--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: <snip> > Of course this isn't what I'm saying--Maharishi was a > ghostwriter--
(As Vaj knows, that isn't what Raunchy was saying either.) > what I'm saying is he used ghostwriters but of course > retained full control over the output. Other sources > have verified this is the case No, they haven't. They've described *editing*, and Vaj has insisted that it's ghostwriting, because he wants MMY to get as little credit for his work as possible. >, so it's not a just a matter of what this one person > called "collective consciousness writing", (a pretty > hilarious TB term used to conceal the fact other > writers behind the book(s)). *Editors* behind the books. Most editors do some writing in the course of their editorial work. <snip> > Incidentally, my other sources also indicate a number > of projects have been ghosted by others--firsthand > witnesses Unfortunately, Vaj won't be able to document these "oher sources." But if we could see what they actually said, chances are excellent they'd be describing *editing*. As Rick said, he never saw anybody writing something to be published in MMY's name. , and of course > Mahesh obsessed over the final output and various > details along the way. Apparently a much of his major > output was ghosted. No, that's not apparent at all. (Note that, as usual, when Vaj gets agitated because his tales have been challenged, his syntax begins to deteriorate.) I realize > this is probably hard for TB Reesh fans to accept, > so I fully expect much dancing and obfuscation. As Raunchy noted, the obfuscation and dancing we've seen on this topic (and many others) has been from Vaj. If I hadn't read and heard many first-hand accounts of MMY's writing process, such as those we've seen here, I wouldn't be upset to learn that MMY's works were ghosted. The thing is, they obviously were *not*. That's what makes Vaj's claims so offensive. > FYI, here's what the Wikipedia has to say on Ghostwriting > and how diverse an activity it is: As I pointed out, nobody knowledgeable about publishing would consider the *editorial* functions Wikipedia describes to be ghostwriting. > The division of work between the ghostwriter and the > credited author varies a great deal. In some cases, > the ghostwriter is hired to publish and edit Ghostwriters don't "publish," either. That's how far off Wikipedia is. Notice that Vaj hasn't addressed what I said about my own editorial work, nor the excerpts from the Web site of the prominent editor about *his* work that I posted.
