Please read this article. I find it rather disturbing but maybe that's just me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20664571

Sorry, but I don't know how to post an article so I've had to put it as a link.

If our host should happen to read it as well then Dr Wilson I would be especially grateful for your opinion. To me it just feels wrong, but then you look at the sums of money involved and I have to ask myself if I would do any different?

Please read this article. I find it rather disturbing but maybe that's just me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20664571

Sorry, but I don't know how to post an article so I've had to put it as a link.

If our host should happen to read it as well then Dr Wilson I would be especially grateful for your opinion. To me it just feels wrong, but then you look at the sums of money involved and I have to ask myself if I would do any different?

I guess if a publishing house is expecting a certain number of books be published by a given author, realistically they should offer help if they feel the goal is unrealistic.

I am not big on the whole co-writer thing unless the co-author is given credit. Look at James Patterson, who apparently puts on twelve to sixteen books a year with different co-authors, all whom receive credit, or so it seems.

I don't know that the word "disturbing" applies here. Disappointing maybe.

I stopped reading Patterson's books a few years ago. Using co-authors became an every book thing with him and it diminished what I had found interesting about his books. Co-authored books done well every once in a while...is a good thing. The other is just....boring.

I think you hit the nub of what I see as the problem right there Tony. If the book is good that's fine. But the person you give the credit to may have had very little to do with that fine book. He simply gets paid but, apparently, in many cases gets no credit. All to support an industry that just demands more and more.

I suppose, not being in the industry, I was a bit shocked that this happens.

Yeah, disappointing is better

I stopped reading Patterson's books a few years ago. Using co-authors became an every book thing with him and it diminished what I had found interesting about his books. Co-authored books done well every once in a while...is a good thing. The other is just....boring.

I've never actually read any of his books but as a science fiction fan I've read many by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. And that was fine. They co-wrote, they made great books and both got the credit they deserved. But that was done because they worked well together, not just to keep up with demand.

I suppose what I'm saying is if you like the author then show some patience and let him write. Not just force him (or of course her) to "ghost write" to keep a quota of new books coming out.

I've never actually read any of his books but as a science fiction fan I've read many by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. And that was fine. They co-wrote, they made great books and both got the credit they deserved. But that was done because they worked well together, not just to keep up with demand.

I suppose what I'm saying is if you like the author then show some patience and let him write. Not just force him (or of course her) to "ghost write" to keep a quota of new books coming out.

There is a huge difference between a writing team (Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child) and what is happening in the article.

In the article, someone else's work is being passed off as the author's sole work. It is not a true collaboration. I am not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in the book: acknowledgements, jacket notes, author's notes, etc...

It seems deceptive to the audience who is shelling out hard-earned money for a favorite author's work only to receive something not entirely authentic.

The story mentions it happens in the film industry, and that is different to me, becuase seldom do we buy a ticket based on who wrote the script. We base it upon the source material, the overall production, the trailer, etc.

A book is a more intimate experience and it feels like a cheat to know this happens.

It is just disappointing from a reader standpoint. If I got paid as a ghostwriter to pad an author's work, then I would understand part of that paycheck involves the anonymity that comes with ghostwriting. In that sense, this kind of deal doesn't make me feel bad for the author whose name doesn't get a mention.

But, alas, ignorance is bliss.

Preston and Child are a good team at writing books too. I should have mentioned them before.

There is a huge difference between a writing team (Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child) and what is happening in the article.

In the article, someone else's work is being passed off as the author's sole work. It is not a true collaboration. I am not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in the book: acknowledgements, jacket notes, author's notes, etc...

It seems deceptive to the audience who is shelling out hard-earned money for a favorite author's work only to receive something not entirely authentic.

The story mentions it happens in the film industry, and that is different to me, becuase seldom do we buy a ticket based on who wrote the script. We base it upon the source material, the overall production, the trailer, etc.

A book is a more intimate experience and it feels like a cheat to know this happens.

It is just disappointing from a reader standpoint. If I got paid as a ghostwriter to pad an author's work, then I would understand part of that paycheck involves the anonymity that comes with ghostwriting. In that sense, this kind of deal doesn't make me feel bad for the author whose name doesn't get a mention.

But, alas, ignorance is bliss.

This opens up another big thing too, look at the Raymond Carver/Gordon Lish thing. How Carver felt comfortable with his name attached to something Lish had edited into being something completely different from the original creation I can't understand in the least. So ghostwriters and other things are disappointing, but to me when someone who is held in such high regard as Carver in the literary world is not looked at the same way, just because I guess, it is strange to me.

I got into a very interesting discussion with a Lit professor who refused to read the new Justin Cronin books (The Passage and The Twelve) because he viewed Cronin as a sell-out who was only after making a buck, but this same professor views Carver as a one of the greatest American writers. How can subject matter effect a writer's work in such a way? It was funny to me and something I will never understand. But that is just my simple little brain I guess.

Disappointing is a good word.

The collaboration of authors has produced some real good books in some instances. Preston and Child, King and Straub, Wilson/ Crouch/Strand and Killborn to name a few.
I agree that not giving the ghost or co-writer proper recognition is wrong. I wonder if the main author is pressered into turning out book after book and has no choice but to collaborate.

I suspect publishing houses want =one= big name on the cover to attract readers. After all, I never got any credit for helping Heinlein, Asimov, Anderson, Pournelle, Kress, or Norton.
Come to think of it, I never got any money either.