One Step Forward, Nineteen Steps Back? In Defence of Millie Bobby Brown

Photo Courtesy: Laviru Koruwakankanamge from Wikicommons

Original thought in literature has died and, according to the internet, Millie Bobby Brown has killed it. In its place rises something terrible; the ghostwriter. 

Brown’s release of “her” historical fiction novel, Nineteen Steps, this September has come under fire for its co-authorship. Co-authorship here means that Brown provided the research and idea for the subject-matter of the book, and historical fiction author Kathleen McGurl actually brought the idea to life by- well, by writing the book. 

It’s no secret that the publishing industry has increasingly less space for independent writers. These days, when bookshelves are not populated by the newest Colleen Hoover release, they will be a veritable red carpet of celebrity autobiographies, self-help books, and (real intellectuals everywhere turn up their noses) fiction. Gone are the days of women writing under male pseudonyms; in the 21st Century, Emily Brontë would do better to call herself Emily Ratajkowski. 

Authorship is now determined by marketability. Independent writers simply do not have an established brand, and publishing houses are reluctant to offer publishing contracts to relative unknowns where the celebrity author is ensured to bring with them commercial success, awareness, and at least a few newspaper headlines, regardless of the actual quality of said book (looking at you, Prince Harry). In fact, established authors themselves no longer need to actually write, their success predicted by their established brand. With an estimated net worth of $800 million, James Patterson holds the Guinness World Record for most number 1 New York Times bestsellers by a single author, and his secret is this- he doesn’t write them. Instead, he supplies an outline, which his co-writers then flesh out into the actual story. In return, they don’t receive royalties, but a fixed rate, and a measly note of thanks in the book they wrote. James Patterson on the other hand gets to build a brand so successful that Harvard even offers a course on it. 

With the staggering wealth and fame that celebrities who employ ghost writers may accrue, it’s easy to see why this practice has come under fire as being exploitative. And yet, it’s not a new phenomenon. Ghost-writing has been used throughout history, whether in political speeches or as the fourth member lurking behind Dumas’s ‘The Three Musketeers’, which is why the renewed criticism directed towards Brown is strange, and seems to merely be another way for the internet to put a damper on the star’s success. Whilst she may not have written Nineteen Steps herself, the story is based on Brown’s family history, centring on the undiscussed Bethnal Green disaster of World War Two, and inspired by Brown’s grandmother’s personal recollections as a survivor. Brown may not have written the novel, but it is an homage to her late grandmother, and couldn’t have been created without the former’s input. 

Moreover, McGurl isn’t a ghostwriter living in the shadows. Brown has openly praised her, both on her Instagram account with nearly 64 million followers, and with the pair attending book signings together. Brown has exercised a level of transparency rarely seen in the traditional ghost-writer/celebrity relationship, and it highlights the appeal of the ghost-writing industry. McGurl may not be on the cover, but the association with the celebrity has certainly boosted her own prominence and is likely to have a similar effect on her sales. Global Google searches for McGurl from the last five years hit their peak with the release of Nineteen Steps. And so, ghost-writing is a symbiotic relationship; association with more famous authors or Hollywood celebrities helps independent authors to boost their own brand, and desirability to publishing houses. 

Millie Bobby Brown’s new release marks a refreshing openness as to the involvement of co-writers. The criticism she has attracted seems unduly harsh, and more indicative of the public’s problem with this successful young woman, as opposed to a real care for the state of the publishing industry.