Robert Ludlum is dead. Long live Robert Ludlum. Or at least that’s the way his publishers would have it. Since Ludlum’s death, over 12 books have been published in his name according to a New York Times article. Ludlum’s publishers claim that the author “did not want to be forgotten.” Well, there is certainly no risk of that, with a posthumous “Ludlum” book climbing to #8 on the Times Best Seller list and hit movies fueling demand for all things Ludlum. There is, however, risk that a major deception is being played out on an a epic scale.
Consumers could easily be fooled into thinking that these books were actually written by Ludlum since his name appears above the title in letters that are twice as large as the real author. My guess is that many readers don’t even know that Ludlum is dead and just assume that he is playing the role of editor much like Tom Clancy and James Patterson do with their “co-authored” book. The publishers claim that consumers don’t really care as long as the quality is maintained. Perhaps they’re right assuming readers know they aren’t buying the work of the original author.
Ludlum’s estate compares these efforts to the licensing deals struck by the estates of Elvis, Marilyn and and Babe Ruth. This is laughable. If someone records a song in the spirit of Elvis and then releases it as Elvis Presley’s “New Song”, there would be a huge public outcry. Or perhaps the Bambino’s estate decides to license his name to a young player so that Mr. Ruth can reclaim his home run record. I suspect the Commissioner of Baseball would have an easier decision here than he does determining whether or not to show up for Bond’s record breaking, controversy-rich 755 home run.
What is to stop new “Picasso’s” and “Van Gogh’s” to be released by their respective estates? Surely they could find talented painters to work in the spirit of these painters, all in the name of keeping their visionary talent alive. The publishers of the new Ludlum books make no bones about the fact that this is good business and that it is much easier to sell a “Ludlum” than develop a new author. Of course its good business. So is selling pirated DVDs.
I don’t have a problem with continuing stories of dead authors. Caleb Carr wrote an interesting, albeit modest, continuation of the Sherlock Holmes character, exploring the relationship between Holmes and his brother. I knew full well I was not reading the work of Arthur Conan Doyle. That is not the case with the above the title works by Ludlum among others. It is tricky enough when living authors like Clancy and Patterson do it. In the case of Clancy and Patterson, you can’t be sure what role these authors played, other than to put their names on the cover. I’ve read only one of the Tom Clancy’s “co-authored” books and it paled in comparison to his solely authored efforts. In fact, it was down right awful, so bad in fact that it pretty much turned me off from Clancy altogether.
The Ludlum Conspiracy is dead wrong. Consumers are being duped and publishers are pawning off pages under false pretenses. Brand names are about building trust. Brand names are a contract between the seller and the buyer that name on the product is what it says it is. The shameless practice of putting a dead author’s name above the title in huge letters should be stopped before Bourne loses his real identity for good.