Ghostwriting History: Churchill, Kennedy and the Authenticity of Authorship

Abstract

This article explores how ghostwritten works of history compromise the authenticity of authorship as a process and have a tainted historiographical utility as source material in international relations. Using the examples of Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy we analyse how these famous politicians-cum-historians used research assistants to gather and analyse historical documentation whilst preserving their right to claim authorship of prize-winning works of history. Despite being a long-established practice in the English-speaking literary world, ghostwritten works of history have significant, yet underexplored, implications for shaping historiographical trends. Churchill, for example, was able to place himself at the centre of all events in the Second World War, whilst Kennedy shaped perceptions of how his own vision of leadership should be historically compared. Deepening our awareness of ghostwriting as process tells us something important about the relationship between politicians and the history they try and tell whilst also revealing the impact of ‘collaborative history’ as a method. The result is a version of events that inevitably places positionality over objectivity, demonstrating the myth-making power of ghostwritten works to impact historiography.