# So that's how they publish so quickly



## Chilari

This article on the BBC reveals that many of the most prolific authors don't in fact do most of the writing of novels published under their names, but write outlines and send them to (often uncredited) co-authors, then edit what they get back.

What do we all think of this? On the one hand, it makes me feel better about producing stuff slowly, and makes me wonder if I could get a job doing that; but on the other hand it doesn't quite feel fair that these authors are getting credit for writing books that in reality, they just planned and edited, they didn't do the legwork. And the uncredited co-authors probably don't get paid nearly a tenth as much as the big-name author whose name ends up on the cover.


----------



## BWFoster78

Makes sense from an economic standpoint.  As an established author, your value really becomes your name moreso than your writing.  Utilizing that advantage is reasonable.

From an ethical standpoint, I'd prefer they "co-write" the books, though.


----------



## Steerpike

Yeah, it makes sense from a branding perspective. I know some authors have been doing this for a while now. I don't care for the work of any of them, maybe because of the fact that their writing is so generic that they can hire others to do it for them without making a difference in the writing.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, it makes sense from a branding perspective. I know some authors have been doing this for a while now. I don't care for the work of any of them, maybe because of the fact that their writing is so generic that they can hire others to do it for them without making a difference in the writing.



BTW, I checked out VRoman's in Pasadena this weekend.  Is that the place you wanted me to see?  I couldn't remember the name, so I Googled independent book stores.  

Anyway, it was cool.  I liked the sheets with the book reviews.  Their children's section is huge.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> BTW, I checked out VRoman's in Pasadena this weekend.  Is that the place you wanted me to see?  I couldn't remember the name, so I Googled independent book stores.
> 
> Anyway, it was cool.  I liked the sheets with the book reviews.  Their children's section is huge.



Yeah, Vroman's. Good bookstore. I like to drop in when I'm in Pasadena, maybe even get a little work done in the coffee shop area if I need to. I like to shop at independent bookstores when possible. I wish there was a better one close to me.


----------



## Mindfire

Seems a little unethical not to acknowledge that the book isn't being written by the guy whose name is on the cover. Also seems a little unethical that the "assistant" is paid only a small fraction of what the name-brand author gets. There's an idea for a viable system here, but it needs some changes. If the author can't produce books like they used to, why not allow lesser author's to use their brand as a springboard for their own careers? Sort of like "James Patterson Presents" or something. Then everybody wins.


----------



## Leif Notae

Chilari said:


> This article on the BBC reveals that many of the most prolific authors don't in fact do most of the writing of novels published under their names, but write outlines and send them to (often uncredited) co-authors, then edit what they get back.
> 
> What do we all think of this? On the one hand, it makes me feel better about producing stuff slowly, and makes me wonder if I could get a job doing that; but on the other hand it doesn't quite feel fair that these authors are getting credit for writing books that in reality, they just planned and edited, they didn't do the legwork. And the uncredited co-authors probably don't get paid nearly a tenth as much as the big-name author whose name ends up on the cover.



Welcome to the wonderful world of ghost writing. It is a (non) glamorous job where you do all the legwork and watch the "author" get all the credit. The positive side is you can make a LARGE amount of money if you get the right clients.

So, the thing here is, do you support someone like this, and if you were in a ghost writer's shoes, would you do it?


----------



## Ankari

Isn't this referred to as "Ghostwriting"?  

To the question of ethics.  This is done in every aspect of our modern lives.  Cars, computers, foods, and cell phones are but a small list.

Ford designs the car (Outline)

They send the design to part suppliers

The part supplies send the parts to Ford's plant

Ford puts the parts together

Ford slaps their logo on the car

Ford sells it to you.

Again:

Apple designs a phone

They send the design to Foxcon in China

Foxcon sources the parts form other supplies (such as memory chips from Samsung)

Foxcon puts the parts together

Foxcon slaps an Apple logo on the phone

Foxcon sends the phones to Apple's warehouses

Apple sells it to you for 10,000% profit

You walk away whistling a happy tune.

I don't see the problem *IF* both parties agree.


----------



## Mindfire

I see your point, Ankari. But I think there's a crucial difference between writing and engineering/manufacturing. Ford's cars are still Ford's because they designed them. Apple's tech is Apple's because they designed it. That's how engineering and manufacturing have always worked. It's intrinsic to the field. You design something, it's yours, regardless of who you pay to assemble it. But that's not the case with writing because whereas any company who follows the schematics will build a more or less identical car, the same basic story synopsis can be turned into a theoretically unlimited number of distinct stories depending on who writes them. So in that sense, if you "design" a story and then outsource the "assembly" the result will likely be very different from what you would have gotten had you written the work yourself and in that sense the story isn't really yours. I have a close friend who also writes. He shares most of my values and knows me better than just about anyone, but if I gave him one of my projects and asked him to finish it, the end result would likely be wildly different than what I would have written in both style and content.


----------



## Butterfly

I think that if this were any other industry then the goods would be 'not as described.'


----------



## Ankari

> if you "design" a story and then outsource the "assembly" the result will likely be very different from what you would have gotten had you written the work yourself and in that sense the story isn't really yours.



You need to consider this:



> This article on the BBC reveals that many of the most prolific authors don't in fact do most of the writing of novels published under their names, but write outlines and send them to (often uncredited) co-authors, *then edit what they get back.*



So, in the end, the author getting the credit edits the book.  He can use his own personal word choices, change the tone of a scene, add details he may only know, etc.  In the end it _does_ become his final product.  No?


----------



## Mindfire

Ankari said:


> You need to consider this:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in the end, the author getting the credit edits the book.  He can use his own personal word choices, change the tone of a scene, add details he may only know, etc.  In the end it _does_ become his final product.  No?



I suppose you could make that argument, but if that's the case, either every book should have the _editor's_ name on the cover instead of the writer's, or the authors who choose this method should credit themselves as editors or "supervising authors" rather than actual authors. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Chilari

I find it misleading to claim something is written by author X when in fact it's outlined and edited by X and written by Y. I'd rather see "Great New Novel by X and Y" on the cover than "Great New Novel by X"; at least then the co-author gets some credit and this can boost their solo career. I find it dishonest, and I find the same with artists who hire apprentices who do all the actual work under the direction of the credited artist. It's like crediting only the director in films, not the actors and production staff and writer etc.

Using both names means the big name author's brand remains a key selling point of the novel, but it also enables the co-writer to build up their own brand too.

I get why the co-author doesn't get paid as much; it's the brand name author that people buy the book for, not the co-writer. But not crediting the co-author is misleading to readers and unfair to co-authors. Why shouldn't the co-author build up their own brand, ultimately becoming a big brand name author themselves? Look at openly co-authored books by existing big name authors. Say, The Long Earth by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter. Okay, there's going to be some overlap in the fanbases of those authors, but I bet that it sold more than either Dodger or Bronze Summer (books released at about the same time by the respective authors). Why? Because loyal fanbases of both authors will want to read it. I don't see why that can't happen in hindsight either - with a book published earlier in one author's career continuing to get sales as that author becomes more famous.

I understand why they do it and I can see how similar stuff happens in other sectors, like art, and I can even see how it might well be both lucrative and valuable to an aspiring author. But it is the dishonesty of it that gets me.

But maybe the BBC article isn't telling all there is to tell about this.


----------



## tlbodine

I remember the first time I ever learned about "book packaging" of this sort.  I was about 12 and was completely heartbroken to discover that K.A. Applegate wasn't *actually* writing the Animorphs books.  I felt totally betrayed.  Also, it helped to explain the subtle but significant changes in the way the story's mechanics worked and how characters acted.  

Anyway.  I've done a fair amount of ghostwriting myself -- I write web content, and a lot of what I write ends up being a blog post for someone with a bigger name.  One of my favorite clients has a regular column in Forbes (penned by yours truly).  But I draw the line at ghost-writing fiction, because it just feels too personal -- and, in the case of stories in my own genre, a conflict of interests.  

I think this is one of the sadder side effects of the "publish or perish" model.  Readers have an insatiable demand and there's a push for quantity over quality.  I don't really understand it (I'd much rather re-read one truly great book than read a whole string of mediocre ones, if that's what the choice had to be) but it seems to be the way of the world.


----------



## Steerpike

Chilari said:


> But not crediting the co-author is misleading to readers and unfair to co-authors.



Yes. The publisher is relying on the brand to sell, however. A lot of people who buy James Patterson books are not going to buy a book by David Jones that has the "James Patterson Presents" logo on it, or something similar. I think there would be more overlap in a co-author situation (see, for example, Clive Cussler), but who knows. Maybe Patterson won't put his name on it unless he's listed as the sole author. If you're a big enough name, you can make those kinds of demands.


----------



## ThinkerX

I've been aware of this practice for a long while.

One interesting 'twist' on this from a couple years ago:

George RR Martin is greatly overworked.  He writes not just 'Game of Thrones' but a pile of other stuff as well. So, to help with the workload, he hired a personal assistant, Ty.  He was very open about this on his 'Not A Blog'.  Impression was Ty helped more with the organization / fact checking type stuff than the actual writing.

Then a block buster SF novel gets released.  GRRM gets to yakking about said SF block buster in his 'Not A Blog' and reveals that the authors name on the cover is actually TWO people, one of whom is his personal assistant Ty. So Ty, in echange for a bit of writing drudge work, gets a big name boost for his own novel - and maybe some behind the scenes pull as well towards getting it published.

Since then, GRRM has revealed that his workload has grown to the point where he now has THREE personal assistants - and is still buried under a massive amount of work most of the time.  I find myself wondering if one or more of them will be getting a boost from GRRM for his/her novel.

However, these personal assistants are not so much 'ghostwriters' as they are...assistants.


----------



## flyfishnevada

How does a writer get "overworked?"  Contracts.  They promise so many books, they can't keep up and so this stuff happens.  It's frustrating actually.  How many decent writers are plugging away at their dream novel to see it someday settle comfortably into the high six digit rankings on Amazon and never be heard from again while readers trained to read the latest by so-and-so, slavishly buy a book their "favorite" author never actually wrote?


----------



## tlbodine

flyfishnevada said:


> How many decent writers are plugging away at their dream novel to see it someday settle comfortably into the high six digit rankings on Amazon and never be heard from again while readers trained to read the latest by so-and-so, slavishly buy a book their "favorite" author never actually wrote?



Especially once you consider the pretty good odds that many of these "assistants" and "co-authors" are probably the exact same people who are trying so hard to break in and/or may be hanging out in those same six-digit rankings.  

It really raises the question:  What exactly does the reader value in an author?  The ideas?  The characters?  The authority of the name?  I wonder that sometimes with my own ghost-writing.  Don't get me wrong, it pays the bills and it's way better than my old job as a call center monkey, but sometimes it's more than a little agitating to realize that my words are appearing with somebody else's byline in magazines that I couldn't get into if I queried them myself.  (And that, truth be told, is probably exactly the reason I refuse to ghost-write fiction)


----------



## Christopher Wright

Meh. I'm not going to get all worked up about it. Jim Davis does very little of Garfield any more, and everyone knows hit. It's still "Garfield, by Jim Davis" and it still makes him ridiculous sums of money.

And think of the songwriters. Some dude may have written a song, but it's still "x's song" (depending on which artist performs it and makes it famous).

It's just not that scandalous to me.


----------



## Chilari

With songs the writer is credited separately from the performer quite often, including in what shows up on windows media player when you listen to it. Okay, not at gigs and probably not very prominently on a CD cover, but it is there if you look. So I don;t see it as a comparable situation.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

It's not a new practice though. I mean it's been well known for years that Barbara Cartland had a team of ghostwriters, and that she basically dictated her books and left them to finish up. And Michael Moorcock, back in the days when he was writing a book every few days, had a similar set up.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78

A, perhaps, new perspective on this:

This morning, I'm driving into work and thinking about an upcoming blog post.  An example that I came up with to explain a concept takes on a life of its own.  Before long, I'm knee deep in characters for a story I'm probably never going to write.  I have way more ideas for books than I will ever have time to produce.

I couldn't help but think, "I'd love to be able to pay someone to write this for me.  If nothing else, I'd kind of like to see how the story ends."

I guess my thought is: If I come up with the plot details and the character arcs, isn't the story mine regardless of who actually puts the words on paper?


----------



## Chilari

Brian, yes, the story is yours. But not exclusively if someone else tells it. What I dislike is the idea that readers are told that the story is yours and not told that someone else was involved in getting it from your head to a completed manuscript. Because as we've been telling everyone who comes here worried about their story being cliche, each writer has a different way of telling a story that makes it unique. You might have a detailed plan with a whole page of description for each scene, but if you pay someone else to get it from that stage to a final draft, you're not the sole author. I would expect your name to sit alongside that of the person who actually did the writing in such a situation.

Thing is, not everyone has the same strengths. Some people are great at big picture but lack the ability to look more closely. Others have talent with the actual writing but struggle with plots. Put those two together and you get a collaboration work. It's easier to see in webcomics where you might get one person creating the whole thing or you might have a writer and an artist working together. Both are credited; no ethical creator would dream of going up to an artist and saying "draw my webcomic for Â£XXX, but your name won't be anywhere on it". And with some co-written novels, again, both are credited. But in the case as described in the article, this isn't always the case. And I don't understand why that is, why some co-authors are both credited while others are not, simply because one of the co-authors has an established fanbase and the other does not.

Psychotick: I wasn't aware of that. I've not heard of Barbara Cartland but either way, I was not aware this was common practice until I saw the article on the BBC.

I'm not objecting here to the act of an author setting out the plot, sending it to someone else, that person writing it and sending it back for the first author to edit. I don't see that as a problem at all, if that's how an author wants to increase their output and visibility. I am objecting to the practice of leaving the actual writer (as opposed to the plotter/editor) out of the picture when it comes to giving credit. It's unfair on the writer and it's unfair on a reader who has paid to read what an author has written and actually reads what they have plotted and edited but which someone else has written.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari,

I really do get what you're saying.  However, if I:

come up with a plot and character arcs
outline the book
hire someone to put words to paper to bring MY vision to life
extensively edit what they produced

I wouldn't really term that a collaboration; it's someone working under my supervision.  

I'm a professional engineer.  If an EIT working under my direction does work on a design, I still sign the document.  It's my professional reputation on the line for the work, not his.  You could look at this the same way.

I gain a method of increasing the amount of work I can turn out.  The apprentice gains experience.  It's a win/win.


----------



## Chilari

Brian,

In my professional experience (my job largely involves writing CVs for engineers and reviewing documents written by engineers in order to demonstrate to a client why we're the best company to build their building), engineers cannot competently write English. You can. Therefore you cannot be an engineer. Therefore your argument is invalidated by the obvious lie that you claim to be an engineer.

Now that's out of the way, okay, fair point, I see what you mean about it not being a true collaboration in the situation you have described, and I can see the parallels relating to your (apparent) professional experience (still not convinved you're an engineer; capitalise a random noun in the middle of a sentence for no reason and use the wrong form of their/there/they're and I will). But put like that I can't really argue.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Therefore your argument is invalidated by the obvious lie that you claim to be an engineer.



If it helps:

1) I no longer actually work as an engineer.  I do construction management as an owner's rep.
2) I won't be an engineer much longer if I don't do my 30 hours of professional development credits by March.



> But put like that I can't really argue.



It would still be nice to see the ghost writer get some credit for the work, though.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thanks for sharing a link to that article, Chilari... I loved reading that.

I feel now much prouder of writing my own novels, even if it takes me so long to finish one!! I am proud of who I am, what I do and how I do it, and whenever that I feel bad about being a rather slow writer, I'll remember that sometimes the famous authors do not do all the hard work by themselves.

The books written that way should give credit to the ghost writers, really... I wish that J.K. Rowling really wrote all the Harry Potter books herself, and I think that she did.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I knew this sort of thing went on. I don't know that we ought to assume ALL writers who produce good quantities of work do this sort of thing, however. Kevin Anderson kicks out 5-6 novels a year, and I don't believe he has anyone ghost writing. He just works a 40 hour+ work week at his craft. John Scalzi has mentioned on his blog "Whatever" how long some of his books took him to write - generally, one to three months, working on it every morning until around lunch time, from starting the work to sending it to a publisher.

The primary difference between a writer producing one book per year and a writer producing five books per year is just how many hours the person spends per year working.


----------



## Steerpike

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> I knew this sort of thing went on. I don't know that we ought to assume ALL writers who produce good quantities of work do this sort of thing, however.



I agree. Erikson also puts out a ton of work, and he writes it himself. I think there are a few big brand-name authors doing this, but I don't think it represents the way the vast majority of writers work.


----------



## BWFoster78

> The primary difference between a writer producing one book per year and a writer producing five books per year is just how many hours the person spends per year working.



I think the length of the books is an important consideration.  If I can write one 150000 word book, I can probably write two 70k word books.

Rate of writing is also important.  If I can do roughly 1k/hr, I'll produce half the amount of you if you can do 2k/hr, and I think the overall average wpm rate is probably highly variable on a per person basis.


----------



## Mindfire

Chilari said:


> Brian,
> 
> In my professional experience (my job largely involves writing CVs for engineers and reviewing documents written by engineers in order to demonstrate to a client why we're the best company to build their building), engineers cannot competently write English.



I'm offended. I consider myself quite a proficient writer (and so do my professors), and I am an engineering student. Of course, the fact that I am presently only a student may account for this. But regardless, engineers who write may be a rarity, but we do exist. Please don't discriminate against us. Or we'll attack you with drone fighters cobbled together from radio shack parts.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I'm offended. I consider myself quite a proficient writer (and so do my professors), and I am an engineering student. Of course, the fact that I am presently only a student may account for this. But regardless, engineers who write may be a rarity, but we do exist. Please don't discriminate against us. Or we'll attack you with drone fighters cobbled together from radio shack parts.



It's a rarity, all right. In my experience, both engineers and patent attorneys (many of whom have engineering degrees) tend to be less skilled at writing than one might hope. There are exceptions, of course


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> It's a rarity, all right. In my experience, both engineers and patent attorneys (many of whom have engineering degrees) tend to be less skilled at writing than one might hope. There are exceptions, of course



In my case, I'm more naturally talented at language arts than at mathematics, but I've always preferred science over Shakespeare.


----------



## Chilari

Mindfire said:


> I'm offended. I consider myself quite a proficient writer (and so do my professors), and I am an engineering student. Of course, the fact that I am presently only a student may account for this. But regardless, engineers who write may be a rarity, but we do exist. Please don't discriminate against us. Or we'll attack you with drone fighters cobbled together from radio shack parts.



I am referring to civil and structural engineers. I have no experience of other types of engineers. And what can civil or structural engineers do to me, huh? Demolish the house I live in? Ha! I'd pay to see that, I hate this place, joke is on them.

As long as I can remove my PC first.


----------



## Mindfire

Chilari said:


> I am referring to civil and structural engineers. I have no experience of other types of engineers. And what can civil or structural engineers do to me, huh? Demolish the house I live in? Ha! I'd pay to see that, I hate this place, joke is on them.
> 
> As long as I can remove my PC first.



Oh, ok. I'm in aerospace. From what I can see, we tend to be quirkier than most other engineers.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Mindfire said:


> Oh, ok. I'm in aerospace. From what I can see, we tend to be quirkier than most other engineers.



No! Aerospace engineers, quirky? Say it ain't so!


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

BWFoster78 said:


> I think the length of the books is an important consideration.  If I can write one 150000 word book, I can probably write two 70k word books.
> 
> Rate of writing is also important.  If I can do roughly 1k/hr, I'll produce half the amount of you if you can do 2k/hr, and I think the overall average wpm rate is probably highly variable on a per person basis.



My own feeling is length adds to complexity of a work, as well. So you might find yourself able to complete four 50k word novels in the same time frame as one 150k word novel, for example.


----------



## BWFoster78

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> My own feeling is length adds to complexity of a work, as well. So you might find yourself able to complete four 50k word novels in the same time frame as one 150k word novel, for example.



Quite possibly.

I also feel like I'm getting quicker as I move up the learning curve.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Here's a small snippet about Barbara Cartland which mentions her writing method, and where it was inspired from. And at over seven hundred books, I'd have to say it works.

Barbara Cartland | The Economist

Then, when I realised how many books she'd written I googled most prolific authors and came up with this. Imagine my surprise when I found out that even Dame Cartland had been outdone.

List of prolific writers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Inglorious_Hero

I can't stomach stories written by such writers.  Their material is too generic that they could do this.  I myself, will strive to write my own story until the day that I die.

On a side note, I'm attending school to be an Electrical Engineer and I have faith in my writing and my stories.  But after reading many of the reports from fellow students, I can attest that this does apply to many of us.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Inglorious_Hero said:


> I can't stomach stories written by such writers.  Their material is too generic that they could do this.  I myself, will strive to write my own story until the day that I die.
> 
> On a side note, I'm attending school to be an Electrical Engineer and I have faith in my writing and my stories.  But after reading many of the reports from fellow students, I can attest that this does apply to many of us.



Did you read the list of those "most prolific" names on Wikipedia? A large number of those names are AMAZING writers, exceptionally famous writers whose work is of the highest merit. And that list is certainly not all inclusive; with a little effort I could probably come up with a list of a couple dozen writers with 200+ works in SF/F alone.

"Prolific" in writing usually just means "worked more hours than the other guy."


----------



## Steerpike

I don't think just being prolific is what he's talking about, Kevin. For example, Steven Erikson is prolific. And his writing is good. And he writes the stuff himself. 

I think what Inglorious_Hero is talking about are those who hire groups of other writers to write for them, and then maybe edit it and stamp their own name on it. I tend to agree, as to the extent I've checked out any of those authors they do appear to be boring and generic (James Patterson).


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I don't find myself reading that sort of thing, either.

I DO sometimes enjoy the books that are co-written by "famous author and new guy/gal". A lot of those stories were actually written by the new guy/gal, with some oversight and input from the famous writer. And I find some nice new writers that way sometimes.


----------



## Jabrosky

I second Chilari's sentiment that it's unethical for an "author" to take all the credit for a ghostwritten story. It's dishonest and exploitative against the actual writer. I for one would never ghostwrite anything. Not only don't I have the heart to make someone else do all the hard work of writing for me, I don't even see the appeal. I earn far more bragging rights and have far more control over my production if I do all the hard work myself.


----------



## Shockley

I really only became aware of this when I worked as a bookseller. I knew about ghost-writing, but this kind of thing is becoming an epidemic. Let me give you a few expamples:

 - V. C. Andrews has been dead for three decades, yet has a new novel come out just about every year.
 - Ann Martin, Franklin Dixon (Hardy Boys) and Carolyn Keene (Nancy Drew) are not real people and never have been. 
 - Tom Clancy publicly announces on the cover of his books that he uses a co-author/ghostwriter. *However*, that ghostwriter is also a fictional persona; he makes all of his ghostwriters publish under a fake identity that he controls. 
 - R. L. Stine has not put pen to paper in years; he provides plot outlines (which are broad, supposedly; 'boy and girl get into trouble with the supernatural') and a whole team of ghostwriters churn out the story. 
 - Clive Cussler now publicly lists his ghosts - however, he was secretly using them for most of his writing career. 
 - Ellery Queen is particularly bizarre - its a pseudonym used by the author and given to the main character. The author was from the starting point two people, and is still a series of different people. 
 - Don't ever both reading any western stories. 99% of their ghosted, the authors publishing under a house name.

 It pisses me off, to be honest, and really did a number on my opinion of the publishing industry. It's huge, it's a pandemic and it's fundamentally dishonest.


----------



## Ireth

I had no idea James Patterson used ghostwriters. I've enjoyed a few of his books, mainly the Maximum Ride series -- at least the first three, before he jumped the shark with the whole environmental awareness thing right the heck out of nowhere, and giving the bird-kids ridiculous amounts of new powers. Witch and Wizard wasn't bad either.


----------



## ThinkerX

Seems almost like if our novels flop, some of will still get offered tightly constrained jobs as 'ghostwriters for the greats'.  Ireth up to writing the next Patterson epic?


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I don't think I'd ever pay someone else to write stories so I could take the credit; seems a little gauche to me.

But am I a bad person for feeling like I'd be perfectly willing to WRITE a novel someone else took the credit for, provided the paycheck was good enough?


----------

