I never understood why it mattered so much. One person, a team of people, ghost writers, why does it matter? A good book is a good book regardless of how many people or how long it took to write it.
It's a completely fair question. But, I must say it does bother me, the whole team of people publishing under one name, ghost writers, and all of that. Not something I can pin-point, it just feels a bit...I don't know, skeevy to me.
Which is not to say the practice is wrong or unethical or anything like that, it's just... it bothers me for some reason. Reasons that I'm unable to articulate in this moment.
I understand this is a business, and I'm trying to approach it that way as well with my own books/career, but for some reason the "teams" approach that's starting to dominate the store vexes me. Consider me vexed.
Maybe someone else here understands what's discouraging about it and can articulate the 'why' better than I can. Also, keep in mind I am but one wee peon with an opinion that matters very little in the grander scheme.
Ghost writing is a long established tradition and isn't inherently unethical. However, as with everything else, context makes a big difference.
It's interesting that bestselling authors like James Patterson make no secret of the fact that they use ghostwriters.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/10711191/James-Patterson-how-the-bestseller-factory-works.html However, Patterson also reads and revises as needed all his ghostwritten material. For me, that's where one of the ethical boundaries lies. If the material is published under an author's name, it should always be roughly the same quality and should have been reviewed by the named author prior to publication. (It's also worth noting in Patterson's case that the names of the ghostwriters are public. Many of them have launched bestselling careers of their own following their collaboration with Patterson.)
It's also interesting that public figures in recent years have often published their autobiographical material as collaborations rather than solely in their own name. I'm from an academic background, in which credit should always be given to all participants, so that's the kind of "ghostwriting" I favor.
In a lot of fields, though, credit isn't always given to all participants, though sometimes it's implicit. Many times studios bring in multiple writers to punch up particular parts of a script, but only the one or two most major ones are listed in the credits. Supreme Court justices often rely on clerks to do their first drafts. In both cases, though, the practice is well known and not in any way secret. And, as with Patterson, the named writers participate in important ways in the creation of the finished product. Most people aren't scandalized by a justice having a first draft done by someone else--but they would be if the justice published the clerk's work without ever looking at it.
For me, that's one question that influenced whether ghostwriting is ethical or not. Is there one author behind that pen name who oversees production and carefully reviews each novel? If yes, then I have no problem. If no, then I think publishing multiple works under the same pen name that are for all practical purposes written independently is ethically dubious. It amounts to false advertising.
Another aspect of the context is the purpose. Ghostwriting got its impetus from celebrity books where the celebrity author was not necessarily a writer but had a compelling story to tell. Somewhat later, authors whose fans were demanding more than the author could produce turned to ghostwriting in the same way Patterson did. I have no problem with the practice in cases like that. However, self-publishing created a new purpose for ghost writers--to play into the rapid release pattern that seems to work so well. I have the highest respect for people like Glynn Stewart and Amanda Lee who have the self-discipline and talent to pull that off. But creating a pen name that gives the illusion of having the same dedication while twenty people are splitting the actual work? Again, that seems ethically dubious to me.
I suppose the "Who cares as long as the book is good?" argument could apply even in such a case, but our society hasn't invariably accepted that idea. One could just as well ask what difference it made for a singer to use lip synching (with someone else's voice) as long as the song was good--but we've seen how fans react to revelations like that. We've also seen that pen names with very specific bios attached can get the authors into trouble (for example, by claiming expertise or experiences they didn't actually have).
This situation is new enough that it may be a while before a consensus develops. For me, the line between reasonable use of ghostwriters and questionable use depends upon the context.