
Ghost in the fame machine - lermontov
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/fame-machine-ghostwriter-crofts/
======
clock_tower
"You are producing the book that they would write if they could"

I say if a person can't write a book, they should either learn to write or not
write at all. Ghostwriting degrades the idea of authorship; "having written a
book" becomes just one more thing you can buy with money, instead of the
product of genuine effort and skill.

~~~
pcunite
I think it should be described differently. Kinda like how a product designer
does not truly build the car or software product. Engineers are given the
scope, the layout, and work together with the designer to build the end
result.

Perhaps noteworthy books should be written this way.

~~~
clock_tower
Authors are prestigious because it's assumed that they've written their books
-- with help from friends and editors, of course, but still, they're the one
who structured their thoughts and churned through a few hundred thousand words
of drafts and revisions. (Ever tried to write? I have, but I've never created
anything publishable; this is why I have so much respect for those who do, and
so little patience for those who don't but pretend they did.)

If such-and-such a person can't write a book, they shouldn't get the credit
for having written one; there was a time when a politician or general had to
either write his own memoirs, or live with their not existing.

------
cafard
Amusing. Then NY Times had a piece years ago on ghost writers. I remember only
that it quoted Lucianne Goldberg about ghosting a novel for Maureen Dean (wife
of John Dean, who went to jail for Watergate).

------
pcunite
_It is quite possible that without Schwartz’s help, Trump would not have got
to the Oval Office_

Curious, why is every non-technical article have a reference to Trump within?
It almost seems as if they hate Trump so much, they want to take credit for
the man. I think I'm reading about Ghost writing, no, it's about Trump. I
think I'm reading about Science, nope, it's about Trump, on and on. Okay, I
get it, you think he's the worst thing _ever_.

Would a member of HN's psychology community care to elaborate on why this is?

~~~
clock_tower
I'm not a psychologist; but as near as I can tell, it's Bush Derangement
Syndrome again, only with less logic. Bush established secret courts, secret
prisons, and a torture program; Trump tried and failed to ban Muslims from the
country, then ate well-done steak and two scoops of ice cream; so of course
you're seeing people nostalgic for Bush and violently hostile to Trump.

What Trump said on the campaign trail was absolutely appalling, but people
need to cool off unless he actually starts delivering on it -- and should
figure out how to change the hearts of the large proportion of this country
that's delighted by promises of Genghis Khan tactics. (I vividly remember
talking with an ethnic Sicilian in Boston who couldn't imagine why an army
wouldn't want to shoot enemy medics, so the problem's not unique to
Appalachia.)

~~~
thinkfurther
> and should figure out how to change the hearts of the large proportion of
> this country that's delighted by promises of Genghis Khan tactics

As far as I'm concerned they are queued last. The support and empowerment of
those who would suffer under their heels is way more interesting to me.
Sociopaths pretend to have had a change of heart after they have been disarmed
and then I still won't care for their crocodile tears. I won't laugh about
them either, I'll simply be friendly to them, as long as they stay disarmed my
hands will be open too. Nothing more, nothing less. But as long as the victims
are rather ignored in comparison, meh.

Not that I disagree though, because I think Trump is a convenient scapegoat,
someone to point fingers fingers to. The only really interesting thing about
the election for me was the _huge_ grassroots support Bernie Sanders got, and
how that was swept under the rug for the benefit of Hillary Clinton of all
people. But yeah, Trump's the asshole, let's focus on that now. Gotta keep it
tightly framed and bouncing between several equally moronic options.

Here's a slashdot comment I bookmarked, because it's the only important
takeaway from a lot if things IMHO; as long as this isn't addressed, as long
as there are still excuses to not REALLY think critically, it's all window
dressing and nauseating.

[https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10391247&cid=540830...](https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10391247&cid=54083067)

> _Moreover, I 'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the
> fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going
> however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to
> those with power to censor._

> _I mean, it can 't possibly be that some jack-ass white supremacist, trash-
> ass ISIS goon, or wank-ass Hillary Trumponite, were hard to repudiate --
> unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions. Then it's
> really hard without stabbing yourself in the back._

I say, don't "figure out a way" to make something palatable to anyone. Seek
truth, seek your responsibilities, and act. Be hard on yourself then you can
be respectful to others while not taking one iota of their shit.

------
dredmorbius
Unreadable with JS. Blank without.

