The Commoditization of Creativity *Ghost Writing Farms*

[JayMark]

Something I've been pondering lately is the use of ghost writers in fiction.

Many celebrities who neither have the time or ability to write their own book will use ghost writers to flood the market with biographies that will sell simply because the book is about them. I find the practice dishonest and the books easily avoidable garbage.

But I'm more focused on learning more about ghost writer farms. Something which I've heard about incidentaly but was never really focused on. I'm a naive autist who thinks everyone does their own work as oppossed to buying someone elses and calling it their own.

There are authors like James Patterson and Tom Clancy among other big names who farm out their writing to ghost writers, so much so that one might compare what they do to the use of writing sweat shops. I always wondered how R.L Stine was able to pump out so many books, now Iunderstand.

I find a few things insidious about this practice. I don't really find anything wholesome about it.

1. Authors are not writing their own books
2. Writers are not credited for their hard work.
3. It's a purely fiscal arrangement based on legalized dishonesty. *lies
4. It funnels talent into writing sweatshops.
5. It floods the market with fictions under fewer big names
6. It severely disadvantages new writers
7. It encourages intelectual property monopolization through corporate structures.
8. It locks success at the top or certainly contributes to raising the barrier to any sort of financial success.
9. It contributes to moneyed interests gaining all reader attention over writers who work hard. *when they already control all the advertising space

This is just my observation. I'm going to do more research and consolidate my thoughts. As a community of writers, what are your thoughts on this practice? Is there even any thing that can be done about it? Can we at least have honesty in publishing maybe? Maybe just that?

That's probably too much to ask.

 

[Cipiteca396]

Eh, I'm not sure I agree. I have a lot of things I'd like to write about, but not the ability to do so. Theoretically, that means there should be people out there who are the opposite. Empty head, but lots of ability. Paying those people to write my stories would -again, theoretically- be better for both of us.
Since it's my story, I should still get credit for it. Though I'd definitely want to credit this generous zombie for their efforts. Just like I'd probably credit an editor who didn't contribute anything except a bunch of red lines.

Now, if a big company enslaves a bunch of people and chains them to a desk in front of a typewriter(since they could use a real computer to call for help, obviously), that would be bad.
Otherwise... What's stopping them from becoming "real" authors? If they have the ability and the imagination (or perhaps just awareness of the trends that sell well) then they could write their own books, receive credit for their work, and become famous authors (who pay other people to write their stories:).

Obviously there's a point where it stops working. If you throw cash at someone, but no idea, and then claim the result as yours... Actually, didn't you just buy the copyright from them? I still wouldn't like it, but there's certainly a legal precedent for it. Like Disney's Star Wars......

Well, as with most things, I'd prefer to judge it on a case by case basis.

 

[JayMark]

Now, if a big company enslaves a bunch of people and chains them to a desk in front of a typewriter(since they could use a real computer to call for help, obviously), that would be bad.

We've already have these chains, we've had them, for a long time. They are called wages.

One could make the argument it's the same as a company owning another person's labor, and fine, go with that. But as a consumer I think I should be entitled to know who the work really comes from, no lies, no deception. Just like I know the Toyoto Corp owners didn't actually build my car by hand in a garage welding parts together.

It's like if I built a house and then someone pays me money not just for the house, but the right to lie and say they built it. Not right in my humble estimation. Bad practice

We're already essentially serfs down here. So I was at least hoping we could get to keep our creativity and not have it chained in service to the fiscal empire.

We're all just gleefully selling our birthrites as humans for a bowl of lentils and some funny digits.
I'm just mooing at the wind again it seems.
It's kind of amusing from an observer's perspective.

 

[Gray_Mann]

Considering how much I've seen ghostwriters make...and I know a ghostwriter who lives a few miles from me, they get paid well for their work. Most ghostwriters who work in fiction, they are people who lack the sort of creativity needed to take ideas into an entire series, but have all of the technical skills that allow them to write, and write very well. So....why shouldn't a prospective author with big ideas but no writing ability NOT capitalize on that?

I mean, countless WN/LN writers who have popular books that become manga and guess what? MOST of the time, they hired an artist. Most WN/LN writers can't draw for shit and yet they have visual media made from their art by hiring artists so I'm not understanding the point you are making here?

How is an WN/LN writer hiring an artist for their manga any different than a Story Ideas Guy hiring a Non-Creative But Still Good Writer to make his ideas come to life?

 

[LeilaniOtter]

I confess that during the 2000s, I was a ghost writer for several non-fiction books, some SF/F novels (in parts), and a few screenplays. I hated the fact that I could never share any work, and I'm still bound by contracts to this day. It IS an insidious practice, and some of the "farms" I ended up on were writing everything from college thesis, to term papers, to scientific research reports, and much more.

It's sickening and I'm so glad i don't do that anymore. But in the years after 9/11, and our agency dried up, we needed money badly. I don't think I did anything that wrong though, and I shied away from anything of a collegiate nature. I frown on outright cheating.

 

[ThisAdamGuy]

As long as the writer knows upfront that their name isn't going to be on the cover, and they're fairly compensated for their work, then there's no harm to it.

 

[JayMark]

Considering how much I've seen ghostwriters make...and I know a ghostwriter who lives a few miles from me, they get paid well for their work. Most ghostwriters who work in fiction, they are people who lack the sort of creativity needed to take ideas into an entire series, but have all of the technical skills that allow them to write, and write very well. So....why shouldn't a prospective author with big ideas but no writing ability NOT capitalize on that?

This is not about commissioning a work to be done. This is about taking credit.

I think systems built on dishonesty are harmful.

So anyone can become a respected author if that someone has ideas, which are oh soooo hard to come by, and lots of money. Got it. And they can run around taking credit for the great thing they wrote.

How is this practice much different then paying someone to write all my academic papers because I have ideas but can't bothered to do the work? Should graduate with high honors and get my doctorate? There should be no problem. It's my work because I bought it. I should be able to use it in any way I want.

I mean, countless WN/LN writers who have popular books that become manga and guess what? MOST of the time, they hired an artist. Most WN/LN writers can't draw for shit and yet they have visual media made from their art by hiring artists so I'm not understanding the point you are making here?

How is an WN/LN writer hiring an artist for their manga any different than a Story Ideas Guy hiring a Non-Creative But Still Good Writer to make his ideas come to life?

If someone uses an artist I generally understand that they aren't taking credit for the work. They aren't gining the write to say they drew that. But I guess if someone can't draw but they have ideas that more than entitles them to the accolades of being a great artist. Got it.

 

[Eldoria]

Wow... the practice of ghostwriting for fiction. I've never heard of this kind of practice. I knew there were ghostwriters for scientific research, and I even knew a professor who used the services of a ghostwriter to write his dissertation (who was eventually exposed and stripped of his degree).

But I never thought this kind of practice even existed in fiction. You know... unlike scientific research, which requires very strict methodology and discipline, fiction tends to be free-flowing, even scribbles are fine. The thought of an imaginative work written by someone else is truly crazy.

 

[LeilaniOtter]

As long as the writer knows upfront that their name isn't going to be on the cover, and they're fairly compensated for their work, then there's no harm to it.

That's how I felt about it at the time, but I have to draw the line on doing homework for college kids.

 

[Gray_Mann]

This is about taking credit.

I don't understand. The ghostwriter wrote the work....but it's not their story. It's not their idea, it's not their vision. It's somebody else's who paid them to make their idea a reality. So why would they get credit for it? They got paid. That's all they are required.

 

[JayMark]

I don't understand. The ghostwriter wrote the work....but it's not their story. It's not their idea, it's not their vision. It's somebody else's who paid them to make their idea a reality. So why would they get credit for it?

If you write it, it's your story. You can be paid to lie and say it is not.

Visions and ideas come a lot cheaper than you might think. Very cheaply, buzz word level cheaply. And nobody can or should be able to own an idea anyway. As nobody can own a vison, the concept of ownership of a vision baffles me, but okay if that's where we are going I'm even more sad.

My main point is that authors should do their homework.

As for ghost writers, I view them more as victims than anything else. With the predatory nature and growing corruption in copyright law, patent, and trade law, this practice is only going to become more of a problem over time.

 

[Anemic_Vampire]

So why would they get credit for it? They got paid.

But manga artists get both credit and pay for drawing someone else's story because they worked hard to draw something.

 

[Gray_Mann]

And nobody can or should be able to own an idea anyway.

This is terrible logic. Abysmal even. By this logic, your stories, your characters, all of it....you don't get to own it. No copyright. I can make fanfics of it, post it and then eventually charge folks to read it if it sells, because you can't claim sole ownership of the world you created.

If you write it, it's your story.

Good, I can copy everything you've ever written word for word as long as I take the time to write it, and demand credit for it, and you can't say no since earlier you said you shouldn't be allowed to own ideas and visions. Deal?

 

[JayMark]

This is terrible logic. Abysmal even. By this logic, your stories, your characters, all of it....you don't get to own it. No copyright. I can make fanfics of it, post it and then eventually charge folks to read it if it sells, because you can't claim sole ownership of the world you created.

You're stretching me into a strawman.

If you write in someone elses world with their character it is fan-fiction. Fan-fiction has its place. Fan fiction writers actually get credit for their fan-fiction and even make tips. Ghost writers are ghosts, because they are hidden behind a lie.

There's a degree to which work done is work done. Individual authors should be able to own their IP. I'm not for abolishing IP law, especially individual IP law. I am against corporate IP to an undetermined extent but am trying to figure out the nuts and bolts and whys. I'm researching this for a bigger project as well and have a lot to learn.

I'm not even really against authors paying people to write fan-fiction in their worlds with their characters and selling it themselves, though I am grappling with the practice. I'm just saying credit should go onestly to where credit is due.

I do want honesty. I do want credit where credit is due. I do hate corporate non-disclosure agreements.

Let's try honesty? Please?

 

[Gray_Mann]

Strawman? Nope. But fine, I'll drop that particular avenue. It isn't relevant anyway.

I'm just saying credit should go onestly to where credit is due.

Apparently, this is where we differ. If I pay someone to write my story, me personally, and not some company. Me. Privately. They get whatever rate it is per word, as is usually how it works. That's all they get. They DON'T get to claim a piece of my idea. I don't give a damn about their feelings or how much work it was to write it. That's their job I paid them to do. End of story.

I'm just saying credit should go onestly to where credit is due.

They got it. They got paid. End of story.

Let's try honesty? Please?

No you don't. You want your opinion validated.

But I'll just stop here. We disagree on the very core idea of the debate here, so we aren't going to come to any compromise other than agree to disagree. So I'll do that.

 

[JayMark]

You seem to be taking this rather personally, sorry.
I do mean to intrude a little bit on that type of business practice, not sorry.
I may change my mind, but that time has not come.
I'll just agree to disagree with you and continue to advocate for honest business practice.
You may also take the last word.
I won't respond to you further unless you request it as a show of good faith.

 

[Gray_Mann]

You seem to be taking this rather personally, sorry.

You have a point. It DOES seem like I'm getting a little pissy doesn't it?

Sorry for that. Wasn't my intention.

 

[DireBadger]

I understand both sides of the argument, but I am a firm believer that time limits for copyrights, especially after the writer's death, are pretty retarded.
If your dad wrote something, he deserves every penny from it. Once he's dead, you don't deserve another penny from it, unless you are like Brian Herbert and maintain your parents' work (Or do a better job, like Brian did).

But, this is an unpopular opinion, mostly fought by people who never had to do a lick of work because of their parents and are determined that they were born as a better sort of person.

 

[JayMark]

I understand both sides of the argument, but I am a firm believer that time limits for copyrights, especially after the writer's death, are pretty retarded.
If your dad wrote something, he deserves every penny from it. Once he's dead, you don't deserve another penny from it, unless you are like Brian Herbert and maintain your parents' work (Or do a better job, like Brian did).

But, this is an unpopular opinion, mostly fought by people who never had to do a lick of work because of their parents and are determined that they were born as a better sort of person.

I tend to agree. Generational IP leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Especially since all the properties tend to get consolidated upwards into monolithic structures anyway. But the original time limits established that weren't always extended via bribes functioned well enough for this purpose.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Something I've been pondering lately is the use of ghost writers in fiction.

Many celebrities who neither have the time or ability to write their own book will use ghost writers to flood the market with biographies that will sell simply because the book is about them. I find the practice dishonest and the books easily avoidable garbage.

But I'm more focused on learning more about ghost writer farms. Something which I've heard about incidentaly but was never really focused on. I'm a naive autist who thinks everyone does their own work as oppossed to buying someone elses and calling it their own.

There are authors like James Patterson and Tom Clancy among other big names who farm out their writing to ghost writers, so much so that one might compare what they do to the use of writing sweat shops. I always wondered how R.L Stine was able to pump out so many books, now Iunderstand.

I find a few things insidious about this practice. I don't really find anything wholesome about it.

1. Authors are not writing their own books

They are being paid to write, using someone else's characters. The providing author acts as a mentor and partial editor for the novice.

2. Writers are not credited for their hard work.

They are paid (and fairly generously from what I've heard but I do not know for a fact) and, unless they have REALLY bad contracts, or do not wish to have their names attached, DO get their n names on the indica, so they share credit if the book is submitted to the Library of Congress, as that is supposed to be what they use to index the work

3. It's a purely fiscal arrangement based on legalized dishonesty. *lies

That depends entirely on the contracts involved. It also means the person credited with writing it has to do the social interaction part - the book tours and interviews, so that the actual writer is spared that stress (but, unless they have a really bad contract, gets the residuals from those appearances).

4. It funnels talent into writing sweatshops.

This has been part of the dark side of publishing for a century or so. Even comic books did this - a new author is given a line to work on and a "house name" or celebrity author to work under (a lot of the fantasy and romance series of the 60s through the 80s - at least - were done this way; if you see the name "Robert Arthur" as an author in that time span, about a quarter of the time it was a line editor with that name, about a quarter of the time it was his son, Robert Junior, and the rest of the time it was a staff writer) until they've proven themselves capable of writing something that might sell under their own name, when the publisher lets them do their own thing.

5. It floods the market with fictions under fewer big names

Which is good for the big names, and great for the publishers as that is almost guaranteed sales.

6. It severely disadvantages new writers

Only in terms of exposure - and if they can get a good agent or with a publisher who supports them (instead of the majority who view them as disposable commodities) they can overcome this.

7. It encourages intellectual property monopolization through corporate structures.

Backwards - the monopolization has generally been in effect for a long time. It just allows new authors to write, essentially, glorified fanfics. Star Trek, Conan, the Star Wars expanded universe, etc,

8. It locks success at the top or certainly contributes to raising the barrier to any sort of financial success.
9. It contributes to moneyed interests gaining all reader attention over writers who work hard. *when they already control all the advertising space

Issues 7, 8 and 9 are the same thing reworded.