Because I'll do almost anything to kill the “Guess Who Won the Nobel Prize” thread, here it goes:

I like to listen to audiobooks while driving or working around the house and yard. I usually choose thrillers, mysteries, or action-adventures because they move along briskly and don't demand much of me as a reader/listener. They're my junk food literature: tasty and filling, and of questionable nourishment. I base my selections on the quick plot descriptions on the CD case or online. Sometimes these wind up being books “written” by James Patterson, Clive Cussler, Tom Clancy, or Robert Ludlum. At least those are the names in huge type over the titles. It's no big secret that much of their newer stuff is ghostwritten. The ghostwriter's name usually appears in smaller type somewhere on the cover. (And, yes, I do know that Mr. Ludlum died in 2001.) In a strictly legal sense, it's not fraud because the ghostwriter gets some credit. But it feels wrong to me somehow. It may not be dishonest but it's definitely disingenuous for a famous writer to turn himself into a trademarked brand name and allow his publisher to market ghostwritten books under his name. There's nothing like selling out and dissing the readers who made the writer popular in the first place if there's good money to be made.

The happy-face spin that publishers can put on this practice is that they're helping new writers get a foot in the door -- an apprenticeship in the craft (not art) of writing that could lead to bigger things after they “pay their dues”. Everybody wins (especially the Famous Author and the publisher.) Risk adversity and greed have nothing to do with it, right?

Now I suppose you could say that it's inconsequential because these books are just popular genre fiction. The ghostwritten books could even be superior to the famous author's actual works. After all, these aren't the writers who will be on the Nobel, Pulitzer, or Booker prize short lists. But their semi-counterfeit books will keep the brand names on the best seller lists for longer than they deserve to be, making it that much harder for new and creative writers to break through.

How do you feel about the trend toward “brand name” fiction writers?
.

I don't feel too bad as long as it is obvious on the front cover. Often, though, the info is buried on the title page or copyright page.

After all, many great composers only provide(d) a sketch of a work that was then orchestrated by someone else.

Wow. I had no idea this went on these days to the extent you imply. Sure sounds like fraud to me. I don't know about "everybody wins". Seems like some consumers would be unhappy - or should be. I don't read this genre so don't care myself. But wouldn't avid readers of a big name author prefer that that big name author make a sincere recommendation that this relatively unknown author is really quite good instead of having the publisher lie (I can't think of another term that applies) and misrepresent who the author really is?

Maybe there are analogies. Say, a well known actor is substituted with a ghostactor for a movie (not just for stunts - the whole thing). Or a politician you vote for and is elected is substituted with a lookalike during the swearing in session. Or, [giggle, giggle] some lookalike appears in Oslo to accept Al Gore's Nobel prize. (Sorry, I had to do that.):D

V. C. Andrews is another name that gets used over and over. As long as I know ahead of time it's written by someone else and not from the "name author" I'm OK with it. But if I was to purchase the book and not know and then find out after, I would be pissed at being ripped off.

Not entirely on point, but related: I've always gotten annoyed when the author's name is printed in larger type than the title of the book. Always seemed a bit backward to me. :headscratch:

Book Designer defaults to having the Author name larger then the title.

V. C. Andrews is another name that gets used over and over. As long as I know ahead of time it's written by someone else and not from the "name author" I'm OK with it. But if I was to purchase the book and not know and then find out after, I would be pissed at being ripped off.

Perhaps I'm incredibly naive, but I find this truly amazing. I see on Amazon.com several titles published in recent years with V. C. Andrews listed explicitly as the author and there's no hint at all that the real author is someone else. And yet I find on another site that this person died in 1986! I thought this sort of thing disappeared long ago. I can see why you would be irritated.

I think this is fraud unless it's content written by V. C. Andrews before the death and published as it was.

All I know is if I purchase a book that's not writrten by the big name author and I cannot obviously find any indication of who really wrote it, I would email the publisher and claim fraud and see what they would do. They'd have to do more then just give me back my money and take back the book.

Sometimes you get attributions like "By <big name author> with <real author in smaller type>", which I always find annoying. Most of these aren't really collaborations, and the "big name author" may or may not have even read the ms and offered comments. But not even listing the "lesser" author is beyond the pale, in my opinion. I prefer "Based on the works of...<big name author>" instead. It just seems more honest. (I suppose "presented by <big name author>" is ok.)

I understand sometimes first books by new authors are rewritten by other authors, too, but I don't know how much that happens these days.

I saw the Ludlam book the other day
The cover said:
ROBERT LUDLUM'S
BEST SELLING CHARACTER JASON BOURNE IN
THE BOURNE LEGACY
<artwork>
A NEW NOVEL BY ERIC LUSTBADER

And then there is Tom Clancy as well...

http://www.commanderbond.net/resources/sections/news/images/2602_benson_splinter_cell/splinter_cell.jpg http://www.tjc.edu.sg/inspirations/nov2006/legacy.jpg

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n36/n180160.jpg

"Ghostwriter" is by definition anonymous. These examples are not ghostwriters. "Guest writers" maybe?

"Ghostwriter" is by definition anonymous. These examples are not ghostwriters. "Guest writers" maybe?

They are simply authors writing sequels to someone else's books. Much like L. Sprague de Camp did for Conan the Barbarian and John Gardner did for James Bond.

At least Eric van Lustbader is an excellent author in his own right; some of these others, nobody's ever heard of.

It used to be very common for publishing houses to use "house names" for publishing the more "throw-away" kind of series fiction. Especially common for "juvenile" fiction Eg, "Franklin F. Dixon" for the "Hardy Boys" series, "Caroline Keene" for the "Nancy Drew" books, "Victor Appleton" for the "Tom Swift" books; these were all "house names" - the actual titles themselves were "farmed out" to be written by "hack" writers.

At least on the current stuff they mention the actual writer. When the Tom Clancy stuff started coming out (OpCenter, NetForce) his was the only name anywhere on the cover, it wasn't until later that they started mentioning who actually wrote them.

I still think it's bizarre that "Tom Clancy" and "Robert Ludlum" are set in the largest text. Particularly in the case of the Bourne books, you'd think that would be enough of a "brand" to be worth highlighting more. (And I agree, Eric Van Lustbader is perfectly capable of selling books via his own name. But I've known of a number of quite capable authors who take this sort of work to pay bills between their own creations.)

"Ghostwriter" is by definition anonymous. These examples are not ghostwriters. "Guest writers" maybe?

You're right igorsk, "guest writer" is probably the more appropiate term, but it still seems like a sleazy practice.

I wonder who initiates it, the writer or the publisher?

Scenario #1: The Writer

The writer goes to the publisher and says, “I’ve made you a ton of money over the years, but I’m kind of burned out on writing this shlock for you. I want to continue to live in the style to which I am accustomed, however. So I’ve decided to become a registered trademark. I will now be known as Joe Blowhard® . I want you to license my name to talented but unknown writers who can mimic my style and continue to produce books under the Joe Blowhard® brand. Pay them a flat fee and give them a credit in small type on the cover as co-authors. I’ll take a percentage of the sales along with the licensing fee. Of course, my name will appear in very large type over the book title. I can’t disappoint my loyal fans.”

Scenario #2: The Publisher

The publisher goes to the writer and says, “You’ve made us a ton of money over the years, but we could be making much more if you could produce more books for us. We would like you to trademark your name. As Joe Blowhard®, we can license your name to talented but unknown writers who can mimic your style and continue to produce books under the Joe Blowhard® brand. We’ll pay them a flat fee and give them a credit in small type on the cover as co-authors. You’ll get a percentage of the sales along with the licensing fee. Of course, your name will appear in very large type over the book title. Your loyal fans will never know the difference. You can continue to write your own books under your previous contract terms.”

They are simply authors writing sequels to someone else's books. Much like L. Sprague de Camp did for Conan the Barbarian and John Gardner did for James Bond.

Not much different from Fan Fiction I suppose, although the legal implications may be different.

I'm pretty sure it's primarily publisher-driven, specifically to attach a big name to a small- or no-name in order to drive sales. Don't forget, far too much of the public will stop cover-surfing after they see the famous name or character in 50-point type on the cover, and won't even realize they've bought someone else's work until long after they've purchased the book (which is all the publisher is interested in). Works at the mall and the grocery store, too.

To me, it's like fake branding, and after being disappointed by such packaging before, I generally avoid them. I'd be much more swayed by authors "recommending" or "endorsing" a new author, if I didn't already know that those endorsements are provided due to contractual obligations. Bottom line, something to be avoided unless you have a realiable, objective third-party recommendation as to its content or quality.

Now if they put something like "based on the characters and situations created by Robert Ludlum" in a small enough font, then it would be ok. It would just sorta be like writing a media tie-in.

Not much different from Fan Fiction I suppose, although the legal implications may be different.
In Gardner's case, Ian Fleming's estate chose him to write new James Bond novels.

They are simply authors writing sequels to someone else's books. Much like L. Sprague de Camp did for Conan the Barbarian and John Gardner did for James Bond.

In Gardner's case, Ian Fleming's estate chose him to write new James Bond novels.

In the case of the James Bond novels by Gardner, I became convinced that Gardner was making each one worse than the previous one deliberately to get out of his contract.

More recently I was unable to finish a Clive Cussler novel because the writing was so offensively bad. I suspect the publisher's employees' middle-school students are ghosting them.

I have always admired John D MacDonald. maybe I will start writing Travis McGee stories. :loco:

Nope. I like him too much.

I used to read the Doc Savage monthly series of books (FYI, the Bantam paperbacks. I'm not that old!), all attributed on the cover to "Kenneth Robeson." The name was in fact a house pseudonym used by a number of authors (Lester Dent wrote most of the Doc series, but there were at least half a dozen others who wrote one or more of the stories between 1936 and 1945), as well as for a number of other series.

This is similar to the subject of the thread, though in this case, the name itself doesn't belong to a person, but a publishing house. Still, it's used as a recognizable brand name: The buyer assumes that a Kenneth Robeson story will be of a particular style and quality, whichever series they buy.

The method did have merit... it put aspiring and unknown writers to work. It didn't garner those authors any fame, but it paid a lot of bills. It also allowed writers who were unpopular or struggling (for instance, those blacklisted during the McCarthy era) to get work "under the table."

Most importantly, it gave authors the chance to get into the publishing house, prove their ability and worth, and possibly make it on their own original material, breaking out of the anonymity of the Pseudonym system.

I'm still struggling with this, so please help me out with this example case. Amazon.com sells a newly released (Sept., 2007) paperbook published by Pocket Star entitled "Secrets in the Attic". The author shown on Amazon's web page is V. C. Andrews. There is no information from Amazon indicating any other authors or any comment that might indicate others might have been involved in writing it. The cover says "New York Times Bestselling Author V. C. Andrews" who died in 1986. Below that it says "From the creator of "Flowers in the Attic" which is a title that really was written by Andrews. You can't see the title page of the book from the web page so you don't know if there's additonal info there. From the product reviews, some customers seem to understand that the real author was Andrew Neiderman who apparently has been the ghostwriter for many V. C. Andrews titles. A search of Andrew Neiderman on Amazon does not list this or most of the other titles that he apparently admits to ghostwriting for Andrews.

Now one can argue all day about the ethics of this practice (personally, I'm appalled!), but I'm more curious about the legality of it. If the publisher doesn't provide the true author's name on the cover, what makes this practice legal? Even if that is legal, if the true authorship is known from some disclaimer inside the book but Amazon does not provide correct authorship info, how is that legal? Any ideas? :blink:

What you could do is tell Amazon that this is not legal and if they don't fix it, you'll take legal action. That way, they will have to check with their lawyers and if it isn't legal, they will end up changing it (I hope).

What you could do is tell Amazon that this is not legal and if they don't fix it, you'll take legal action. That way, they will have to check with their lawyers and if it isn't legal, they will end up changing it (I hope).

But it's not just Amazon. I checked Barnes and Noble and they do the same with this very same book. So I assume most if not all vendors do this. I'm really not interested in starting a campaign to fight this practice. I'm just really curious as to how it is legal - which I assume it must be since it appears to be standard practice.

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. :deadhorse:

Possibly this is something that hasn't been challenged before... I'm guessing that Amazon and B&N simply use the basic information provided to them by the publishers, and it's the publishers that are giving them this information without being accurate. If you asked Amazon or B&N, they'd probably counter with "That's what the publisher told us!" And we all know how shaky the "truth in advertising" laws are where the web is concerned.

But maybe the publishers are negotiating contracts with the authors that allow them to use the name essentially as a pseudonym for certain works. As long as there's a contract with the author that says it's okay, it's legal (though certainly misleading).

Speaking as a writer...it depends if you have an ego. If you're not overparticular about having your name on the spine, getting $50,000 for writing a book for the Ludlum/Andrews/Patterson brands beats getting $5,000 for a MMP original thriller, and both take around the same amount of time--in fact, the brand-name is probably easier as the setup is done for you. Art is a wonderful thing, but we've all got bills to pay.

Or you could do both--one for your own satisfaction and one for your bank account. :)

As a reader, if it's a good story, does it matter who wrote it? (I wouldn't call V.C. Andrews stories, whether written by the late authoress or her ghostwriters, good, but tastes differ. I thought Flowers in the Attic was fabulous when I was 13.)

As a reader, if it's a good story, does it matter who wrote it?I'd say it does (all ethical considerations aside) if I wish to read more written by that author.

Besides, the style is nearly as important as the story.

I read Harry Turtledove's Guns of the South (http://www.amazon.com/Guns-South-Harry-Turtledove/dp/0345413660/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5144487-5483937?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193433165&sr=8-1) some years ago, I picked it up because the question of what would happen if modern weaponry were dumped into a historical setting -- like what if Custer's boys had H&K MP5s?

That book looks at what might happen if the South had AK47s during the U.S. Civil War. The premise was intriguing, and the story was compelling (as well as as historically accurate in the details as could be expected), but I doubt I'll ever read another book by Turtledove because I found his style dry and mildly annoying. Pure personal preference, and I recommend that book to others who might be interested without reservation: it's a good book, I just didn't like the way it was written.

So on the other side of the original topic of this post, I'd also like to be able know which books I want to avoid because the writer's style isn't pleasing to me. Both of those are hard to do if you don't know who the author is. :shrug:

I did read Guns of the South and yes it was a little bit dry. But I want to read something else by Turtledove just to see if it might be less dry. Anyone have an idea what to try next?

I would think the guest/ghostwriter would strive for a similar style, for just that reason. If they didn't achieve it, the readers would stop buying and the "brand" would go away.

But I agree the publishers should be more open about it. Probably the various imitators would develop their own fan base eventually.

Try "Tale of the Fox" and its sequel "Sentry Peak". Both "military fantasy" and very good indeed (IMHO). Both available from Baen.

Not entirely on point, but related: I've always gotten annoyed when the author's name is printed in larger type than the title of the book. Always seemed a bit backward to me. :headscratch:

Let me pick this post to comment to this thread :grin2:.

We should not forget that the concept of authorship is a modern one. In the Middle Ages most literature had no known author, and this is because the roll of the author was not important in comparison to today. But even for this early literature, we would like to know who wrote it - but the attribution of some works to some authors is sometimes questionable.

But of course, for contemporary literature I also prefer to know the true author's name :)

I've found several sources of info about this widespread practice (one article suggests it comprises 40% of what you read) which seems always to be defended as both legal and ethical but alway by people who have something to gain from the practice. Their arguments read like rationalizations not explanations. They stress that no one is harmed since there is a contract between the publisher, "author", and ghostwriter. Apparently, the consumer, who is the clear target of the deception in hopes that some will buy a book which they otherwise would not buy, is of no concern. I was hoping to find and report here some specific court cases that established legal precendence for the practice but I have failed. I'll have to defer this to some future law students who I hope to ask some day.

A victimless crime? I don't buy that for a moment. Twenty bucks spent on something which is not what it was advertised to be is simple fraud. I don't care whether someone else thinks it was a good product or not. And I don't care if authorship attribution is a modern trend which some think is "nice" to have but which isn't really important. Sorry, but if it's a lie done with the intent to deceive others for monetary gain then it's fraud IMHO. Not much harm? I could easily imagine the damages to an individual consumer might not be small. Well-known literary critic Sally Bigwords from the NYTimes writes a column about well-known author Joe Blowhard and in it she writes at length about the progression of Blowhard's literary style over the years culminating in his most recent work "The Big Bang." After Sally's column appears in print it comes out that Blowhard has Alzheimer's and that "The Big Bang" was written by a teenaged ghostwriter from a middle school in the Bronx. Sally is now a public fool, loses her lucrative job, and begins her new job delivering pizzas door-to-door. If I was Sally, I would want to sue the pants off of Blowhard, his publisher, the on-line vendor who sold the book, and anyone else involved in the deception. It would not surprise me if something like this has actually happened.

The bottomline is that I'll be more careful about what I buy. Tally another reason for having limitless faith in mankind. I'm hoping for a new species soon!:(

I've found several sources of info about this widespread practice (one article suggests it comprises 40% of what you read) which seems always to be defended as both legal and ethical but alway by people who have something to gain from the practice. Their arguments read like rationalizations not explanations. They stress that no one is harmed since there is a contract between the publisher, "author", and ghostwriter. Apparently, the consumer, who is the clear target of the deception in hopes that some will buy a book which they otherwise would not buy, is of no concern.

In at least one case - that of the "celebrity autobiography" - ghostwriters are commonly used because the nominal "author" has neither the inclination nor the ability to write a decent book. The book would not exist at all were it not "ghostwritten"; we can leave to another day the question as to whether or not this would be a good thing, but I think that the book buying public is well aware that when they buy the autobiography of some sport's star (or whoever) it was almost certainly not penned by its nomimal "author".

@vivaldirules, could you post a link to that "40%" claim? As cynical as I can be at times, that seems a bit high to me.

In at least one case - that of the "celebrity autobiography" - ghostwriters are commonly used because the nominal "author" has neither the inclination nor the ability to write a decent book. The book would not exist at all were it not "ghostwritten"; we can leave to another day the question as to whether or not this would be a good thing, but I think that the book buying public is well aware that when they buy the autobiography of some sport's star (or whoever) it was almost certainly not penned by its nomimal "author".
Usually those are attributed "by <celebrity> WITH <ghostwriter>," at least in the US. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Do they attribute these differently in the UK?

@vivaldirules, could you post a link to that "40%" claim? As cynical as I can be at times, that seems a bit high to me.

From: http://static.scribd.com/docs/80hjiscecldzk.pdf

I would assume this is no more than someone's wild guess combined with a little bragging. But if the order of magnitude is correct, it's pretty sad.


Usually those are attributed "by <celebrity> WITH <ghostwriter>," at least in the US. .

Perhaps this is so, but to the consumer buying the Andrews book on-line from Amazon or B&N mentioned yesterday, such an attribution is not available at the time of purchase.

In at least one case - that of the "celebrity autobiography" - ghostwriters are commonly used because the nominal "author" has neither the inclination nor the ability to write a decent book. The book would not exist at all were it not "ghostwritten"; we can leave to another day the question as to whether or not this would be a good thing, but I think that the book buying public is well aware that when they buy the autobiography of some sport's star (or whoever) it was almost certainly not penned by its nomimal "author".

Yes, the fact that everyone does it and should be assumed knowledge to all is an excellent defense. Not!:smash:

Usually those are attributed "by <celebrity> WITH <ghostwriter>," at least in the US. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Do they attribute these differently in the UK?

I've never opened one to have a close look, not having any interest in the genre, but the true author is certainly not obvious from a glance at the cover.

Sorry for my ranting. I'm surprisingly agitated over this subject. Please carry on. I'm going to find some Prozac and lay down with my Reader to read the new Clapton autobiography which, by the way, he claims to have written himself after sacking the ghostwriter he originally hired - he thought he could do a better job himself! :)

Finally an autobiography written by the actual author.

You believe something that one of these "celeb autobiographies" tells you? :grin:

They should call them biographies, not autobiographies, and nobody would complain.

I couldn't bring myself to buy Clapton's book whether he wrote it or not. Not much different from buying something of Britney's, Paris Hilton, etc. Ick. I read a Joseph Campbell book instead. Yes, it was one I scanned myself this summer. Some enjoyment after all that effort.

They should call them biographies, not autobiographies, and nobody would complain.

I believe the difference is that who provides the data and who has sign off power over the data being presented. The thread seems to complain about a ghostwriter but how about an editor? A ghostwriter is often an editor you puts down on paper the original thoughts of the person who's story is being written. Must the autobiographer be a fantastic story teller as well in order to make a book? We demand a good read but then complain about the source. I believe there is a clear difference between an autobiography that tells the story from the original persons point of view and a biography that takes an independent research point of view with a different set of biases. I would hate to see the terms autobiography and biography mucked up over ghostwriters and editors.

Dale

We demand a good read but then complain about the source.

For me, I can only complain if the source is misrepresented.

For me, I can only complain if the source is misrepresented.

Me too. I do not like a book to be misrepresented but I do not consider ghostwriting a misrepresentation since it is just a clean up of the data presented by the person who's name is on the book. Or at least that is what is being represented to me. I realize that the editors, reviewers, and clean up names are not on the cover of the book. It is the ideas and perception of the facts that I want to read about for a biography. Now, for fiction, the author's name should be there since it is the presentation I am interested in as well as the ideas.

Dale

Try "Tale of the Fox" and its sequel "Sentry Peak". Both "military fantasy" and very good indeed (IMHO). Both available from Baen.


Nope, Tale of the Fox is un-related to Sentry Peak. Sentry Peak is late American Civil War set into fantasy terms (sequel is "Marching Through Peachtree"). Tale of the Fox is midieval fantasy and is a reissue of a couple of earlier works about that character.

For Turtledove SF, Baen also has a reissue of some earlier works in the book "3xT". However, *my* favorite Turtledove is "The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump".

He also has a multi-book World War II interrupted by alien invasion series (now up to nine books, I think, with 4 in the 1940s, 4 in the 1960s or so, and last one a bit later.) But they aren't Baen, and I haven't seen them in digital.
Roger

A victimless crime? I don't buy that for a moment. Twenty bucks spent on something which is not what it was advertised to be is simple fraud.

(snip)

The bottomline is that I'll be more careful about what I buy. Tally another reason for having limitless faith in mankind. I'm hoping for a new species soon!:(

I'll jump in here, but this might better be related to earlier posts in the thread...

A counter-example of the thread has occurred several times at Baen. One well-known author comes up with the basic idea, and does a detailed outline. Another less-well known author takes the outline and runs with it. The book has both names on it, and, yes, the more well known one gets bigger type (thats marketing, and both authors would rather sell more copies!).

In one specific case, I'll say that David Drake wrote the outline, and Eric Flint finished the books, but that work is truly a joint authorship. And more research was done after the collaboration started, and a trilogy turned into er, um, five? books. The starting book in the series is "An Oblique Approach" and is sorta alternate history, but has a continuing perturbation instead of a single event.

Roger

Nope, Tale of the Fox is un-related to Sentry Peak. Sentry Peak is late American Civil War set into fantasy terms (sequel is "Marching Through Peachtree"). Tale of the Fox is midieval fantasy and is a reissue of a couple of earlier works about that character.

For Turtledove SF, Baen also has a reissue of some earlier works in the book "3xT". However, *my* favorite Turtledove is "The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump".

He also has a multi-book World War II interrupted by alien invasion series (now up to nine books, I think, with 4 in the 1940s, 4 in the 1960s or so, and last one a bit later.) But they aren't Baen, and I haven't seen them in digital.
Roger
You can see them now in Digital format....

http://www.booksonboard.com/index.php?BODY=viewauthor&AUTHOR=Turtledove,%20Harry

There are several good examples mentioned here and I'm sure things are rarely clear cut. When does an editor cross the line to coauthor, for example? What if someone leaves detailed notes about a book before they die? What if an amateur writer gets help from a professional? But I'm still disturbed by marketing practices, which I generally equate with creative lying, particularly when they seem bent on deception though perhaps legal.

I'll jump in here, but this might better be related to earlier posts in the thread...

A counter-example of the thread has occurred several times at Baen. One well-known author comes up with the basic idea, and does a detailed outline. Another less-well known author takes the outline and runs with it. The book has both names on it, and, yes, the more well known one gets bigger type (thats marketing, and both authors would rather sell more copies!).

In one specific case, I'll say that David Drake wrote the outline, and Eric Flint finished the books, but that work is truly a joint authorship. And more research was done after the collaboration started, and a trilogy turned into er, um, five? books. The starting book in the series is "An Oblique Approach" and is sorta alternate history, but has a continuing perturbation instead of a single event.

Roger
These collaborations can turn out quite well. The original author still has a hand in the work, and we hope, is supervising the final product.


There are several good examples mentioned here and I'm sure things are rarely clear cut. When does an editor cross the line to coauthor, for example? What if someone leaves detailed notes about a book before they die? What if an amateur writer gets help from a professional? But I'm still disturbed by marketing practices, which I generally equate with creative lying, particularly when they seem bent on deception though perhaps legal.
Good insights! Things are not as simple as they seem. Or sometimes they are simpler than my railing at reality has made them. It is good to keep a clear head.

My favorite non-Fleming Bond writer was Kingsley Amis, who wrote Colonel Sun in 1968. Of course the Ian Fleming Novels kept me up all night many times. I see there are new ones by Raymond Benson that I haven't tasted. Bond is best served as a serious bad guy. I don't like him trivialized and comedified as in the Roger Moore movies.

I was going to stop thinking about this subject but had to post this one last (I promise) comment after I checked Sony's Connect store for their latest offerings which happens to include the V. C. Andrews title "Secrets in the Attic". Yes, they show the same cover that Amazon and B&N do and they similarly falsely identify the author as V. C. Andrews. Beneath the description of the book is an "Author Description" which, when you click on it, gives you a photo and brief bio of Andrews which ends with "...Andrews died in December, 1986 at the age of 62. She left a legacy of books that have been sold worldwide and translated into 13 foreign languages." Maybe there's an attribution in there somewhere to someone else writing the book, but I don't see it.