Ghostwriting: Brandt And Wanberg

Brandt, Wanberg, and Haynes: Synthesis Outline

Brandt, Wanberg, and Haynes discuss many topics concerning ghostwriting throughout the course of history and how it has affected readers, writers, and the economy since the print and press was discovered. Brandt leans towards the personal aspect of ghostwriting, while Wanberg and Haynes lean towards the more historical viewpoint, but each arrive at different conclusions about the way ghostwriting should be interpreted and who should claim authorship. Ghostwriting is widely accepted as an important part in our economy, but it is not the lack of writers, Marxist ideals, or pride that is the main reason ghostwriting is so popular: it is our modern population’s inability to manage time. Even though

Brandt implies that writing has impacted the economy because writers are scarce, and those who are running in places of power typically don’t know the correct way to express their ideas in the most commercial, efficient fashion. Therefore, she concludes that writers make a huge impact in the economy; they can be found in almost every business and they’re are needed in order to enforce competitive commercialism. Wanberg addresses how ghostwriting economics do not stay consistent globally. He states that, although Europeans see authors as those who piece the work together themselves--the artist of the writing--Africans view literacy as cultural. Instead of claiming that the author is a specific person, they claim it is just African instead. Europeans claim that the actual writer claiming authorship functions as the economic safeguard. African’s do not see the economic use in having an author. Haynes addresses the materialist way of life that modern people follow, and this way of life makes the author more of a professional than an artist. Economic developments such as the print and press and a commercial market led to this shift in the role of a writer. As of now, writers do not have authorship; they are just commercial workers who work for the promotion of items and of other images. If the United States maintains its consumerist ideals, then ghostwriting is

Brandt states how the United States’ legal codes allow commercial businesses and heads of power to put their names on another writer’s work. Legally, if a writer is hired, the writer no longer has the rights to their own work. Instead, the work belongs to whoever he or she is writing for. Therefore, legally, an author can be someone who has never written a word in their entire life. This creates controversy over the correspondence between ghostwriting and plagiarism, because anyone can put their name on a ghostwritten work and by law, it is not dubbed as unethical. Wanberg states that one can discuss the ethics of ghostwriting, but if one chooses to do so, they cannot use the law to defend their point. He states that “law and authority” correspond with each other, therefore members of the justice system do not only support ghostwriting, they actively use it. Haynes discusses the legality of authorship throughout history. She discusses how free writers have the right to claim their work. She claims that writers aren’t required to sacrifice their writing to a company unless they were hired to do so. All three sources demonstrate that one cannot include the law in the fight against ghostwriting because the practice is legal and has been legal since the growth of