From time to time writers discuss the veracity or reliability of quotes in books that were co-written or ghost-written, and even those in newspaper and magazine features. Did the subject actually say the words as printed on the page? What are the ethical considerations and boundaries for handling quotes. Academics and historians, in their quest for primary source material, find it shocking that some writers have no problem putting words in the mouths of their subjects. I know writers who will tell you that it is a common practice in the world of journalism. It is not a practice that I endorse, but there may be some murky areas. In light of the ongoing Frey fallout, my experience with the writing and publishing of “Men Women, and Girl Singers” seems timely all over again.
When wearing my journalist’s hat, my allegiance is to the reader. I will put quotation marks only around a subject’s actual words. Yes, I edit out the “ums,” but if they have trouble stringing a sentence together then I’m forced to paraphrase and weave in quotable descriptive clauses whenever possible. However, this is not the stance I took when writing John’s life story. Why? Because journalism and nonfiction are different entities; all journalism may be nonfiction (one hopes), but not all nonfiction meets the requirements of journalism. And ghost-writing is even further removed. If I were to stand in the shoes of a ghost-writer, I think my allegiance would have to be to the subject, using my skills to achieve his or her desired goals, provided those goals did not include an intentional distortion of the truth.
My experience writing John’s story is a little strange, in that I do not feel that it was ghosted in the usual way. Still, in the end, it is perceived to be John’s autobiography. In the early 1980s, after John and I first discussed the idea of a book, it became quickly apparent that he was not comfortable being interviewed, by me or anyone else. He is simply uncomfortable in the spotlight. I did make a few early tapes, getting him to reminisce with friends, but such talks yielded little. As any writer can tell you, lengthy passages of verbatim transcriptions of spoken prose don’t hold up in print.
I did do a lot of interviews with other people, and then the files sat in boxes for several years. By the time I came back to the project, John and I had been together for many years; I not only knew the stories, but I also knew and understood his thoughts and feelings about people and events. I decided to write the book “in John’s voice,” using first person point-of-view as a literary device. John read the manuscript when it was finished, and he requested a handful of changes and corrections. The cover page of the original manuscript read: “Men, Women, and Girl Singers: John Levy’s Life as a Musician Turned Talent Manager” by Devra Hall. It was a biography, not an autobiography.
For better or worse, the publisher accepted the manuscript on the condition that it be marketed as an autobiography. So together we added a one-page Preface in which John endorses the content, but says clearly that the words are not his. I know that this will not stop people from “quoting John,” and that bothers me, but only from an academic standpoint in that he did not actually “say” those words. On the other hand, and it may be ironic, the best compliments I received for this book were from people who really know John well, and say “it sounds just like him.”
As a reader, I prefer to judge each book in light of what I perceive to be the contract proffered by the author(s) — I appreciate prefaces or author’s notes that describe the process and explain what liberties, if any, were taken in creating work. A certain amount of responsibility then rests with the reader, who hopefully will be aided by knowledgeable reviewers and critics.