# Since When Did KBoards Become a Place to Advertise Ghostwritten Books



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

I understand that ghostwritten books are part of some people's publishing model, but it was never something that was openly advertised or discussed much here. I seem to recall it being attacked and frowned on when it did come up. But now we're getting multiple posts with advertisements for books to sell? And a senior member I wouldn't have expected to do so responded positively? When did that shift happen? When did Kboards become a place to advertise ghostwritten books for sale? Gives a little more credence to JA Huss's rant about Kboards a few weeks ago that at the time seemed a little extreme to me.


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

CassieL said:


> I understand that ghostwritten books are part of some people's publishing model, but it was never something that was openly advertised or discussed much here. I seem to recall it being attacked and frowned on when it did come up. But now we're getting multiple posts with advertisements for books to sell? And a senior member I wouldn't have expected to do so responded positively? When did that shift happen? When did Kboards become a place to advertise ghostwritten books for sale? Gives a little more credence to JA Huss's rant about Kboards a few weeks ago that at the time seemed a little extreme to me.


What I can't fathom is that if someone has a book that is viable for successful publishing by another person, why would they sell it outright rather than publish it? It seems a little like cooking a meal then trying to sell it to a restaurant.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

I think it indicates that business models are shifting, for some. It's not for me, but I'm not going to complain about someone else's plan.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

I suspect it's the result of work-at-home forums/FB groups promoting it as a way to make money from writing.

Also, many authors are having a difficult time making a living from their books as competition heats up and ads increasingly drive visibility. Those unwilling to go back to day jobs are pursuing ghostwriting as an alternative.

KB is where they start looking for clients.


----------



## Jeff Hughes (May 4, 2012)

I agree with Anarchist... I suspect it's mostly folks who can't make it any other way in writing who turn to ghostwriting (both those buying, and those selling).

Speaking as an inveterate reader all my life... I pretty much instantly dismiss any book that I discover (or sense) has been ghostwritten.  To me, it simply smacks of dishonesty.

The other issue is simply... quality.  There's always been a bell curve to writing.  There's a reason that wonderful writing - those stories that touch our soul, those words composed such that they take our breath away - happen the way that they do.  On the other extreme is the stuff so awful that it literally hurts your brain to read it.  And then there's that gliding curve in the middle that marries up those two.

"Who was the ghostwriter that actually wrote this mesmerizing piece?" said no one ever.

That's because ghostwriting lives amongst the dreck.


----------



## Gabriel_Legend (Jan 1, 2016)

Jeff Hughes said:


> I agree with Anarchist... I suspect it's mostly folks who can't make it any other way in writing who turn to ghostwriting (both those buying, and those selling).
> 
> Speaking as an inveterate reader all my life... I pretty much instantly dismiss any book that I discover (or sense) has been ghostwritten. To me, it simply smacks of dishonesty.
> 
> ...


Well, I can appreciate your opinions, but I'm a ghostwriter, and everything I write is top quality. I would love to be able to make a living by publishing my books, but the sad fact is, I have bills to pay and by the time I make enough for my bills writing for other people, there is very little time left to work on my own stuff.

I've been writing online for 15 years - mostly articles and blog posts - for various writing agencies. I'd much rather be earning the money I need for my bills by writing fiction - even if it for other people - because it's fiction that made me fall in love with writing in the first place. So, you can assume that anything ghostwritten is poor quality but you would be wrong. I even included (in my ghostwriting thread on this page) a rough draft of a chapter from a book I'm writing for Harlequin Intrigue, and as you will see, the writing is pretty damn good.

So, while I can appreciate that some ghostwriting is garbage; mine is not. I've been hired by several ghostwriting agencies with high standards. I left because they wanted a 50,000 word novel in two weeks and I still had a few regular clients that sent me good-paying articles. I couldn't keep up. But the books I wrote for those agencies are on Amazon, with great reviews, and with bestseller ranks to show that they are still selling.


----------



## Ebook Proofreading (Oct 11, 2017)

GeneDoucette said:


> I think it indicates that business models are shifting, for some. It's not for me, but I'm not going to complain about someone else's plan.


I agree! It's a free world.



Gabriel_Legend said:


> Well, I can appreciate your opinions, but I'm a ghostwriter, and everything I write is top quality. I would love to be able to make a living by publishing my books, but the sad fact is, I have bills to pay and by the time I make enough for my bills writing for other people, there is very little time left to work on my own stuff.
> 
> I've been writing online for 15 years - mostly articles and blog posts - for various writing agencies. I'd much rather be earning the money I need for my bills by writing fiction - even if it for other people - because it's fiction that made me fall in love with writing in the first place. So, you can assume that anything ghostwritten is poor quality but you would be wrong. I even included (in my ghostwriting thread on this page) a rough draft of a chapter from a book I'm writing for Harlequin Intrigue, and as you will see, the writing is pretty damn good.
> 
> So, while I can appreciate that some ghostwriting is garbage; mine is not. I've been hired by several ghostwriting agencies with high standards. I left because they wanted a 50,000 word novel in two weeks and I still had a few regular clients that sent me good-paying articles. I couldn't keep up. But the books I wrote for those agencies are on Amazon, with great reviews, and with bestseller ranks to show that they are still selling.


Keep up the good work!


----------



## Jeff Hughes (May 4, 2012)

Gabriel_Legend said:


> Well, I can appreciate your opinions, but I'm a ghostwriter, and everything I write is top quality. I would love to be able to make a living by publishing my books, but the sad fact is, I have bills to pay and by the time I make enough for my bills writing for other people, there is very little time left to work on my own stuff.
> 
> I've been writing online for 15 years - mostly articles and blog posts - for various writing agencies. I'd much rather be earning the money I need for my bills by writing fiction - even if it for other people - because it's fiction that made me fall in love with writing in the first place. So, you can assume that anything ghostwritten is poor quality but you would be wrong. I even included (in my ghostwriting thread on this page) a rough draft of a chapter from a book I'm writing for Harlequin Intrigue, and as you will see, the writing is pretty damn good.
> 
> So, while I can appreciate that some ghostwriting is garbage; mine is not. I've been hired by several ghostwriting agencies with high standards. I left because they wanted a 50,000 word novel in two weeks and I still had a few regular clients that sent me good-paying articles. I couldn't keep up. But the books I wrote for those agencies are on Amazon, with great reviews, and with bestseller ranks to show that they are still selling.


I'm glad to hear that your ghostwritten work is of such high quality, Gabriel. But that simply begs the question... if your work is that good, why can't it stand on its own?

Say I go to the bookstore (the pretend one, since most the real ones have closed down) and spy, right there on the center table, a stack of hardbacks, a new title by Cormac McCarthy. My heart gives a leap, because Cormac is one of my favorite authors. I didn't even know he had a new book coming out! I grab my copy and can hardly bear to wait in line at the checkout.

Hours later, halfway through the book, I realize that the sense of wonder that I usually feel when reading McCarthy simply isn't there. Something is amiss, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I finish the book without ever really understanding why it felt different. It's a few weeks later when, on an obscure writers website, I first hear the rumor... that Cormac McCarthy didn't really pen those words. That they were ghostwritten.

Call me old school. I know honesty and forthrightness are "malleable" qualities these days. But seems to me that when an author puts his/her name on a title... it's actually _their_ title. We can rationalize six ways to Sunday why it's okay to fudge on stuff.

But words matter. And honest words matter most of all.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

Jeff Hughes said:


> I'm glad to hear that your ghostwritten work is of such high quality, Gabriel. But that simply begs the question... if your work is that good, why can't it stand on its own?


In general, writing and marketing are two different skill sets. In his case, it sounds like he's already in a routine of working for hire, and it would take an amount of risk and uncertainty to disconnect from that to the point where he would have time to learn marketing and build a brand for himself.


----------



## Gabriel_Legend (Jan 1, 2016)

Jeff Hughes said:


> I'm glad to hear that your ghostwritten work is of such high quality, Gabriel. But that simply begs the question... if your work is that good, why can't it stand on its own?
> 
> Say I go to the bookstore (the pretend one, since most the real ones have closed down) and spy, right there on the center table, a stack of hardbacks, a new title by Cormac McCarthy. My heart gives a leap, because Cormac is one of my favorite authors. I didn't even know he had a new book coming out! I grab my copy and can hardly bear to wait in line at the checkout.
> 
> ...


Well, you can stand on your high moral ground about "integrity" and "author voice" all you want. In the meantime, I have rent coming up. So, I have a choice. I can either write articles to pay my bills or I can write fiction for others to pay my bills. I don't understand what you find so offensive about me wanting to write about magic and characters and drama instead of ink cartridges.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

Personally, I found the premise of the OP to be nothing but an exercise in virtue signalling...


----------



## Lady Runa (May 27, 2012)

Personally, I have no problem with ghostwriting as such because it can be very good; what I don't understand is the "authors" who use their services. (I'm talking about fiction, not memoirs and such). This is the kind of parasitic behavior I can't tolerate. If a book is good, I won't put it down simply because it was ghostwritten, but I definitely won't buy anything else by that "author". 

Then again, it's probably a symbiotic relationship that works both ways...


----------



## Gabriel_Legend (Jan 1, 2016)

Mylius Fox said:


> In general, writing and marketing are two different skill sets. In his case, it sounds like he's already in a routine of working for hire, and it would take an amount of risk and uncertainty to disconnect from that to the point where he would have time to learn marketing and build a brand for himself.


You absolutely hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Jeff Hughes (May 4, 2012)

Gabriel_Legend said:


> Well, you can stand on your high moral ground about "integrity" and "author voice" all you want. In the meantime, I have rent coming up. So, I have a choice. I can either write articles to pay my bills or I can write fiction for others to pay my bills. I don't understand what you find so offensive about me wanting to write about magic and characters and drama instead of ink cartridges.


Not offended at all, Gabe. And I'm glad to hear that you're able to make a living penning words - something that very few can lay claim to.

I wish you the very best.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Ghostwriting is about money now, not later. If you ghostwrite, somebody else takes on the risk of making the profit while the you get quick cash. Compare that to publishing your own work: pay for editing, pay for cover, pay for advertising, and wait 90 days to get any profit. The business model is entirely different. Plus you need to learn to market. Plus there's no guarantee that the book will sell.

A publisher of ghostwriters, meanwhile, can buy up books, focusing on marketing, while the writers can focus on writing. That's a good division of labor, maximizing the chance that the book will be great and that the marketing will be great.


----------



## Arches (Jan 3, 2016)

CassieL said:


> I understand that ghostwritten books are part of some people's publishing model, but it was never something that was openly advertised or discussed much here. I seem to recall it being attacked and frowned on when it did come up. But now we're getting multiple posts with advertisements for books to sell? And a senior member I wouldn't have expected to do so responded positively? When did that shift happen? When did Kboards become a place to advertise ghostwritten books for sale? Gives a little more credence to JA Huss's rant about Kboards a few weeks ago that at the time seemed a little extreme to me.


I have to admit the same questions Cassie raised have been running through my mind. For a long time, one of the popular get-rich-quick schemes promoted on the internet and YouTube has been writers of mostly nonfiction who don't really write but compile information and try and sell "their" book. With the advent of self-pub, that trend seemed to accelerate.
Now, the same mindset seems to be becoming more popular for fiction. Maybe it always has been there, but I never noticed until recently when ghostwriting became a popular topic on Kboards. Count me among those who discourage the trend.
I realize some people are trying to make a living as writers, whereas it's a hobby for me. I'm very happy that I don't have to rely on such a hit-or-miss way of making a living. But for those who do find a way to sell ghostwritten fiction as their own, I can't imagine the process is sustainable for long. I don't like marketing either, but its much easier than writing the actual book.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

vagabond.voyager said:


> What I can't fathom is that if someone has a book that is viable for successful publishing by another person, why would they sell it outright rather than publish it? It seems a little like cooking a meal then trying to sell it to a restaurant.


They might not have the money to promote it properly. So they can put the book out there themselves with little money to put behind it, or they can sell it for for guaranteed cash now. Some people are risk averse. Or they just need a guaranteed amount of money now, rather than a potentially larger profit later.


----------



## Lark Watson (Feb 2, 2017)

Replace "ghostwriting" with "self publishing" and ... hey! Look! It's 2011 all over again.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

This is a indie publishing forum first. Just look at how quickly craft discussions derail.

There's nothing wrong with ghostwriting or with hiring ghostwriters. You can whine "those publishers aren't real authors," but a) they don't care and b) they aren't calling themselves "real authors." What makes someone a real author anyway?


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2019)

I have zero problem with ghostwriters. I just think the author actually buying ghostwritten material and publishing it under their name ought to list themselves as editor not author; after all, it's incontrovertible, not a matter of opinion, that claiming authorship of something that one didn't actual author is dishonest. (And if the ghostwriter is anonymous or wishes to remain so then simply don't list an author but use your author as editor name prominently for branding.)


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Substitute "indie" for "ghostwriter" and some of you sound just like the trade snobs.

I've had a couple of books "ghostwritten" for me, if that term means I paid a flat fee in order to acquire all rights, then reworked the books myself to ensure they were exactly the way I wanted them, and published them with the original drafter's name on them as a co-author. I simply like to have complete control if possible.

And I'd do it again--so if the OP's veiled reference was to me, I have nothing to defend, only to explain. All my books that have co-authors' names on them are just as good, and sometimes better, than those which I wrote alone. Sometimes other people have ideas I never would have had, and then I riff off them. If I bought someone's book draft, to me that's all it is--a draft for me to rework. That's no less a form of writing/publishing than James Patterson does. In essence, I'm like a furniture craftsman who is willing to not only make original pieces from scratch, but also to restore or even improve existing used pieces.

Just like there's indies and there's indies, there's ghostwriting and there's ghostwriting. Don't condemn it all just because of the worst practices.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2019)

David VanDyke said:


> All my books that have co-authors names on them are just as good, and sometimes better, than those which I wrote alone.


Now that's the way to do it. &#128077; Listing a GW as a co-author if they are willing. That's an honest & perfectly respectable way to use ghostwriters. The Patterson way.

(or my editor brand name idea if GW is anonymous and/or wrote 100% of the book but for editorial style tweaks by the acquiring author)


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Luke Everhart said:


> I have zero problem with ghostwriters. I just think the author actually buying ghostwritten material and publishing it under their name ought to list themselves as editor not author; after all, it's incontrovertible, not a matter of opinion, that claiming authorship of something that one didn't actual author is dishonest. (And if the ghostwriter is anonymous or wishes to remain so then simply don't list an author but use your author as editor name prominently for branding.)


Well, no.

First you have to define what you mean by author. Is a pen name a claim to authorship? I would say no.

There are lots of ideas about authors that are just... wrong. Authors aren't sitting around at their typewriters drinking whiskey. Don't try to sell me this idea of authors as a concept, where the author must find divine inspiration and write from their soul. We're author-publishers here, and the publisher part is just as important and valuable as the author part.

If an author-publisher wants to put out a GW book, that's their business. If it's good enough and close enough to their style I can't tell it's GW, then great. More content for me to read. If it's not good enough, well, I don't see how that's any different than an author putting out a phoned in book they wrote.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2019)

CassieL said:


> When did that shift happen? When did Kboards become a place to advertise ghostwritten books for sale?


Maybe you've been here longer than me, but in the 5 years I've been hanging out on the boards it has always been a *publishing* forum, not a writing one. Conversation here is geared toward publishing and marketing - whether that is books the publisher wrote themselves or content that originated elsewhere. Using ghost writers is one business model so it's absolutely a valid topic for a publishing forum.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2019)

Crystal_ said:


> Well, no.
> 
> First you have to define what you mean by author. Is a pen name a claim to authorship? I would say no.
> 
> If an author-publisher wants to put out a GW book, that's their business.


No, we really don't have to define 'author'. Kind of getting into what the meaning of 'is' is territory. Author has had a very clear definition in its current incarnation since the 15th century, and it's a rather simple definition with little ambiguity. 
But if one stipulates that one does, you already created the relevant distinction in your own post between author and publisher. That a successful indie has to wear both hats doesn't change the definition of author.
My position is as I posted upthread: "I have zero problem with ghostwriters. I just think the author actually buying ghostwritten material and publishing it under their name ought to list themselves as editor not author; after all, it's incontrovertible, not a matter of opinion, that claiming authorship of something that one didn't actual author is dishonest." Unless, that is, it's genuinely shared authorship; in which case, list both or whichever each party prefers if anonymity a consideration.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Even now, people say indie authors aren't "real authors."

There still isn't consensus on what makes someone a "real author."

IME, most people who use GWs are running GW pen names a la Nancy Drew or Sweet Valley High. They aren't really making claims to authorship. They're just putting out books using one pen name. There's a big difference between publishing books under a name and writing blog posts about how much you pour your heart and soul into your books.

Frankly, I don't care whether or not someone is a "real author" unless I'm talking about craft. (Even then, someone who uses GWs might have a unique perspective on craft). Publishers have plenty of valuable insights into publishing, whether they're publishing books they wrote or books someone else wrote.

If you don't like it as a reader, great. But this is a publishing forum. We discount reader misconceptions/opinions on all sorts of things--they always want the models on the cover to look just like the characters in the book, for example--so I don't see why we should say "the readers will be upset" about this one thing and not about everything that upsets readers.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Thinking about this more, if people can advertise such author services as covers and editing, I don't see why ghostwriting can't be offered. It's not my bucket of Twinkies, but fair is fair. If such tactics fail to make a profit, then the offers will stop.


----------



## Blerg et al. (Mar 27, 2015)

Ghostwriting is a widely accepted practice that traditional publishing has used forever. 

Saying that it encourages plagiarism or foul play is confusing legit ghostwriters with scammers.(Not that OP said this directly, but that is where a lot of the online outrage stems from.)

Saying it encourages bad writing is like saying self publishing encourages bad writing. 
Since when did kboards become a place where we gatekeep based on whether we think a book is good enough?


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Gabriel I hope you find a co-writing offer. I think that would be better for you long term and have all the advantages of ghostwriting (cash up front) without the negatives (lack of recognition.) Best of luck to you.


----------



## ThrillerReader (May 15, 2010)

Jeff Hughes said:


> I agree with Anarchist... I suspect it's mostly folks who can't make it any other way in writing who turn to ghostwriting (both those buying, and those selling).
> 
> My experience has been the opposite. The persons who have purchased my GW MS's have used them as a starting point, then tweaking them, re-writing, adding characters, changing chapter endings, and the like. When I look at the final product I'm awestricken at the mastery that was added and the writing insights that were employed by what is obviously a master author. The case of someone buying a work for hire (GW) and simply slapping a different name on it is probably not the case very often.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cecelia (Jun 28, 2017)

Ghost writers are professional writers. They write for hire. Some are very skilled. My problem with the model is - rights and reputation.

Someone suggested that the rights could never be 100% signed away. What happens if the ghostwriter reclaims the rights later on? There could be financial implications and the reputation of the writer could be spoiled.

I wrote a thesis on H.P. Lovecraft. Incidental to the thesis, I learned that he earned the $$$ to survive doing "revisions" of other people's work. Some of these revisions were extensive enough to be 100% HPL's work. Others used plot-lines, ideas and the first draft by the other writer.

Since HPL's death fans have changed their perception of the "revision" works so much that rather than rejecting them as not TRUE HPL, there is now a volume of revisions in the accepted canon.
_Collected Fiction Volume 4 (Revisions and Collaborations): A Variorum Edition_ https://www.amazon.com.au/Collected-Fiction-Revisions-Collaborations-Variorum/dp/1614981655/

Lovecraft did not go back on his contract with clients, in fact if a work wasn't 100% to his satisfaction, he would default to putting another name on it - he was so finicky. However fandom has unearthed these and made them very public.

I think any author that uses a ghostwriter, without giving the ghostwriter any credit (even a "Thanks" in the acknowledgements), runs the risk of the deal eventually coming out to their discredit.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ghostwritten books have been around forever.  The Nancy Drew series, for an example, which were first published in the 1930s, was written by ghostwriters.  I don't believe there was anyone connected with the books named Carolyn Keene.

And we've had ghostwriters as members here as long as I can remember.  In the past discussions, like this made ghostwriters reluctant to be very public about their work.  I'm glad that that has changed.  Let's be sure, during the discussion, to be respectful to each other and not make assumptions, OK?  Be kind to each other.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## josephdaniel (Jan 30, 2019)

Here's my two cents:

My books that I self publish are actually doing exceptionally well. I published two months ago (my first book) and they've exceeded my expectations, and readers seem to really enjoy them. However, in the meantime, between 60 day checks, I also need a way to buy new covers, invest in advertising, pay rent--the usual suspects.

I'd happily place my writing head-to-head against most people in the industry. I don't think it's wise to assume everyone who ghostwrites is an awful writer. But I paid for half of my covers for my first series by ghostwriting. I plan on paying for all my covers for my next series through ghostwriting. Eventually, I do hope my own writing will be self-sustainable, but in the mean time, I do not mind working for someone expanding their business. And I absolutely LOVE writing books. To be paid to do what you love? It's better than cocaine.


----------



## ThrillerReader (May 15, 2010)

Cecelia said:


> Someone suggested that the rights could never be 100% signed away. What happens if the ghostwriter reclaims the rights later on? There could be financial implications and the reputation of the writer could be spoiled.


The ghostwritten work is sold as a work "for hire." The person doing the hiring (the purchaser) registers the work in the Copyright Office under his/her own name but acknowledges that it is a work "for hire" (there is a box to check). The purchaser then owns the copyright to the work. The purchaser can also modify the work as desired since he/she is the copyright owner. The "for hire' agreement/sale is typically accompanied by a confidentiality agreement as well. So, the work can never be "reclaimed" by the original author.


----------



## W.L. Wright (Jan 21, 2019)

I was blown away because after I read about Amazon's lawsuit against the Kindle read cheaters I got a message on Facebook offering it to me from some stranger. I of course didn't respond I believe that crime and cheats aren't something we should accept but they _are_ as old as time. I mean Christ was set between a murderer and a thief. I believe good still wins over evil and that all of us good people just need to keep pushing forward and not get thrown off by the cheaters because as they always exist if they throw you off they win. So push on all good people who do the right thing, do things the honest way, the way that means we can still have faith in humanity, because we can. Being a writer is tough but just keep writing and ignore everything else.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

Jeff Hughes said:


> I agree with Anarchist... I suspect it's mostly folks who can't make it any other way in writing who turn to ghostwriting (both those buying, and those selling).
> 
> That's because ghostwriting lives amongst the dreck.


Thanks, nice to know you feel I live amongst the dreck.

As for why I ghostwrite, even though I've written several dozen books (my own, pennames, and for others), I'm not a perfect editor. And, I have more than a dozen titles that are one or two chapters in but I get stuck. And, not everyone can write full novels. I usually start sweating at about 30K and then struggle.

However, when someone has a good story idea, a quality outline, and knows where the protagonist is going, what their motivation is, where they think they might end up, and presents it all with a check to start writing, I always drop what I'm doing. The best two books I wish I could point to are doing great, and I had a big hand in guiding them. I didn't create them or the idea, I molded the story that was presented. That's different than doing it all.

I'm sorry I can't always do it all. Maybe someday I'll get out of the dreck and be as great as you.


----------



## SM Royall (Dec 5, 2013)

I completely fail to see the issue with it, people are writing to earn money that's it.

Maybe people that outsource their marketing should be discouraged because it's giving them an unfair advantage?

Maybe people writing to market should be shamed, after all they're not writing from the heart very often but writing what's profitable instead?

Publishing includes a number os skill sets, one of which is writing, some people decide to farm out some aspects, it won't last long for them if readers don't like their product.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jeff Hughes said:


> I'm glad to hear that your ghostwritten work is of such high quality, Gabriel. But that simply begs the question... if your work is that good, why can't it stand on its own?
> 
> Say I go to the bookstore (the pretend one, since most the real ones have closed down) and spy, right there on the center table, a stack of hardbacks, a new title by Cormac McCarthy. My heart gives a leap, because Cormac is one of my favorite authors. I didn't even know he had a new book coming out! I grab my copy and can hardly bear to wait in line at the checkout.
> 
> ...


But people who use other writers, like James Patterson, for example, generally have a hand in the editing to ensure that the writing is similar to their own writing which made them popular to begin with. I doubt it's much different for fiction ghostwriters.

I gather that most ghostwritten fiction is in genres where a lot of tropes and themes and writing styles are more interchangeable, as opposed to MacCarthy's style in _The Road._

As for the original post, I just see it as commercial activity. Writing for sales -- be it your own book, or one you write for someone else -- is a commercial activity. The market rules.

As authors, we all deal with various aspects of the publishing market -- ghostwritten material is part of that market.


----------



## brianmartinez (Feb 13, 2011)

There's also such thing as a publisher "house name." Look at James Axler, a man who never existed yet has written almost 200 books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Axler


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 18, 2015)

It seems to me that, to be ultra successful as a self publisher, one needs to be at least above average at pretty much all of the following tasks:

- Figuring out what is selling (determining the correct genre in which to write)
- Figuring out what the readers in that genre want
- Execution (actually creating books that satisfy readers)
- Getting the book in front of readers of that genre (marketing)

I can only imagine what it takes to get to a level of competency in each of those areas (because I'm far from it), but, once you do, the limit on how much money you can make is then determined mostly by how many books you can put out. There are only so many hours in the day to spend writing, doing market research, and actually writing, so how do you increase your efficiency?

If one is in that situation and wishes to maximize profits, employing ghostwriters makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Late response, I just read this part of Jeff's post from yesterday. Consider this part 2 of my earlier post. 



Jeff Hughes said:


> "Who was the ghostwriter that actually wrote this mesmerizing piece?" said no one ever.


And yet countless little girls were inspired by Nancy Drew (all books ghostwritten) for decades to become strong independent women... I know people who still, as adults, have the huge collections of the Nancy Drew mysteries they read as young girls.

Many believe that John F Kennedy had a ghostwriter for Profiles in Courage, which won the Pulitzer Prize. (See https://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/18/books/an-old-letter-backs-a-claim-of-helping-kennedy-write-profiles.html)

On the flip side, I read a lot of fiction, and very seldom do I think of those books as "mesmerizing pieces" even when I enjoyed the read for what it was. 

Betsy


----------



## Arches (Jan 3, 2016)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Late response, I just read this part of Jeff's post from yesterday. Consider this part 2 of my earlier post.
> 
> And yet countless little girls were inspired by Nancy Drew (all books ghostwritten) for decades to become strong independent women... I know people who still, as adults, have the huge collections of the Nancy Drew mysteries they read as young girls.
> 
> ...


So, I guess ghostwriting is okay? I loved the Nancy Drew stories, too, as a kid. I'm not sure what publishing standards existed fifty years ago for ghostwriting, and whether anybody felt full disclosure was necessary. I'm not trying to be unkind, but whether we're talking about then or now, there is simply something about taking credit in public for someone else's creative effort that rubs me the wrong way.

These days, most folks on Kboards are publishing on KDP. And Amazon can be so ridiculously picky and literal when it wants to be. One of the first bits of information you have to provide is the name of the "primary author or contributor." What do people publishing ghostwritten works put down for that? I'm betting few of them put down the ghostwriter's name. Then the next question is who are other contributors, including authors. I'm betting few ghostwriters get put down there either. And, of course, there are other opportunities to provide full disclosure, such as in the product description. By the end of the uploading process, the purported author has contorted himself into a very uncomfortable position. At least, I would be uncomfortable in that position.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Late response, I just read this part of Jeff's post from yesterday. Consider this part 2 of my earlier post.
> 
> And yet countless little girls were inspired by Nancy Drew (all books ghostwritten) for decades to become strong independent women... I know people who still, as adults, have the huge collections of the Nancy Drew mysteries they read as young girls.
> 
> ...


I was addicted to my Sweet Valley High: Senior Year books back in the day. They weren't fine literature, but I read plenty of literature in school. I wanted something fun and easy.

There were a few other GW YA series I devoured. At the time, I didn't think much about the pen name/author, but now I recognize it as a house name (name belonging to the publisher shared among multiple authors).

Of course, I also read a lot of Nancy Drew when I was younger. They might not hold up to my adult tastes, but not much does.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Arches said:


> So, I guess ghostwriting is okay? I loved the Nancy Drew stories, too, as a kid. I'm not sure what publishing standards existed fifty years ago for ghostwriting, and whether anybody felt full disclosure was necessary. I'm not trying to be unkind, but whether we're talking about then or now, there is simply something about taking credit in public for someone else's creative effort that rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> These days, most folks on Kboards are publishing on KDP. And Amazon can be so ridiculously picky and literal when it wants to be. One of the first bits of information you have to provide is the name of the "primary author or contributor." What do people publishing ghostwritten works put down for that? I'm betting few of them put down the ghostwriter's name. Then the next question is who are other contributors, including authors. I'm betting few ghostwriters get put down there either. And, of course, there are other opportunities to provide full disclosure, such as in the product description. By the end of the uploading process, the purported author has contorted himself into a very uncomfortable position. At least, I would be uncomfortable in that position.


As long as all of those involved are consenting adults who've signed a contract, why should it matter to anyone else? If the story is good, then the story was worth what the reader paid for it. If the story was bad, the person buying ghost-written stuff probably isn't going to be in business for very long.

When I was a kid, two of my favorite series were The Three Investigators and The Hardy Boys. The Three Investigators were written by a couple of different authors, and those authors were credited inside the book but not on the cover, because the books were 'Presented by Alfred Hitchcock'. The Hardy Boys were credited to Franklin W. Dixon, a pen name used by the Stratemeyer Syndicate. But knowing that doesn't make me enjoy those books any less.


----------



## Arches (Jan 3, 2016)

ShayneRutherford said:


> As long as all of those involved are consenting adults who've signed a contract, why should it matter to anyone else? . . .


You've highlighted the problem. All those involved haven't consented. Instead, two parties are working together to fool readers into thinking they're getting something written by one author instead of the other. The named author is worried about his reader's reaction to the switch, and that's why the named author goes to some effort to avoid mentioning the ghostwriter.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Arches said:


> You've highlighted the problem. All those involve haven't consented. Instead, two parties are working together to fool readers into thinking they're getting something written by one author instead of the other. The named author is worried about his reader's reaction to the switch, and that's why the named author goes to some effort to avoid mentioning the ghostwriter.


If the reader thought the book didn't look good, they didn't have to buy it. They consent when they pay their money. And if the publisher-author didn't do a good enough job cleaning up the ghost-written manuscript, that's on them. Not on the ghost writer.

Also, I don't see how this is really that much different than using a pen name. That's one author fooling readers into thinking the book was written by someone else. But really, as long as the book is good, it really shouldn't matter. And if it's not good, that's on the publisher-author for publishing something they know isn't up to standard. If they're worried about it, that's what editing is for.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> As long as all of those involved are consenting adults who've signed a contract, why should it matter to anyone else?


This 100%.

Use of ghostwriters is a time-honored tradition. Readers are not legally owed anything beyond the product they pay for.


----------



## EmberKent (Nov 24, 2018)

Arches said:


> You've highlighted the problem. All those involved haven't consented. Instead, two parties are working together to fool readers into thinking they're getting something written by one author instead of the other. The named author is worried about his reader's reaction to the switch, and that's why the named author goes to some effort to avoid mentioning the ghostwriter.


I don't see how. Readers are receiving a branded product. So long as that delivers, there's been no deception.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

Arches said:


> So, I guess ghostwriting is okay? I loved the Nancy Drew stories, too, as a kid. I'm not sure what publishing standards existed fifty years ago for ghostwriting, and whether anybody felt full disclosure was necessary. I'm not trying to be unkind, but whether we're talking about then or now, there is simply something about taking credit in public for someone else's creative effort that rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> These days, most folks on Kboards are publishing on KDP. And Amazon can be so ridiculously picky and literal when it wants to be. One of the first bits of information you have to provide is the name of the "primary author or contributor." What do people publishing ghostwritten works put down for that? I'm betting few of them put down the ghostwriter's name. Then the next question is who are other contributors, including authors. I'm betting few ghostwriters get put down there either. And, of course, there are other opportunities to provide full disclosure, such as in the product description. By the end of the uploading process, the purported author has contorted himself into a very uncomfortable position. At least, I would be uncomfortable in that position.


The syndicate behind Nancy Drew paid their authors approximate 2 months salary of one of their staff writers and never once claimed that Carolyn Keene existed as an individual. In fact, one of the authors who arguably wrote a majority of the books, famously signed letters with her name and then Carolyn Keene in parentheses.

As with everything in a highly unregulated industry, it's not about what is done, but how it is done. Most people wouldn't raise an eyebrow at fictional pen names supported by a group of authors. It's when that fictional pen name is presented as a real individual (including the hiring of actors to "play" the author on videos) that causes hackles to be raised. At some point people began conflating the practice of hiring ghostwriters with other underhanded tactics. That's a problem. On its own, ghostwriting isn't and shouldn't ever be something questioned.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

Anarchist said:


> I suspect it's the result of work-at-home forums/FB groups promoting it as a way to make money from writing.
> 
> Also, many authors are having a difficult time making a living from their books as competition heats up and ads increasingly drive visibility. Those unwilling to go back to day jobs are pursuing ghostwriting as an alternative.
> 
> KB is where they start looking for clients.


I agree with this. And not to sound jaded but more of along the lines of what makes sense, the reason some of us are struggling is thanks to marketers who hire ghostwriters while simultaneously having huge marketing budgets. It's especially a thing in historical romance.


----------



## Cecelia (Jun 28, 2017)

Flying Pizza Pie said:


> Thanks, nice to know you feel I live amongst the dreck.
> 
> However, when someone has a good story idea, a quality outline, and knows where the protagonist is going, what their motivation is, where they think they might end up, and presents it all with a check to start writing, I always drop what I'm doing.


If the client gives you the story outline, they have contributed at least some of the intellectual property. I still believe you deserve some "thanks" or acknowledgement in the imprint section.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

The issue is really about deception.

Not mentioning something is not deception.

If I use a gender-free pen name made of initials and a surname, I am not deceiving anyone, but I am hiding my gender, possibly my ethnicity and other details. 

If I am a man writing under what 99% of readers would term a woman's name, it's getting murkier--I'm looking at you "Robert Galbraith"--and if I actually claim to be a woman in the bio, I've crossed the line. 

So if I put out a book under my pen name, that's partly or mostly ghostwritten, that's fine. But if I give you my real name and claim I wrote that book on my own, I've crossed the line.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

Cecelia said:


> If the client gives you the story outline, they have contributed at least some of the intellectual property. I still believe you deserve some "thanks" or acknowledgement in the imprint section.


I appreciate the "thanks" idea, but I get that in the form of payment.

As for the outline, etc., I never start from scratch on a ghostwrite. If I could think up all the great ideas I've been presented by others, I wouldn't have to ghostwrite. I'm not that clever.

I've got a friend who's a well-known painter, and he never works from scratch or a landscape. He only works from a photograph. His work is amazing, and I don't belittle his talent or ability because someone else took the photo.

So, I always get detailed notes from the buyer, or my own from phone conversations. Those notes can run 20 pages or more. And, I present a written synopsis to start, then the first chapter, then 3-5 chapter installments. Changes are sometimes asked for, and accommodated.

Personally, I like the work best when I get a semi-completed work and get to rewrite and try to improve and then finish the story. Doesn't always work so well on my work, but with someone else's story, I'm good.


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

The issue here is the proximity of ghostwriting to scamming. I'm extremely surprised this post has gone 51 comments long and the issue of scamming hasn't really come up and been addressed. Simply put, scammers use ghostwriters. Are all ghostwriters involved in scams? I'm sure not. But when they're putting their writing up for sale to the highest bidder, are they running ethical checks of the buyer?

What's a scam? We know how book spammers work. Research a hot keyword/topic, commission 'books' on that topic (typically in non-fiction) and blast them out there. Often using fake reviews and botnets to pump up sales. They're not interested in quality. The whole thing gums up amazon with crap and fake content.

It's the dark side of writing to market. In fiction this can happen too. a spammer spots a hot market, like reverse harem, or drills down on a specific niche, like reverse harem with shifters etc..., and commissions ghost writers to produce tons of the stuff and flood the market. It doesn't mean it's total crap, but is it really going to be as good as the stuff an author writes under their own name, for building their own brand? The spammer/scammer doesn't care. It's words on the page, it makes a widget to sell. Why should the ghostwriter care?

I feel like this kind of thing would defiitely have been smacked down on kboards before, with prejudice. It's a board for author-marketers, surely. Not for pure marketers, and not for pure authors. It's for the hybrid in between. Hence ghostwriting, and certainly hiring out services, should not be here. But kboards is not what it was, obviously, so maybe it's fine for it to die in this way...



David VanDyke said:


> The issue is really about deception.
> So if I put out a book under my pen name, that's partly or mostly ghostwritten, that's fine. But if I give you my real name and claim I wrote that book on my own, I've crossed the line.


I think the way Patterson does it is fine, and thus the way David's doing it is fine. It's honest and on the surface. Both authors are still accountable, and motivated to do a good job because it's their brand at stake. I also have no problem at all with an author running a pen name like Wowling did with Galbraith. I couldn't care two hoots that she disguised her gender. Deception of that kind doesn't matter a bit - why should it?

She's still operating beneath a banner brand she has to be accoiuntable to. Scammers/spammers know no such thing as overall brand. When they get found out, they swap to another brand name. Ghostwriters feed this spammer system of zero accountability. Readers get hoodwinked, after trying out a new book to find its not what they expected (e - the work of a jobbing author rather than an author building their own brand meticulously). We all are made to look bad.

Ban it from kboards.


----------



## Kathy Dee (Aug 27, 2016)

vagabond.voyager said:


> What I can't fathom is that if someone has a book that is viable for successful publishing by another person, why would they sell it outright rather than publish it? It seems a little like cooking a meal then trying to sell it to a restaurant.


In the process of becoming the writer you will eventually be, you may try out various genres, eventually deciding not to pursue them. That can leave you with good quality manuscripts that you have no desire to market or support with further writing. In such cases, I think its not a bad idea to offer manuscripts to other people who are active in those genres. In principle, I can see it could work out to be a win-win solution for all concerned.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

Saint Ignifer said:


> The issue here is the proximity of ghostwriting to scamming. I'm extremely surprised this post has gone 51 comments long and the issue of scamming hasn't really come up and been addressed. Simply put, scammers use ghostwriters. Are all ghostwriters involved in scams? I'm sure not. But when they're putting their writing up for sale to the highest bidder, are they running ethical checks of the buyer?
> 
> What's a scam? We know how book spammers work. Research a hot keyword/topic, commission 'books' on that topic (typically in non-fiction) and blast them out there. Often using fake reviews and botnets to pump up sales. They're not interested in quality. The whole thing gums up amazon with crap and fake content.
> 
> ...


You are right, there are scammers and as:::::'s who are screwing people. I wish Amazon came down hard on them, I wish they didn't exist. But be careful with that wide brush you are painting with before you paint yourself into a corner.

Inferring that all ghostwriters are scammers or that "they feed this spammer system of zero accountability" is crap. Cheats are cheats. We know this. However, legitimate ghostwriters are legitimate writers who provide a service. Some authors need help with their work. Perhaps with tempo and pace, or with speech, or with character development, or just with writer's block. It happens. Should they never be given help by a ghostwriter?

Should schools not have teachers? Should athletes not have trainers? Is Tiger Woods a fraud because he has a swing coach?

Should we ban playwrights who use existing novels?

Should we ban screenwriters who use existing novels?

Should we ban 95% of all books "written" by actors, athletes, and politicians because we suspect they are ghostwritten?

Should we ban all Indie books by saying that 95% of all Indie books are crap since they weren't produced by traditional publishers?

The answer to all those questions is of course, no.

But just for the heck of it, do you think there are more bad books done by poor writers that are a waste of money, or are there more "scammed/spammed books made by cheats (or ghostwrites, as you say) that are a waste of money? I say there are millions of bad books by Indies, and yes, some are my own. Nobody is saying you can't write a clunker and offer it for sale.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Saint Ignifer said:


> The issue here is the proximity of ghostwriting to scamming. I'm extremely surprised this post has gone 51 comments long and the issue of scamming hasn't really come up and been addressed. Simply put, scammers use ghostwriters. Are all ghostwriters involved in scams? I'm sure not. But when they're putting their writing up for sale to the highest bidder, are they running ethical checks of the buyer?
> 
> What's a scam? We know how book spammers work. Research a hot keyword/topic, commission 'books' on that topic (typically in non-fiction) and blast them out there. Often using fake reviews and botnets to pump up sales. They're not interested in quality. The whole thing gums up amazon with crap and fake content.
> 
> It's the dark side of writing to market. In fiction this can happen too. a spammer spots a hot market, like reverse harem, or drills down on a specific niche, like reverse harem with shifters etc..., and commissions ghost writers to produce tons of the stuff and flood the market. It doesn't mean it's total crap, but is it really going to be as good as the stuff an author writes under their own name, for building their own brand? The spammer/scammer doesn't care. It's words on the page, it makes a widget to sell. Why should the ghostwriter care?


If someone comes up with a way to create a lot of content, and it makes them money, why should that concern me any more than the star author down the street who sells gazillions of copies for other reasons?

As for the use of click farms, bot readers, fake reviews, and other similar things, that's definitely wrong, and I think it's against the Zon's TOS.

But mere content production? I know this opinion isn't necessarily going to be popular, but _as long as it's legal, why should anyone care?_ It's just a product.

I understand your sense of frustration, but the big picture is that there are people who are going to figure out ways to get a lot of product out there, and others have to compete against that, and it can be tough. It doesn't make it easy, but it's part of the free marketplace. The only workable solution would be some sort of content police. Does anyone really want content police? That would seem to be a bit restrictive, don't you think?

As for the illegal stuff -- as I said before -- I agree with you 100% on that.


----------



## Arches (Jan 3, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> The issue is really about deception.
> 
> Not mentioning something is not deception.
> 
> ...


I agree that the key issue is whether an author is deceiving his readers. But I can assure you that hiding the truth behind silence certainly can be deceptive. Plenty of people are in prison because they lied by failing to speak up when they should've.

In particular, I would agree that there are ways to use ghostwriters that are completely appropriate. For example, someone could be upfront by listing the ghostwriter as an author or contributor. That doesn't necessarily mean putting the person's name on the book's cover. The named author could mention in the product description that a ghostwriter was used to produce the work. Or the author page could mention that some of the work by the named author is ghostwritten.
I would also agree that a named author could create a pen name specifically for the purpose of publishing ghostwritten material. If the pen name has no history associated with it, and doesn't contain a false author description, that should be fine.
What I think is deceptive is when an author begins to publish under their own name or a pen name and they prepare an biography on an Amazon author page for themselves. They publish books and engage with readers as a person, including being active on social media as that person.
Then, for whatever reason, the named author decides to use a ghostwriter to prepare a new work without disclosing that fact to readers. For all readers can tell in that situation, the named author is continuing his past practice of writing the books. That is deceptive without some disclosure to readers that the named author's work is actually being written by someone else. Maybe some readers won't care, but some will, and they deserve to know that things have changed.


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

Flying Pizza Pie said:


> You are right, there are scammers and as:::::'s who are screwing people. I wish Amazon came down hard on them, I wish they didn't exist. But be careful with that wide brush you are painting with before you paint yourself into a corner.
> 
> Inferring that all ghostwriters are scammers or that "they feed this spammer system of zero accountability" is crap. Cheats are cheats. We know this. However, legitimate ghostwriters are legitimate writers who provide a service. Some authors need help with their work. Perhaps with tempo and pace, or with speech, or with character development, or just with writer's block. It happens. Should they never be given help by a ghostwriter?


Let's be clear what we're talking about. Are you talking about an editor? It sounds like it, in all that you describe above. I have no problem with editors. Editors seem a very different thing to me than ghostwriters. Ghost writers just write the whole thing. I'm sure there's a continuum there, and I'd like to draw a red line somewhere along it, where editing becomes ghostwriting, and I wouldn't be comfortable seeing that book then go for sale under that author's name, without a co-author credit.

I teach at University - sometimes kids get substantial help writing their essays from tutors. That's a big no-no. Conversely, if they get help from Grammarly or Word's autocorrect, no problem. I encourage it. There's a continuum and we police it. How do we police it with authors? I'm trying to do it now in this comment, and get all such talk banned from kboards.



Flying Pizza Pie said:


> Should schools not have teachers? Should athletes not have trainers? Is Tiger Woods a fraud because he has a swing coach?
> 
> Should we ban playwrights who use existing novels?
> 
> ...


I think a lot of this is kind of silly. No one's saying any of this. We're talking about ghostwriters and scams. None of the above stuff fits that description. The closest is famous folks using ghostwriters -but a- we all suspect this, as you say, and b- they and their brand are on the hook for what the ghostwriter writes. They can't flip their brand and just start again tomorrow. It's real for them even if they didn't write it. I don't like it, but it's different. No one famous person is going to gunk up amazon with dozens of ghostwritten autobiographies of themselves. They get one shot.



Flying Pizza Pie said:


> But just for the heck of it, do you think there are more bad books done by poor writers that are a waste of money, or are there more "scammed/spammed books made by cheats (or ghostwrites, as you say) that are a waste of money? I say there are millions of bad books by Indies, and yes, some are my own. Nobody is saying you can't write a clunker and offer it for sale.


I think this is pretty irrelevant to the conversation. I don't see anyone railing against the 'tsunami of crap' we Indies rain down on Amazon. Why would we rail against the system that has given us all more opportunity thna ever before? I'm against spamming because it damages the signal to noise ratio. I believe full-on ghostwriters (not editors, not co-writers) DO feed the spamming beast, unless they are carefully running checks on the people they sell to. Where else do you think spammers get their content from? Judging by what folks have said in comments above, about needing to pay their bills with their ghostwritten work, I don't think they're running those checks. Do you?

I don't want unaccountable crap out there alongside my stuff. As I said, it makes us all look bad. Stop it. Ban it on kboards, or it's going to devolve into a blackhat forum, and all the serious authors seeking both to put out great content AND make money will leave - if they haven't already.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

RPatton said:


> The syndicate behind Nancy Drew paid their authors approximate 2 months salary of one of their staff writers and never once claimed that Carolyn Keene existed as an individual.


Interesting. I didn't realize Carolyn Keene didn't exist until I was an adult, despite growing up with Nancy Drew books in my library. I wonder how many readers knew?

EDIT: Found this interesting article:
https://murder-mayhem.com/who-is-carolyn-keene

Betsy


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Scammers also us cover designers. Does that mean we should all start designing our own covers?

Once a GW is paid, the manuscript is no longer her responsibility it her property (depending on the contract, of course).

Scammers are scammers. The purple who should be blamed for that are the scammers themselves.


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> Scammers also us cover designers. Does that mean we should all start designing our own covers?


This doesn't track logically. Scammers also breathe air, should we all stop breathing air? It's different things. The cover artist is not responsible for the content, and no-one expects them to be. That's not their job. Ghostwriting the book, however, IS the content. It's the whole book. Of course a ghostwriter is responsible for what they wrote and how they choose to make their money.

If ghostwriters are allowed to hang out their shingle on kboards, you're going to get more scammers frequenting this place looking to hire. That's just a fact. Like I said above - who do you think is hiring ghostwriters? If you want that, by all means do nothing.

This kind of thing would never fly on the kboards of only a few years ago. I can only think it's because many authors left that there's hardly anyone speaking up against this. Do you think they'd tolerate this on the SPF or 20Booksto50k facebook pages? Definitely not. kboards used to set an ethical standard.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Saint Ignifer said:


> This doesn't track logically. Scammers also breathe air, should we all stop breathing air? It's different things. The cover artist is not responsible for the content, and no-one expects them to be. That's not their job. Ghostwriting the book, however, IS the content. It's the whole book. Of course a ghostwriter is responsible for what they wrote and how they choose to make their money.
> 
> If ghostwriters are allowed to hang out their shingle on kboards, you're going to get more scammers frequenting this place looking to hire. That's just a fact. Like I said above - who do you think is hiring ghostwriters? If you want that, by all means do nothing.
> 
> This kind of thing would never fly on the kboards of only a few years ago. I can only think it's because many authors left that there's hardly anyone speaking up against this. Do you think they'd tolerate this on the SPF or 20Booksto50k facebook pages? Definitely not. kboards used to set an ethical standard.


Yes, that's my point. It doesn't track. GW are responsible for the content, not what a publisher does with the content.

I've been here since 2014 and there have always been GWs posting their services. A good friend of mine is a GW and she would tell you that Kboards tend to have cheaper GW jobs than elsewhere in the industry (with DD being similarly cheap). She's been GW since I've known her and getting work here (and other places) the entire time.


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> Yes, that's my point. It doesn't track. GW are responsible for the content, not what a publisher does with the content.
> 
> I've been here since 2014 and there have always been GWs posting their services. A good friend of mine is a GW and she would tell you that Kboards tend to have cheaper GW jobs than elsewhere in the industry (with DD being similarly cheap). She's been GW since I've known her and getting work here (and other places) the entire time.


You've misunderstood my comment. I'm saying your logic doesn't track. They're not the same things. Cover artists are different from authors. I'm not saying the named author has to do the art. I am saying the named author has to do the book.

If this was an art site (like Deviant Art) and I was buying work from other artists and displaying it as my own, would that be OK? Of course not. It may not be illegal but it's certainly unethical and misrepresents what people are buying.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2019)

Saint Ignifer said:


> kboards used to set an ethical standard.


You mean back in the days when kboards was supporting Rebecca Hamilton it was setting an ethical standard?


----------



## Blerg et al. (Mar 27, 2015)

Saint Ignifer said:


> If ghostwriters are allowed to hang out their shingle on kboards, you're going to get more scammers frequenting this place looking to hire. That's just a fact. Like I said above - who do you think is hiring ghostwriters? If you want that, by all means do nothing.


If the ghostwriter is producing a real book, and the publisher is not adding copyrighted material, or engaging in book stuffing or click farming, then they are not doing anything wrong. And no amount of "I feel it's dishonest" is going to change the fact that: it's not illegal; it's not against TOS; it's a well established practice used by trad publishers.

However! Your argument that the people hiring ghostwriters are overwhelmingly scammers and it would attract more scammers to the forum is something worth exploring.

Edited to add: If the original content that ghostwriters are providing is being used almost exclusively as ammunition for clickfarms, then that is also a problem. It's one that legit ghostwriters on kboards should have a conversation about. I would even go so far as to say they should establish some best practices around vetting clients.


----------



## Cecelia (Jun 28, 2017)

The aim of a scammer is to make money out of content acquired free or very cheaply. They are not likely to PAY a ghostwriter.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Cecelia said:


> The aim of a scammer is to make money out of content acquired free or very cheaply. They are not likely to PAY a ghostwriter.


What little I've gleaned here and elsewhere about content mills is that they _do_ pay their writers. How much, I wouldn't know. But obviously enough for GWs to turn out the product for them.

And some of the content mills have been referred to here and elsewhere as possible scammers. Whether content mills are scammers or not, I'll leave that for others to determine.

But my understanding was that the content mills use GW's as a means to get a lot of product out frequently, consequently making use of the Zon's algorithms that apparently favor frequent releases.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

Saint Ignifer said:


> If ghostwriters are allowed to hang out their shingle on kboards, you're going to get more scammers frequenting this place looking to hire. That's just a fact. Like I said above - who do you think is hiring ghostwriters? If you want that, by all means do nothing.


Wow.

So, again, you are saying ghostwriters are scammers. And, people who are hiring them are too. You say you teach at university? I hope it's not a course of critical thinking and reasoning. Geez.

I'll agree to disagree with you.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2019)

Saint Ignifer said:


> If ghostwriters are allowed to hang out their shingle on kboards, you're going to get more scammers frequenting this place looking to hire. That's just a fact. Like I said above - who do you think is hiring ghostwriters?


Wow  if you think only scammers use ghostwriters you have ZERO idea about what is going on in publishing. I would suggest you educate yourself about the use of ghostwriters before you make sweeping statements equating all publishers who use them to scammers.

I know many writers who are GWs, I know authors who use GWs as part of their publishing model. NONE of them are scammers, they simply use a different model to other authors/publishers.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Saint Ignifer said:


> How do we police it with authors? I'm trying to do it now in this comment, and get all such talk banned from kboards.


Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned from KBoards. Ghost writers are writers, and they should be as welcome here as any other writer.

The mods know about these threads, and have even welcomed the ghost writers who have service provider threads here, so I'm guessing they don't feel the need to ban anything.


----------



## Gabriel_Legend (Jan 1, 2016)

I've been reading through this thread and some of it leaves me shaking with anger and frustration. 

1) I am a ghostwriter. Sometimes, I write my own stuff. When I have time. However, I usually don't, and if I can get paid the same for writing fiction that is fun, suspenseful and exciting as I do for writing about "The best backyard hammock" or "How to Choose an HVAC Company" then you can be damned sure that I am going to do it. 

As for you people who are crying about how ghostwriting takes all of the integrity out of self-published writing and puts crap fiction on the shelves - I've got news for you. The odds are that your own fiction is total crap. Yep, the odds are good that it is YOU and not me contributing to the putrid smell of self-publishing. How can I say that with so much confidence? Because the majority of self-published fiction is crap, and I already know how to write good fiction. 

For those of you trying to link ghostwriting to scamming. WTF??  If someone wants to pay me to write fiction for them, and they want to publish it under their own name, and I agree to those terms, then HOW IS THAT A SCAM? Is it a scam because the author isn't writing it themselves? Who gives a crap! Why do you care? Is it a scam because you don't believe I have enough creative freedom to write good fiction? Well, maybe that's something I might concede to if I were still working for one of the ghostwriting agencies I worked for who allowed clients to micromanage every stage of the operation. But that's not how I work now. When I write for someone, I have the creative freedom to write a good novel. If someone tries to restrict that freedom too much, then I simply tell them the truth: that they will end up with a crappy novel unless they loosen the reins. 

I really don't understand this thread. I've seen everything in here from thinly veiled hints to ban ghostwriters from Kboards to elitist jerks who've probably never even finished a whole novel talking crap about ghostwriting. How about this: you do you, and let me (and the rest of the ghostwriting community) do me/us. 

PS: I wanted to add something that I was just putting in a PM because it's extremely relevant to my point: 

A writer writes, and that's all there is to it. Whether they are getting paid by the word, or paid by the royalty, a writer writes. Period. Stephen King once said (paraphrase) 'Show me someone who got a check for writing fiction that cleared and I'll show you a talented writer.'


----------



## LD (Aug 29, 2018)

Jeff Hughes said:


> I agree with Anarchist... I suspect it's mostly folks who can't make it any other way in writing who turn to ghostwriting (both those buying, and those selling).
> 
> Speaking as an inveterate reader all my life... I pretty much instantly dismiss any book that I discover (or sense) has been ghostwritten. To me, it simply smacks of dishonesty.
> 
> ...


 How would you know though? Given that they don't reveal who wrote the book, how would you know if a bestselling book was actually written by a ghostwriter or a bad book was written by the author itself?


----------



## Gabriel_Legend (Jan 1, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> The issue is really about deception.
> 
> Not mentioning something is not deception.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you are [incorrect]. First, I have published a few romance and erotica books under a woman's name. You know why? Because judgmental readers wouldn't give them a chance if they were written with a male pseudonym. I don't feel even the tiniest bit guilty for writing under a women's name. If people weren't so goshdarnn (wow, really Kboards?) judgmental, I would have published under my own, very male, name.

Second, if I sell a book to someone that I have ghostwritten, and they pay me for the work, I don't give a crap what they do with it. If they publish it with Penguin for a six figure advance then good for them for knowing how to submit it properly. If they publish it as their own without ever even mentioning the word "ghostwriter" then they did exactly as I expected and I am totally okay with it.

Writing isn't something you can license like a stock photo. You have to publish it under an author name. The more books published under the same name, the greater the chance of books selling.

I provide a product. X amount of awesomely written words for X amount of dollars. What you do with my product after I get paid for it is entirely up to you.

_Inappropriate language replaced at the brackets. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

Flying Pizza Pie said:


> Wow.
> 
> So, again, you are saying ghostwriters are scammers. And, people who are hiring them are too. You say you teach at university? I hope it's not a course of critical thinking and reasoning. Geez.
> 
> I'll agree to disagree with you.


You're getting a little personal here. You're also misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say ghostwriters are scammers. I said scammers hire ghostwriters. Not exclusively, but they obviously do.

But let's get to first principles. I think kboards is and was a place for authors who want to learn how to sell their books. Naturally, proceeding from that principle, I don't want to see all these posts from authors who don't want to sell (ghostwriters) and sellers who don't want to write (I guess a new kind of publisher?). Those seem like different things to me. Business transactions, to be honest. Not what I'm here for.

So what is kboards, and who is it for? Who can answer this question? Because the further you move from the first principle I listed, the closer you get to unethical and scammy behaviour. Do I think ghostwriting, and buying ghostwritten books which you then sell under your own name, is unethical? Yes. Is it also a scam? If you put it under your own name, yes, it is. Buying reviews may be worse. Botnet buying may be worse. Outright plagiarism may be worse. But it's still misrepresentation. If we can agree buying reviews is bad, and buying sales is bad, why can't we agree buying the whole book is bad?

Or are they all OK now too?

Ban this stuff. Make kboards a place for authors learning how to better sell their books - period.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Saint Ignifer said:


> Ban this stuff. Make kboards a place for authors learning how to better sell their books - period.


For the record, KBoards, initially KindleBoards, was originally founded as a place for aficionados of the new Kindle devices to discuss said devices and help each other with the new tech. Because it was for reading books, there were many discussions on what books people liked, where to get books besides Amazon, and requests for recommendations on books to buy.

Then authors showed up saying 'hey, buy MY book'.

NOW -- we still have book discussions, and tech discussions, but they're less frenzied as the tech isn't the LATEST BEST THING any more!  But it is true that the WC is the most active area as the authors have really settled in to the many discussions on ALL aspects of writing, promoting, publishing, selling, etc. Not really a surprise to me at all that folks interested in the writing but not the other stuff are interested in conversations here as well. AND interested in promoting what they do -- just as editors and cover artists do.

And, I gotta say: for some of us who've been around years (since almost the beginning for me) and seen the changes in real time, it's kind of amusing to have a relatively new member comment as above.


----------



## Gabriel_Legend (Jan 1, 2016)

Saint Ignifer said:


> You're getting a little personal here. You're also misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say ghostwriters are scammers. I said scammers hire ghostwriters. Not exclusively, but they obviously do.
> 
> But let's get to first principles. I think kboards is and was a place for authors who want to learn how to sell their books. Naturally, proceeding from that principle, I don't want to see all these posts from authors who don't want to sell (ghostwriters) and sellers who don't want to write (I guess a new kind of publisher?). Those seem like different things to me. Business transactions, to be honest. Not what I'm here for.
> 
> ...


So, if you were to buy a wedding cake, should you be required to post a giant sign next to it saying "I DID NOT MAKE THIS CAKE."

What if you hired someone to take a photograph of you and your family? Is that unethical? Should you really be allowed to post a picture in your home that you didn't take? Should you be allowed to post it on Facebook or send it out as your Christmas cards?

If you owned a distribution company and you hired another company to manufacture products for you to distribute under your brand name should you be fined for being unethical?

If you couldn't get pregnant and you used a surrogate, should the first words out of your mouth whenever someone smiled at your baby be "I DIDN'T MAKE HIM! I'M BARREN! SOME OTHER WOMAN CARRIED HIM!"

I hope I have made clear how ridiculous you sound.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

Saint Ignifer said:


> You're getting a little personal here. You're also misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say ghostwriters are scammers. I said scammers hire ghostwriters. Not exclusively, but they obviously do.
> 
> But let's get to first principles. I think kboards is and was a place for authors who want to learn how to sell their books.
> 
> Ban this stuff. Make kboards a place for authors learning how to better sell their books - period.


Did you really say "You're getting a little personal here," after saying "ghostwriters are the dreck of writing," and that's not personal to me?

Anyway, I won't argue anymore. Believe what you want, that's fine.

As for what kboards is, as I recall, it was first called Kindle Boards, as in everything Kindle. Not just writing. The Writer's Cafe is about writing. So you are now saying ghostwriting is not writing? Or you are saying it's not what you want to see in your little world? Sorry, Kboards is about ideas, teaching, sharing, and ghostwriting is legitimate whether you like it or not.

I won't be petty and say we should compare our work, our books, or our writing success. I will say that I'm more than comfortable with my track record, with the exception of a couple of personal books and one ghostwritten book. When you can say that, maybe your view of writing will be different.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Saint Ignifer said:


> But let's get to first principles. I think kboards is and was a place for authors who want to learn how to sell their books. Naturally, proceeding from that principle, *I don't want to see all these posts* from authors who don't want to sell (ghostwriters) and sellers who don't want to write (I guess a new kind of publisher?). Those seem like different things to me. Business transactions, to be honest. Not what I'm here for.
> 
> Ban this stuff. Make kboards a place for authors learning how to better sell their books - period.


There's an easy solution to that. Ignore them.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2019)

Saint Ignifer said:


> ...I think kboards is and was a place for authors who want to learn how to sell their books. Naturally, proceeding from that principle, *I don't want to see all these posts* from authors who don't want to sell (ghostwriters) and sellers who don't want to write (I guess a new kind of publisher?).


Then scroll past them. No one is compelling you to click on and read topics about ghost writing.

Publishers who buy GW manuscripts are in the same position as authors who write their own material - we all come to the k-boards to discuss the* business of publishing*, advertising, and marketing.

If you can't park your obvious prejudices against ghost writing at the door, then perhaps you might prefer to find a writing craft forum to hang out on? The k-boards has (for years) been about the business side of things and what happens after you have a completed manuscript.


----------



## josephdaniel (Jan 30, 2019)

Feels like some people here would harangue their mother for buying box cake on their birthday instead of making it from scratch. 

It's a cake. Betty Crocker got paid. And mother (who has a million other things to attend to) got a quick, quality cake. 

Meanwhile Junior is in the corner whining that the frosting came in a can, and that mother didn't give Betty Crocker proper recognition.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Ghostwriters write books, so they can add to craft conversations.

Publishers sell books, so they can add to business/publishing conversations.

I don't see the problem.

No one will be able to add everything to every indie publishing conversation.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Gabriel_Legend said:


> So, if you were to buy a wedding cake, should you be required to post a giant sign next to it saying "I DID NOT MAKE THIS CAKE."
> 
> What if you hired someone to take a photograph of you and your family? Is that unethical? Should you really be allowed to post a picture in your home that you didn't take? Should you be allowed to post it on Facebook or send it out as your Christmas cards?
> 
> ...


What is wrong with "Jane Q. Author is a pen name brand utilizing the talents of several authors and marketers"? That way publishers can publish and ghostwriters can ghostwrite?

I'd even go as far as doing away with the pen names and simply having publisher brands. Let's not pretend readers love the fake author personas, so why not give them marketing without the expectation of interacting with an author?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Gabriel_Legend said:


> Sorry, but you are [incorrect].


Thanks for your professionalism.

Quite objectionable phrasing coming from someone _actively soliciting me in my personal email_ to ghostwrite a book.

Obviously not gonna happen now.

_The only edit here was to the quote, to replace that "objectionable phrasing." Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Gabriel_Legend (Jan 1, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> Thanks for your professionalism.
> 
> Quite objectionable phrasing coming from someone _actively soliciting me in my personal email_ to ghostwrite a book.
> 
> ...


It was meant facetiously, but I'm actually fine with that. I would have been disappointed in myself if I were less than honest with someone just because they were thinking about hiring me to write for them.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Ava Glass said:


> What is wrong with "Jane Q. Author is a pen name brand utilizing the talents of several authors and marketers"? That way publishers can publish and ghostwriters can ghostwrite?
> 
> I'd even go as far as doing away with the pen names and simply having publisher brands. Let's not pretend readers love the fake author personas, so why not give them marketing without the expectation of interacting with an author?


That's so much more confusing than a single pen name.

"What does a pen name mean" is an interesting conversation with a lot of perspectives. Writers, readers, and publishers all have different takes. Author-publishers vary in which hat they favor, so to speak.

I would say a pen name is a promise of an experience more than it's anything else. But that's really neither here nor there.

A pen name is certainly not a promise a book is written by a single person with that name and bio.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> That's so much more confusing than a single pen name.


We don't search for television shows or movies by author. Why not have certain kinds of books known simply by a publisher brand and the name of the series or line?

Obviously, the system for books is currently set up for "author," "title," and "publisher." I'm wildly proposing changing the system so that not every book has to be classified that way.

If these book packagers like publishing so much, then let them be publishers. Just get rid of the fake author personas, and replace them with brand promises.



Crystal_ said:


> "What does a pen name mean" is an interesting conversation with a lot of perspectives. Writers, readers, and publishers all have different takes. Author-publishers vary in which hat they favor, so to speak.
> 
> I would say a pen name is a promise of an experience more than it's anything else. But that's really neither here nor there.
> 
> A pen name is certainly not a promise a book is written by a single person with that name and bio.


I think readers are trained to know that author names often aren't real, but I believe they think the bios are real. They believe the person they interact with on Facebook is really a woman with two cats who posts real pictures of said cats. They'll get mad if they find out it's some internet marketing dude using stock photos of a middle-aged woman and cats.

And that's not even getting into issues of privileged people assuming false identities of marginalized people.

Why not retrain readers to understand they're getting an experience, not a person? Being clear in a bio that a pen name is the work of multiple people is a feasible start.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Saint Ignifer said:


> So what is kboards, and who is it for? Who can answer this question? Because the further you move from the first principle I listed, the closer you get to unethical and scammy behaviour. Do I think ghostwriting, and buying ghostwritten books which you then sell under your own name, is unethical? Yes. Is it also a scam? If you put it under your own name, yes, it is. Buying reviews may be worse. Botnet buying may be worse. Outright plagiarism may be worse. But it's still misrepresentation. If we can agree buying reviews is bad, and buying sales is bad, why can't we agree buying the whole book is bad?
> 
> Or are they all OK now too?
> 
> Ban this stuff. Make kboards a place for authors learning how to better sell their books - period.


KBoards, from my limited understanding, is a forum for those who like Kindles and other eReaders, and Writer's Café is for authors of all types, although most of them seem to be indie authors.

I think that one can be an indie author and be a ghostwriter. It's an independent activity, it's authoring, and chances are high in today's publishing climate that if a ghostwriter is going to get a lot of work it might be writing books that are independently published.

Ghostwriters are authors. Many write for independent publishers -- no harm done.

Most scammers also use eBooks and independent publishing to sell their stuff. I suppose we need to ban that, too.

Usually here anything that gets posted and looks fishy gets called out rather quickly. I don't see KBoards becoming a den of scammers any time soon.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

Arches said:


> And Amazon can be so ridiculously picky and literal when it wants to be. One of the first bits of information you have to provide is the name of the "primary author or contributor." What do people publishing ghostwritten works put down for that? I'm betting few of them put down the ghostwriter's name. Then the next question is who are other contributors, including authors. I'm betting few ghostwriters get put down there either. And, of course, there are other opportunities to provide full disclosure, such as in the product description. By the end of the uploading process, the purported author has contorted himself into a very uncomfortable position. At least, I would be uncomfortable in that position.


By your logic, people who publish under pen names will have also contorted themselves in a very uncomfortable position by going through Amazon's ridiculously picky and literal process.

At least, you would be.


----------



## Arches (Jan 3, 2016)

Mylius Fox said:


> By your logic, people who publish under pen names will have also contorted themselves in a very uncomfortable position by going through Amazon's ridiculously picky and literal process.
> 
> At least, you would be.


There are two different issues being discussed. The first problem I raised is whether authors are complying with Amazon's terms of service when they use ghostwriters but don't list them as the primary author or at least as a contributing author. In the case of pen names, both readers and Amazon recognize that authors regularly use pen names, and Amazon makes it easy to publish under pen names. Of course, Amazon knows exactly who I am. I am not hiding the true primary author of my books from Amazon, and my Amazon author page contains my biography.

The second issue is whether readers are being misled. Ghostwriters have every right to write books, and they can sell those books however they want. While I have my doubts about whether a good writer should ghostwrite or sell under their own name or a pen name, that's their decision to make.

The problem isn't with the ghostwriters but with some of their customers who began by writing under their own name or a pen name and created a public persona as that person. Then the author, without disclosing the true author of a new book, begins to use a ghostwriter. In that case, readers can easily be misled.

And the simple fact is, some readers develop a unique kind of personal connection with writers as artists instead of widget makers. People feel that they somehow know the author through their writing and the creative process. Those readers will be disappointed to have been deceived, and that's exactly why some authors don't want to reveal the truth. Those readers will stop buying books from that author.


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

I get it. 

The people defending the ghost-writing practise in this thread see books differently from me. They see them more like widgets, closer to a cake or a car. They think the author's name on the book cover is not a statement of both brand and authorship, but just a statement of brand. 

It's obvious that I dislike this and disagree with this. As a reader if I found out a favorite author was using ghostwriters, I'd stop reading. I consider it dishonest. I've said this already though, no point going over it. We disagree about what makes books what they are. 

To help you out, I thought about parallels. Comparing to cakes and pregnancies is pretty silly, but like for like, let's talk about art. Like a book, an artist typically signs his/her art. If I'm an artist, and pay someone to paint for me, then I sign their work with my name, many people would not want to buy that. It's the same with books. 

And yet - famous artists throughout history have hired ghost-artists and workshops to churn out what are basically prints of their art. Damien Hirst does it today. He then signs those works (or has them signed for him!) and sells them as his own. How do I feel about that? I suppose I have always accepted it. But then his art is conceptual in a certain way - and easy to copy, not requiring tremendous craft to copy. The production-line aspect of it is part of the point...

Well - this is the brave new world of kindle publishing. I am competing not just with other single authors, but with author-collective-publisher-brands who can out-produce me to a phenomenal degree. They can shotgun spray the ebook stores with books in a way I can never match, because I am a writer-publisher first and foremost, not a publisher masquerading as a writer. These folks can look at my books and other books, see what's selling, and commission a dozen books that look and sound much the same within weeks - blitzing them out all under one name and burying me. Writing to market, I guess...

What more is there to say about this? I think it's unethical - passing off work as your own that is not your own. But whatever. I commented on this thread (despite being 'new' - is joining in 2014 new?) as I was surprised few others had taken a stance against this practise. I see few others have followed up against it. Maybe they're not here anymore, or they just differ with me on what's acceptable now. OK. 

Oh, and flying pizza, I didn't call ghostwriting dreck. That must have been someone else. I don't have strong opinions on the quality of ghostwriting, just on the ethics of misrepresenting authorship.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Saint Ignifer said:


> I get it.
> 
> The people defending the ghost-writing practise in this thread see books differently from me. They see them more like widgets, closer to a cake or a car. They think the author's name on the book cover is not a statement of both brand and authorship, but just a statement of brand.


I don't see books as widgets at all. I love books, and have since I was old enough to read. One of my favorite series when I was a kid was The Hardy Boys, which was ghostwritten and published under the author name Franklin W. Dixon. As a kid, I think I may have been a little disgruntled to find out that he wasn't actually a real person, but the fact was, I loved the stories, and that was what mattered the most to me. As long as the stories were good, I didn't really care which ghost writer actually wrote them, because it was about the reading experience, not whose name was on the cover. I guess that's basically where I draw my line - as long as I get the Franklin W. Dixon experience, or the James Patterson experience, etc., it doesn't really matter to me who wrote the books. When we pay our money to read a book, the only thing we are owed is a good book.


----------



## Llano (May 27, 2012)

Interesting discussion. Ghostwriters have been around as long as publishing has. Most of us probably think of non-fiction books by celebrities and politicians who hire ghostwriters who may or not be credited. Fiction seems to be a bit more controversial. I wouldn't be happy if I bought a novel by one of my favorite authors only to discover it was ghostwritten. There are plenty of big-name authors who do that and make big bank. Not my cup of tea.

But I read a book written by one of a famous author's anonymous pen names, how am I to know if it was ghostwritten or not? What difference does it make? If I like the book I'll probably keep buying more. And there's the rub, apparently, for those who don't like ghostwriters.

I don't have many years left on this earth so any effort and money I put into a new series might well be wasted when I drop dead unless my heirs want to take a crash course in marketing, but even then, without new books being released the series would quickly run out of steam and die. Ghostwriting books for someone who can market, such as David VanDyke,  starts to look pretty good to someone like me. For younger people who want to set the publishing world on fire writing their own books, not so much. To each his own.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

Just a word of clarity. If someone ghostwrites a book for you as a work made for hire, legally speaking you are the author under 17 U.S.C. 201, even if you didn't write a single word.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

The second you sell a book, it becomes a product. It doesn't matter how much you see it as art or an extension of our soul--I see my books as both those things--you're asking people to pay. It's a product.

It's not comparable to painting. Paintings are valueable because of scarcity. There is only one original. An ebook is more like a print.

When I have these discussions, I do it with my publisher hat, because it's a publisher discussion. It doesn't matter that I don't like it as an author or reader. There are lots of things I do as a publisher that I hate as a reader.

I think a lot of people demanding transparency from authors have not engaged with readers. It can be great, but readers will demand everything you have until you have nothing left if you don't set boundaries. That can include half-truths and lies. I don't respond to "when's that axed series coming out?" with "never. It didn't sell. If you wanted more, you should have told more friends to buy it." (I say "never say never" or something like that). I don't reveal my actual production schedule. I don't talk about where I got beta notes. I don't talk about problems with friends, health, marriage, etc. It's not anyone business unless I chose to share it.

Authors are always telling half-truths or hiding information. I don't see why we should demand honesty in this one area.


----------



## Blerg et al. (Mar 27, 2015)

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that kboards is becoming the go-to place for scammers to buy the manuscripts that they use in their illegal scams.

Because we're going to need evidence if you want to have the "lets ban ghostwriters discussion." Burden of proof y'know...


----------



## cdk (Feb 28, 2015)

I keep reading over and over that ghostwriting is unethical because readers are being deceived.  How can anyone know if readers actually believe they're being deceived, or if they even care?  Readers aren't naïve.  They know authors use ghostwriters.  In fact, when the quality of a book does not meet their expectations, "ghostwriter" is the first accusation they make when they say, "It's like it was written by someone else."

I have never read a book that makes the representation that every word, every idea, and every concept originated with the author and was written solely by the author and no other source, because that's the representation that would have to be made in order for readers to be deceived.  That's why the backlash against James Frey when he published what was supposed to be a memoir, but portions were later determined to be fabricated or exaggerated.  He made the representation to his readers that what they were reading were real life experiences.  Fiction authors make no such representations.

If I found out that I just read a great book that was actually written by a ghostwriter, it wouldn't bother me in the least and I buy the next book and hope the "author" used the same ghostwriter because I'm not looking to bond and build a relationship, I'm looking for a good book.  And that's it.  All that should matter is that when a reader buys a book, no matter who actually wrote the book, their expectations will be met.  I don't know why people are so eager to judge others, especially when they fail to identify any wrongdoing.

The Sistine Chapel is no less Michelangelo's masterpiece because he used assistants to paint the background.  And yet, I doubt that most people know the names of the other artists who contributed to the achievement.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

cdk said:


> I keep reading over and over that ghostwriting is unethical because readers are being deceived. How can anyone know if readers actually believe they're being deceived, or if they even care? Readers aren't naïve. They know authors use ghostwriters. In fact, when the quality of a book does not meet their expectations, "ghostwriter" is the first accusation they make when they say, "It's like it was written by someone else."


They aren't. That is the rhetoric some people are latching onto. They are also ignoring the the forest for the tree.

If you go back through this thread, you'll find a few voices who are vehemently against ghostwriting of any kind. You'll also find a majority of voices who aren't against ghostwriting or ghostwriters, but instead some of the tactics known to be practiced by some people who also employ the practice of hiring ghostwriters. In the process, the actual cause is being ignored and the symptom is being focused on. It completely muddies the waters and makes it near impossible to have an honest conversation because everyone comes back to the "but ghostwriting" when that isn't even the real issue.

ETA: clarified the wording of a sentence


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

Been an interesting thread. Fun and energizing. Great to see how the writer's minds work, as always.


And, it's ironic now, after all the rants and raves, I wound up with a new gig. So, I guess no good deed goes unpunished and there’s no rest for the wicked. Enjoy.


----------



## josephdaniel (Jan 30, 2019)

Flying Pizza Pie said:


> Been an interesting thread. Fun and energizing. Great to see how the writer's minds work, as always.
> 
> And, it's ironic now, after all the rants and raves, I wound up with a new gig. So, I guess no good deed goes unpunished and there's no rest for the wicked. Enjoy.


Absolutely love that this is the outcome.


----------



## ccruz (Oct 11, 2014)

About the scammers—I was browsing Upwork and found listings asking for people to paraphrase large manuscripts and send them handwritten by mail to the poster of the listing. I was wondering if that had anything to do with the recent plagiarism accusations with Nora Roberts and others. If by paraphrasing someone else's book I'm deemed a ghostwriter, then I do agree in that case that GW is a scammer. 

I wouldn't use a ghost writer myself, but I have been asked to ghostwrite in exchange for being named as a coauthor. I'm not confident enough in my work to accept that responsibility, though, so I declined the offers. What I will say is that the manuscripts that were handed in in these cases basically had to be reworded sentence by sentence, to the point where I would've probably rewritten about 90% of the manuscript. However, the plot came from the original author. I honestly think that in this case the ghostwriter deserves at least over 50% of the royalties because they did most of the work.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Gabriel_Legend said:


> I am not going to write you a novel that sucks. I am going to write one that sells.


What if I want a novel that sucks so it matches my other ones?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Gabriel, service providers are only permitted to solicit business in their own vendor threads here. Doing so in other threads leads to loss of posting privileges. Besides, your vendor thread is where most interested parties will look for your policies, as well as for examples of how you interact with clients and potential clients. Therefore, posting in your vendor thread is the best way to discourage interest from KBers who wouldn't want to be treated as you're treating David above _[in a quote I have since deleted]_. Which will be ... you know ... many of them.

_Edited as a courtesy to remove a quotation of a now-deleted post. - Becca_


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

There's arguments here trying to muddy the waters and confuse what fake authorship entails. Some trying to say that since readers may not know a book was fake means no harm was done. Some trying to say that since authors get help from editors and receive inspiration from other media, all books are fake to some degree. 

Stop it. Own the fakeness. Stop trying to wriggle out from under the ethical implications of what you're doing. Own it - it seems this board is pretty pro what you're doing these days. Don't try to hide behind a veneer of 'nobody cares' or 'it's not really fake' or 'it's no more fake than other forms of authorship'. 

It is fake. 

So what is a scammer? It used to be the case folks on kboards would rail against book spammers - pure marketers who found hot keywords and paid ghostwriters to fill those niches in a shotgun spray. That kind of stuff was shot down. Now it seems folks have decided 'if you can't beat em, join em'. If you're not faking it you're missing a trick.  

So my question - how do you define a scammer, if faking authorship and spamming books you didn't write does not qualify?


----------



## SM Royall (Dec 5, 2013)

I read a lot more books than I write, when I read a book there's only one thing I care about and it's not if the name on the front cover is the real name of the person that wrote it.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

Arches said:


> There are two different issues being discussed. The first problem I raised is whether authors are complying with Amazon's terms of service when they use ghostwriters but don't list them as the primary author or at least as a contributing author. In the case of pen names, both readers and Amazon recognize that authors regularly use pen names, and Amazon makes it easy to publish under pen names. Of course, Amazon knows exactly who I am. I am not hiding the true primary author of my books from Amazon, and my Amazon author page contains my biography.
> 
> The second issue is whether readers are being misled. Ghostwriters have every right to write books, and they can sell those books however they want. While I have my doubts about whether a good writer should ghostwrite or sell under their own name or a pen name, that's their decision to make.
> 
> ...


I understand your point of view on this, but I personally don't buy it. "Author" refers to either the creator or originator of the book, which is also how it is understood legally, and in this sense your suggestion that anyone publishing ghostwritten books through KDP would have to contort themselves in order to do so is nothing but a projection; Amazon and these individuals understand the _actual_ meaning of the word author.

More broadly there's no actual distinction between using a pen name and publishing a ghostwritten book. Work is being published under a name that wasn't the name of the person who wrote it.

And the question of readers being misled i re ghostwriting in general is nearly akin to speculating if people have hurt feelings because the sun rises in the east and not the west.

Those readers might have a safe space waiting for them somewhere... the rest of the world simply enjoys creativity for creativity's sake, sans identity crisis.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

Saint Ignifer said:


> There's arguments here trying to muddy the waters and confuse what fake authorship entails. Some trying to say that since readers may not know a book was fake means no harm was done. Some trying to say that since authors get help from editors and receive inspiration from other media, all books are fake to some degree.
> 
> Stop it. Own the fakeness. Stop trying to wriggle out from under the ethical implications of what you're doing. Own it - it seems this board is pretty pro what you're doing these days. Don't try to hide behind a veneer of 'nobody cares' or 'it's not really fake' or 'it's no more fake than other forms of authorship'.
> 
> It is fake.


Those aren't _actual_ words in there?

No pages?

No story?

Just an illusion?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> You can whine "those publishers aren't real authors," but a) they don't care and b) they aren't calling themselves "real authors."


Well, by definition they _aren't_ authors, or writers, if they only hire out the work and then publish it. That would make them a publisher. Self publishing means one publishes one's self, not someone else. That again, makes them a publisher.

People can quibble about it, get upset when terms are used no matter how correct, but publishers aren't authors unless they wrote the work. I can cut some slack for those who do the outlines, edit and rework the manuscript to bring it in line with their own completely written work. At least they're writing some part of the thing they put their name on.

Using a pen name is not the same thing as buying ghostwritten work and publishing it, FFS. I use pen names, but I write every word of my stories.

This board became the place to advertise ghostwriting and ghostwritten work when VS bought the place. Have none of you noticed the influx of people who are new here and promote their editing and other services? This forum isn't about us figuring out self publishing anymore, it's a market place that is meant to bring in money for the owners. They use the name this forum built up to bring in new people who have no idea what knowledge and experience this place had, it's all about monetizing it, and not for our benefit.


----------



## Saint Ignifer (Feb 4, 2014)

unkownwriter said:


> Well, by definition they _aren't_ authors, or writers, if they only hire out the work and then publish it. That would make them a publisher. Self publishing means one publishes one's self, not someone else. That again, makes them a publisher.
> 
> People can quibble about it, get upset when terms are used no matter how correct, but publishers aren't authors unless they wrote the work. I can cut some slack for those who do the outlines, edit and rework the manuscript to bring it in line with their own completely written work. At least they're writing some part of the thing they put their name on.
> 
> ...


Right on.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

FWIW, I wrote about this subject a few weeks back, when Nora Roberts was scorching the landscape.

https://genedoucette.me/2019/02/there-will-continue-to-be-stories-like-this/


----------



## Arches (Jan 3, 2016)

GeneDoucette said:


> FWIW, I wrote about this subject a few weeks back, when Nora Roberts was scorching the landscape.
> 
> https://genedoucette.me/2019/02/there-will-continue-to-be-stories-like-this/


Great post, Gene. An interesting sidenote with regard to Nora Roberts and discounting the first book in a series. I love her books and particularly the In Death series she published as JD Robb, but she's not a fan of self-published authors. Although she criticizes permafree and the $.99 price point for first in series, she, or her publisher, do basically the same thing. The first ebook in her police procedural series, Naked in Death, is $2.99 although the books in the series typically debut at $14.99.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Arches said:


> Great post, Gene. An interesting sidenote with regard to Nora Roberts and discounting the first book in a series. I love her books and particularly the In Death series she published as JD Robb, but she's not a fan of self-published authors. Although she criticizes permafree and the $.99 price point for first in series, she, or her publisher, do basically the same thing. The first ebook in her police procedural series, Naked in Death, is $2.99 although the books in the series typically debut at $14.99.


Yes, highminded principles often go out the window in the face of dealing with a suddenly freer market, don't they?

And it's easy to sneer at those scrabbling for traction in a tough business when you've already made it.

Now I think Roberts is far less hostile to indies than some other legacy authors, but she's still tending to ascribe the worst examples to all indies.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

unkownwriter said:


> Well, by definition they _aren't_ authors, or writers, if they only hire out the work and then publish it. That would make them a publisher. Self publishing means one publishes one's self, not someone else. That again, makes them a publisher.
> 
> People can quibble about it, get upset when terms are used no matter how correct, but publishers aren't authors unless they wrote the work. I can cut some slack for those who do the outlines, edit and rework the manuscript to bring it in line with their own completely written work. At least they're writing some part of the thing they put their name on.
> 
> Using a pen name is not the same thing as buying ghostwritten work and publishing it, FFS. I use pen names, but I write every word of my stories.


If they commission the work, in the sense that the idea for the work is their own, then they are the originator of the work, and as such its author.

If they purchase a work, but were not the originator of the work, then the work is being published under a pen name.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Saint Ignifer said:


> So what is a scammer? It used to be the case folks on kboards would rail against book spammers - pure marketers who found hot keywords and paid ghostwriters to fill those niches in a shotgun spray. That kind of stuff was shot down. Now it seems folks have decided 'if you can't beat em, join em'. If you're not faking it you're missing a trick.
> 
> So my question - how do you define a scammer, if faking authorship and spamming books you didn't write does not qualify?


'Scamming' is any illegal or unethical way to cheat or play the system. I myself do not include ghostwriting as a scam anymore than using a pen name is a scam. Ghostwriting and the use of pen names are tools, nothing more.

However, it you take what you've made with those tools -- the product -- and then you hire a thousand bots to read your product on KU, or you use other nefarious practices (book stuffing, plagiarism, fake reviews, drive-by negative reviews of your competitors, etc.) then you are probably a scammer.

You seem to cast aspersions on a lot of honest authors and self publishers who are just trying to make a bit of money getting entertaining reading material out to the public. For years and years, paperback publishers (and cheap hardback publishers before them) were content mills, churning out product to the reading public, trying to make an honest buck. Some of them hired teams of authors who published one or two books a month each, using two or three pen names.

They were the original content mills, basically. I've read some of the books they produced, and they were no more fake than any other book available. I can't fault someone for using the same techniques in modern publishing. As long as they aren't outright cheating the system. Producing product in itself is not cheating the system. It's producing product, nothing more.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Saint Ignifer said:


> There's arguments here trying to muddy the waters and confuse what fake authorship entails. Some trying to say that since readers may not know a book was fake means no harm was done. Some trying to say that since authors get help from editors and receive inspiration from other media, all books are fake to some degree.
> 
> Stop it. Own the fakeness. Stop trying to wriggle out from under the ethical implications of what you're doing. Own it - it seems this board is pretty pro what you're doing these days. Don't try to hide behind a veneer of 'nobody cares' or 'it's not really fake' or 'it's no more fake than other forms of authorship'.
> 
> ...


What is the scam there? Putting out fresh content quickly is not a scam. The books might not be great, but that's true of many indie books.

Scams steal people's money. Using clickfarms or readerfarms to artificially inflate pages read steals money from the KU pot. That is a scam.

You could also define scam as things against the ToS or law, if you're so inclined.

Publishing a book you didn't write is not a scam. It's publishing. Content-mill publishing perhaps. But that's still publishing. You don't have to like it, but it's silly to call it a scam.


----------



## MajesticMonkey (Sep 3, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> What is the scam there? Putting out fresh content quickly is not a scam. The books might not be great, but that's true of many indie books.
> 
> Scams steal people's money. Using clickfarms or readerfarms to artificially inflate pages read steals money from the KU pot. That is a scam.
> 
> ...


Plus may I add that if you want to sell ghostwritten content you still have to create a good story? Your final product still has to be quality for it to succeed in the market place. 4.3/5 is what my baseline is. Your idea of throwing cheap books out there targeting certain keywords seems misguided. A few bad reviews will kill a book like that quickly.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Arches said:


> Great post, Gene. An interesting sidenote with regard to Nora Roberts and discounting the first book in a series. I love her books and particularly the In Death series she published as JD Robb, but she's not a fan of self-published authors. Although she criticizes permafree and the $.99 price point for first in series, she, or her publisher, do basically the same thing. The first ebook in her police procedural series, Naked in Death, is $2.99 although the books in the series typically debut at $14.99.


I haven't read Gene's post, and I can't speak to how Nora Roberts feels about indies. But Naked in Death, under her pen name JD Robb, came out in 1995. She's not discounting it to $0.99 or making it permafree, she's pricing it at about the price of a used paperback at a half price book store. I've been reading the In Death series for 20 years. Found her first at the library and then started buying every book in the series. Before Kindle, I always waited for the paperback to come out rather than buy the hardback, and now, though the new books in the series do debut at $14.99, I wait until they drop to the paperback equivalent price, $5.99-8.99 depending on the age of the book. This sounds more to me like a Kindle version of the same model publishers have used for a very long time--high-priced hardcover, followed by lower-cost paperback versions. (And thanks, I've added her newest to my wish list so I can track the price.)

I'd be curious to know if indie authors would consider this model eventually? If you are an author whose newest books sell really well, would you price new releases higher and then come down over time?

Also--does she control the prices her books sell for as ebooks, or does her publisher, Macmillan? I have no idea how this works... (Off to read Gene's piece, maybe it addresses this bit.). EDIT: Did find this blogpost by NR: http://fallintothestory.com/price-points-discounts-sales/)

Betsy


----------



## bossk (Dec 3, 2018)

Ghostwriting might be attractive to someone looking to pump out books quickly. Not in all cases, obviously, but there will be people out there hiring ghostwriters for this purpose.

Given the above, two questions come to mind:

1. Is 'pumping out books quickly' a form of spam?

If you'd answered "yes" to that:

2. Is spamming the store akin to scamming the store, even if pumping out books quickly (a.k.a. your definition of "spam") is not against the TOS?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'd be curious to know if indie authors would consider this model eventually? If you are an author whose newest books sell really well, would you price new releases higher and then come down over time?


That's "windowing," and has always been the model when you have an item that's highly popular and can command higher-than-nornal prices. It's most obvious in the movie industry--pre-release into selected cinemas at full price, then general release, then DVD, then pay-per-view, then streaming.

Many successful indies never release at a discount. I've never released at a discount. I discount a book 1 later, happily and heavily--but never a new release, and never later books.

Now, I don't release at above-market either. To me, that seems to be hurting the biggest fans. Somehow, publishers have gotten away with this--probably because a hardback is a significantly nicer object than a paperback or an ebook. But as you notice, releasing the ebook at a high price has driven many readers into the waiting arms of indies, over time.

So, to summarize--those who have a brand and a fan base can and probably should release at full, fair market price--not gouging, but not giving away valuable equity, either.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Mylius Fox said:


> If they commission the work, in the sense that the idea for the work is their own, then they are the originator of the work, and as such its author.
> 
> If they purchase a work, but were not the originator of the work, then the work is being published under a pen name.


I would say they are the originator, or maybe the creator, for your first example. And in the second, they could well be publishing under their real name, so moot.

People can quibble over terms, that's fine. We've been changing stuff all along during the last seven or so years (Box sets? Not really. Blurb? Not really.). At some point it will shake out and we'll be on the same page (okay, I don't really believe that, herding cats and such).


----------



## CathleenT (Mar 14, 2018)

Personally, I think ghostwriting, at least in the form discussed in this thread, is a cheat. If you want to be a publisher and so then you buy manuscripts cheap and publish them, fine. But you're not an author, not as I understand the term. If you worked on the manuscript you bought, you might be a coauthor. But in both cases, the writer who actually wrote the book should have their name on it somewhere. To do otherwise is even more of an abusive relationship to a starving artist than trade offers, IMO.

There are places online that track and report on practices of predatory publishers. But as an "author" you get to sidestep all that.

As a reader, if I found out that certain "authors" followed this practice, I would avoid them in the future. And I'm probably not alone--that's why they hide it. Generally, if you have to hide something, it's not a good sign that it's morally okay. If I'd known as a kid that Carolyn Keene wasn't a real person, I'd have quit reading Nancy Drew. As an adult, I think there's something particularly reprehensible about fooling kids.

I'm a nobody, so I don't expect anyone to care much about what I think. But Kristine Katherine Rusch is much more of a somebody, and she articulated these thoughts much more elegantly in a recent blog post. She even referenced this thread: https://kriswrites.com/2019/04/03/business-musings-outrage-fatigue/.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I knew Carolyne Keene was a pen name pretty early in my reading life. As explained to me, various people wrote the books but they used one name to keep it consistent. Didn't bother me a bit. Doesn't bother me now. I don't think it needs to be "disclosed" necessarily, but if someone asks, the response should be honest.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

What if publishers who put out GW material don't care about being "real authors"? Real author status is just that.

What if publishers who write their own books don't care about making art? Are they real authors?

What if the publisher who uses GWs cares more about making art/putting out quality material?

What if a "real author" hates their books?


----------



## Mike Coville (Aug 21, 2014)

> not as I understand the term


And that is the heart of the discussion. The term "author" means different things to different people.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Ghostwriting is business. While I can armchair and say whether any decision is good or not, and list my reasons, it's ultimately up to the writer to determine how they will approach their own writing business. For some genres, IP is everything, but for others, like romance, not so much. 


For myself, I'll take IP over immediate profits, but I'm fortunate. I'm not the person selling. It's up to the writer to determine what's best for them, for whatever value of best matters most.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Mike Coville said:


> And that is the heart of the discussion. The term "author" means different things to different people.


I think it's more that no one is claiming publishers who use GWs are authors. Those publishers aren't claiming it. No one here is claiming it. But people get up in arms about how they're "not real authors" as if that is the primary reason why any of us are authors. So we can be REAL AUTHORS.

I'm not interested in anyone's opinion of whether or not I'm a real author. I'm sure plenty of traditional publishers are still happy to say indies aren't "real authors." My books are meaningful to me, but once I put on my publisher hat, I no longer care about how real they are or how much I worked for them. Then I'm a publisher with a product I need to sell. (At least, that's the goal).

I'm a publisher and an author.

Ghostwriters are also "not real authors," as they are doing work for hire. They are writers. But who cares?

People who publish books they didn't read are publishers, not authors.

Again, who cares?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Crystal_ said:


> Ghostwriters are also "not real authors," as they are doing work for hire. They are writers. But who cares?


Some people obviously do, for whatever reason.

But millions of readers don't. And in my view, that is what matters most.

Is the product entertaining? It is well-written? Is it free of plagiarism? If those concerns are met, then I don't see why anyone should actually care. Writing fiction is a business. Business isn't always squeaky-clean. The last James Patterson book I read wasn't even written by him. Yet it probably sells more in one day -- even now, years after its release -- then my entire library sells in a year.

Ultimately the only people who determine the value of ghostwritten work, or _any_ written work, are the consumers.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

jb1111 said:


> Some people obviously do, for whatever reason.
> 
> But millions of readers don't. And in my view, that is what matters most.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure it's fair to use James Patterson as an example just because he is very upfront about not being the "author" of the book where is name is on the cover as the author. And I think that's where there's this disconnect.

There's a very big difference between Carolyn Keene, Michael Anderle, Francine Pascal, V.C. Andrews, (and the list goes on) and Jane Author who has a social media presence interacting with readers as the person who is writing each and every word in their books when Jane Author is really John Marketer who is also publishing books under Jill Writer, Jack Writing, and Larry Writertoo. Call it a level of transparency. If someone is open that they hire ghostwriters, I don't see the problem. It's when they claim they never (or would ever) hire ghostwriters that causes hackles to be raised.

A lot of successful authors use ghostwriters, but they are also transparent about it. Then there seems to be a lot of successful authors who exclusively use ghostwriters and bury the use of ghostwriters under the heaviest rock.

So my question is, (and I don't mean it to be judgmental), if there isn't a problem, why hide it? In my experience, people who hide things, hide them because they are concerned about how others will respond. Perhaps others will think less of them? Or maybe they are hiding what they are doing, not because what they are doing is questionable, but how they are going about it is.

I think it's important, as with all healthy dialogues, to try to figure out just how someone else is defining a concept or a word. In this thread, I think there are a relatively small amount of participants who say ghostwriting is wrong. Just there are a relatively small number of participants who are saying ghostwriting under any circumstance is right. Most of the people responding seem to fall somewhere in the middle and aren't really against the concept of hiring ghostwriters, but instead are against how some people utilize ghostwriters in conjunction with a slew of other tactics that really raise the hackles.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

There really is no one black-and-white answer, despite the wishful folks who seem to want to try to boil it down to yes or no. 

Each case is an aggregate of various principles and practices.


----------

