Ghostwriting, Part II: Motivations and agendas

I’m not surprised to see that yesterday’s Michael Gruber post provoked the beginnings of an interesting discussion, with David Montgomery one of the ones in the fray. He’d posted many of his views a few days ago in the Crime Fiction Dossier:

[W]hen someone like Tannenbaum puts his name on a book he didn’t write — and then shows up at signings to personalize it with his signature — no one cares. Or do they?

Put me down as someone who does care. This is a disreputable practice that publishers should cease. Authors might be commodities to sell books, but they’re more than that. The great tradition of literature demands that they be more than just brand names. Otherwise, why doesn’t Putnam just slap “Patricia Cornwell” or “Tom Clancy” on everything they publish and just dispense with the pretense of art.

If we can’t trust that the name of the author on the book actually wrote it, it undermines and diminishes both publishing and literature. At a time when tragically few people actually buy and read books, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Passionate sentiments, and valid ones. But I wonder if there’s just a strong sense of cyncism (in those readers who are well-informed) or apathy (in the vast majority of those who read books) that creeps in. Those who might care probably don’t read those books, and those who don’t will do what they please. Hell, when I was a youngster reading the SWEET VALLEY HIGH books, I first didn’t realize that Francine Pascal had farmed them out to people (who then farmed them out to other folks, for example) until a few books in. Then I got suitably upset, and then I got jaded. So I managed to combine apathy and cynicism in one fell swoop by the tender age of ten.

Still, there are certain upcoming projects that raise a lot of red flags, and not just involving James Patterson and his infinite number of monkeys. The one I’m thinking of specifically is Richard Clarke’s debut “geopolitical thriller” slated for the Fall of 2005, following on his non-fiction book AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that Clarke could have written the book himself? Of course not, but considering the timing and the high-profile nature, I have to wonder.