The Ghostwriting Blues

Okay. So pretty much ghostwriting, after reading the article by Gregory Baruch (actually written by him, might I add), I definitely think that ghostwriting, in today's society, is unethical. There was a time when ghostwriters were included in the titles of books - at least given a little credit. However, writing for a celebrity (or anyone else for that matter), without receiving proper accreditation is VERY UNETHICAL. There were many instances in this piece where I simply wanted to gag (well, not really, I was just more shocked than anything that people would actually do this).

For example, when people die when writing ghostwritten books or are in collaboration with ghostwriters - that's usually when the most serious "offenses" occur. Specifically - when Stephen Humphrey Bogart's ghostwriter, Gary Provost, died, his name was not included in the authors section - nor was he even given any credit, except in the "dedication page" - who the HECK knows who these things are "dedicated" to? I usually read that page and think to myself, "Wow - I WONDER WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE! I WONDER IF THE WERE INFLUENTIAL IN THIS PERSON'S LIFE - LIKE A MENTOR OR SOMETHING... NOT A GHOSTWRITER!" I guess I should be more careful in my thought process from now on, especially with this ghostwriting thing becoming an pandemic Pandora's box of perpetual ethical problems!

It just blows my mind that publishers are SO ruthless and can justify themselves - as in the case of Gary Provost stating that " '[I]t is our belief that the book stands a much better chance if it doesn't appear ghostwritten. Oddly enough, under the circumstances, from what I know of Gary, I believe this is something he would have wanted us to do." What BS! I'm not claiming to know Gary Provost or even anything about him, but if I had spent the last days of my life writing a freaking book - literally - for someone, I think I would want my name included on the cover - AND maybe a page dedicated to me in the book "Dedicated to Gary Provost - who DIED trying to write this book!"


*This post was not ghostwritten. Nor will any post here unless my PUBLISHER so deems. But that'll be discussed later in Article 564, section C of my contract with said publisher. And if it is, you'll NEVER KNOW*

Wiki - Wiki - Whaaat?

Wikipedia - a very interesting yet sore subject for some. First, I'd like to start off saying that it's super interesting that we've decided to "study" Wikipedia this week because in another class, we also discussed the controversial nature of this amazing/horrible encyclopedia (depending on your vantage point) of this reference.

Personally, I love wikipedia. It IS such a great reference and it is always a great starting page to being research on a certain topic. Wikipedia has many embedded links and cross-references in its articles, and that can for sure significantly aid in conducting research of writing an English paper. It is interesting to see how many people actually use Wikipedia and how it was first created (an article that I read in my other class). Some interesting ideas to ponder is that this is the ultimate layman's reference - there's no "pompous" writing involved; very democratic! However, who is to say that everything written in Wikipedia's articles are at least semi-correct?! Well, the answer to that question, is very simple: YOU! There are over a million entries in Wikipedia whereas Enclyclopedia Britannica only has its entries in the thousands! There are approximately 1,600 new members to Wikipedia every month (if I remember my information correctly). That's a whole lot of people reading/cross checking Wikipedia! It is up to the public to decided what is "right" (which kind of goes along with the "author function" or Bartes' idea of the author's death - although Wikipedia does not name its authors for the articles).

Addionally, high profile articles on Wikipedia are constantly being watched for vandals. Example: George W. Bush's article - VERY VERY VERY VERY heavily "guarded" by Wikipedia. Similarly, Wikipedia now allows no article corrections to go unseen by the public - the previous "deletions" are also shown, but just in a seperate box saying that they were omitted.

Lastly - a Polish Wikipedian stated that Wikipedia is just like the internet. But Wikipedia is better because people are constantly adding and revising articles to have the most up-to-date database in the world that is AT LEAST kept in check!

Creativity and Origionality

CREATIVITY. It's a fickle fiend for some. For others, it comes innately. Creativity is defined as "the use of the imagination or original ideas" in Oxford Dictionary. While this is a successful, working definition for some, others might have a difficult time conceptualizing the idea of originality. What happens when the dictionary uses a word that for some people is indefinable?

What does it mean to be original? Some scholars would argue that there is no such thing as originality, because everything that will ever be stated has been stated already - but again, that depends on the definition of "Original." Which may lead to an even more interesting question; who decides what the definitions of words are? I realize this is all very helical in thought, but I guess after class on Wednesday, I really began to think and question the language I had always taken for granted. Of course, it's SO obvious that "tree" means "tree" - however, WHAT type of tree are we REALLY talking about? Elm? Fir? Weeping Willow? PALM? (However, I can't imagine someone thinking of tree in its general form as a palm tree - to ME that's bizarre, but then again, everyone interprets/understands language in a different way).

I guess it's a really cynical way of looking at the world: No matter how articulate or how much into detail one writes in, it will never give the reader the perfect picture, for everyone has different life experiences that shape their mind/the way they think. NO MATTER WHAT, the author will always FAIL?!

wow. that sucks.

Why the Cheshire Cat?

So, this semester in English 201, we need to create a blog. The theme that this class is centered around is "Problems of Authorship: Autonomy, Ownership, and Creativity." Accordingly, I chose my blog name and my "name."

I chose the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland because I smile a lot (although not insincerely or with any ulterior motive). And, I think it would be interesting/really cool name.

Anyways, I look forward to doing the ghostwriting, because I think it'll be really fun trying to write in someone else's style (fun, however very challenging).

Yup - that's all I got for now!