Ghostwriting - Who's at Fault?

As we begin to tackle the issues of ghostwriting, I wonder whether the act is as bad as it may initially seem. After all, Scot said that ghostwriting is a common occurrence in the real world that extends beyond the store bookshelves. There are probably countless memos and reports that are signed by lower level employees under different names on a daily basis. If these acts do not concern us, then why should we look down upon a celebrity who has his or her employees do the same?

I attended the Barack Obama rally on Tuesday, and his speech raised issues of authorship in my mind. I don’t know whether the speech was ghostwritten, but does that really matter? The central ideas that he expressed were undoubtedly his own and seemingly ones that he will adopt if elected as president. Who cares if they were pieced together by a different individual? After all, if we consider Barthes, that “imposter” would only be exercising his/her sole "power [...] to mix writings," and that individual’s claim on the piece would end as soon as the writing began. Moreover, Obama, through the act of his unique presentation, may be viewed as adopting ownership and thusly, at minimal, partial authorship over the speech.

I think the concern with ghostwriting stems from our inability to allow for text to stand on its own. We always need to tie writing to a certain person’s name, and if we are deceived, we feel our reading experience is in some way affected. Perhaps we need to learn how to interpret and appreciate what we read without reaching beyond the text in front of us. The blame may not lie on those who employ ghostwriters. Instead, we as readers may be the ones at fault.