I think I don't approve. What does everyone else think?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20664571

Oh, I heard this interview. I don't have a problem with it. Like they say, it's been going on for centuries. It's also what WP and that other publishing company do who come up with story lines and then give them to writers to flesh out. It's also what most of TV and film do - writing by collaboration. I think as long as credit is given and it's acknowledged, it's fine. It's when it's denied by the author that I would start to take issue.

I think as long as credit is given and it's acknowledged, it's fine.

Yes, I tend to agree. I notice it tends to be older writers who have a 'brand', have been writing for ages and now may, quite understandably, not want/be able to keep churning out one or even two books a year. Even Stephen King has started co-writing some stuff with his son (who is a horror writer in his own right, of course).

I do hope the co-writers get decent mpney for their efforts, though.

I don't have a problem with it either, if everyone is being honest. It's this sort of thing that disturbs me:

So how much of a book is actually written by the author and how much is by the co-author? "Publishers don't like to reveal that kind of information," Stone says.

Reminds me of what Katie Price allegedly said when someone asked her what she thought of her new novel. "I don't know. I haven't read it."

Naomi Campbell said it before Katie Price did...

So how much of a book is actually written by the author and how much is by the co-author? "Publishers don't like to reveal that kind of information," Stone says.

True, but it's also because it's genuinely difficult to say, I'd suggest - any kind of collaboration is about sparking stuff off each other. I'd be surprised if Wilbur Smith just jotted down a line and handed it over - there will be lots of conversations.

A freelance editor I met the other day said that her current project was cutting 70,000 words out of a known writer's novel (and no, she wouldn't tell me who, as wouldn't the agents and publishers' editors I've had similar conversations with. Fifth Amendment-taking all round...)

Gave me the shivers to think of letting someone else loose on my words like that, but she said the novel wasn't working and the author just felt he/she couldn't see it straight any more. And I'm sure that novel wouldn't go straight to the publisher without the author reviewing everything that had been done, and doing more work. So how would you describe that process, if you were asked "how much"? I'm not sure.

As a writer I'm interested in how this stuff works, but as a reader I just want a story that works. I'm really, truly not bothered by how it gets to the stage of working. There's nothing inherently pure-and-magical about contact with a single mind, after all, as opposed to several - I don't read novels for contact with minds - that's what non-fiction is for. I read them for stories.

I don't read novels for contact with minds - that's what non-fiction is for. I read them for stories.

Oh, that's interesting, Emma. I do read novels for contact with minds - the parts I most enjoy in a novel are the bits where the author apparently shows himself or herself. Some authors show themselves more than others, and these tend to be the ones I love most. I feel that I have at least a partial sense of what, for example, William Golding, John Fowles and Elizabeth Taylor were like as people, just from reading their work.

Personally, I think one of the things that marks literary work as being different from commercial work is the individuality of the work. No one but William Golding could have written a William Golding novel ... or so it seems.

Most of the instances of co-authorship happen in commercial fiction - or also, so it seems. It would be really interesting to know how much of it goes on in literary fiction. The only example of a fantastically successful co-authorship that I can think of in the literary world is The Waste Land.

I don't know where you draw the line between heavy editing and co-authoring, really. Think of Gordon Lish's edits of Carver's stories, for example.

I think one of the things that marks literary work as being different from commercial work is the individuality of the work

Yes, I agree. I'd be more than a little miffed if it emerged my favourite writers - for example Italo Calvino, Angela Carter, Ali Smith, were working with a team of unknown others...

It happens frequently in non-fiction, though. In the books I've worked on 'editing' is sometimes used as a euphemism for 'completely re-writing', for one reason or another.

Personally, I think one of the things that marks literary work as being different from commercial work is the individuality of the work. No one but William Golding could have written a William Golding novel ... or so it seems.

Yes, absolutely - individuality is absolutely essential. I'll go to an Elizabeth Taylor novel, say, because I feel like experiencing that kind of world and world-view. But if that was, actually, the product of more than one consciousness, then it wouldn't bother me at all. It's not the person, IYSWIM - it's the voice of that novelistly persona that I want to engage with, however the person whose name is on the cover builds that persona.

But I think I've never been terribly interested in writers as personalities - as people, if you like. It never occurred to me to go to a writerly event, for example, (except a couple of readings by poets I met on the MPhil) until I was doing them as an author. Or to buy a signed book, indeed. Why would you?

. It never occurred to me to go to a writerly event, for example, (except a couple of readings by poets I met on the MPhil) until I was doing them as an author. Or to buy a signed book, indeed. Why would you

Me neither! Glad someone else bookish feels that way

Nor me. But that resulted in me doing an event at Ways with Words without having ever attended a talk at a lit festival, and I really wished I'd been to one before doing one so I knew a bit more what it'd be like.

I still don't get the book signing thing, really. I found the signings I did for the Marianne North book utterly surreal, and still don't get why people seem so keen on having books signed by authors. It's nice if you know the author so it has some personal meaning, but other than that I don't really get it.

I'll go to an Elizabeth Taylor novel, say, because I feel like experiencing that kind of world and world-view. But if that was, actually, the product of more than one consciousness, then it wouldn't bother me at all. It's not the person, IYSWIM - it's the voice of that novelistly persona that I want to engage with, however the person whose name is on the cover builds that person

a

I agree about going to a particular writer to engage with a world view but if that view, and that voice, is constructed by the author orchestrating a team of writers, what validity is there in just one name being on the cover ... surely everyone's contribution ought to be acknowledged (somehow) in that scenario?

Yes, I must admit I rather wished I'd been to a festival before I had to do them myself - but then the first events I did were in Australia so at least I wasn't too horribly visible.