Thursday, July 19, 2007
Authorship and Writing
A lot of confusion appears to afflict people about the difference between these two concepts. In the controversy about ghost blogging, one of the themes that frequently emerges is this idea that an article or blog written by a ghost is somehow not from the person whose name is on the 'byline'.
I view the two as very different. In my last blog here I talked about my writing process and that is relevant here as well. Essentially, the process starts and finishes with the author. I may write the piece but my client is, whenever their name alone goes on the byline, the sole author - that is the ideas came out of their head and what I wrote for them was checked and changed by them before publication. In other words, whilst the wordsmithing is mine, the ideas, the tone and the overall effect of the article is my client's.
Some people can write and some people can't. I know people who, when faced with a piece of paper or a blank computer screen, simply panic. Others write excellent prose and, in some cases, are just naturally good communicators. I can help those who can write but have little time to do it or who choose to spend their time on their main role, to improve their copy. For those who can't write or who struggle with grammar and structure, I can write every word. The authorship in both cases is theirs because we will have begun with a conversation, recorded for reference, which I use to construct the finished piece of work.
The following diagram shows the continuum between the client doing 100% of the writing job to a writer doing as much as 90% of the writing but using the client's ideas. The client is the author.
The work I prefer is generally in the 50/50 area of that continuum as it challenges me to understand and explain the client's theme whilst giving me enough support to be sure that I'm getting it right for them.
If I need to be more involved than that, though, I can do it. If you can talk about it, I can write about it.
I view the two as very different. In my last blog here I talked about my writing process and that is relevant here as well. Essentially, the process starts and finishes with the author. I may write the piece but my client is, whenever their name alone goes on the byline, the sole author - that is the ideas came out of their head and what I wrote for them was checked and changed by them before publication. In other words, whilst the wordsmithing is mine, the ideas, the tone and the overall effect of the article is my client's.
Some people can write and some people can't. I know people who, when faced with a piece of paper or a blank computer screen, simply panic. Others write excellent prose and, in some cases, are just naturally good communicators. I can help those who can write but have little time to do it or who choose to spend their time on their main role, to improve their copy. For those who can't write or who struggle with grammar and structure, I can write every word. The authorship in both cases is theirs because we will have begun with a conversation, recorded for reference, which I use to construct the finished piece of work.
The following diagram shows the continuum between the client doing 100% of the writing job to a writer doing as much as 90% of the writing but using the client's ideas. The client is the author.
The work I prefer is generally in the 50/50 area of that continuum as it challenges me to understand and explain the client's theme whilst giving me enough support to be sure that I'm getting it right for them.
If I need to be more involved than that, though, I can do it. If you can talk about it, I can write about it.
Labels: authorship, collaboration, Ghosrt blogging, ghost writing
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Writing, Blogging, Ghost Writing and Ghost Blogging
The BBC ran a story this week about Thomas Power, with whom I worked on the book A Friend in Every City
and on a blog also called A Friend in Every City. For both I operated in a mode that works for several of my clients. That is, we talk, I research, I write, they review and we post (Thomas on Ecademy and I on the blog). That arrangement ended with Thomas late last year by mutual agreement, but it is still something I do for some clients.
In the way that these things take a life of their own, Thomas and Rory Cellan-Jones of BBC News connected on Facebook and Thomas made known his use of ghosts to write his articles and blogs. The type of blog that I was involved in was akin to an article, not the short, personal exchange type of blog that Ecademy uses. I spoke to Rory on Friday 13th (an auspicious day). Rory also spoke to a colleague of mine on Ecademy who now writes for Thomas (I won't mention his name because he has enough publicity already and I won't, on principle, add to it - but you can easily find it). As a result, an article appeared yesterday in which he appeared as the main focus and I was 'several people'. Seems that my colleague had the magic formula for giving Rory a hook and the quotes/direction for the story and I didn't.
I asked my network if I should have approached the task differently and one member noted that, though this blog appears high on the Google results for Andy Coote, there was nothing here that even hinted that I work as a ghost writer, let alone a ghost blogger. So lesson learnt - except for one small detail.
To my mind, I simply work with people to write material that reflects their views and message in a way that provides them with the best impact for their words and gives them profile. I do this by getting out of the way of the client and letting their words, in their voice, come out. Is that new and cutting edge? I think not. It is simply the trade of a professional writer and that is what I am - and that is what I told Rory Cellan-Jones that I am.
It may not get me headlines and allow me to rampage across cyberspace, adding my own blogs to the fire in an attempt to create a viral forest fire, but it does allow me to remain true to my beliefs and to my clients.
More on the controversy about ghost blogging will almost certainly follow here. Seems some people feel let down by the thought that the blogs they read come from the pen of another person. I am very clear that the articles and blogs I write for clients come out of their head and represent their ideas. As I put it in a post on a closed message board earlier -
"There is not a single word in any of those articles that Thomas couldn't or wouldn't say in conversation with members of this network or others. That is because we always began with conversation and from that might come a series of articles, each one of which would be seen and approved by Thomas before publication.The same process, with tweaks for the preference of each client, holds for all of the writing I do for clients, whatever its destination in print or online."
Andy Coote
Professional Writer and Publisher
and on a blog also called A Friend in Every City. For both I operated in a mode that works for several of my clients. That is, we talk, I research, I write, they review and we post (Thomas on Ecademy and I on the blog). That arrangement ended with Thomas late last year by mutual agreement, but it is still something I do for some clients.In the way that these things take a life of their own, Thomas and Rory Cellan-Jones of BBC News connected on Facebook and Thomas made known his use of ghosts to write his articles and blogs. The type of blog that I was involved in was akin to an article, not the short, personal exchange type of blog that Ecademy uses. I spoke to Rory on Friday 13th (an auspicious day). Rory also spoke to a colleague of mine on Ecademy who now writes for Thomas (I won't mention his name because he has enough publicity already and I won't, on principle, add to it - but you can easily find it). As a result, an article appeared yesterday in which he appeared as the main focus and I was 'several people'. Seems that my colleague had the magic formula for giving Rory a hook and the quotes/direction for the story and I didn't.
I asked my network if I should have approached the task differently and one member noted that, though this blog appears high on the Google results for Andy Coote, there was nothing here that even hinted that I work as a ghost writer, let alone a ghost blogger. So lesson learnt - except for one small detail.
To my mind, I simply work with people to write material that reflects their views and message in a way that provides them with the best impact for their words and gives them profile. I do this by getting out of the way of the client and letting their words, in their voice, come out. Is that new and cutting edge? I think not. It is simply the trade of a professional writer and that is what I am - and that is what I told Rory Cellan-Jones that I am.
It may not get me headlines and allow me to rampage across cyberspace, adding my own blogs to the fire in an attempt to create a viral forest fire, but it does allow me to remain true to my beliefs and to my clients.
More on the controversy about ghost blogging will almost certainly follow here. Seems some people feel let down by the thought that the blogs they read come from the pen of another person. I am very clear that the articles and blogs I write for clients come out of their head and represent their ideas. As I put it in a post on a closed message board earlier -
"There is not a single word in any of those articles that Thomas couldn't or wouldn't say in conversation with members of this network or others. That is because we always began with conversation and from that might come a series of articles, each one of which would be seen and approved by Thomas before publication.The same process, with tweaks for the preference of each client, holds for all of the writing I do for clients, whatever its destination in print or online."
Andy Coote
Professional Writer and Publisher
Labels: biogrpahy, blogging, digital, ghost blogging, ghost writing, writing
