If you saw someone described as a "co-writer" of a book, how would you interpret that?

[wilbur]

Would you think it was just them and one other person, or that they could be one of a number of writers?

Am updating my CV and trying to find a different way to describe myself instead of simply "contributor" every time.

TIA.

I think I'd assume it was one of two people. What's wrong with "contributor"? Sounds ok to me.

Co-writer or co-author would normally be a small number - one other or several others, while contributor would usually mean you have done anything from a couple of chapters, to a single entry in an encyclopaedia.

I think co-writer implies some responsibility/control in relation to the book as a whole, shared with one or a very few other writer(s). So if you were a contributor it might be a little misleading.

Contributor sounds good, though.

sorry - /OT... but has zw had another child????

I would assume it was them and one or two others, all with names on the front iyswim?

Yes, that's what I thought. Never mind. Contributor is fine, I just was looking for something else so there isn't a great long list on my CV of "Contributor to this" and "Contributor to that".

Could you not just write

"Contributed to:

and then a list of things to which you've contributed? Or am I missing something?

You're right Habbibu, I think that's the best way - it just means relaying out my CV - was trying to just add stuff to old CV but have come to the conclusion that I need to start again from scratch. I'd better get some flipping work after all this!

My immediate reaction, on reading the thread title, was to think that we were talking about some sleb who had 'co-written' their autobiography i.e. written two words and the rest was done by a ghostwriter!
Sounds as if you are trying to big-up a small part in the book's creation. Weasel words IMO.

Um, senua, I'm hoping there's a virtual smiley hidden in your last comment... it's a little harsh otherwise.

Good heavens, senua - that's an extraordinary extrapolation and really not justified.

Aaargh. Frantic back-pedalling here.

I said that it was my response to the title before I had opened the thread and read the contents. Sorry, I'm not in publishing and don't know if the word has an accepted definition. It was only supposed to illustrate how a person who doesn't know what they are talking about could misconstrue the word.

It wasn't meant to be a slight on you, wilbur.

That's ok, senua , quite understand now - sometimes typing doesn't quite get across the full meaning, eh?