On Ghostwriting by Scott Westerfeld
Articles, Books | BSCreview Guest | March 18, 2009 at 2:59 am
PLEASE NOTE: Scott Westerfeld has not participated in any ghostwriting in years. Queries will be deleted and unopened
by Scott Westerfeld
This is a ghost story.
Like any spectral tale, it deals with invisibility, secret oaths, codes and spells, and vengeful spirits. Unlike most ghost stories, it’s written from the point of view of the ghost. Me.
I am a ghost writer, a literary doppleganger. I write books that other people take credit for. People more famous than I, or busier, or who simply can’t be trusted with a pen.
First, a short bestiary of ghosts. Some are semi-transparent, as in the celebrity autobiography, with its “as told to . . . ” disclaimer. Those three words suggest a passive transcriber, an amiable secretary listening attentively with pen in hand. But the truth is that the “as told to . . . ” ghost is a poltergeist, noisy enough to outline, research, and even invent these autobiographies out of whole cloth.
Another species of literary phantom is the prematurely buried co-author. Take, for example, the strange case of Robert Ludlum’s The Hades Factor, by Robert Ludlum and Gayle Lynds. Here, one author is a brand name, and the other a franchisee. I have no first-hand knowledge about how the literary duties (or royalties) were divided between Ludlum and Lynds, but to have one author’s name in the title of a novel does, methinks, protest too much.
But these minor ghosts are pretty much in the open, a matter of record. I am the purest type of ghost, completely invisible and bound to silence. I have written for name-brand authors, celebrities, and even for other ghosts who found themselves over-extended: I’ve been a ghost-of-a-ghost. I have written legal thrillers, historical nonfiction, mysteries, and even horror (that is to say, ghost stories). But my name doesn’t appear on the covers of these books, nor on the copyright page, nor can it be found by consulting the Library of Congress. My invisibility is complete except on a contract, a document that is kept under lock and key. Sometimes, even the publishers don’t know I exist.
To prevent confusion, the language of these contracts calls me the writer; the other guy’s the author of the book in question. I’m contractually forbidden from outing my authors. So if you’re looking for any hints as to whom they might be, you won’t find them here. Ghosts have to keep their secrets, or face lawsuits.
When not ghosting, I do write my own books. (Ghosting supports my science fiction habit.) But when asked my profession at cocktail parties, I always identify myself as a ghost writer. Explaining one’s work to strangers is a fraught experience. Condensing a novel of my own into a few sentences is soul-depleting; I’ll leave pitching to Hollywood script writers. But when I mention ghost writing, the listener is instantly intrigued. “You’ve heard of him, but I can’t tell you who he is,” I’ll say of my latest author. The conversation becomes a guessing game. It’s like meeting a spy or a criminal, perhaps a forger. The ghost carries an air of mystery, an exciting touch of duplicity, and a haunting sense of injustice.
The actual process of ghost writing has its own nefarious rewards.
For one thing, ghosts have to write very quickly. We are often given work that a name-brand author actually intended to write. The ghost is called in as an emergency backup, inheriting an unwieldy concept and an imminent deadline. I once wrote a 120,000-word novel in twelve weeks. That’s 2,000 words (six printed pages, or half again the length of this essay) every day for five days a week. Maintaining this sprinter’s pace at marathon length was painful, requiring much solitude, coffee, and aspirin. But there is a muscular pleasure in writing so quickly, at least under someone else’s name. The feeling is like possessing someone else’s body, then hopping into their car and driving along a dangerous road at top speed. The thrill is mine, but any wreck will be their responsibility, their injury, their loss.
I made my 2,000-word count every single day without fail. An advantage of ghostliness: the almost right word comes considerably more quickly than the right word.
Of course, this is not to say that I turn in bad writing to my authors. Sadly, the opposite often happens. Just as ghosts of the spectral variety are immune to bullets and can walk through walls, ghost writers are immune to second-guessing, self-sabotage, and writer’s block. In fact, when I get a block on my own novels these days, I cure it by a kind of literary suicide: I pretend that I am my own ghost.
So, unfortunately, my ghostliness sometimes actually improves my writing. I often find myself exclaiming, “Oh, crap! This sentence is too good. This should be mine!” A recurrent nightmare is that I have finished my best work ever, the great novel I was put on this earth to write, but it’s coming out under someone else’s name. This bad dream hasn’t been realized yet, but I have ghosted lyrical paragraphs, glorious asides, and perfectly drawn characters that I wish I could reclaim.
Reading reviews of one’s ghosted works is an equally ambivalent experience. One is partially immunized from negative comments, but any high praise is half pleasure, half pain. For the ghost, the only real satisfaction comes from the phrase “competent prose.”
Some ghosts I know are haunted by their lost kudos, and go to great lengths to put secret codes into their ghost novels. They concoct sentence-length acronyms or give minor characters anagrams of their own names, so that future historians can decipher the work’s true author. Others enjoy private jokes: inserting cats, roommates, or favorite restaurants into their ghosted books as a kind of petty claim to ownership. (Any of my authors reading this essay should note that I would never stoop to such tricks. Don’t waste your time looking.)
A common question asked of ghosts at cocktail parties is, “So, what do the authors actually do?”
The answer covers a considerable range. I once wrote a novel from a fifty-page outline that provided specific adjectives and images for some chapters. This specificity put me in a poltergeist-like mood, and I altered the novel extensively; it was a whodunnit, and I changed who did it. Other authors provide only a paragraph or two, a concept at the cocktail-napkin stage. Some offer little guidance up front, but attack the finished work in minute detail. They fiddle with insignificant character’s names, change chapter titles, and run search-and-replace on words they have a personal dislike for. Basically, the literary equivalent of throwing holy water around: an exorcism of ownership. This ghost cares little; I’m busy haunting somewhere else by then.
As a rule, the most “prolific” authors are the most detached. I’ve written five books for one man whom I’ve never met or spoken to, or even e-mailed. His editors, however, assure me that he has actually read the books, and that he rather enjoyed them.
There are many ways for authors to assume remote control. In children’s series, which can reach Nancy Drew-like longevity, ghosts are provided a “bible.” This tome is rather like the three-ring binder given to the manager of a fast-food frachises: it ensures consistency, and protects the brandname from any disturbing infusions of local color. Bibles contain the essential data of the fictional universe, such as the personal details of recurring characters: middle names, phobias, examples of their speech patterns. Like any good bible, these screeds also set down the tone and philosophy of the series. The Nancy Drew bible offers a long, mystical treatise on the meaning of something called “drewness.”
In an attempt to impose the same style on many writers, some series have quite specific grammatical restrictions. They set sentence length, vocabulary level, and even regulate punctuation. In one childrens’ series, a breathless style is created by forbidding the verb to say.
”Shocking!” you might intone.
”Yes, but true,” I would aver.
On the adult side, things are less formalized. A good ghost is expected to be a shape-shifter, picking up the style by reading the author’s other books. I often wonder if these were in fact written by yet another ghost. Am I a copy of a copy?
My cocktail party confessions invariably lead to the moral question: What are the implications of such duplicity? Is ghost-writing a case of false advertising? Is it simply bad manners, like bringing take-out to a potluck supper? Perhaps it’s in the tradition of the master Chinese painters of old, who signed the works of their assistants. Of course, moderns from Mark Kostabi to (reportedly) Stan Lee have done the same thing. Perhaps a book is simply a product; you either enjoyed it or not, and the author’s name is no more a personal signature than a Nike swoosh.
This is the state we are approaching: literature a business like any other. And as in every business under capitalism, the main idea is to get rich from someone else’s labor. Someday I myself may come up with a cash-cow franchise idea, a detective or adventure series that resonates with some dependable reading demographic. I’ll write the first few, and then I’m off to Aruba. Let some other poor ghost follow my bible for a while.
After all, I’ve gotten to know quite a few ghosts in the last decade. Between the lot of us, I could author twenty books a year without breaking a sweat. Indeed, when I picked my ghostly pals’ collective brains to write this essay, one of them even suggested that she ghost it for me, just for a laugh.
Maybe she did.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Scott Westerfeld is a New York Times bestselling American-born author of science fiction and young adult literature. He was born in the U.S. state of Texas and now lives in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and New York City. His book Evolution’s Darling was a New York Times Notable Book (2000), and won a Special Citation for the 2000 Philip K. Dick Award. His novels Peeps and Uglies were both named as Best Books for Young Adults 2006 by the American Library Association. he has als won the Victorian Premier’s Award and Aurealis Award for his fiction.
You can visit him at scottwesterfeld.com
This article was represented at BSC with the author’s permission and all rights remain with Scott Westerfeld.
Tags: Guest Blogging, Scott Westerfeld




Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it

I’ve read Uglies. Good book; it’s in my favorites list on my website. Now I wonder who wrote it. :>)
As a writer (and not necessarily a good one) I don’t think I could ghostwrite. Not only would I hate doing all that work for someone else (for me that idea would be a step down in a bad way from working for a corporation) I know I couldn’t write fast enough. It’s quite possible that I could write with enough passion. Scott’s mention of being freed from the worry of it being perfect would apply. I know I stifle my creativity by second, third and sixth guessing. Rather enlightening to read that.
As a reader? Yes, we feel cheated by the whole ghostwriting thing. There are books I’ve read where I could only wonder–the style was different, or the whole tone. They might have been good books (or good enough) but the magic wasn’t there–the personality if you will. Of course, we’ll never know if it was an author having a bad write or a ghost that couldn’t quite take on the proper persona.
Good column. Enjoyed it
This was very interesting, and confusing, too – why would someone want to be something they aren’t, and pay someone to do the work for them? Do they really have no talent or ability to do something, so they choose to be an “author” and pay someone else to do the work? I can see why someone would want to work for them – if the “author” is a guaranteed sell and the ghost is paid appropriately, I sure wouldn’t mind doing it. It just seems like such a strange arrangement. I couldn’t be an “author” who did not write my own work – to me, it would be a lie, and obviously these “authors” don’t own up to it (maybe they do, what do I know?) because if they did, well, what is the point of the whole business? Thanks for an interesting and clever piece – and as a YA librarian, I do read and enjoy *your* work.
Medora–I think (anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) that Scott hit on the reasons in the article–sometimes a big name doesn’t have the time or perhaps creativity to write the book. Maybe he/she took on too much obligation and isn’t going to make the deadline. In some cases, could be burnout. On some of these long running series, I think it happens…I won’t say a lot, but there’s been rumors swirling around at least two big name authors for a while.
The publishers KNOW that book with “author name” will sell. So they just want a book. The author is still going to get some money from the deal, he/she just can’t or won’t write the book. So they all step back and hire someone that can write 20 novels a year and “everyone” is happy.
But as I said, I think it does shortchange some readers. I don’t like the dishonesty of it either, and nothing against the ghostwriter. He’s just a guy for hire, doing his job. It’s more on the author and publisher side where I find fault. They just want a book–any book and that isn’t very honest or fair. I also exclude celebrity novels, er, memoirs. I don’t think most of the public believes the celebrities write those so even if a name isn’t listed, I think the customer knows what they are buying.
With a known author and series, most customers are not buying what they think they are buying. If they are entertained, great. But the question remains: Would they have bought the book if they had known? Some would because they like the characters/world/story. Others? Not a chance.
that should say: With a known author and series where a ghostwriter is used…
This type of things happens/has happened quite a bit in comics and especially manga (or so I’ve read/been told).
Dear Scott,
Please email the finished work for “Monday Morning Marine Corp Blues” by Tuesday.
You can have 25% of the royalties.
Ian
I really liked Uglies, and didn’t realize Westerfield had ghosted so much on his way to it.
I have a friend who downpaid her house ghosting a supermodel’s autobiography. I was shocked, I tell you, to discover that the model wasn’t a prose genius, or any other kind actually. My friend then wrote her own mystery series about a ghostwriter’s loves and perils. So many of the celebrity and political memoirs are produced by ghosts, and surprising numbers of fiction series. Anytime you wonder how they can possibly produce that many titles each year, you’re probably right to wonder.
This is a very well-written and interesting article, but I must admit that it also left me somewhat uneasy. I don’t like ghosting, at least not in the case of well-known authors who for various reasons no longer writes their own novels. I don’t like the dishonesty of it and it just plainly offends my sense of fair play when someone takes credit for another person’s work. I don’t like the way the reader is deceived either and I must admit that I see it as a breach of the reader’s trust.
I don’t really have a problem with ghosting when it comes to well-known people’s autobiographies. Not everyone can write. But when it pertains to works of fiction or academic texts or non-fiction I become very very uneasy.
Terrific article. Lots of true. As a celeb memoir ghost, I’d like to chime in with a slightly different view.
I do for my clients what the Ghost of Christmas Past does in “A Christmas Carol” — I take them by the hand, lead them past their life experiences from the perspective of an observer, help them find peace with the characters who people their memories, and then excavate a language that expresses how they feel about it all.
These stories are not mine to tell, so I’ve never felt that my words were being taken from me. I don’t writhe even a little when the book gets a great review, and I prefer that the reviews not mention me, because I want to do what a good ghost does: disappear.
I can’t say how I’d feel about ghosting fiction, but I can say that the invisibility has become addictive; I now write fiction under a pen name even my parents don’t know. I never fight for cover credit; on a recent project, the client was the one who insisted my name be on the cover. She didn’t want people to think she was pretending to have written the book.
Ghosting forced me to examine the essence of why I write. I love living a creative life — and actually making a good living. I love the endlessly entertaining puzzle play of setting words in rows. I love learning daily through research on everything from theatre history to bicycle racing to monoclonal antibody therapy. Public applause is a really pale reward compared to all that. I have a lot of love in my life; I’m not missing anything if strangers don’t love me.
I write for the purely selfish reason that I love writing. Fame was never my objective. And candidly, I’ve hung around famous people enough to know that fame demands a price I’m not willing to pay. I’d rather be the piano player who does my thing and provides the ways and means for the jazz diva to do hers.
Here’s some thoughts on the process from my blog:
http://boxingoctopus.blogspot.com/2008/08/can-you-spot-ghostwriter-hopefully-not.html
Peace, love, and grooviness ~
jr
His name is ‘WesterFELD’ not ‘FIELD;’ it is misspelled nearly everywhere on this page.
Other than that, great article, reminds me somewhat of my experience with work-for-hire fiction, especially this: “An advantage of ghostliness: the almost right word comes considerably more quickly than the right word.”