Brandt and Ghostwriting

In Deborah Brandt’s article “Who’s the President?: Ghostwriting and the Shifting Values in Literacy,” Brandt examines the role of ghostwriters and the more public personas they work for in popular culture. In her article, it appears that the ghostwriter is “dead,” much of as how Barthes imagines the author to be dead, even though the ghostwriter is doing the brunt of the work. Brandt writes of how in our culture literacy is highly valued, so much so that when it is “discovered” that a president had a ghostwriter write a campaign book the response was, “who is the president?” (549). In this example, one sees how writing is valued as both giving status and a status marker. In other words, one can “make a name” through writing (550). But the question arises of how ghostwriters and the implications of ghostwriters are “[transforming] the meanings, values and practices of literacy, not to mention the institutions and organizations that are harnessing them” (551).

In the section titled Situating the Study, Brandt looks at how ghostwriting has been a focus of study for literary and communication scholars, just to name a few. Brandt mentions how communication scholars have studied the way an author’s background influences a text, but how those studies are muddied when ghostwriters are brought into the conversation (551). Brandt also mentions workplace writing in this section, which in itself is a highly collaborative model where many voices are involved in the construction of a text.

In the section, writing can be sold and authorship can be bought, Brandt shows the value of ghostwriting. Here Brandt brings up the idea of plagiarism and how ghostwriting can be viewed as different from plagiarism. Ghostwriting is viewed as “work made for hire” and therefore is an acceptable substitute for the public personality actually writing and at the same time is also a financially lucrative model in the world of writing. But Brandt also shows the difficulty regarding ghostwriting since the public in many cases must assume that the public personality named in association with the work is responsible, or the ‘author’, of the communication. Brandt also examines the views of ghostwriters through interviews in how they recognize their employers as “controlling agents” of their work, often even talking with their employers to try to establish the kind of information they would share or the voice they would have if they were to write the text themselves (554). When I read this part, I couldn’t help but think about my youthful obsession with the work of V.C. Andrews and how when I realized that much of her work was ghostwritten, I could barely distinguish the difference between Andrews’ actual work and the voices of her ghostwriters. Brandt also mentions how ghostwriters have a sort of “persona control” when they work for their clients (557).

In the penultimate section, Literacy and scarcity Brandt acknowledges the idea of “ghostwriter as researcher” and therefore, in some ways, the source of the knowledge (559). Brandt also acknowledges the correlation between writing and time, where when someone “takes time to write” it shows attentiveness, care, and involvement with the audience (560). This in turn will cause the reader to think of the writer as he or she reads through the text (560). In the final part of the essay, Brandt acknowledges the power of writing where writing can “boost someone’s reputation or claim to entitlement” since he or she has shown proper knowledge and engagement with selected material as well as the audience involved (561).

Finally, in Ghostwriting and the social order: cases of controversy, Brandt looks at critics of ghostwriting where critics see ghostwriting as deceptive since the “author” is not doing the actual writing. This, critics feel, exploits people and the trust they have put into the represented personas or organizations. In looking at this problem, Brandt examines legal and medical consequences, such as how pharmaceutical companies will hire ghostwriters in their efforts to promote new medicines (565).

As I read this article, I kept thinking about two things: 1. the similarities between Brandt’s discussion of the placement of ghostwriters and Barthes “Death of the Author” and 2. celebrity culture where many celebrities have “written” books with the aid of ghostwriters whose names are barely, if at all, mentioned. In Brandt’s view, it seems as if to the majority of the reading public, the ghostwriter is indeed “dead” or not important. I recently read a book by a “celebrity” (Zak Bagans of the TV show Ghost Adventures whose book Dark World is mainly about how he became interested in the paranormal) who had a ghostwriter and while the ghostwriter’s name was visible on the book (though in much smaller font size, of course), discussions about the book were all directed to the celebrity with the ghostwriter never mentioned, which bothered me as someone who writes, both academically and creatively. Finally, Brandt’s essay serves well juxtaposed with Venuti’s essay on copyright and translation since translators do not have the same status as authors in copyright law.

Questions:

1.                    On page 567, Brandt assumes the following: “the internet seems to be a favoring a less original form of writing: creation by citation, sampling, cutting and pasting, and blurring the roles of writers and readers.” Do you agree this is “less original” or do you think that this is just a new way of writing and sharing of knowledge?

2.                    On page 557, ghostwriters admitted to manipulating the writing to make their “author” appear “smarter.” Discuss the ethical implications of this.

3.                    What are some complications you see to the “ghostwriter as researcher” persona? Brandt discussed, for example, how the ghostwriter does much of the primary research and dissemination of the research and therefore the person the writing is associated with doesn’t have the same experiences, but is believed to have these experiences and to know what he or she is talking about when that may or may not be the case.