Necessarily, it seems to me, a co-authored work, growing… out of collaborative discussion and intellectual exchange, cannot have an authentic and distinctive voice. Inevitably, unless one author completely dominates the others, it will be written in the flat, correct, acceptable one-dimensional language of the Academy. There will be no dark recesses or ironic overtones, no multi-dimensional representations of a complex, perhaps even internally contradictory social reality. In short, in literary style, it will be indistinguishable from a journal article in Microbiology. But if that is true, why bother?
Robert Paul Wolff discusses whether co-authorship and too much collaboration threatens what is of value in philosophy.