The James Patterson Controversy
There are several aspects to the James Patterson controversy. First, he has the audacity to write books that people enjoy reading. It seems that to some that is an affront. When he admitted that the sentences in his more recent books weren’t as pretty as previous ones because the better sentences get in the way of the story (Zaleski), one must admit that his writing is intentional. He did not set out to write thought-provoking books, or witty books, but he wants fast-paced entertaining books. Further, he stated in the article that the audience for fiction is important: it seems that he his writing is not about expressing something deep within himself, but rather his writing is designed to entertain his readers. For me, I suppose, this does not seem like a controversial thing. James Patterson is trying to write books that sell well, and he is succeeding.
The second part of the controversy is that he has
co-authors. He does give the authors credit on the covers, so he is not hiding
the fact that there are co-authors. However, he is not solely responsible for
the books with his name on them. That is very true. He is not. There is an artist for the cover, the photographer for the back cover, and the accountants, and
the shippers, and the people at Amazon and UPS who have handled his books.
There are editors and publishers, and in his case there are other authors who
assist. I suppose that may be somewhat unusual, but if one judges by results,
his books are wildly successful.
I suspect that the authors would have had a difficult time
selling as many books on their own. First, Patterson is supplying an outline
(Zaleski). That might make a huge difference. The collaboration may have a huge
affect on the mood of the other authors. The coauthored works may be
substantially different from works written singly by either author. In any
case, both authors know how the names will appear on the cover of Patterson’s
books. Readers can (by squinting just right) make out both names on the cover.
The coauthors my not get the same level of recognition, but they do get paid to
write a book – and a best seller at that.
I can think of other coauthored books or series. David
Weber and Anne McCaffrey have both co-authored books. Some of those collaborations
were probably for different reasons. Perhaps there was an attempt to give a new
author a chance. Perhaps there was a time crunch. Perhaps there was a personal
crisis. Perhaps a series needed an infusion of new life. Some of those may
apply to James Patterson. He seems to coauthor some books to focus his time on
others. If Patterson has more ideas for books than he has time to write, what
should he do? Should he simply forget the ideas for instant best sellers?
Again, I don’t see the problem. I will admit that after
reading one of the later Daniel X books, the feel was different from the one
before. After some examination, the later book had a co-author. So, in the
future, I’ll avoid that particular combination of co-authors. I don’t blame
James Patterson for trying.
James Patterson is also openly branding his books – the ones
he authors and the ones he coauthors. He has given them a style and feel. They
are full of action. They are easy to read. The chapters are short. I suppose
that if there is a controversy here, it is that he is openly stating his books
are not slow, are not weighty, and are not flowery. They do not require effort.
So, consider two types of books. The first is the James Patterson style novel:
fast, action-packed, and sells well. The second is a literary masterpiece, it
has vivid imagery, it is thought provoking, the language is amazing, and
nothing particular happens in the story. If the first type of book garners
sales and the second sort of book wins awards, I would choose to write an
action story – I’d write the one that sells.
-----
Zaleski, J.
(2002). The James Patterson Business. Publishers
Weekly, 249(44), 43. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.




