnings, not “potential” earnings, because banking on making as much or more off your own book what you’d make from a contract is almost apples and oranges. 

(Nor is this situation unique to ghostwriters. People make these tradeoffs all the time: someone is offered a good job outside his preferred field. Whether he says yes or no depends on his circumstances.)  

3. If your real motivation is to persuade ghostwriters to write their own books, why not just make that case? There’s no need to poop on them for doing something legal, especially when the author is the one engaged in the unseemly side of it. Of course, it doesn’t make much sense for you to presume to know enough about their situations to be able to say with any certainty that they’ll be better off self-publishing when the choice is between real and possible earnings.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Elle, There are a few folks that I know personally who are wonderful writers. Not just good but fast and prolific, too. I've pointed them towards self publishing resources but they sincerely have no desire to write their own stories professionally and certainly aren't interested in being known publicly as an author, but are happy to either write fan fiction for free or be a ghostwriter for others for a fee. It satisfies their creative urge in a noncommittal way.

I think of it as similar to folks who have no desire to be parents but will happily be a surrogate so a couple can have a child. The baby is given over and the surrogate has no further desire to be acknowledged as having carried the pregnancy.

As a reader, I love stories and if I found out a book or books were ghostwriting it would be an interesting piece of trivia to me but it wouldn't lessen my enjoyment one iota.

YMMV. 

Loveya,


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Elle,
> ...
> 
> 3. If your real motivation is to persuade ghostwriters to write their own books, why not just make that case? There's no need to poop on them for doing something legal, especially when the author is the one engaged in the unseemly side of it. Of course, it doesn't make much sense for you to presume to know enough about their situations to be able to say with any certainty that they'll be better off self-publishing when the choice is between real and possible earnings.


I'm not "pooping" on anyone. I'm expressing my opinion about a phenomenon that I believe is going to become more commonplace in our industry, some parts of which or some aspects of which I find objectionable. If you find yourself feeling defensive about something I've said, or defensive on someone else's behalf, that's because we have a difference of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you pooping on me because you don't agree with me? No. Of course not. There is no pooping here (it's possible I enjoy writing this word too much).

At the same time that you say I cannot know enough about someone's situation to be able to say with any certainty that they'll be better off self-pubbling, you must admit that you are in the same boat; you cannot know that they won't be. I believe in this day and age, that if you can write a bestselling ghost-written book, you can write a bestselling self-pubbed book. The barriers to entry are almost gone compared to what they used to be.

My fervent wish is that anyone considering this relationship from the ghost side, knows what they could be giving up. And my other wish is that anyone who hires a ghost-writer will give that writer credit. I think that's the right thing to do. Many (not all) readers agree that this is what they'd like to know - who is actually writing the book.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I'm not "pooping" on anyone. I'm expressing my opinion about a phenomenon that I believe is going to become more commonplace in our industry, some parts of which or some aspects of which I find objectionable. If you find yourself feeling defensive about something I've said, or defensive on someone else's behalf, that's because we have a difference of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you pooping on me because you don't agree with me? No. Of course not. There is no pooping here (it's possible I enjoy writing this word too much).


The author could poop on the person paying him, too, if the work submitted is poop and makes the person paying him look like poop.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

LBrent said:


> Elle, There are a few folks that I know personally who are wonderful writers. Not just good but fast and prolific, too. I've pointed them towards self publishing resources but they sincerely have no desire to write their own stories professionally and certainly aren't interested in being known publicly as an author, but are happy to either write fan fiction for free or be a ghostwriter for others for a fee. It satisfies their creative urge in a noncommittal way.
> 
> I think of it as similar to folks who have no desire to be parents but will happily be a surrogate so a couple can have a child. The baby is given over and the surrogate has no further desire to be acknowledged as having carried the pregnancy.
> 
> ...


I hear ya. I have never met one of these kinds of writers so I can't say anything about their motivations or goals.

Speaking from experience as a surrogate mother, I can say with authority that it's NOTHING like ghost-writing a book. 

Now, my question for you is, if you found out a book was ghost-written and you enjoyed it very much, would you go look to see if that ghost-writer had written anything else?

If you say yes, the good news is that if they were given credit, you could do that. But if they weren't, you and the ghost-writer would be out of luck.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Frankly, I don't see it as cheating so much as correcting a nearly universal human flaw.

To take the emotion we all have concerning books and writing, I will use cornflakes to explain this.

All thinks being equal, cornflakes is cornflakes. If you pay attention, you'll find some brands are better than others, but as a general rule, most people will not give the basic elements of a d*mn what's on the box: it's breakfast and they've gotta eat.

Then comes Kelloggs. And maybe their initial run of cornflakes is so much better than other cornflakes that it gets people talking. Or, much more likely, they hammer that name into people's brains so hard that Kelloggs == cornflakes to them. Doesn't matter because our monkey brains are designed to latch onto connections no matter how stupid our reasons for creating them and now we've decided subconsciously that Kelloggs cornflakes are better than other whether they are or not simply because they're familiar.

Because of this, we're far less likely to shop around for other cornflakes even though the market is much larger and cornflake technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. It doesn't matter anymore if my brand of cornflakes will give you a mouthgasm anymore because I now need to a tectonic shift to override the Kelloggs association.

The deck is stacked against me in every way. I don't have as much of an advertising budget as them and even if I did, my marketing savvy is limited to the word 'mouthgasm'. Basically, I'm stuck trying to keep my head above water and waiting for a miracle to happen like Oprah discovering my cereal or erroneously claiming Kelloggs will kill you.

But maybe, I think I don't want to play that lottery where I either win big or die. If Kelloggs is willing to pay bulk prices for my cereal, then slap their magic name on it that will convince more people to try them, why shouldn't I? I make some money and get my product out there, and if someone gets a mouthgasm from it, are they going to care that it wasn't 'really' Kelloggs?

Really, all I'm doing is saving them from the brand name fallacy by using it against their traitorous brains.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> At the same time that you say I cannot know enough about someone's situation to be able to say with any certainty that they'll be better off self-pubbling, you must admit that you are in the same boat; you cannot know that they won't be. I believe in this day and age, that if you can write a bestselling ghost-written book, you can write a bestselling self-pubbed book. The barriers to entry are almost gone compared to what they used to be.


Well, I didn't claim to know people wouldn't be better off, I claimed to know that ghostwriting and self-pubbing weren't equivalent alternatives. You're approaching the choice between self-pubbing and ghostwriting like it's a choice between being an engineer and being a technician or between an investment that returns 10% and one that returns 20%. But it's not. It's more like a choice between being a plumber and being an astronaut-one's possible if you have the skill, the other might never be possible, even if you have all the skills. A ghostwriting contract is a guarantee of employment at x-number of dollars; self-pubbing a book is a guarantee of nothing. You can say that it's easier now than it was, but not by much. The odds of success are still extremely small.


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

Ghost writers are part of my dream-life business plan.  I have so many ideas and am such damn perfectionist I'll never get them done unless I bring in help.

Patterson is really just doing for books what Thomas Kinkade did for painting...turned it into an industrial operation. More power to him. Better than having a trad-publisher do it (which is what they basically did with romance novels written with pub-owned pseudonyms.)

For decades, screenwriters were dissed while directors got all the credit, so I'm all for writers getting empowered.

Now, what's the going rate to hire a ghost-writer?


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> I believe in this day and age, that if you can write a bestselling ghost-written book, you can write a bestselling self-pubbed book. The barriers to entry are almost gone compared to what they used to be.


Selfpublishing has leveled the book playing field a bit, but this is far from true, I believe.

Take for example Russell Blake's story about how after 6 months of writing, his books didn't make much at all. Now, after two years of writing and promoting, those original books probably sell in cartloads. He's built a brand now. The original books that weren't selling in the first few months are the exact same quality, but now they have the brand recognition, and the momentum of Amazon's algorithms behind them.

Sure if you can write a stable of great books, you can build a brand, and your books can become bestselling. But just writing a book that would have been best-selling under a big brand, putting it in your own name and self-publishing--it is unlikely to become bestselling by itself unless it is one of the massive outliers.

Brands (big author names) sell books a lot easier than anything else. That's why ghostwriting exists.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> ...
> Mimi, do you really think it's "stupid" to write your books yourself instead of paying someone else to do it secretly? I don't believe it. I think I know you better than this.
> ...


My point is just... holy crap, I do everything myself and maybe I shouldn't. I've recently started outsourcing the proofreading, so I suppose that is a start. The formatting only takes about 15 minutes per book, and doing the covers is something I enjoy. I guess my system isn't too bad.

Sometimes it's a chore to answer all the emails, especially if some are technical support questions, but I suppose that's a good problem to have.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> ...
> I think part of the problem, Elle, is you are working from the assumption that any book can sell well. And all things being equal, an author would make more money self publishing than being a ghost writer. But the truth is success in this business is as much dumb luck as it is hard work.....


This is absolutely 100% true.

Fantastic books come out and sink to the bottom, never to be seen. Yet there is plenty of less-remarkable stuff that sells quite well with a branded author name and platform, indie or trad-pub.

That's where this becomes one of the main kboards meta-discussions about writing vs. marketing, quality vs. quantity.

And back to the competitive advantage angle ... we rarely agree on here, but most kboards folks feel having more books under your name is an advantage. We generally advise against multiple pen names. If an author is hiring out ghostwriters to churn more quantity than they could on their own, unless the work is that much worse than the original author's (and let's be honest here about what it takes to be on the bestseller list ... I've been there myself and I am not god's gift to prose) that author will have an advantage. Plus they'll have more time for marketing.

It absolutely is a competitive advantage, and that's why it bothers.



ellecasey said:


> ... I believe in this day and age, that if you can write a bestselling ghost-written book, you can write a bestselling self-pubbed book. The barriers to entry are almost gone compared to what they used to be....


I have to disagree. I mean... "can," sure. They can. But I wrote 15 books before I penned a bestseller, and I think you wrote many more than that before hitting the NYT list. Perhaps if either of us had been working for a bestselling author, we sould have learned faster. And maybe there's something about a boss/employee thing that works? Perhaps the boss would say, "No, you have to go with the fan-favorite love interest or we're dead. I don't care that you like the Beta boy," and that would be smarter than our individual artistic desires.


----------



## RJ Kennett (Jul 31, 2013)

micki said:


> I can see why it bugs you. But why would one call themselves a writer when they aren't...... I suppose it's like getting someone to write ones exam paper and taking credit for the high marks.......


This is exactly why it bugs me.

Imagine that exact scenario: a student hires someone else to write their doctoral thesis. They're both consenting adults and agree to the terms, so what's the problem? The problem is that the public gets a "professional" who may not know their craft. The school issuing the credentials would view that as CHEATING, because it is.

Now, we're not talking about psychologists or something, we're talking about writers, writing for someone else's enjoyment. If the reader enjoys the product, what does it matter whose name is on the cover? If they don't enjoy it, no harm no foul. But the principle remains the same. It's dishonest.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I believe in this day and age, that if you can write a bestselling ghost-written book, you can write a bestselling self-pubbed book. The barriers to entry are almost gone compared to what they used to be.


Barriers to entry have fallen, but that tells us little about the probability that a book becomes a best seller. There is a good argument that with the barriers gone, the probability of a given book becoming bestseller have decreased. Its harder.

Nobody seems able to identify which books will become best sellers. That lends support to the idea there are lots of books with the literary potential to become best sellers.

So, an author has to evaluate the fixed fee he gets from work for hire against the expected value of the KDP book. We can't say much about which is better for the author without knowing some numbers and the authors personal situation. Even then, there are sets of outcomes that defy rational comparison because we have such poor KDP probability estimates.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm pretty sure collaborators with Patterson do get royalties. They are treated as co-writers. 
http://davidellis.com/2012/03/guilty-pleasure-what-i-learned-from-co-writing-with-james-patterson/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/james-patterson-the-way-he-writes-he-might-as-well-be-printing-money/2013/01/17/cfbc8a62-5e9e-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html



> In most of his collaborations with about a dozen authors, Patterson says he begins the process by making a detailed outline of around 70 pages. After that, the collaborator sets about producing a draft, sending him pages about every two weeks for feedback. Finally, Patterson takes over, producing one to five new drafts until he's satisfied.


Not exactly just writing down a one line idea and getting someone else to do all the work, from the sounds of it.

Anyway.

As for actual ghost-writing, I don't think it hurts anyone as long as the ghost-writer is fairly paid and understands what they are getting. Work-for-hire agreements don't generally pay royalties either. I know a couple of people who wrote mega-selling Star Wars stuff who got paid the cash up front and saw none of the millions. Fair? Well, they signed the contract.

On the writer side, I think this all just underlines that you need to do your research, figure out what your wants and needs are, and make sure that anything you sign or agree to is something you can live with.


----------



## Buttonman88 (Apr 11, 2013)

It will become the norm in 100 years. Everything ghostwritten and the process of writing will be no different than the process of conceiving in the Republic of Gilead.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Deke said:


> Patterson is really just doing for books what Thomas Kinkade did for painting...turned it into an industrial operation. More power to him.


And, trust me, this same discussion takes place regularly about Thomas Kinkade in art discussion forums; at least I know it does in the fiber art forums.

As well as contracting out parts of the art quilt process and not giving the contractee credit.

Betsy


----------



## Buttonman88 (Apr 11, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And, trust me, this same discussion takes place regularly about Thomas Kinkade in art discussion forums; at least I know it does in the fiber art forums.
> 
> As well as contracting out parts of the art quilt process and not giving the contractee credit.
> 
> Betsy


I bet Kinkade's quilt are more readable than Patterson's books and the threads are tied up neater in the end!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Buttonman88 said:


> I bet Kinkade's quilt are more readable than Patterson's books and the threads are tied up neater in the end!




He does paintings, but still gets discussed there fairly frequently. In my QuiltArt mail list, he is known as "He Who Shall Not Be Named."

Betsy


----------



## Perro Callejero (Dec 23, 2013)

One of the things that bothers me about ghostwriting is the notion that the *name is more important than the writing*. I don't like that idea, but it usually seems to be true.

Take, for example, the J.K. Rowling/Robert Galbraith story. _The Cuckoo's Calling_ came out, got good reviews, and hardly sold at all. Then somebody leaked that J.K. Rowling was the actual author, and the book instantly became a massive bestseller. None of the writing in the book changed, but when the name did, the success did too.


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

When I see the Patterson name on a co-written novel, I look upon it as a sort of "Produced by" credit in movies. I think there will be more of that going on as some writers become ambitious and become a sort of publishing imprint in their own right. I'd like to know what Patterson's deal is with trad publishers.  Why isn't he forming his own publishing company given the number of titles he supervises/writes?  Or has he?


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

M.F. Soriano said:


> Take, for example, the J.K. Rowling/Robert Galbraith story. _The Cuckoo's Calling_ came out, got good reviews, and hardly sold at all. Then somebody leaked that J.K. Rowling was the actual author, and the book instantly became a massive bestseller. None of the writing in the book changed, but when the name did, the success did too.


The same thing happened when Stephen King was outed as Richard Bachman. I was a voracious horror reader then and remember reading a Bachman book and thinking "this guy sounds just like Stephen King." I continued to buy the books because I liked the writing. But I was clearly one of the exceptions since his sales went up 10 times over when the general public found out.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Tes Sorrensen has admitted that he ghostwrote _Profiles in Courage_ for JFK, who accepted the Pulitzer. I wonder whether JFK shared any of the prize.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> The same thing happened when Stephen King was outed as Richard Bachman. I was a voracious horror reader then and remember reading a Bachman book and thinking "this guy sounds just like Stephen King." I continued to buy the books because I liked the writing. But I was clearly one of the exceptions since his sales went up 10 times over when the general public found out.


I was one of those who made the connection between Bachman and King while reading Thinner, because there were way too many references that an established writer would never make concerning another author. One was a reference to "that horror writer in Maine who writes all those bad novels", which immediately told me that no one writing in this genre would dare call King a bad writer unless there was some connection. Then there was some other reference in the book as well that I remember thinking, "I'll bet this is the author himself" and then a few months after I read the book, it was revealed.


----------



## EllenWaite (Dec 4, 2013)

ゴジラ said:


> It surprises me that so many people feel upset or betrayed about who writes the book. I don't care about the writer. At all. I don't care if the name on the front has to do with who produced the content, I don't care about the author's personal life relative to the work, I don't care what the author eats for breakfast.
> 
> I love books. That's all I care about.
> 
> ...


Effin' nailed it.


----------



## gonedark (May 30, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

MarenHayes said:


> Ghostwriting is always about the financial realities of branding. A celebrity hires a ghostwriter to do something the celebrity has no skill, time, interest or talent for so the celebrity will make more money and advance the brand. The trad publisher brokers the deal in the expectation of making boatloads of money due to the celebrity's brand. The celebrity did build-or luck into-the brand, so they own the energy that drives the entire enterprise. The ghostwriter can string words together and has to feed the kids/pay the rent/whatever with their job skill. Simple business deal.
> 
> Today, writers can self-publish, build a brand, and make some money from their work, or art (some of it is just typing in a template but that can sell, too), and some do. Many try the gig and don't. Some write a library of books and make a living. Some get struck by lightning and make a killing. Some never do. Just the realities of producing in a creative form. Ghostwriting is a different kind of fish.
> 
> ...


I would like to hire you to write my next novel. And my next speech. And my eulogy. Email me back asap.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

ellecasey said:


> I believe in this day and age, that if you can write a bestselling ghost-written book, you can write a bestselling self-pubbed book.


This is the "positive thinking" trap. If you believe it enough and work hard enough, you will always succeed. But the very ugly flip side of this trap is that, by default, every person who does not succeed didn't believe enough and didn't work hard enough. I know you would never say "You don't have a bestseller because you are lazy." You are too nice of a person to say it out loud. But really, truthfully, when you claim anyone can have a bestselling self pub book, you ARE in fact calling people without bestsellers lazy or negative. The ugly core of your argument is that ghostwriters are either naive, stupid, immature, or lazy, because if they can have a bestselling ghost written book there is no reason they can't have a bestselling self pubbed book.

Do the mental exercise of deconstructing your argument.

The argument assumes books are interchangeable commodities of equal value and with all things being equal, it just takes elbow grease to succeed. You give no consideration to genre, branding, marketing muscle, or reader expectations. But really, I have no doubt in my mind that if LucasArts asked me to ghost write a Star Wars book, it would be a bestseller on the weight of the Star Wars brand alone and LucasArts marketing muscle. And if they waived a check at me to ghost write a Star Wars book, I would be all over it because what they would pay me to ghost write that book would be more than I make on my own books combined. And no, I can't sell one of my own books NEARLY as well as a Star Wars book would sell. And would I whine about not having my name on the cover? Heck no! Because I would have money in hand that I can use for my own projects (and, well, the geeky satisfaction of having worked on a Star Wars project). Because I CAN ghost write and self pub at the same time.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is the "positive thinking" trap. If you believe it enough and work hard enough, you will always succeed. But the very ugly flip side of this trap is that, by default, every person who does not succeed didn't believe enough and didn't work hard enough. I know you would never say "You don't have a bestseller because you are lazy." You are too nice of a person to say it out loud. But really, truthfully, when you claim anyone can have a bestselling self pub book, you ARE in fact calling people without bestsellers lazy or negative. The ugly core of your argument is that ghostwriters are either naive, stupid, immature, or lazy, because if they can have a bestselling ghost written book there is no reason they can't have a bestselling self pubbed book.
> 
> Do the mental exercise of deconstructing your argument.
> 
> The argument assumes books are interchangeable commodities of equal value and with all things being equal, it just takes elbow grease to succeed. You give no consideration to genre, branding, marketing muscle, or reader expectations. But really, I have no doubt in my mind that if LucasArts asked me to ghost write a Star Wars book, it would be a bestseller on the weight of the Star Wars brand alone and LucasArts marketing muscle. And if they waived a check at me to ghost write a Star Wars book, I would be all over it because what they would pay me to ghost write that book would be more than I make on my own books combined. And no, I can't sell one of my own books NEARLY as well as a Star Wars book would sell. And would I whine about not having my name on the cover? Heck no! Because I would have money in hand that I can use for my own projects (and, well, the geeky satisfaction of having worked on a Star Wars project). Because I CAN ghost write and self pub at the same time.


And the ugly core of this argument is that readers are just too stupid to know a good book when they read one, and it's the marketing that makes the book. It takes work ethic either way. Her argument is that a writer who can write a bestseller as a ghost writer, can do it on his own without the big marketing book. She trusts the readers to find the book eventually and make it big. You don't.


----------



## gonedark (May 30, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is the "positive thinking" trap. If you believe it enough and work hard enough, you will always succeed. But the very ugly flip side of this trap is that, by default, every person who does not succeed didn't believe enough and didn't work hard enough. I know you would never say "You don't have a bestseller because you are lazy." You are too nice of a person to say it out loud. But really, truthfully, when you claim anyone can have a bestselling self pub book, you ARE in fact calling people without bestsellers lazy or negative. The ugly core of your argument is that ghostwriters are either naive, stupid, immature, or lazy, because if they can have a bestselling ghost written book there is no reason they can't have a bestselling self pubbed book.
> 
> Do the mental exercise of deconstructing your argument.
> 
> The argument assumes books are interchangeable commodities of equal value and with all things being equal, it just takes elbow grease to succeed. You give no consideration to genre, branding, marketing muscle, or reader expectations. But really, I have no doubt in my mind that if LucasArts asked me to ghost write a Star Wars book, it would be a bestseller on the weight of the Star Wars brand alone and LucasArts marketing muscle. And if they waived a check at me to ghost write a Star Wars book, I would be all over it because what they would pay me to ghost write that book would be more than I make on my own books combined. And no, I can't sell one of my own books NEARLY as well as a Star Wars book would sell. And would I whine about not having my name on the cover? Heck no! Because I would have money in hand that I can use for my own projects (and, well, the geeky satisfaction of having worked on a Star Wars project). Because I CAN ghost write and self pub at the same time.


Actually, I did give that thought. I do believe, that if you can write a bestselling book, you can sell bestselling numbers of that book. People who have none of that brand recognition or marketing muscle do it every day. Just look at the bestseller lists.

Is it just about writing and nothing else? No. You need to promote too. That's a given. But only the readers can tell us if a book is bestseller material. You can evaluate books all day long, Julie, but fact is, you can't identify a bestseller with certainty. You don't know the magic formula. You don't know what readers will connect with until you get the book in front of them.

Your argument is that it's luck that gets bestselling sales. Sorry, but I don't buy that. It's a great book and solid promotional efforts done over the long term that makes it happen. It's hard work most people aren't willing to do. We've seen that time and time again with indie books getting on the lists. Hell, we've seen mediocore books making it to the lists on massive promotional efforts of very dedicated writers. And promotional efforts do include writing more books and building your brand, as Russell likes to say.

Honestly, though, Julie ... this is a topic / analysis for another thread, isn't it? I'm about to jump off this one because I think this horse has been beaten to a pulp and we're not getting anywhere else with it new.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Elle, you mentioned something along the lines of "anyone can come up with ideas, but actually writing the sentences is the hard part." And frankly, while that might be true for you, it's not true for everyone.

In fact, it's not true for me. Actually writing the words -- that's the easy part. And coming up with the premise. But actual plot? Oh my goodness, to me that's the hardest part of the endeavor. And I say this as a confirmed plotter/outliner, too. (The few times I've attempted to pants my way through a book without a very detailed synoppsis and outline ahead of time were utter disasters. NOTHING happened to these very interesting and quirky characters.)

I will literally plot out a book for weeks, if not months, before I sit down to write it. And that's after weeks or months or thinking about it first even before trying to plot. Once I have that outline down, then the writing itself comes really easily. But the plot is torture.

So work-for-hire or ghostwriting or the type of collaboration where one author creates the world, writes a very detailed outline and the first three chapters then hands it over? Sure, I might earn less on the work-for-hire contract than I might from writing my own book, but it's a much easier book to write, and I can do it in much less actual writing time. So how is that not a win-win for me?

As long as both parties are happy, then why not?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> And the ugly core of this argument is that readers are just too stupid to know a good book when they read one, and it's the marketing that makes the book. It takes work ethic either way. Her argument is that a writer who can write a bestseller as a ghost writer, can do it on his own without the big marketing book. She trusts the readers to find the book eventually and make it big. You don't.


"Trusting" the readers to spontaneously find the good books is a pretty thought, but it's a myth. Marketing makes people aware of the book. There are over two million titles on Amazon, with thousands more added every day. How are people supposed to find these books? Browse through a million books? No, they rely on marketing. Whether it is Bookbub putting a book in front of them in a newsletter or an ad in the NY Times, if people are not aware of your product, they can't buy it. Everyone loves to pretend marketing has no impact on their lives, but it does. If you aren't aware of a product, you can't buy it. You won't even know to look for it. Once a reader finds a book, they can make their own decisions. But they have to know the book even exists first. It's not about readers being stupid. It's about hoping beyond hope that readers will spend weeks searching the haystack for the needle you left behind. No, they won't. If they need a needle, they will go buy one where they know they can get it. They won't troll through a million pieces of hay looking for yours.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> "Trusting" the readers to spontaneously find the good books is a pretty thought, but it's a myth. Marketing makes people aware of the book. There are over two million titles on Amazon, with thousands more added every day. How are people supposed to find these books? Browse through a million books? No, they rely on marketing. Whether it is Bookbub putting a book in front of them in a newsletter or an ad in the NY Times, if people are not aware of your product, they can't buy it. Everyone loves to pretend marketing has no impact on their lives, but it does. If you aren't aware of a product, you can't buy it. You won't even know to look for it. Once a reader finds a book, they can make their own decisions. But they have to know the book even exists first. It's not about readers being stupid. It's about hoping beyond hope that readers will spend weeks searching the haystack for the needle you left behind. No, they won't. If they need a needle, they will go buy one where they know they can get it. They won't troll through a million pieces of hay looking for yours.


Every book that comes out goes on some kind of "new releases" list. Marketing speeds up the process, but if your stuff is good, that kindling that you set every time you put a new book out there on a new releases list fans the flames. One reader tells another who tells another. If you're good enough to write a best seller for somebody else, that means your writing is good enough for one person to tell another that they liked the book. Yes, it can take a long time for the flames to grow that way, but I'm convinced that, if the writing is good enough, eventually it'll ignite. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that people who are good enough to write best sellers wallow at one sale a year unless they market the hell out their books. I can't believe that. If that's the truth, then those of us who are never gonna have the cash to put up an aggressive marketing campaign are doomed to a life of shattered dreams.


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

One of the drivers of Patterson's success is the shear volume of his (and his collaborators') output. My hunch is that we may start to see examples of the same thing in self-publishing as well...create a premise (maybe even using a fictitious "Franklin W Dixon/Carolyn Keene" type entity) and then start pumping out novels like doughnuts. If managed well with adequate oversight, this could conceivably be a viable way to build a brand. After all, how many times have we heard about the importance of writing a lot of books? What better way to accomplish this than setting up an assembly line? It certainly worked well enough for Henry Ford.

But I think this whole discussion boils down to the writer vs. publisher question. As self-published writers, we are essentially wearing two hats, and those roles carry certain inherent conflicts. What motivates us to write? And it's seldom an either/or answer--usually there's a mix of motivations in varying quantities.

My inner publisher tells me to get the next book out pronto. My inner writer tells me to let the characters marinate, find the motivations, flesh out the nuances, and pick over the dialogue until it pops to my satisfaction.

I honestly view James Patterson as being a producer as much as he is a writer. And his approach isn't hard to understand--he ran J. Walter Thompson/North America prior to becoming famous as a writer, so he's essentially applying many of the same principles he learned from advertising in terms of marshaling the creative talent of others in service of a well-defined brand.

Not a bad business model. But I'm a better writer than I am a publisher, and I can't see myself pursuing Patterson's model because it doesn't fit the way I approach writing. I just wouldn't enjoy doing it that way.

But it really comes down to one's specific mix of reasons for writing and self-publishing. I'm willing to jump through all sorts of crazy hoops to market what I've written, but I'm not willing to dilute the core product in hopes of reaching more readers and making more sales.

That's my own personal decision, though, and it's no diss of those who might choose to take a different direction.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Amanda Brice said:


> Elle, you mentioned something along the lines of "anyone can come up with ideas, but actually writing the sentences is the hard part." And frankly, while that might be true for you, it's not true for everyone.
> 
> In fact, it's not true for me. Actually writing the words -- that's the easy part. And coming up with the premise. But actual plot? Oh my goodness, to me that's the hardest part of the endeavor. And I say this as a confirmed plotter/outliner, too. (The few times I've attempted to pants my way through a book without a very detailed synoppsis and outline ahead of time were utter disasters. NOTHING happened to these very interesting and quirky characters.)
> 
> ...


We should be penpals--I come up with fa more plots than I will ever have tge time to write. It's ever so aggravating.


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

To me, I feel that there's a lot of assumptions going on in this thread about ghostwriting on both ends.

First, I've ghostwritten before and currently am as well. I am doing it for a few reasons. First, I needed money during the Holidays when there's no clients to tutor (my main supplement income) and when I over-spent on gifts for family and friends. I went to reputable sites recommended by author friends, read the full information and demands in the ads I applied to, and when the contract was issued to me after I finished the work and as I signed it over, I willingly signed rights away. It's definitely a cost-benefit analysis as evaluated for where I am in the *here and now.*

Here and now I have some debts to pay off. Here and now I've been struggling, ironically, with writers' block on my own series and works. Here and now, I'm not an established brand and lose money on projects when the cost of covers and editing and marketing with tours...etc. is filtered in.

So, weighing against having no way to pay off the credit cards for the months of January and February or signing away rights on novellas and a short novel, then I knowingly opted for the latter. Yeah, if for some reason one of the works I wrote went supernova and made a ton of money I wasn't allowed a right to, that would suck, but it's the bargain I made and the risk I took. For right now, having financial security and guaranteed money in the bank was worth the loss of rights.

I'd like to say along with other people on this board that it would be nice if writing more books or more marketing would automatically or even within a year see returns, but that's not guaranteed, especially as the market continues to be changes as well as flooded with ever more self pub competition. If you agree to the contract terms, you can get things out of it. You just have to be willing to go into it knowing that your have waived rights and deal with that as well.

That said, there are advantages to the ghoswriting as a supplementary income/sustaining income before my own brand gains traction. First, it actually (along with winning Nano for the first time in two tries), has helped free up writers' block for me. Ironically, it took a ton of pressure off of me that was impeding my creativity because I knew if the story did end up sucking or being hated at least I wasn't going to personally get the blow back. Second, it is guaranteed money in the pocket. They give me one hundred and fifty buck and I give them a 15k short story or whatever other deals I've made. Again, it's a lot more security than investing in a quality product of my own and coming out with a net loss. Finally, the people at the company retaining my services are the ones bearing the brunt of formal editing, formatting, and cover costs. I just give them a polished/spell checked draft and they take it from there. It's a lot easier to go through this process sometimes when you're just the writer and now the publishing company behind things as well.

Again, it's very fortunate when people have made money off their writing to the extent where they can make a living very comfortably under their own name and only writing for their own brand and their own ideas. That would be amazing if all independents could do that or all authors period for that matter. That doesn't mean it's true. It also doesn't make me exploited or a victim or misusing my time when I weigh the costs, take the chance, and turn in a good product in a decent turn around time for sure money as I work more slowly on my own "from my heart" personal projects under my own name.

It makes me frustrated when I see it presented as such or as automatically a lousy deal for me.
**

Second, from a reader's perspective. I am like SM Reine, I was a massive Animorphs fan in middle and high school. In fact, I followed all the news on the series very, very closely. I knew because Scholastic and the books' website made no secret of it---was very honest about it, in fact---that the books after 25 were being ghostwritten. From what I understand, actually, Applegate would outline the books and give it to ghostwriters. I've also heard from friends much later that if she got a book back that didn't work with her outline, that she'd rewrite it and some of the books (I think at least one Rachel book) was rewritten from scratch in under a week to make deadline because the ghostwritten version just did not work and Applegate wouldn't allow it out like that.

Did the books suffer during their churned out phase and as Applegate focused on Everworld, her newer series. Yes, they just weren't as good. Did I still scarf them down? Hell yes I did. I knew that they were still what Applegate had outlined and that I was still invested in that ongoing plot and the characters embroiled in it. Did I stick with the series to the end? Yes, yes I did. Additionally, knowing about the ghostwriters and who they were (Scholastic was open about that too), actually led me to other authors and series that I then grew to love. For example, Melinda Metz who wrote the book series Roswell from which the WB/UPN show sprung was one of the better Animoprhs ghostwriters. When I saw her publishing work under her own name later, I scooped that up because that was a name I recognized with a quality writing style that I enjoyed.

So, as someone who read a long runnning series that was openly ghostwritten and never tried to mislead fans on that fact, I wasn't angry and did not felt cheated. I signed up for the ride, got addicted to the journey, weathered some mediocre books as well as some ghostwriters who were worse than others. Also, another short note, I think, it was actually the final nine books as well as obviously the Elimist Chronicles that were also fully written by Applegate after the Everworld series was discontinued and Animorphs came to a close. The finale arc where they're on the run with their familes was, both because Applegate wrote it and it had an end plan, better again and more tightly worked out. I got a satisfactory conclusion to the story---note, I don't like the way it ended but I understand why it ended the way it did and it made me think very heavily in a serious way about the cost of war to the point it really influenced anti-war groups I joined in college, not kidding---and that was good for me.

Had I bailed just because ghostwriters took the reins for about half the run, then my favorite series and one of my most formative reading experiences would have been lost to me and that would have sucked.

Now, I definitely would have felt differently if I'd read all of Animoprhs and NOT been told they were ghosted from X point on and NOT everything was completely, 100% Applegate's work. That didn't happen. Scholastic was very honest with us, and I really appreciated their candor with the fans so we could make our own educated decision on whether to stick with the series or not (keep in mind, again, when she started the ghost writer route, I was fourteen and it was about 1998 so the internet was a baby back then and even *I* could easily find that candid info).

So, overall, my thoughts:

1) Ghostwriting can be a viable option that people knowingly enter into and accept the costs and benefits of in order to make ends meet.

2) Ghostwritten series do tend to become uneven in tone and lower in quality when the original author isn't hands on for every book. However, that said, it doesn't mean the series becomes instant trash and has to be abandoned.

3) Morally, I think ghostwritten series *is* okay for fans if the company and author willingly disclose the ghostwriting aspect of the series/the author change and then fans are allowed to decide whether or not to take that journey still, knowing the original author may be offering outlines at best.

4) If series slip into being ghostwritten and do NOT disclose that to loyal readers, that really does suck and, while not illegal or anything, is still ethically wonky and bothersome.

That's my two cents and then some!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I don't have a problem with how Paterson manages his empire and has co-authors who get co-author credit and are very well paid. Or as one co-author said:

“He’s the boss, and I have no problem with that,” says Mark Sullivan, 54, who has co-written three novels in Patterson’s globe-trotting “Private” series about the intrepid agents of a high-tech investigative firm with offices in various world capitals. The next book in the series, “Private Berlin,” will be published on Monday by Little, Brown. “Jim is the smartest story person — the quickest read, the most insightful critic — I’ve ever been involved with. He has an amazing ability to see flaws in stories, or to come up with a way to take the story to a whole new level. He doesn’t say much, but the stuff he says is just spot-on. I tell my wife, ‘It’s like going to study with Yoda.’ ”

And no problems with celebs having ghosts while they play celebrity. We expect that.

The case of one indie author hiring another to write her book for her is different to me since she is taking full credit for writing what she didn't write and purports to be an author.

Yet the girl doing the writing sounds happy to get the money--so maybe not so bad for her. Still seems skeevy to me though by the girl paying for someone to write her book and she takes credit for it. Then again many things are.


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

Again, that's a good point. The woman in question who was excited to be picked is a grown adult who is probably entering into this deal (not sure if she agreed yet or just was squeeing about the offer) with open eyes and agreeing to terms. If you're over eighteen, read the contract, and sign it, then you've taken on the burden of the deal and agreed to it. If she likes it and sees benefits in her, more power to her.


----------



## MKC (Feb 10, 2011)

For me, it's mainly a truth-in-labeling issue, like GMO. Be upfront about it then let the consumer (reader) decide whether to swallow it. If you like genetically modified stuff, great! If you don't, fine, you can avoid it.

The real question is why do publishers/authors hide it? I'm guessing it's because they're afraid they'll lose readers. And if that's so, then Elle's gut is right. Readers feel like they're being hoodwinked. 

As for James Patterson, he's upfront. I may even read the books co-authored by Marshall Karp because I like his writing. Win-win for writers, and win for this reader.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> Actually, I did give that thought. I do believe, that if you can write a bestselling book, you can sell bestselling numbers of that book. People who have none of that brand recognition or marketing muscle do it every day. Just look at the bestseller lists.


That's like saying that it's easy to win the lottery. People win the lottery every day. Just look at this list of lottery winners.

It's guaranteed that there are plenty of books that have potential to be bestselling lurking around the ocean floor of Amazon. They are just waiting for the right marketing/branding to float them to the top.



> Every book that comes out goes on some kind of "new releases" list. Marketing speeds up the process, but if your stuff is good, that kindling that you set every time you put a new book out there on a new releases list fans the flames. One reader tells another who tells another. If you're good enough to write a best seller for somebody else, that means your writing is good enough for one person to tell another that they liked the book. Yes, it can take a long time for the flames to grow that way, but I'm convinced that, if the writing is good enough, eventually it'll ignite. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that people who are good enough to write best sellers wallow at one sale a year unless they market the hell out their books. I can't believe that. If that's the truth, then those of us who are never gonna have the cash to put up an aggressive marketing campaign are doomed to a life of shattered dreams.


This is wishful thinking. The "new releases" lists are generally ranked by sales. So a new release by a successful writer gets flung up the lists and gets seen by loads of people. A new release by an author with no base--not so much. Might be seen by a handful of people and bought by one or two(genre dependent). Hard to get the viral bestseller effect you are talking about if no one reads it.

Sometimes it happens. But often it doesn't. It's the lightning strike, the perfect storm. That's why the advice is always to keep writing, keep building the platform.


----------



## 41352 (Apr 4, 2011)

removed


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

MarenHayes said:


> Ghostwriting is always about the financial realities of branding.


This. If you use multiple pennames, each penname is a "brand". It's not a person. Ghostwriting is merely one method of writing to a brand.

A good ghostwriter doesn't put their own voice on a work. A great one matches the "voice" of the writer they're ghosting for. Technically, a good line editor should also attempt to "ghost"-to match the writer's style in the suggestions made.

Personally, I've ghostwritten a bit. I've also done business writing, work-for-hire-another type of writing that tends to require reduced author "voice". I enjoy slipping into another voice for a while, and it helps me as a writer.



Amanda Brice said:


> Elle, you mentioned something along the lines of "anyone can come up with ideas, but actually writing the sentences is the hard part." And frankly, while that might be true for you, it's not true for everyone.
> 
> In fact, it's not true for me. Actually writing the words -- that's the easy part. And coming up with the premise. But actual plot? Oh my goodness, to me that's the hardest part of the endeavor. And I say this as a confirmed plotter/outliner, too.


This is also true. Some people can come up with fantastic ideas, but they can't write a sentence to save their lives. Or they might not have _time_ to write it all themselves. Some people can write well, but they struggle to come up with ideas.



J Bridger said:


> That said, there are advantages to the ghoswriting as a supplementary income/sustaining income before my own brand gains traction. First, it actually (along with winning Nano for the first time in two tries), has helped free up writers' block for me. Ironically, it took a ton of pressure off of me that was impeding my creativity because I knew if the story did end up sucking or being hated at least I wasn't going to personally get the blow back. Second, it is guaranteed money in the pocket. They give me one hundred and fifty buck and I give them a 15k short story or whatever other deals I've made. Again, it's a lot more security than investing in a quality product of my own and coming out with a net loss. Finally, the people at the company retaining my services are the ones bearing the brunt of formal editing, formatting, and cover costs. I just give them a polished/spell checked draft and they take it from there. It's a lot easier to go through this process sometimes when you're just the writer and now the publishing company behind things as well.


And this. Sometimes a person needs money in hand and signs rights over while knowing that it, over time, will most likely earn the new owner a lot more money than was paid for it. I did that when I wrote ad copy for a particular client. The item he sold probably made him enough in commission to repay him after 1-3 sales, and I'm good enough at writing ad copy for physical products that if he had the site traffic, he got those sales. (That article has actually gotten me offered more copywriting jobs.)

And I actually hate writing copy so much that I often sabotage copy I write for myself so it's less effective than it could be. (There are myriad reasons why, but the short version is that I have an ingrained fear of success due to things that have nothing to do with the current topic.)

Could I set up my own website and products and make my own commissions for things, making use of my copywriting skills? Sure. But I don't _want_ to. And that's my choice.

And you know, there's another reason someone might prefer ghostwriting or not getting credit for something: Some people don't want their name to be available to the general public. Maybe they like their privacy; maybe they've received death threats and have to be mindful for their own safety.



Chrystalla said:


> I can't decide if I think it's a horrible or an okay thing to do... I know I wouldn't do it, but then again I just can't write when told to, so...


*grin* I actually tend to find it easier to write when told what to do, possibly because I've had a lot of practice at it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

How many bestsellers can the market support? Id say we know, and the answer is exactly what we see.

The market has the opportunity to make lots of good books bestsellers. Those books match the literary quality of the existing bestsellers. They have promotion. They have engaged authors. They have covers, Bookbub spots, Tweets, Facebook, and all the stuff that is recommended as a support structure for the potential bestseller. Yet they are not bestsellers.

When the production side of a market does everything right, yet the goods don't sell, its reasonable to look at the demand side of the market. Id suggest the market has all the best sellers it can handle. Its not going to buy more regardless of production values and promotion.

If ghost writers drop their clients, and put their own books on the market, there is no reason to expect consumers to change their behavior.

We run the risk of _No True Scotsman_ here. That would say that if a book failed to sell at bestseller levels, then it lacked quality, promotion, etc. Because no true quality book would fail to become a best seller.

This isn't unique to the book market. It happens in all kinds of markets.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Is it just about writing and nothing else? No. You need to promote too. That's a given. But only the readers can tell us if a book is bestseller material. You can evaluate books all day long, Julie, but fact is, you can't identify a bestseller with certainty. *You don't know the magic formula. You don't know what readers will connect with until you get the book in front of them.*
> 
> Your argument is that it's luck that gets bestselling sales. Sorry, but I don't buy that. *It's a great book and solid promotional efforts done over the long term that makes it happen.* It's hard work most people aren't willing to do. We've seen that time and time again with indie books getting on the lists. Hell, we've seen mediocore books making it to the lists on massive promotional efforts of very dedicated writers. And promotional efforts do include writing more books and building your brand, as Russell likes to say.


So... there's no magic formula, but it's great book and solid promotional efforts that makes it happen?

You can't have it both ways. Either there's no way to predict a bestseller, in which case the people who get bestsellers get there through... well, unpredictable circumstances. And if we can't predict them, then we can't influence them either, because we wouldn't know how or what to influence. And if they can't be influenced, then bestsellers happen by chance. And if they happen by chance, then luck plays some kind of a role.

If however, working hard, writing a book that people want to read (I really think "great" is way too subjective, and I prefer saying this instead, because it's almost quantifiable), and doing promotion get you to be a bestseller, then, well, that kind of sounds like a magic formula. Just sayin'.

Honestly, ghostwritten books give tummy rumblings as well. As a reader. I've got no problem with people getting paid to ghostwrite if they want. I don't really think you do either. Why not just say that, and tell the ghostwriters you don't judge them, instead of trying to convince them that they'd all be bestsellers if they just did what you do?

I _did_ do what you do last year (to a point. I wrote 12 books, and I promoted them. I didn't write in popular genres, however.) I'm still not a bestseller. But then, (before this thread, anyway) I never got the impression you were saying that I _would be_ if I tried your strategies. I think you're right that there are a lot of people who aren't willing to put in the hard work in that is necessary to be successful. But I am willing. And I've been putting in that work for ten years now. I think you're being unwittingly dismissive of people who persevere without tangible rewards. I don't think you mean to be, but that's how it's coming across, and I wish you'd clarify.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> If however, working hard, writing a book that people want to read (I really think "great" is way too subjective, and I prefer saying this instead, because it's almost quantifiable), and doing promotion get you to be a bestseller, then, well, that kind of sounds like a magic formula. Just sayin'.


All those things give you the potential to be a bestseller. There are no guarantees, except that without those things, your chances of becoming a bestseller are next to nil.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

New angle:

As a reader, would you feel cheated if you discovered that your favorite author was not as eloquent as you thought, that he or she wrote the books but heavily depended on a copy editor to make them readable?

Would your answer differ if the editor got credit or not?


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> All those things give you the potential to be a bestseller. There are no guarantees, except that without those things, your chances of becoming a bestseller are next to nil.


Definitely. That's how I'd say it as well. Potential.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

ellecasey said:


> I hear ya. I have never met one of these kinds of writers so I can't say anything about their motivations or goals.
> 
> Speaking from experience as a surrogate mother, I can say with authority that it's NOTHING like ghost-writing a book.
> 
> ...


I meant from the standpoint that not every surrogate feels a further attachment to the baby because they aren't looking to parent. They only want to deliver a baby to folks who want to parent. No insult meant. Some surrogates have started with good intentions but then couldn't emotionally detach and fought to keep the baby. I think that's wrong. It was never their baby. They agreed to simply be a caretaking vessel for the pregnancy. Not everyone can distance afterwards.

But that aside, if I enjoyed the book that's enough for me. I might want more from that author but I get the feeling that the readers who would feel betrayed are feeling an emotional attachment to the author that I don't feel. I understand it but I'm not the reader who needs that level of attachment to authors I enjoy. I don't take it personally.

Those of you who do get attached are working on an emotional plane where you take it very personally. I'm not making fun of any of you.

It reminds me a bit of watching fans cry and shake and faint when the Beatles or Elvis or Michael Jackson perform. I hear and enjoy the music immensely but I'm not on that emotional plane. This doesn't mean I think they're crazy or stupid. I just don't feel that frenzy. See?

Also, not every writer wants fame and fortune, not that those things are bad. Some simply want to write. Some want to write anonymously. Some enjoy that and are happy. Some don't feel that is wasting their time, talent or potential by doing it that way. Some don't want the hassle.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Every book that comes out goes on some kind of "new releases" list. Marketing speeds up the process, but if your stuff is good, that kindling that you set every time you put a new book out there on a new releases list fans the flames. One reader tells another who tells another. If you're good enough to write a best seller for somebody else, that means your writing is good enough for one person to tell another that they liked the book. Yes, it can take a long time for the flames to grow that way, but I'm convinced that, if the writing is good enough, eventually it'll ignite. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that people who are good enough to write best sellers wallow at one sale a year unless they market the hell out their books. I can't believe that. If that's the truth, then those of us who are never gonna have the cash to put up an aggressive marketing campaign are doomed to a life of shattered dreams.


Don't forget, Vrab, that there are (apparently) established authors who ghostwrite for other bestselling authors and haven't had any great success of their own (one is mentioned up thread). Even the people who co-author with Patterson aren't household names in their own right, and they have the biggest marketing push imaginable, i.e., being named on a Patterson cover.



Cherise Kelley said:


> New angle:
> 
> As a reader, would you feel cheated if you discovered that your favorite author was not as eloquent as you thought, that he or she wrote the books but heavily depended on a copy editor to make them readable?
> 
> Would your answer differ if the editor got credit or not?


I was going to raise the point about the editor who writes large swaths of a bestseller. Is he a semi-ghostwriter, I wonder?


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Cherise Kelley said:


> New angle:
> 
> As a reader, would you feel cheated if you discovered that your favorite author was not as eloquent as you thought, that he or she wrote the books but heavily depended on a copy editor to make them readable?
> 
> Would your answer differ if the editor got credit or not?


Michener says that's exactly how he writes (wrote). He says he's a good storyteller and a poor writer. He gives examples to prove it in his writer's workbook. As I recall, he depended on the same editor for his entire career, and she worked for the publisher on salary.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

If ghostwriting (effectively sharing a pen name) is immoral, how immoral is using multiple pen name to obfuscate that you write in more than one genre?


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

I haven't read a James Patterson book, so I can't comment on the quality, but his books aren't really ghostwritten since he credits the main writer as a co-author. I wonder if he pays them a set fee or a royalty split/percentage, or combo. Anyway, after seeing his name popup here a few times, I had to google his work, and I found this interesting:






When readers see the co-author name on the cover (even if their name is smaller) they know they're not getting a 100% written book by Patterson. That's a bit more transparent than hiring a ghostwriter who won't be credited.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> If ghostwriting (effectively sharing a pen name) is immoral, how immoral is using multiple pen name to obfuscate that you write in more than one genre?


Exactly!

Although, I suspect those who find it objectionable feel that a writer using pen names isn't being 'used by another' and is still 'getting credit' because the pen names are theirs.


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Hmm. I've never considered ghostwriting, but I wonder...

If I take on a ghostwriting job and then hire my own ghostwriter to do the actual ghostwriting, am I doing something wrong? And if my ghostwriter hires his or her own ghostwriter to ghostwrite my ghostwriting, should I be upset?

(Purely theoretical question, of course. I'm a "ghost" writer, not a ghostwriter.)


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Here's a quote about how he characterizes his "collaboration". _James Patterson admits he is simply more proficient at dreaming up plots than crafting sentence after sentence. _
> 
> Anyone can dream up a plot. It's that tedious "crafting [of] sentence after sentence" that is _writing_. Plotting ain't it and editing ain't it. Sorry, but I'm not buying it, James Patterson.


I'm hoping to get to the place where I can just write the titles to my books and hire Elle to ghost write the rest. Whataya say, Elle?


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Alan Petersen said:


> I haven't read a James Patterson book, so I can't comment on the quality, but his books aren't really ghostwritten since he credits the main writer as a co-author. I wonder if he pays them a set fee or a royalty split/percentage, or combo. Anyway, after seeing his name popup here a few times, I had to google his work, and I found this interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I come from the TV world so I'm not a real writer either.  But I'll comment on this anyway.

Mr. Patterson is working like a show creator would on a TV series. _Breaking Bad_ was a critical darling, and Vince Gilligan was rightfully lauded as a great writer. But he _never_ pretended he wrote that show by himself, because he didn't. It was still his show--each script probably went through his filter at some point in the process.

Patterson is pretty clear he doesn't write his books alone either. But they are still his books; they go through his filter the same way those episodes of _Breaking Bad _went through Gilligan's.

Entertainment business.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

zandermarks said:


> Hmm. I've never considered ghostwriting, but I wonder...
> 
> If I take on a ghostwriting job and then hire my own ghostwriter to do the actual ghostwriting, am I doing something wrong? And if my ghostwriter hires his or her own ghostwriter to ghostwrite my ghostwriting, should I be upset?
> 
> (Purely theoretical question, of course. I'm a "ghost" writer, not a ghostwriter.)


Depends on the terms of the contract.


----------



## FMH (May 18, 2013)

I'm glad to hear this because I write under a pen name and write 2500 words a day, putting out a lot of stuff I'm proud of, fast (except when I'm down with the flu, like right now). But I've seen other authors who are slamming out two and three times as much and I was wondering "How are they doing that!!"

Well, now I know. 

I guess if you're just in this for the money, having someone else write under your brand doesn't seem like a bad idea. 

For me, I write because I love telling the stories. I don't want other people to tell them for me. I just don't see the point.


----------



## Book Master (May 3, 2013)

Ghost Writers $5-20/hr
www.odesk.com/Ghost_Writers
100's of Expert Ghost Writers! Pay Only For Time Worked. Sign Up.

      

I just saw that ad at the top on WC.

On another popular site, I saw a fellow advertising some kind of package to teach you "How to hire Ghost Writers to Write Books for You." The ad goes on to explain how they do the writing, releasing the work to you for pay. You finish the product, the editing, cover, etc., and publish those books. It continues explaining how you can mass produce eBooks this way in less time to make huge monies in the eBook Self-Pub Business.

Yes, those invisible writers are writing creative, incredible stories for peanuts and giving them away to that slick marketeer who makes a fortune off of their hard work.
In other words, "Thanks for the story, and here is the table scraps!"

BM


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2014)

Book Master said:


> Ghost Writers $5-20/hr
> www.odesk.com/Ghost_Writers
> 100's of Expert Ghost Writers! Pay Only For Time Worked. Sign Up.
> 
> ...


Yep, capitalism - gotta love it!


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Book Master said:


> Ghost Writers $5-20/hr
> www.odesk.com/Ghost_Writers
> 100's of Expert Ghost Writers! Pay Only For Time Worked. Sign Up.
> 
> ....


Yeah. Um. No offence to the honest people who get work through those sites, but I'm guessing there might also be a couple of plagiarists on there. It would suck to lose a whole career/reputation that way.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Book Master said:


> Ghost Writers $5-20/hr
> www.odesk.com/Ghost_Writers
> 100's of Expert Ghost Writers! Pay Only For Time Worked. Sign Up.
> 
> ...


What about all those factory workers in Thailand making Nike shoes for $2 an hour so that slick executives can sell the shoes for $100 dollars a pop and make millions! People getting paid money to make things and other people (not doing the actual making) picking up the profits. Someone start the revolution.


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

*Book Master*, that's actually where I get work from and it's helped me immensely with credit card things this winter. It's really been a good thing for me and I actually do not feel exploited or used or tricked.

I needed a supplementary income, read the ad and THEN considered the contract and signed it with open eyes.

It's a business model and everyone in it is over eighteen and aware and willing to do what they do. I really don't see myself as being abused or taken advantage of and I don't see it as a cheater system or a way for slick marketeers to ruin writing. As I've said above and other ghost writers have said, it'd be nice to make money only off my own stuff, but until this is a reality, it helps make ends meet. I don't have shame in that and I feel badly, however, when other indies think it's so awful or ghostwriters are perpetuating like a marketing machine complicitly or worse as too ignorant or too desperate to really take of themselves in the exchange.

It's a bit simplistic look at what the actual deal entails.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

CEMartin2 said:


> We should be penpals--I come up with fa more plots than I will ever have tge time to write. It's ever so aggravating.


I come up with far more premises than I'll ever have time to write. FAR more. But fully realized and developed plots? Those are like pulling teeth for me. I'm not someone who can write from the seat of my pants like so many here are. If I do that, it's a complete train wreck. I have to already have a map not only from Point A to Point Z but I need to have at least Points B, C, F, H, K, N, Q, S, U, W, X, and Y already mapped out in great depth before I start writing. And even if I start writing before I have Points D, E, G, I, J, L, M, O, P, R, and T figured out, I'll need them figured out pretty quickly...well before I get to them at least.

But give me the fully developed outline and let me write it? Sure. I can do that.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Amanda Brice said:


> I come up with far more premises than I'll ever have time to write. FAR more. But fully realized and developed plots? Those are like pulling teeth for me. I'm not someone who can write from the seat of my pants like so many here are. If I do that, it's a complete train wreck. I have to already have a map not only from Point A to Point Z but I need to have at least Points B, C, F, H, K, N, Q, S, U, W, X, and Y already mapped out in great depth before I start writing. And even if I start writing before I have Points D, E, G, I, J, L, M, O, P, R, and T figured out, I'll need them figured out pretty quickly...well before I get to them at least.
> 
> But give me the fully developed outline and let me write it? Sure. I can do that.


This is me, too.

Two of the guys who wrote _Write. Publish. Repeat._ team write because one is a plotter and the other is a proser. They describe the process in that book. I would love to be in a team like that. As the proser.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Don't forget, Vrab, that there are (apparently) established authors who ghostwrite for other bestselling authors and haven't had any great success of their own (one is mentioned up thread). Even the people who co-author with Patterson aren't household names in their own right, and they have the biggest marketing push imaginable, i.e., being named on a Patterson cover.


But would they make more money self-pubbing or taking their one-time fee and splitting? There's no data either way, and I'm not sure you could measure it.

I just can't go down the road that says someone who has the talent to ghost write best sellers would sit at the bottom of the charts. I can't believe it, and I don't think serves indies to believe it. That money, the flash, can accelerate the money you can bring in, but if you're visible enough for someone to see you stuff and want you to ghost write something for them, then you're visible enough to grow a fan base of your own. The belief the only the lucky make good money at writing may be a salve for the ego, but it leads to a vicious cycle in which people believe their work is "good enough" if only they caught a "break" to be worthy of being a best seller. Chances are, if none of your books are best sellers, it's not because you haven't caught a break. Go out and write a better book the next time. yeah, it takes a lot of patience to watch a fan base grow slowly, and maybe the fame and fortune will come so late it'll be posthumous, but pining for some stroke of a fairy godmother's wand is silly. If and when I fail, I sure as shit ain't gonna blame it on bad luck.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm a reader.  I don't really care about ghostwriters as long as the book is good.  There are new Tom Clancy books being published and he's dead.  I'm sure many of the things published in the last few years under his brand weren't written by him.  Some were good some not so much.

James Patterson seems to be the poster child for this system; from my perspective I've enjoyed what he produced with a co-writer generally much more than what is solely in his name.

I knew almost from the beginning that Carolyn Keene was not 'a person' -- still devoured everything 'she' wrote.

I'm not sure how I'd feel if there was an author I liked and I discovered after the fact that most of his/her books weren't really written by him/her.  There is an element of dishonesty, or rather a lack of complete transparency.  But does he/she really owe me that anyway?  If the books were really good, why would I care?  I guess it would depend on how much I'd bonded with the characters/series.  

If a person wants to work as a ghostwriter, they've a right to.  Even if they're good enough to make it under their own name.
If a person doesn't want to write to no credit, they've a right to go for it and publish on their own.
Either way, the decision only belongs to the person in question.

I do income taxes . . . work for THE major national chain.  I get asked all the time why I don't quit and start up my own business.  "Wouldn't I make more money?" I'm asked.  Yeah. Maybe.  But it would be a heck of a lot more work and worry.  I'm happy not being 'in charge'; I like a predictable paycheck and the backing of a Fortune 500 company if I goof.  OTOH, I know a lot of folks that chafe just enough under company policies, that they are happier going on their own.  'Sokay either way.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> The belief the only the lucky make good money at writing may be a salve for the ego, but it leads to a vicious cycle in which people believe their work is "good enough" if only they caught a "break" to be worthy of being a best seller. Chances are, if none of your books are best sellers, it's not because you haven't caught a break. Go out and write a better book the next time. yeah, it takes a lot of patience to watch a fan base grow slowly, and maybe the fame and fortune will come so late it'll be posthumous, but pining for some stroke of a fairy godmother's wand is silly. If and when I fail, I sure as [crap] ain't gonna blame it on bad luck.


Well... once you actually try publishing something, maybe you'll be more qualified to talk.

Sorry, I know that was a dig, but this is probably the most offensive thing on the thread.

I'm off to "write a better book," since I'm obviously so shit at this thing I've devoted my entire life to just because I don't have a best seller.

Wow.

(You do know that it's possible to have a thriving career as a writer and never make it onto a best seller's list, don't you?)


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> Well... once you actually try publishing something, maybe you'll be more qualified to talk.
> 
> Sorry, I know that was a dig, but this is probably the most offensive thing on the thread.
> 
> ...


Very true. I am not qualified to talk about this stuff, but they let me talk anyway since it's a message board.

I don't think anyone is shit, I'm just saying that the belief that someone hasn't hit it big just because of bad luck is foolish. And it's just as insulting to the people who HAVE made it big, to say it's luck. Look, I'm not much of a writer, and I'm pretty sure I'll never hit the best-seller list, but I'll never throw a hissy fit if someone points that out to me, and I'll never look at authors selling more than me, full of envy because I believe they got all the breaks. Truth is, I think readers are a fair bunch. If you write well, they will eventually find you. Yes, it may take a while for that to happen, but they will find you and you'll do well for yourself.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> If you write well, they will eventually find you. Yes, it may take a while for that to happen, but they will find you and you'll do well for yourself.


You are mistaken though about there being some list of all new releases where you can be found. This is true on Smashwords, but on Amazon only the bestselling new releases make the list.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

David J Normoyle said:


> What about all those factory workers in Thailand making Nike shoes for $2 an hour so that slick executives can sell the shoes for $100 dollars a pop and make millions! People getting paid money to make things and other people (not doing the actual making) picking up the profits. Someone start the revolution.


Perhaps we should all look at our feet to see if we are slick consumers?



> The belief the only the lucky make good money at writing may be a salve for the ego, but it leads to a vicious cycle in which people believe their work is "good enough" if only they caught a "break" to be worthy of being a best seller. Chances are, if none of your books are best sellers, it's not because you haven't caught a break. Go out and write a better book the next time. yeah, it takes a lot of patience to watch a fan base grow slowly, and maybe the fame and fortune will come so late it'll be posthumous, but pining for some stroke of a fairy godmother's wand is silly. If and when I fail, I sure as [crap] ain't gonna blame it on bad luck.


Consumers dont want all those books. It doesnt matter how good they are. There are zillions of good products that have failed in the market. It has nothing to do with the emotional state of the producer. Nobody cares about that stuff other than the producer. Thats simply how free markets work.

If quality books will become bestsellers, then we should be able to identify them prior to publication. Anybody here good enough to do that? If not, then what is meant by writing better books that will become bestsellers? A quality book may be a necessary condition for a best seller, but can anyone here list the necessary and sufficient conditions? Then we can apply it prepublication to identify what will be a bestseller.

If quality books are judged by sales, then it would be more precise to simply say we should write books that will sell a lot if we want to have a best seller.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> You are mistaken though about there being some list of all new releases where you can be found. This is true on Smashwords, but on Amazon only the bestselling new releases make the list.


I got to Amazon and there's a link on the left that says last 30 days. I click on that and I get 185,000 books. I'm pretty sure that all the new books they've uploaded in the last 30 days. I can narrow that down by genre, and if I go to the genre and sub-genre I was looking for last weekend, it narrows it down to 230. I have no problem going through 230 new books to find one I want. The cover has to be catchy. The blurb has to be good. But I can find something there I like and put eyes on every one of those 230 books. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing that. That means readers are seeing the books. From that point, it's a matter of luring them in. That's a LOT harder.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Very true. I am not qualified to talk about this stuff, but they let me talk anyway since it's a message board.
> 
> I don't think anyone is [crap], I'm just saying that the belief that someone hasn't hit it big just because of bad luck is foolish. And it's just as insulting to the people who HAVE made it big, to say it's luck. Look, I'm not much of a writer, and I'm pretty sure I'll never hit the best-seller list, but I'll never throw a hissy fit if someone points that out to me, and I'll never look at authors selling more than me, full of envy because I believe they got all the breaks. Truth is, I think readers are a fair bunch. If you write well, they will eventually find you. Yes, it may take a while for that to happen, but they will find you and you'll do well for yourself.


So there's some great universal force that makes sure that the best books hit the bestseller lists. When James Patterson has the 13 of the top 50 bestselling thrillers every year, that's because he's been involved in writing 13 of the best thrillers of the year and nothing to do with marketing or branding.

If someone writes a fantastic book, it's going to become a bestseller, you say. What has to happen after the writing of it? It has to be put up on Amazon, I guess. Or could it just be launched on Smashwords? Or just put up for sale on your own website for the readers to discover it by themselves and tell their friends? What about blurb and cover--Do they have to be of similar quality to the book? What about all this marketing and connecting to readers that authors try to do, is that necessary to have the bestselling book, or is that just speeding up the process slightly? Or does none of that matter--at the end of the day the books that have sold the most copies will be the ones that appealed most to the readers. Such a great meritocracy this book writing business has become.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> I got to Amazon and there's a link on the left that says last 30 days. I click on that and I get 185,000 books. I'm pretty sure that all the new books they've uploaded in the last 30 days. I can narrow that down by genre, and if I go to the genre and sub-genre I was looking for last weekend, it narrows it down to 230. I have no problem going through 230 new books to find one I want. The cover has to be catchy. The blurb has to be good. But I can find something there I like and put eyes on every one of those 230 books. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing that. That means readers are seeing the books. From that point, it's a matter of luring them in. That's a LOT harder.


185,000. How many readers do you think actually see the ones at the bottom of that list?


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I'm a reader. I don't really care about ghostwriters as long as the book is good. (Snip)
> 
> I'm not sure how I'd feel if there was an author I liked and I discovered after the fact that most of his/her books weren't really written by him/her. There is an element of dishonesty, or rather a lack of complete transparency. But does he/she really owe me that anyway? If the books were really good, why would I care? I guess it would depend on how much I'd bonded with the characters/series.
> 
> ...


This is what I was trying to articulate.

I wouldn't feel cheated because I went in to buy a good story. If I got a good story do they owe me any more transparency than that? Am I entitled to know more?

Is it underhanded if I find out that the writer isn't an exCIA operative writing a political thriller, but is really a retired ballet teacher writing under a pen name? Or was really a retired ballet teacher paid to write the book by a guy who is a retired truck driver?


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

We're going properly off topic with the whole 'Good stuff will out' but for the sake of argument, I'll throw in a theory or two.

Firstly, no book goes organic from zero visibility. Organic growth via reader worth of mouth has to start somewhere. That visibility might be very slight - e.g. the HNR lists, a tweet here, a blog post there.

Whether that converts depends on multiple factors. You've got a huge bunch of intrinsic factors - genre, price, cover, writing quality, blurb. But you've also got many many extrinsic factors, things outside the author's direct control.
That could be selling well enough to hit a HNR, but having another big book come out at the same time. That could be the innate randomness of who sees the book.

Once you've got a few direct sales, you have that chance of virality, and here I think one good analogy is looking at viral vectors in disease. This can be thought of numerically - On average, how many people does one reader tell about the book that go on to buy it?

If the average readers converts to one sale, you'll grow in reach. A tells B who tells C who tells D and so forth. This gives slow and steady growth - potentially very very slow.

If that numbers 2 sales per reader, you'll grow much faster. A tells B and C who in turn tell D E F and G. These are your 'breakout' books.

But not all readers are influencers. Some like to tell everyone about books, and blog/ tweet about it/ share on Goodreads. Some like to simply read a good book and enjoy it on their own. Depending on who reads a book in that 'direct' marketing chunk, you could see a book explode or die. Equally, if you've got some 'word of mouth' virality, but the average is <1, then you've got decline. 100 people tell 90 who tell 81 and so forth. That middle of the road encompasses quite a lot of books - these are the books that peak on release, then slowly decline until the author/ publishers sparks new life via new direct marketing (be that adverts or a new book).

Then there are more random elements. What if A tells B who tells C who tells A again? Localised network saturation could end word of mouth, even for a quality book. Virality spreads between groups by people who belong in multiple groups - think of it like the middle of a Venn diagram. Those guys in the centre are gold dust.

OFC, I am making all this up, but it seems to fit most books to me. My theory is that each book has a good chance, as long as it's reasonable. But it's like striking a match in the rain. The more matches you have, the better your chance of starting a fire.

Back on topic: Are we collating 'quality' with voice? We've had a few arguments that "If the book is as good" then it's fine to ghost, but given that quality is innately subjective, isn't it disingenuous to say "You ordered pate and got Foie Gras. It's better." Maybe I don't like foie gras.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> So there's some great universal force that makes sure that the best books hit the bestseller lists. When James Patterson has the 13 of the top 50 bestselling thrillers every year, that's because he's been involved in writing 13 of the best thrillers of the year and nothing to do with marketing or branding.
> 
> If someone writes a fantastic book, it's going to become a bestseller, you say. What has to happen after the writing of it? It has to be put up on Amazon, I guess. Or could it just be launched on Smashwords? Or just put up for sale on your own website for the readers to discover it by themselves and tell their friends? What about blurb and cover--Do they have to be of similar quality to the book? What about all this marketing and connecting to readers that authors try to do, is that necessary to have the bestselling book, or is that just speeding up the process slightly? Or does none of that matter--at the end of the day the books that have sold the most copies will be the ones that appealed most to the readers. Such a great meritocracy this book writing business has become.


Obviously, you can't tuck the book in your closet and expect it to sprout readers. We're talking within reason here. If you have the wherewithal to write a book that's that good, you're probably putting in places where readers can find it. At least SOME readers will see it. It can't possibly take $100k in advertising and James Patterson's name on it to make a bestseller, because I've seen it done without that. Sure, you might be some mushroom who has no clue and puts it on a blog that nobody ever visits. Sure, I'll grant you that. Yes, in extreme cases, there may be a great book written by a great writer who's too much of a dope to put up as many places as he can.

Look, I know it's a sensitive subject, and we all have fragile egos. I will curl up in a ball, crying like a little girl when I see how much I'm gonna sell. But I will never blame it on luck. I certainly don't begrudge anyone blaming it on luck. If it makes you feel better, by all means, have at it. But if it comes to that, I would just suggest keeping the possibility in the back of your mind that maybe the books you've written aren't good enough to get that acclaim you're looking for, and that maybe they can be improved. Keep exploring. Keep fighting to make them better.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

90daysnovel said:


> Back on topic: Are we collating 'quality' with voice? We've had a few arguments that "If the book is as good"


Replace all "good book" statements with "books that resonate with readers," and I think you have a more accurate description of what takes hold in the marketplace. And what will resonate with readers is your guess as good as it is mine. But that emotional connection is what makes people tell others about your book. It's necessary in order to go viral.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> 185,000. How many readers do you think actually see the ones at the bottom of that list?


Funny that y pick the 185,000 number and not the 230 number. Because, I know I have gone through the entire list of new releases in a sub-genere I've looked through. So, there's at last 1 in the genes I read.


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Replace all "good book" statements with "books that resonate with readers," and I think you have a more accurate description of what takes hold in the marketplace. And what will resonate with readers is your guess as good as it is mine. But that emotional connection is what makes people tell others about your book. It's necessary in order to go viral.


True enough. I was thinking more in terms of ghost-writing. If you expect one author, but get another then you've been mis-sold. Even if that latter author is 'better' by reason of emotional resonance, plot or prestige. With everything being so subjective, can 'better' justify the bait and switch of using a ghost writer? We've had a few arguments that there's no harm if a 'better' written book is given the wrapping of a 'lesser' book, but what if I actively wanted the quick and dirty hamburger salty goodness rather than the fillet steak? Books are nowhere near that clear cut in who is better, which makes it pretty awkward to say the reader has suffered no harm from a substitution, and they won't even know it until they're at least part of the way through reading the book.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Look, I know it's a sensitive subject, and we all have fragile egos. I will curl up in a ball, crying like a little girl when I see how much I'm gonna sell. But I will never blame it on luck.


Most of the success I have had in life has involved luck. I have no hesitation in acknowledging that. Its all around us. I prefer to welcome it and do everything I can to be in a place where I can take advantage of it. It works.

The notion that I can succeed all on my own merits, because of my overwhelming talent and drive is silly. This isnt a sensitive subject. Its the way the world works.

Who here is such a towering engine of talent that luck has been absent from your success? Show of hands? Sitting on my hands...

God Bless good luck, for it makes all the difference.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Luck = When preparation meets opportunity

If you hadn't done the hard work, I would argue that luck would never have appeared.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Luck = When preparation meets opportunity
> 
> If you hadn't done the hard work, I would argue that luck would never have appeared.


No. I don't need to argue the point. I know. Some of it just happened. Others worked just as hard and it didn't. Acknowledging where I don't get the credit is just as important as acknowledging where I do. Technically, it's called Blind Shithouse Luck.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Most of the success I have had in life has involved luck. I have no hesitation in acknowledging that. Its all around us. I prefer to welcome it and do everything I can to be in a place where I can take advantage of it. It works.
> 
> The notion that I can succeed all on my own merits, because of my overwhelming talent and drive is silly. This isnt a sensitive subject. Its the way the world works.
> 
> ...


Well, I'm not big on mysticism, so "luck" has about the same weight with me as "unicorn." You have a set of talents. You work at improving them. And then you create something. I it's good, then is it really the unicorn that came by and grated you good sales, or was it the preparation? This whole thing boils back to the ghost writing. If you've worked to hone your talents enough to be noticed by someone who is willing to pay you lots of money to write a book for them, how is it possible that you can't make it as an indie? You have the writing skills, right? Then it's a matter of having the will to wade through a few threads on a forum like this one and, voila, you're self published. I haven't done it yet, but I'm pretty sure I'll do it eventually so it isn't all THAT complicated. So, an author who wrote a best seller for someone else is PROBABLY gonna be able to do it as well. Now, does it take the $00k in advertising at that point to take it a best seller? I've seen it done without it, so I'll say no. Are you saying, yes?


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Others worked just as hard and it didn't.


How hard someone works doesn't take into account talent.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Obviously, you can't tuck the book in your closet and expect it to sprout readers. We're talking within reason here. If you have the wherewithal to write a book that's that good, you're probably putting in places where readers can find it. At least SOME readers will see it. It can't possibly take $100k in advertising and James Patterson's name on it to make a bestseller, because I've seen it done without that. Sure, you might be some mushroom who has no clue and puts it on a blog that nobody ever visits. Sure, I'll grant you that. Yes, in extreme cases, there may be a great book written by a great writer who's too much of a dope to put up as many places as he can.
> 
> Look, I know it's a sensitive subject, and we all have fragile egos. I will curl up in a ball, crying like a little girl when I see how much I'm gonna sell. But I will never blame it on luck. I certainly don't begrudge anyone blaming it on luck. If it makes you feel better, by all means, have at it. But if it comes to that, I would just suggest keeping the possibility in the back of your mind that maybe the books you've written aren't good enough to get that acclaim you're looking for, and that maybe they can be improved. Keep exploring. Keep fighting to make them better.


The thing is that, if someone isn't selling that many copies of a book, they don't know if a)it wasn't good enough b)it doesn't appeal to enough readers c) the product page isn't good enough (blurb/cover/reviews) d)it hasn't been put in front of enough readers e)it doesn't have enough of a brand to drive it.

You can't say it's definitely a+b. It could be a combination of many factors. That's why we, as self publishers, continue to write and market. Once a+b+c have reached a certain level, the only thing to do is keep building the brand and putting it in front of more readers. There isn't some force making sure that once a+b are at a certain level, then the book will do well.

One way to look at it is to give each book two numbers. One is raw readability--how much you can get readers to love the book. Second is visibility--how visible is it and how well known is the brand. (Also genre is another important factor, but let's ignore that for this analysis.)
Let's say Patterson gets 100% visibility and newbie writer who doesn't market gets 1%. Let's say one of Patterson's thrillers gets 20% for ReaderLove. Let's say WOOL get's 80% for readerLove.
20%ReaderLove in addition to 100%Visibility => Bestseller for Patterson Thriller
80%ReaderLove in addition to 20%Visibility => Bestseller for WOOL
65%ReaderLove in addition to 30%Visibilty => Bestseller for 50Shades.

Anyway, just rough numbers to make a point.
Say you have a book that is 100%ReaderLove. You are probably right about the virality of that. The newbiewriter writer with 1%Visibility would probably have a bestseller on their hands. What about all these books with 20% to 40%ReaderLove? With the right visibility (and/or luck) they would be bestsellers. You could say, well write a book with a higher ReaderLove, but it's not that easy. Really viral books don't come around that much. Can't bank on that lightning strike. So the key is to write a stable of 20%-40%ReaderLove books (obviously make them as good as you can) and work on building Visibility.

Now, as writers it's pretty much impossible to know where we are on the ReaderLove scale until the visibility is high enough to give the book a chance. (You could probably figure out that it's not greater than 80% because it hasn't gone viral, and probably know that it's more than 10% because of reviews, own objective analysis etc.) But beyond that it's about raising Visibility which is what this board is all about.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Look, I'm not much of a writer, and I'm pretty sure I'll never hit the best-seller list, but I'll never throw a hissy fit if someone points that out to me, and I'll never look at authors selling more than me, full of envy because I believe they got all the breaks. Truth is, I think readers are a fair bunch. If you write well, they will eventually find you. Yes, it may take a while for that to happen, but they will find you and you'll do well for yourself.


Well, you got me there, 'cause I throw a lot of hissy fits. Tantrums, maybe, even. 

It's because I'm, um, passionate. Or something.

I also get really jealous. Like, constantly. Other people seem to be able to turn off their reactions to the world by sheer force of will or something. I've yet to figure out how to do that, and I'm 33 years old.

I'm going to blame unicorns, because blaming myself has gotten me nowhere except therapy. But I'm not big on mysticism either. I rely on my observations to guide me. I've seen some stuff on the best seller lists that I think was really, really... well, bad. And I've determined that if something "bad" can become popular, then it can't be _only_ about good vs. bad writing.

Which is why this--



Jana DeLeon said:


> Replace all "good book" statements with "books that resonate with readers," and I think you have a more accurate description of what takes hold in the marketplace. And what will resonate with readers is your guess as good as it is mine. But that emotional connection is what makes people tell others about your book. It's necessary in order to go viral.


--seems to be way more true to me.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

I debated jumping in here because a) no one curr what I say and b) much of this conversation has been uninformed with lots of assumptions followed by judgement and I'm not really up for retaliatory bad reviews or debate. But I'm high on caffeine and it's David Bowie's birthday, so my self control is at an all-time low. 

I am a ghostwriter, and a fairly successful one for someone who's as lazy as I am. I get paid low 5 figures for relatively short books (150-250 pages) both fiction and non-fiction. Because I write quickly and have a mind like a coke-addicted spider monkey, I generally average $100 per hour. I also ghostwrite for myself and have several different self-published pen names. I'm not a savant, but I write well enough and I don't put out crap. 

First off, I get the idea from reading these responses that many people think that if a ghostwriter writes fiction for another person, then there's a sort of emotional disconnect between the reader, the "author" and the writer. I'm sure this CAN be true, but in my case and in the case of the other ghosties I know, this is so not true. You know how you feel when you get an email from a reader who totally got your book? That's the same feeling you get from clients when you make their vision a reality. They are so, so, so excited to see their concept become real and they're grateful that you've given them the ability to share that with their readers. A good ghostwriter isn't wearing a writer costume--a fedora, elbow-patched sweater and pipe--they ARE writers putting their heart and soul into the work they create. Into the wish they're fulfilling for their client. The analogy about being a surrogate is, in a lot of ways, a great way to put it. There is an emotional attachment between the author (or, idea person) and the creator. They each get to share in the joy of bringing the project to light and watching it go out into the world. I get the feeling that some of you see the process as a crass factory-style approach to creation. I'm sure that it can be, but no more so than the thousands of indies who write their own work and don't give a crap but want to jump on the supposed money train. My clients love their worlds and characters, and I want to make those things come alive for them when they can't. 

The next argument is that ghostwriters are being taken advantage of. Sure some of them are--absolutely. This is probably true of any industry. Some write short stories for $30. Some COULD have made a lot more self-publishing. But there's no guarantee. I don't make as much on my self-published work. Someday maybe I will, but I can't afford to wait and see. I took a huge leap of faith in 2008 when I quit a great career to write full time. My husband has had two heart attacks. Hell, he was just hospitalized in December for a heart flutter thing (medication side effect). He's older than me and probably going to die much sooner than me, and I want to be with him for as many hours as I can. Ghostwriting allows me to do that while still paying the mortgage, eating and spending over $1k per month on meds and health insurance. It allows me to buy peace and comfort for my husband as he ages. I guess I could just self-publish everything I write and cross my fingers that it works while keeping a regular job that requires me to leave the house for 10 hours a day until my husband dies and my life folds in on itself and I have to wonder what the heck the point of it all was. But instead, I write books that I love for people who appreciate it and I get to have a bird in the hand without worrying whether I can catch the two sitting in the bush before I'm a widow. 

But that's just me. Other ghostwriters have their own issues. Some of them really, really don't want the attention that goes with putting their own stuff out. Some write better when it's for someone else. Some don't have the confidence--the balls--you need to do this. Should they be pitied? I wouldn't think they should be pitied any more than self-pubbers are pitied by trad authors. They made a decision that was right for them--and you don't need to understand it in order for it to be right.

I can completely understand the point and the value of exploring these types of topics. The industry is changing and heck yeah--it affects you. But it would be awesome to remember that there are PEOPLE making those choices that are completely legal but that you've decided you disagree with. PEOPLE who have loved ones and who might not be able to take the same risks as you. It's easy to think that everyone can reach the same level of success, but you know what? On any given day, there are only one hundred top spots. One hundred. The top hundred isn't like a clown car we can just all pile up in. The default position is not "WINNING!" The default position is trying based on your own unique talents and tolerance for risk. Trying. That's all. 

If I sound defensive, it's probably because I am. I found myself hurt reading many of the responses--as I often am on this board when people start insulting erotica writers, fast writers, serial writers, people who market, people who don't (or do but don't understand that), people who choose trad, basically anyone they disagree with. Normally, I'd just roll my eyes and stay away. BUT I TRIED THE NEW STARBUCKS FLAN THING AND AM FLYING OFF THE WALLS NOW. WHEN IS MY JAW GOING TO UNCLENCH? OH THE HUMANITTTYYYYYYYYYY.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> The thing is that, if someone isn't selling that many copies of a book, they don't know if a)it wasn't good enough b)it doesn't appeal to enough readers c) the product page isn't good enough (blurb/cover/reviews) d)it hasn't been put in front of enough readers e)it doesn't have enough of a brand to drive it.


Yeah, I'll agree that visibility has a lot to do with the speed of the process, but it's not everything. I mean, look at Hugh's original Wool cover, no offense to Hugh, but it didn't exactly attract the eye. Had he had a better cover on the thing, his rise would have happened much sooner IMO. And there are a LOT of people on this board who have covers that aren't as good as their writing (I sample just about everyone's books). I watch their numbers in the monthly sales threads, and they gain readers, but slowly. IMO, they will eventually be selling TONS of books, but their covers hold them back for now. But they ARE improving their sales, even with their lousy covers.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

WordSaladTongs said:


> I debated jumping in here because a) no one curr what I say and b) much of this conversation has been uninformed with lots of assumptions followed by judgement and I'm not really up for retaliatory bad reviews or debate. But I'm high on caffeine and it's David Bowie's birthday, so my self control is at an all-time low.
> 
> I am a ghostwriter, and a fairly successful one for someone who's as lazy as I am. I get paid low 5 figures for relatively short books (150-250 pages) both fiction and non-fiction. Because I write quickly and have a mind like a coke-addicted spider monkey, I generally average $100 per hour. I also ghostwrite for myself and have several different self-published pen names. I'm not a savant, but I write well enough and I don't put out crap.
> 
> ...


Well, just judging by this post, I'd say you could make a LOT of money self-pubbing.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

I knew of a ghosting situation that annoyed the heck out of me: a famous trial attorney, who had no fiction writing skills at all, hired a ghost writer to write his highly successful series of legal thrillers. The ghost was well-compensated, but not as well-compensated as the attorney, who actually quit his job "in order to devote more time to writing." (The attorney had no involvement in the writing of the novels. None. Not characters, not plots. He just put his name on them.) The ghost got tired of it and quit to have his own successful career as a writer. Apparently the attorney hired a new ghost, who was not as talented. 

The part where the attorney quit his career in order to devote more time to his writing that annoyed me.

When I find an author I like and they get so successful that's it economically feasible -- possibly even advantageous -- to hire a ghost, that annoys me. There's a well-known mega-selling author whose books I loved. I haven't read any of the recent ones, but last year he put out a sequel to one of my all-time favorite novels. I picked it up, started reading it, and said, "This reads like someone imitating him." I put it down and have zero interest in picking up any more books. Maybe his writing has changed, and maybe my tastes have changed. But I'm pretty sure the rumors I've heard about him having ghostwriters is probably true now, and I'm not interested in reading imitations of what was a singular voice.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Well, just judging by this post, I'd say you could make a LOT of money self-pubbing.


Gonna try to get my reply into the Kindle Single program. Wish me luck!!


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2014)

This whole conversation reminds me of those people who claim they "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" to become millionaires and if they can do it, anyone can. But the thing is, look deeper at all of these 'self-made" millionaires and you will more often than not find:

*Parents who were already successful themselves and provided a strong home life and financial support.
*Access to a strong education.
*Mentors who opened doors for the person and taught them the ropes.
*Access to decision makers who were able to provide support to the person in the early stages of his business

Yes, these people "worked hard." I don't deny that. But they didn't work hard in a void. They worked hard from a place that already had a platform. Look at someone like Christopher Paolini. If not for the fact that his parents were wealthy, had connections in the industry, and decided to take a year off from their careers (which they had the financial means to do) to personally sell their son's book, nobody would know who that kid was. If Darcie Chan had been an unemployed single mom who didn't have several thousand dollars available to buy advertising and pay for Kirkus Reviews, would anyone know what _The Mill River Recluse_ was?

I don't think anyone is saying you don't have to work hard to succeed. What many are saying is that hard work in and of itself is no guarantee of success. Just like not smoking is no guarantee of not getting cancer. It improves your chances, but plenty of people who don't smoke and live healthy lives still get cancer and other chronic illnesses. Claiming that a ghostwriter who writes a successful ghostwritten book would have the same or better success self publishing just ignores the hundreds of variables that go into a book's success. I can no more claim a lack of success equals a lack of work ethic than I can say someone with cancer just didn't live healthy.

It also ignores the huge set of skills required to self publish. For a lot of people, writing the book is the easy part. The hard part is editing, proofreading, distribution, marketing, and all the other stuff. Sure, anyone can hire an editor. But you need a certain skill set to even know if you are GETTING a good editor. You need to have some basic understanding of marketing principles. You need some rudimentary understanding of business accounting. If this stuff was easy, no product would ever fail and there would be no poverty because everyone who worked hard would be wealthy.

I simply have a hard time looking at someone and saying, in effect, you are a failure because you don't work hard enough. Particularly when I don't know that person's circumstances. I also have a hard time telling someone they are stupid or naive or uneducated for doing one thing (like ghost writing or working with a trade publisher) when they can make more money self-publishing when I don't know if that is actually true. I can believe it is true. I can hope it is true. I can sing happy thoughts and throw fairy dust in the air and pretend that makes it true. But I cannot say that is quantifiable for every person because every person's situation and skill set is different.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This whole conversation reminds me of those people who claim they "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" to become millionaires and if they can do it, anyone can. But the thing is, look deeper at all of these 'self-made" millionaires and you will more often than not find:
> 
> *Parents who were already successful themselves and provided a strong home life and financial support.
> *Access to a strong education.
> ...


Well, to be a good ghost writer, you have to have at least two things, hard wok and talent. If you don't work hard, nobody will hire you because they'll get tired of waiting for their stuff. and if you don't have the talent, they won't hire you because your stuff won't be good enough. So, what we're dealing with here is a person with talent, who works hard. That's a hel of a combination. I'd take m chances with that and leave you guys to figure out the luck part any day.


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

Word salad tongs, I could NOT have said it better myself.

You rock.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

J. Bridger and WordSaladTongs, your posts have opened my eyes. I'm glad you find such enjoyment and fulfillment in it.



WordSaladTongs said:


> I debated jumping in here because a) no one curr what I say and b) much of this conversation has been uninformed with lots of assumptions followed by judgement and I'm not really up for retaliatory bad reviews or debate. But I'm high on caffeine and it's David Bowie's birthday, so my self control is at an all-time low.
> 
> I am a ghostwriter, and a fairly successful one for someone who's as lazy as I am. I get paid low 5 figures for relatively short books (150-250 pages) both fiction and non-fiction. Because I write quickly and have a mind like a coke-addicted spider monkey, I generally average $100 per hour. I also ghostwrite for myself and have several different self-published pen names. I'm not a savant, but I write well enough and I don't put out crap.
> 
> ...


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

I just got a $4,000 invoice in the mail from hubby's last hospital stay, so it's especially nice to come back to these comments. Thanks 



Wansit said:


> J. Bridger and WordSaladTongs, your posts have opened my eyes. I'm glad you find such enjoyment and fulfillment in it.





J Bridger said:


> Word salad tongs, I could NOT have said it better myself.
> 
> You rock.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Jana DeLeon said:


> How hard someone works doesn't take into account talent.


Others had more talent.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Others had more talent.


Then, what you call luck, I call bad management for advancing someone less qualified. (Either that, or possibly mock humility, or maybe even a false sense of low self-worth.  Still working on the psych evaluation on you. Haven't got a handle on it yet, though.)


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Wordsaladtongs,,
Your reply reminds me of a ghostwriter friend that I told about this thread to get her opinion.

I asked her why she prefers to ghostwrite anonymously and make a mid 6 figure income instead of self publishing for all the credit and she looked at me like I was insane then said, "Girl, I am not tryin to do all that..."

I guess that says it all. Lol


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> Well, I'm not big on mysticism, so "luck" has about the same weight with me as "unicorn." You have a set of talents. You work at improving them. And then you create something. I it's good, then is it really the unicorn that came by and grated you good sales, or was it the preparation? This whole thing boils back to the ghost writing. If you've worked to hone your talents enough to be noticed by someone who is willing to pay you lots of money to write a book for them, how is it possible that you can't make it as an indie? You have the writing skills, right? Then it's a matter of having the will to wade through a few threads on a forum like this one and, voila, you're self published. I haven't done it yet, but I'm pretty sure I'll do it eventually so it isn't all THAT complicated. So, an author who wrote a best seller for someone else is PROBABLY gonna be able to do it as well. Now, does it take the $00k in advertising at that point to take it a best seller? I've seen it done without it, so I'll say no. Are you saying, yes?


I have said nothing about advertising.

But what is the basis for the idea a that the ghost in question will have a bestseller? What do we observe in the market supporting that idea? What do we see that indicates probability of success?

And luck? It works for me, and I have seen it work for others. But that's an unreliable sample, so I accept whatever anyone says about their own experience.

Best of luck...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> Then, what you call luck, I call bad management for advancing someone less qualified. (Either that, or possibly mock humility, or maybe even a false sense of low self-worth.  Still working on the psych evaluation on you. Haven't got a handle on it yet, though.)


If its bad management, then it's my lucky break. I'll take it. Its hard work competing against more talented people who work harder. If poor management helps that along, then God Bless poor management, for luck has many guises.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Excellent post Wordsaladtongs! I'm glad you were all hopped up on that Starbucks flan.  

I hope your husband is feeling better.


----------

