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.
True ... but there are those who want to read award winning books and those who want to read James Patterson type book. I think it would be nutty for a library not to include James Patterson in their collection based on the fact that people do read it. And a lot of times, people don't want to have to "think" about a book, but rather they'd just like to read some page turners. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The Twilight books, for example, are not what I'd think of as quality literature. However, they have their place.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of the issue with Patterson is really how much of the book he is writing or could possibly write. When you are putting out books every few weeks, it certainly does seem that the co-authors are doing more of the work than Patterson. And is there anything wrong with that? I suppose it just depends on the amount of credit the writer gets. I could come up with ideas for a book, but I couldn't write a novel. So, I suppose that is the argument.
And I guess it comes down to money, as you said. Patterson has figured out a way to make a ton of money by putting out a ton of books that people like to read. I think, if I were ever to have the talent to write a book, I'd much prefer to write an award-winning book that stands the test of time.
I would say the romance books like Sundays at Tiffany's and Christmas Wedding fall in the thought-proking, swoon-worthy area ( he just did a new one called First Love, which I is part of the New Adult (NA) movement) and cute and witty stuff for kids too young for Daniel X or Maximum Ride ( called Middle School, very similar to the very popular Wimpy Kid series). I don't have an issue witht the co-author thing but I do see the point about him getting more credit (and even the back cover photo). When I read Heist for my thriller, I do remember seeing both Janet Evonivich and Lee Goldberg on the back cover. But if the co-authors are fine with little credit, it's not a big deal.
ReplyDeleteNicole,
DeleteIt used to bother me that James Patterson's co-writers didn't get more credit but as you wrote if they're fine with a little credit, its not a big deal. They must be paid well and have a good working relationship with Patterson because authors tend to write more than book with Patterson.
For me it is pretty simple: James Patterson has reached the pinnacle of writing success. His name alone is what sells the book. While his writing might not be as thoughtful as it was when he was first starting, he obviously has talent or his books wouldn't have sold in the first place. It is the demand for his books that have led to the point of him publishing so many that he needs to use coauthors. To that, I say, "Good for you, James Patterson."
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I do remember about James Patterson is that I read one of his books that I didn't necessarily like. I had trouble putting it down. (In fact, I think I actually finished the book.) It was just really, really hard to not read it.
ReplyDeleteI read the women's murder club series by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro. I would argue that Maxine wrote most of the book because it seems to come from a women's perspective. However, the books are highly popular because of James Patterson. I too don't fault him for using co-authors but feel like maybe he should give them a little bit more of the credit.
ReplyDeleteSomething that occurred to me, when you mentioned reading a later book in a series (one that had a co-author) and the feel of the book was different enough that you didn't like it. Some of that new feel, surely, comes from the addition of a co-author. But I've been reading a fantasy series by Mercedes Lackey almost my entire life (Book 1 was literally published two months after I was born) and she is still putting out the occasional new book. She is still the sole author. The books still have the same style and overall structure (adventure, romantic subplot, save the kingdom, coming of age), but the only way I can read the newest books is to take a long break from the older books and approach them as a totally different series. Authors, even highly successful ones with a solid 'type' of writing will experience a shift in their writing over time. In some ways it will get better, in others it will get worse, and yes, the feel will shift. So, while it is easy (and even accurate) to 'blame' the differences in some of his new books on the addition of a co-author, it's also possible that Patterson himself is part of that shift.
ReplyDelete