> It's interesting though isn't it, because if she contracts someone good, the ghostwriter does an excellent job of imitating her style, then really you do get exactly what you wanted? I don't like the idea of it either, fwiw, but it's hard to rationalise.

There is nothing hard about rationalizing this. If this was what "I wanted" they would just put the ghostwriters name on cover with "written in style of X" in bold letters.

But, it is not what people wanted and they would buy the book less.

> It's interesting though isn't it, because if she contracts someone good, the ghostwriter does an excellent job of imitating her style, then really you do get exactly what you wanted? I don't like the idea of it either, fwiw, but it's hard to rationalise.

But the ghostwriters are never as good as the original. Imitating style is not the same as imitating excellence. If the ghostwriter were as talented as the original author, they would be publishing their own novels under their own name, not doing anonymous gruntwork for others.

Reminds me, there was a Stephen King interview from a ~decade ago where he observed that when he passes away his son (Joe Hill) could probably keep publishing under his name for at least a few years since he's perfected imitating King's general style.

I think the distinction, for me, is that when I pay for a book I want access to the author's creative thoughts and personality, not just their particular "brand". I realize that a lot of readers don't care, especially in the YA space, but I'd rather read a worse novel from the person who conceived The Hunger Games than a perfect imitation from someone who's merely imitating the brand.