I suspect it is a mutally beneficial collaboration. Hollywood stars are not known for their literary talents are they? The big stars draw the attention, the authors bring the talent along with their own fame.

To answer your question,no they do not appeal to me. In fact, the idea repels me.

" My question is why? "

Easy money, most likely......The celebrity author needs the well known author more than the author needs the celebrity. I think of it kind of like semi-retirement for the well known author.

They don't appeal to me because I haven't chosen a book blindly based only on a favourite author in a long time (probably since the Longmire books); I'm more likely to pick up a book based on recommendations, reviews, and subject matter.

I've read a few books that have been co-authored. Of three that immedicately come to mind, I recommend one highly and wouldn't recommend two.

-Bill Clinton (not one of my favorite people anyway) co-wrote a book with James Patterson. I'm also not much of a Patterson fan. I don't know how much influence either had on the end product but I struggled through the book. I saw afterwards that it is the first in a series. I think my exposure to this duo by reading one book was more than enough.

-Lee Child (the nom de plume of Jim Grant), author of the Reacher series, wanting to retire, passed the baton for the franchise to his younger brother Andrew. Andrew has worked as an author for a number of years so he did have writing background. The first books in the transition were listed as co-written. Whether they were or whether it was designed to be a more palatable transition for longtime fans can't be known. I didn't like them as well. I haven't decided if my past enthusiasm for Lee Child-written Reacher books will continue with Andrew at the helm.

-A book I absolutely loved and read nearly 20 years ago is American Prometheus, by Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird. Parts of the book were the basis of the movie Oppenheimer.

The story of the partnership I heard, and there may be others, is that Sherwin was 20 years into researching Oppenheimer's life and basically found himself stalled, overwhelmed with the details and struggling to find a way forward to bring it all together. The two were acquainted and Sherwin approached Bird for help. Bird's job was to find threads that could be woven into tales that told Oppenheimer's life story in a way that provided a compelling reading experience. He did that well.

The book won the Pulitzer Prize in 2006.

Bird has written several other non-fiction books on his own and I enjoyed them. Especially The Good Spy.

A few of my favorite authors have done this. I have yet to find one I finished. They use the orginal's name a bait to sell books. Hope the fans will transition. I did not. It's marketing in the end.$$$$$$

Thank you all for your posts. You’ve confirmed my suspicions that I’m not missing anything by avoiding co-authored books when the pairing is a known author & an unknown for writing person but usually a ”celebrity”. The story Elmer relates about American Prometheus is a co-authoring situation that makes lots of sense - a balanced partnership.

Toronto Vet - I pick my reads mostly the same way you say you do. If I have particularly liked the primary character in a book by a new to me author, I will look for more books by the same author with the character I’ve enjoyed.

I don't know that the few jointly written books I've encountered are necessarily a fair sampling of what's out there. I'd approach any new duo's work with a clear slate if it seems appealing.

Kai Bird is an interesting character. His father was a Foreign Service Officer with an Arabist specialty. Bird grew up outside the US, mostly in the Middle East. There's a tie-in from that to at least two of his books, I'll leave it at that. The guy does know what he writes about.

His wife was a country director of the World Bank so he also lived much of his adult life abroad too.

I heard him say in an interview that he couldn't have pursued his dream to be a successful writer without the unselfish support of his wife. He casually said something like her career successes and understanding allowed him to act like an irresponsible child pursuing his dream with plenty of free time to do so and without being concerned about earning enough income to support the family. A nice tribute and a great partnership.

I'm an author and have been subjected to the world of publishing houses. Most sadly don't care a lot about the written word. They consider books products. I'm sure this is a product trend cooked up by the likes of VPs who needed to present new ideas to their bosses. This idea seemed profitable.

Each of the authors have a platform that helps expand the empire of the other. Reese has her book club and movies that she makes from books she has published under her label. She (her company) has a formula and it is very profitable. Patterson has his own platform and readership. He has had ghost authors writing his books for a long time. (My good friend's SIL is one of Patterson's ghost authors.) I doubt Reese nor Patterson will write the book.

" They consider books products. "

Books are products in the sense that they’re created for people to buy. The money from sales pays for production, publishers, sellers, staff, and pays the writers themselves. After all, most people don’t work for free.

A well-known author once responded to the question/criticism about whether his books were too "commercial".

He responded with an example - if someone writes and stages a play with professional actors and crew but no one buys tickets, no one gets paid and no one sees it. Should it be said that the person has produced a good artistic property if it reaches no audience?

Similarly, if an author writes and self-publishes a book but no one buys or reads it, how could it be said that it has connected with readers if it's had no readers?

His goal, he said, is to write books people want to read and enjoy. That’s his job and how he supports himself. Success lets him continue writing, so he pays attention to what readers find entertaining or insightful. After all, what’s the point of writing books no one wants to buy?

I find that attitude hard to find fault with.

I read the Reese/ Coban book and didn't like it. I can't even remember the plot , it was that forgettable.

Elmer, your response to Kendrah’s comment ”They consider books products.” is a great answer to my question of “why” about the co-authored books by known authors & a celebrity. Thinking about it, I can’t find fault with it either. Seems I’m just not in the market that practice appeals to - as others like amylou & arcy aren’t either.

Kendrah, I had no idea about the use of ghost writers as a common practice for Patterson but that answers an unasked question about how he’s able to generate such a volume of books. A personal question if I may, in what genre is your writing? Your sharing that you are an author is one of the things I love about TKT. That is, learing about the interesting and varied backgrounds of so many participants in TKT forum. A veritable wealth of knowledge and experience exists in this forum that I (we) wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to.

I of course hav ae a different point of view. You get to consider yourself a successful author but you do not get to consider yourself a writer if you are doing it only to make money. I worked with an "artist" on a large public installation project and the so called artist did none of the work. This is the norm of this sort of thing. As far as I was concerned this was not art. Art, and writing is an art, are properly an expression of yourself and what you should be trying to communicate. Whether or not it is financially successful or not is not the point of being a real artist. It is great when you are successful financially but...think Van Gogh.

I read a lot of old literature and it is amazing how many of these people who were fantastically famous and successful in their day have been totally forgotten No one would know the name Edward Bulwer-Lytton if someone hadn't unearthed the phrase" It was a dark and stormy night" out of its well deserved grave. He wrote a series of novels comprised of absolute literary Dreck and yet was fabulously famous and financially successful. And there was the equally famous and successful Winston Churchill-no not that one but the American one- who also wrote a number of totally forgettable romance novels. I have a complete set but even I was never able to wade my way through the lot.

Interesting POV PatriciaePatricia’s. I agree with your statement ”Whether or not it is financially successful or not is not the point of being a real artist. It is great when you are successful financially but...think Van Gogh.”

But, IMO artists - which for this discussion includes writers - must have a passion for the art form / type they are driven to create. ”Lucky” or just fortunate is the artist writer who is also able to make their living following their passion. Does that make the published author a less credible writer because they make money from their passion? IMO it does not.

In the situation you tell us about - working with an artist on a large public installation - my thought is the credit for the art does go to the person who had the imagination and vision to develop the idea for the installation. I think in the cases of many public art installations the sheer physical magnitude of the installation requires professional assistance. In those cases is the artist a less credible artist? I don’t think so.

Van Gogh was driven by mental illness, he's a poor example to cite. But for the financial support of his brother, he would have been just another clochard living on the streets.

Let's talk about many of his peers - Toulouse-Lautrec, Degas, Renoir, Monet. Later years, guys like Picasso and Dali. None of the preceding were mentally disabled. Different stories completely, they were recognized and had success in the worlds they lived in.

Patricia, there will always be exceptions but artists who produce works no one is interested in can't hardly be regarded as capable or successful.

We know a number of people whose financial security in life from the work of their spouses leaves them with idle time. Many have become "artists". They've converted or built areas in their homes to serve as "studios". They take their work to street fairs, art fairs, and the like. At the end of the day, they pack up and take all of them back home. They donate their works to local schools and charities for fund-raising auctions.

Do you consider them to be "artists"? I don't and believe me, if you saw some of the garbage they profess out loud to have put their hearts and souls into, you wouldn't either.

Patterson's books are extremely formulaic, and after a couple of them, years back, I know they weren't for me. Short chapters with cliff-hanger last sentences for each.

"Van Gogh was driven by mental illness, he's a poor example to cite. "

He is an excellent example. So many incredible artists and writer have been mentally ill. Here is a great article on the subject: https://www.getty.edu/news/the-link-between-creativity-and-mental-illness/

Audiences do not yet know what they are missing if it has not yet been created. If brilliant authors only wrote what was marketable we would never evolve into new forms, new genres, new voices. The same goes for art, music, interior design. People going out on a limb and writing for the voice inside of their head is what will lead to greatness. People writing for Reese and Patterson's publicity teams will just give us more of the same.

I've never heard anyone talk about Pale View of Hills. It is my favorite book. So glad the author was writing about what moved him, the story that needed to be told, not just about sales.

Take a broader view as I did, I wasn't referring to WItherspoon.

I don't care about and never read one person's expositions as a self-appointed expert about the meaning of life, reality, or other matters of philosophy or psychology. Or their efforts to write to come to grips with something in their life that bothers them. I think writing like that is pretentious and presumptuous. I know some like it but I think a larger number of people don't.

If I wanted to hear parables and someone's ideas of what THEY think I should be concerned about, I'd go to church on Sundays. I don't do that either.

Books are great, all things to all people. Entertainment is a goal of most of them. Books that don't entertain in some way or another reach a small audience, so why do some bother writing such stuff other than some degree of selfishness or or self-righteousness ? For self-cleansing?

The prized novels on my shelf, every notable book I read in high school, and the cannon of great literature are crying physical tears over your last comment. To reduce to self-help drivel or preachy piety the human experience conveyed via wonderful writing makes me curious if you have a wide gap in your reading list. J.M. Coetzee, Ralph Ellison, Per Patterson. They just popped into my mind. I think I'll go read now.

" To reduce to self-help drivel or preachy piety the human experience conveyed via wonderful writing ...."

What irony that your comment demonstrates exactly what I mentioned.

I'll let you live your life at the high level of enlightenment and understanding that you think you have attained. There's probably no room left for me way up there among the self-righteous.