View Single Post
Old 10-29-2007, 11:31 AM   #46
DaleDe
Grand Sorcerer
DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DaleDe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DaleDe's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,470
Karma: 13095790
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Device: EB 1150, EZ Reader, Literati, iPad 2 & Air 2, iPhone 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by ischeriad View Post
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
DaleDe is offline   Reply With Quote