Around the Year in 52 Books discussion

I have notice that a few popular authors have others writing under their names. Some thing like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books back in the 1930's. The Bourne Series, after the first three, is just one example.

Here is an article about 6 others. http://mentalfloss.com/article/12689/...

Do you have a problem with famous authors letting others use their names this way?

I do. When purchasing or borrowing a book because of the author I expect it to be that author, not someone else.

Caveat emptor. There is a difference, though. The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew had one author's name on their cover, but we never knew who was writing them.

V.C. Andrews was similar, apparently she died early on and someone ghost-wrote all the rest.

The current trend is the original author's name in big type, but someone else wrote it. Dick Francis' son is keeping his tradition going. James Patterson always has a partner. Robert Ludlum, Tom Clancy are others who books written like this.

The thing is, you know who is doing it. You just have to read the fine print.

I do have an issue with authors having others write under their name. Like Anastasia said, I want to know that when I read a book, it is by the person I expect it to be by. I have no problem if the same series is written by multiple authors as long as it is clearly indicated who wrote what.

Maybe it's a hold-over from all the "anti-plagiarism" lectures I had through university and college, but I expect people to be credited for their work. I'm not trying to say that ghostwriters are plagiarizing, but I find it a bit strange that authors would choose to do this anyway. Why wouldn't a ghostwriter want credit for their work? Why would an author want or need to have their name on books they didn't write themselves?

I see what Kirsten is saying about how it is generally known anyway, but I just can't think of any real reason of why it would be necessary.

Sometimes the actor's estate contracts with someone. I don't mind as long as I know it is happening.

Most of the time these days, this author's name is on the cover and if you read the cover carefully you will know.

I don't think of it as plagiarism. A closer comparison is fan fiction. You are using characters already in existence. Like Laurie King's series featuring Sherlock Holmes.

But many times the author themselves brings in new blood like James Patterson or Clive Cussler do and the author's name is credited.

Or it's like Tom Clancy's Op series by so-and-so or Robert Ludlum's Bourne by so-and-so or Robert Parker's Spenser by so-and-so. They ARE credited.

Ghostwriting is different. Did you ever see the movie with Pierce Brosnan and Ewan Macgregor where the main character is a ghostwriter?

It sort of bothers me, whether the author is credited or not. Like with James Patterson, he's making (likely) an ungodly amount of money on his books when he hasn't even written many of them. He's one of those prolific writers who has far too many books published and I just don't see the reason to put out so many and not even write all of them. Why not just write your own books and publish less? It just makes him seem less talented in my mind.

Now, if it's posthumously then that's totally differently. I didn't mind the continuation of the Millennium trilogy. But when a writer is pumping out all these books and does't even write them himself then it just feels little shady to me.

I want to clarify again that I was not trying to say that the ghostwriters were plagiarizing. I agree that it's similar to fanfiction, but for me there is a very important distinction. With fanfiction, it's usually very clear who the author is. I have no problem when the authors are properly credited, as in the Tom Clancy example above. What I was objecting to is more like the Nancy Drew series or Babysitter's Club, where the books are supposedly written by one author.

When it's posthumously published, I still think it should be a clear who the author is. I can understand when another author takes over to complete a book based on the original author's plans, but I still think it should be clear who writes the book.

I agree with Laura that it feels a little shady, but on both sides. I find it strange that an author would take credit for writing so many books (ie. James Patterson) when they are not writing them, and I also find it strange for the ghostwriter to write the books without being properly credited.

It seems duplicitous to me. I shouldn't have to read the fine print to know who wrote something.

James Patterson bothers me to no end. If he'd done it once or twice it might be fine but it's gotten ridiculous.

I agree that all books should very clearly state who the ACTUAL author is, not who they are mimicing or borrowing characters from.

I'm not sure why the true authors allow it really. Don't they want to be known in their own right so people will read books they publish on their own? Nobody remembers the author in tiny print at the bottom of the cover, they only remember the giant JAMES PATTERSON screaming at you from the top.

I agree that the true author's name should be in large print. If it is another author's characters that should be in small print.
Right now it is usually just listed in small print you have to really search for or in the end of the blurb.
It feels like someone stealing another's work.

In some cases, I think it makes sense. As mentioned above, if you take characters from another series and write your own, you should credit them (i.e. fanfiction; "based on the Sherlock Holmes characters created by...; etc). Also, if an author passes away before finishing a series (Robert Jordan) and someone else finishes. I am totally fine with these instances having ghostwriters or additional authors. Also, in the case of the (rather formulaic) Babysitter's Club, Sweet Valley High, etc. series, I think it makes sense (don't get me wrong, I loved the BSC and read probably 120ish of them before growing out of it, but you can hardly blame an author for tiring of a series and wanting to try something new but the publisher not wanting to give up such a cash cow). In the 30s and 40s, I get the feeling that Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew were more of a publisher's owned characters and they'd get anyone to write it.
However, in the case of more recent authors, I just don't like it. Maybe it's just to get the newer, unknown person published, and I kind of understand that. For example, Jodi Picoult's high school daughter wrote a story and pitched it to her mom. I'm sure there was some help and collaboration going on, and then it was published with Picoult's name first, and larger, on the cover. Now, I'm sure that many people who have Picoult on their read-no-matter-what list picked that book up when they otherwise wouldn't have if it had been published just under Samantha van Leer's name. Also, let's face it, what are the odds that a high school student would have been able to navigate the sometimes shark-like world of publishers and agents and come through unscathed? I hope that in the future, as van Leer gets more comfortable with her writing and able to rely on her mom less, that Picoult's name will fall off of van Leer's books.
However, as mentioned above, I feel that author's like Patterson are turning book writing into a corporate factory rather than keeping it a real, and personal art form. My husband works for a big computer company, and if he comes up with something at work, using work time and resources, then it belongs to them. Sure, he's get a bonus (small name on the cover) but they'd get the bulk of the credit and profits. It's just the way big corporations work. I have a picture in my head of a room filled with 100 desks and typewriters (it looks a lot like my middle school typing class, actually, only larger) and Patterson swooping around reading over everybody's shoulders looking for a good storyline to stamp his name on. I'm sure this isn't what really happens, but I don't really like the idea of someone taking the 'lazy way' into publishing. It feels to me like selling a body part just to make rent; I did the work and came up with these characters, but going through agents and publishers is too hard, so can I borrow your name, which will open doors, and push it through to the public who will eat it up? I don't think this works at all. First, it makes us disgusted with the big name author, and it cheats the little name author out of the glory. I haven't ever seen a book by a little name author solo after I've seen it under the shadows of the top billed author.
So, I guess in some ways it is ok with me, especially when you're helping out a family member, but not when it turns writing (and therefore, reading) into a corporate factory churning out mass quantities of books.

Also, it should be noted, that not all authors are happy with fanfiction. I know that Rex Stout, who created and wrote many Nero Wolfe books, doesn't appreciate the continuation of his series by Robert Goldsborough. When asked what he thought about the new continuation, he said "Books are like cigars: let them roll their own."

I just did a bit of research about this, and it turns out that neither Carolyn Keene (Nancy Drew series) or Franklin Dixon (Hardy Boys) are real people. Those were pen names created specifically for the purpose of writing the series, and covered multiple authors. I think in that case, it's a little more acceptable since it is not a single, real person taking credit for the works of others.

I would have no problem with the fanfiction-type credit of "based on the characters created by author x," when the story is still unique.

If an author passes away before a series is finished, I think it should be a similar set-up. It should specify that someone else is writing the books, based on the notes or whatever is left from the original author (or that it is new ideas, if that's the case). If the author passes away mid-book, it's usually pretty well-known who finishes it for them.

In terms of Sam's example above of Jodi Picoult and Samantha van Leer, I personally had no problem with that because both of the authors were credited. Jodi's name was written in a bigger font on the covers, but Samantha's name was still (at least on my copies of the book) quite prominent.

I've never read any co-authored books by James Patterson, but my understanding is he very clearly identifies his co-authors. However, where I take issue is when they want to be identified as very prolific authors without doing the work. My mom is a big James Patterson fan, and she told me that he has stated in interviews (which I'm having trouble finding at the moment) that he wanted to be a very prolific author. I have trouble considering him so prolific knowing that many of the books were not his writing. The same goes for Ann M. Martin, who intended the Babysitters Club series to be a 4 book series, and the it kept getting extended by the publishers, to the point where they pace they wanted was unreasonable. In that case, I can kind of understand why the author would choose to enlist help, but I think they should still credit the people who are helping with the writing.

I hate this practice. The thing is, you pick up a book based on your experience with the author. As a kid, I read series like Hardy Boys and Tom Swift and eventually when they shift to lesser writers, its a pretty big disappointment. The lack of trust caused by that expereince caused me to move away from those series.

It's also an issue when a series continues with an author's name even though that author is no longer writing (whether dead or otherwise). How the Wheel of Time series was handled should be the way it is done.

Another series that is not yet mentioned here is The Mists of Avalon. In that case, it slowly shifted to mentioning the new author. First still listing the original author, then writing both names and only recently actually crediting the true author.