back
10 comments
"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.

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.

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.

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).
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?

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.)

> 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...

> 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.

You don't need a psychologist. Trump is on many people's minds right now, hence they mention him often. Are you asking why he's on many people's minds?
The order was Tony Blair, Donald Trump, Helmut Kohl, Hillary Clinton. He fits right into that list.
Unreadable with JS. Blank without.