[glimshe]

Writing is tough. If you are famous author and not invested in the publisher's cash grab request, it would make sense to have someone else writing it while you perform basic QA for branding purposes.

Its not good at all, but makes financial sense.

[watwut]

> Writing is tough. If you are famous author and not invested in the publisher's cash grab request, it would make sense to have someone else writing it while you perform basic QA for branding purposes.

And it would then make 100% sense to put that other persons name on the cover. The QA doing person can be there as "editor".

[herculity275]

My issue with that as a reader is that when I purchase a book authored by Suzanne Collins I expect it to have been actually written by Suzanne Collins, not by somebody she contracted to imitate her style.

[ageitgey]

We are so far past that in mass market fiction. It's folding back in on itself.

Tom Clancy has new books coming out every year and he's been dead for over a decade. They don't hide the "ghostwriter" but they also put Tom Clancy in huge letters at the top even though he had less than nothing to do with it.

https://www.amazon.com/Clancy-Line-Demarcation-Jack-Novel-eb...

[OJFord]

It's interesting though isn't it, because if she contracts someone good, the ghostwriter does an excellent job of imitating her style, then really you do get exactly what you wanted? I don't like the idea of it either, fwiw, but it's hard to rationalise.

(But then why stop there, have the estate of the esteemed author go on contracting ghostwriters! Does it only work if you keep the death a secret, or would a licensed P.G. Wodehouse ghostwriter do as well today as if he were a recluse and never proclaimed dead?)

[watwut]

> It's interesting though isn't it, because if she contracts someone good, the ghostwriter does an excellent job of imitating her style, then really you do get exactly what you wanted? I don't like the idea of it either, fwiw, but it's hard to rationalise.

There is nothing hard about rationalizing this. If this was what "I wanted" they would just put the ghostwriters name on cover with "written in style of X" in bold letters.

But, it is not what people wanted and they would buy the book less.

[lapcat]

> It's interesting though isn't it, because if she contracts someone good, the ghostwriter does an excellent job of imitating her style, then really you do get exactly what you wanted? I don't like the idea of it either, fwiw, but it's hard to rationalise.

But the ghostwriters are never as good as the original. Imitating style is not the same as imitating excellence. If the ghostwriter were as talented as the original author, they would be publishing their own novels under their own name, not doing anonymous gruntwork for others.

[herculity275]

Reminds me, there was a Stephen King interview from a ~decade ago where he observed that when he passes away his son (Joe Hill) could probably keep publishing under his name for at least a few years since he's perfected imitating King's general style.

I think the distinction, for me, is that when I pay for a book I want access to the author's creative thoughts and personality, not just their particular "brand". I realize that a lot of readers don't care, especially in the YA space, but I'd rather read a worse novel from the person who conceived The Hunger Games than a perfect imitation from someone who's merely imitating the brand.