I don't like that writers don't get credited. Often in kids books, you get two names. The writer and illustrator. Sometimes one name if they do both. Or if one of them doesn't get credited. But!...
I don't like that writers don't get credited. Often in kids books, you get two names. The writer and illustrator. Sometimes one name if they do both. Or if one of them doesn't get credited.
But! There's no issue with having two names. Even if it's a celebrity book, I don't see why they can't have a big name and a small one to credit the writer. Maybe even somewhere in the sleeve of the book. A tiny thing written somewhere so people can find the writer if they need to.
That being said, I feel bad for Millie Bobbie Brown. She clearly wasn't trying to hide that she had a ghost writer and even posted about her on social media. It just seems like she's a young person who is doing things the way it has always been done.
I don't like the practice in general, but it sucks that she's getting most of the heat.
They should just bravely admit that the writer and one who came up with the idea for the story are different people. Like in movies you have a "story by" credit separate from "writer". In this...
They should just bravely admit that the writer and one who came up with the idea for the story are different people. Like in movies you have a "story by" credit separate from "writer".
In this case it's possible that Millie Bobby Brown came up with the idea for the story and then hired an actual writer to expand on it. Credit both.
I wonder how much is on the publisher. Publishers are fairly demanding in order to sell a book and I'm sure Millie's name is a lot more recognisable which makes the (financial) choice to headline...
I wonder how much is on the publisher. Publishers are fairly demanding in order to sell a book and I'm sure Millie's name is a lot more recognisable which makes the (financial) choice to headline Millie a lot simpler.
With Millie also being open about this on social media it seems likely.
Could and should, but won't. I'd wager that "Book by Millie Bobby Brown of Stranger Things fame" sells a lot better than "Book by Relatively Unknown Author". I'm not a betting man but I'd bet this...
Could and should, but won't.
I'd wager that "Book by Millie Bobby Brown of Stranger Things fame" sells a lot better than "Book by Relatively Unknown Author".
I'm not a betting man but I'd bet this is a publisher choice to maximise the profits. That's unfortunately just the way things are.
It'd sell just fine as "Book" "Story by MILLIE BOBBY BROWN" (tiny text under that)"Written by Ghost Writer" But publishers aren't used to ghost writers coming out publicly or authors openly...
It'd sell just fine as
"Book"
"Story by MILLIE BOBBY BROWN"
(tiny text under that)"Written by Ghost Writer"
But publishers aren't used to ghost writers coming out publicly or authors openly stating that they used one, so it'll be a while until they adjust.
Publishers would be idiots if they haven't A/B tested that. Because there's an opportunity to have a new big name or at least put a "from the writer of Millie's Book" in front of their new book...
Publishers would be idiots if they haven't A/B tested that. Because there's an opportunity to have a new big name or at least put a "from the writer of Millie's Book" in front of their new book which guaranteed would sell a few copies more.
But maybe with people being open about ghost writing the general attitudes are changing and they'll start to get the credit they deserve. (And sell more books.)
Brown’s Nineteen Steps, inspired by her grandmother’s experience of the 1943 Bethnal Green tube disaster, was ghostwritten by author Kathleen McGurl and published on Tuesday. The cover of the book features only Brown’s name.
In response to a now-deleted tweet by Waterstones promoting the book, many Twitter users criticised Brown. “You should be ashamed,” wrote one. “Ghostwritten celebrity novels have ruined children’s literature and now they’re doing the same thing to adult fiction.”
However, others came to Brown’s defence. “People love to attack people who trigger them and Millie is young, beautiful, famous and rich,” Catherine Yardley, author of Ember, told the Guardian. She said that a lot of the criticism came down to “jealousy”, “ageism” and “sexism” – “I can’t think of one man who has had this level of criticism,” she added.
Other notable ghostwritten celebrity titles include Prince Harry’s memoir, Spare, which was written by JR Moehringer. Harry “talked very openly about his ghostwriter and their relationship, and it didn’t diminish book sales there,” said Shannon Kyle, a ghostwriter who started the Ghostwriters Agency. “The general public wants to be entertained by a book, they want to read a good story, and ultimately, whoever puts it together, I don’t think they really mind.”
Brown’s transparency about her use of a ghostwriter was “refreshing”, added Kyle, and “it doesn’t diminish her involvement, because ultimately it is her family story, and it wouldn’t be happening without her”. Yardley added that “the public might feel cheated”, but that Brown was “being open about it”.
I don't really like when ghostwriters are used for these things without getting credited, but I don't really see a problem with it. It can certainly be dishonest, but as long as the situation is...
I don't really like when ghostwriters are used for these things without getting credited, but I don't really see a problem with it. It can certainly be dishonest, but as long as the situation is just that the credited author is coming up with the content and the ghostwriter is the one coming up with the words, making sure it works as a book (i.e., keeping the "author" in line if necessary/possible), then there's not much significant to complain about.
As long as the ghostwriter is compensated fairly and credited in such a way they can point to it publicly as something they've worked on (for portfolio's sake if nothing else) I'm all for it. As...
As long as the ghostwriter is compensated fairly and credited in such a way they can point to it publicly as something they've worked on (for portfolio's sake if nothing else) I'm all for it. As long as the content isn't false (demonstrably false, to be exact) for a nonfiction work like a biography, it's really only between the ghostwriter and the 'author'. Beyond that, I think there's a market for professional ghostwriters: it marries the creativity of storytelling with the communication skills needed by a lot of proposal/technical writers. If the need is filled and everyone walks away not feeling like they got cheated (which is helped on the consumer side by having the ghostwriter be credited) then it's a net positive.
While in general I agree that the most important thing is that everyone involved in the deal is okay with it, I don't think it should be possible to print a book that does not have the names of...
While in general I agree that the most important thing is that everyone involved in the deal is okay with it, I don't think it should be possible to print a book that does not have the names of everyone involved on it. The societal expectation is that the cover of a book will feature the title and who wrote it.
Not to diminish Brown's work here, it seems she did a lot of data gathering to help out the author and let her simply take charge on the main writing bulk (and as a writer, having someone like that to bounce your ideas off of is a damn godsend), and thanks to her social media posts it should be simple for the ghostwriter to prove that she did write it, but the fact is that the name on the cover is just wrong. It's clear that this was pushed heavily as a promotional thing, given the fact that on the cover the name of the author is a lot more prominent than the title. Not having bought the book, I don't know if the ghostwriter's name is featured in the book somewhere. It's definitely not on the cover though, and I disagree with that fact.
Unfortunately it's Brown's very openness on the topic and her clear desire to promote McGurl as the ghost writer that have opened to this criticism. Smarter, or perhaps more shrewd people will keep it under wraps to limit backlash (and have done so in the past).
There's also the systemic level of exploitation that this could lead to. Authors who have the skill but no name could get forced into these deals where they usually don't see any ongoing revenue from it. The secrecy of the ghost writer industry makes that a much bigger possibility on top of that.
I think this is an important the point -- singling Brown out for what is a pretty usual practice, especially when the story is so closely tied into her own family, seems disingenuous. Lots of...
However, others came to Brown’s defence. “People love to attack people who trigger them and Millie is young, beautiful, famous and rich,” Catherine Yardley, author of Ember, told the Guardian. She said that a lot of the criticism came down to “jealousy”, “ageism” and “sexism” – “I can’t think of one man who has had this level of criticism,” she added.
I think this is an important the point -- singling Brown out for what is a pretty usual practice, especially when the story is so closely tied into her own family, seems disingenuous.
Lots of people contribute to a book in substantial, creative ways. The editor and the agent are almost never credited, but they are, in some ways, as big a part of bringing forth the book, especially for new authors.
Lots of thriller and romance serials are ghostwritten. I think it's the bourne series where the author died and they just keep publishing under that name. And nobody seems to care.
Also, except for a few industries like gaming and movies, if you work for a company, it's very likely your creative work is going to go largely uncredited.
Do I wish the ghost writer got credit? I mean, maybe? She got paid for the work. I imagine the book will sell better single-titled, so if she's getting some kind of royalty, she may even prefer it this way. She seems to have a significant body of work published under her own name, so presumably she did this by choice.
I don't like that writers don't get credited. Often in kids books, you get two names. The writer and illustrator. Sometimes one name if they do both. Or if one of them doesn't get credited.
But! There's no issue with having two names. Even if it's a celebrity book, I don't see why they can't have a big name and a small one to credit the writer. Maybe even somewhere in the sleeve of the book. A tiny thing written somewhere so people can find the writer if they need to.
That being said, I feel bad for Millie Bobbie Brown. She clearly wasn't trying to hide that she had a ghost writer and even posted about her on social media. It just seems like she's a young person who is doing things the way it has always been done.
I don't like the practice in general, but it sucks that she's getting most of the heat.
They should just bravely admit that the writer and one who came up with the idea for the story are different people. Like in movies you have a "story by" credit separate from "writer".
In this case it's possible that Millie Bobby Brown came up with the idea for the story and then hired an actual writer to expand on it. Credit both.
I wonder how much is on the publisher. Publishers are fairly demanding in order to sell a book and I'm sure Millie's name is a lot more recognisable which makes the (financial) choice to headline Millie a lot simpler.
With Millie also being open about this on social media it seems likely.
They could still headline the celebrity, just openly state who wrote the book in the book itself.
Could and should, but won't.
I'd wager that "Book by Millie Bobby Brown of Stranger Things fame" sells a lot better than "Book by Relatively Unknown Author".
I'm not a betting man but I'd bet this is a publisher choice to maximise the profits. That's unfortunately just the way things are.
It'd sell just fine as
"Book"
"Story by MILLIE BOBBY BROWN"
(tiny text under that)"Written by Ghost Writer"
But publishers aren't used to ghost writers coming out publicly or authors openly stating that they used one, so it'll be a while until they adjust.
Publishers would be idiots if they haven't A/B tested that. Because there's an opportunity to have a new big name or at least put a "from the writer of Millie's Book" in front of their new book which guaranteed would sell a few copies more.
But maybe with people being open about ghost writing the general attitudes are changing and they'll start to get the credit they deserve. (And sell more books.)
Ella Creamer
I don't really like when ghostwriters are used for these things without getting credited, but I don't really see a problem with it. It can certainly be dishonest, but as long as the situation is just that the credited author is coming up with the content and the ghostwriter is the one coming up with the words, making sure it works as a book (i.e., keeping the "author" in line if necessary/possible), then there's not much significant to complain about.
As long as the ghostwriter is compensated fairly and credited in such a way they can point to it publicly as something they've worked on (for portfolio's sake if nothing else) I'm all for it. As long as the content isn't false (demonstrably false, to be exact) for a nonfiction work like a biography, it's really only between the ghostwriter and the 'author'. Beyond that, I think there's a market for professional ghostwriters: it marries the creativity of storytelling with the communication skills needed by a lot of proposal/technical writers. If the need is filled and everyone walks away not feeling like they got cheated (which is helped on the consumer side by having the ghostwriter be credited) then it's a net positive.
While in general I agree that the most important thing is that everyone involved in the deal is okay with it, I don't think it should be possible to print a book that does not have the names of everyone involved on it. The societal expectation is that the cover of a book will feature the title and who wrote it.
Not to diminish Brown's work here, it seems she did a lot of data gathering to help out the author and let her simply take charge on the main writing bulk (and as a writer, having someone like that to bounce your ideas off of is a damn godsend), and thanks to her social media posts it should be simple for the ghostwriter to prove that she did write it, but the fact is that the name on the cover is just wrong. It's clear that this was pushed heavily as a promotional thing, given the fact that on the cover the name of the author is a lot more prominent than the title. Not having bought the book, I don't know if the ghostwriter's name is featured in the book somewhere. It's definitely not on the cover though, and I disagree with that fact.
Unfortunately it's Brown's very openness on the topic and her clear desire to promote McGurl as the ghost writer that have opened to this criticism. Smarter, or perhaps more shrewd people will keep it under wraps to limit backlash (and have done so in the past).
There's also the systemic level of exploitation that this could lead to. Authors who have the skill but no name could get forced into these deals where they usually don't see any ongoing revenue from it. The secrecy of the ghost writer industry makes that a much bigger possibility on top of that.
I think this is an important the point -- singling Brown out for what is a pretty usual practice, especially when the story is so closely tied into her own family, seems disingenuous.
Lots of people contribute to a book in substantial, creative ways. The editor and the agent are almost never credited, but they are, in some ways, as big a part of bringing forth the book, especially for new authors.
Lots of thriller and romance serials are ghostwritten. I think it's the bourne series where the author died and they just keep publishing under that name. And nobody seems to care.
Also, except for a few industries like gaming and movies, if you work for a company, it's very likely your creative work is going to go largely uncredited.
Do I wish the ghost writer got credit? I mean, maybe? She got paid for the work. I imagine the book will sell better single-titled, so if she's getting some kind of royalty, she may even prefer it this way. She seems to have a significant body of work published under her own name, so presumably she did this by choice.