Sean Coon, over at connecting*the*dots, has an interesting article, entitled, “Writing 2.0,” where he talks about some people out there - Chris Anderson of “The Long Tail” fame, David Weinberger of “The Cluetrain Manifesto” fame being two of them - who are actively writing their books with help of the blogosphere.
Sean writes:
Now, this approach is far from widespread, as the majority of books still hit “the shelf†with guarded marketing plans as the only touchpoint into the potential reader community. Authorship equates with authority in many circles — circles which seem to care more about ownership of a thesis, rather than the conversation surrounding the subject matter and the avenues newfound knowledge takes once digested. But since the shelves themselves are changing and mainstream journalists and authors are beginning to blog themselves, this just might catch on and become SOP.
I wonder how this would work for fiction writers. Beyond feedback on a fiction writer’s blog-posted drafts, could it expand to the point of mutual collaboration in the makeup of the fictional world? Artistic collaboration is nothing new, of course, but this would open that collaboration up to the public.
The danger is the potential violence done to an artistic vision, which normally provides the momentum that compels the reader to “turn the page.” Could an open-source novel retain that vision?
Several people have already tried wikifiction, but my (very limited) experience with it has been less than satisfactory, as has been my experience with “hypertext fiction” in general (see Sven Birkert’s “The Gutenberg Elegies” for a fascinating collection of essays on a similar subject).
But with a blog-based fiction writing, the blog author(s) might be able to retain just enough “control” (in the Platonian “philosopher king” sense) to ensure the story’s momentum. This aspect of control may run counter to the entire concept of Web 2.0, but I wonder if there is a difference between the “art” of fiction and the “business” of non-fiction, and whether transparency and open collaboration is valuable in both fields.
5 Comments
you know, this premise applied to fiction is an interesting concept. i chose to talk about non-fiction because such collaboration can help tear down misinformation and build knowledge through the participation itself. with fiction, it seems as though the “medium [would be] the massage” (to paraphrase a visionary). a collaborative creation of fiction has a real-time relative with the world of avitars, as the narrative of the experience shifts in the moment. now, how such participation could translate into character development and a dramatic arc in the realm of a book… well, that sounds like fun in the making.
I think that is the challenge that several video-game makers are attempting to take head on, namely, Is it possible to provide a compelling narrative within an interactive medium?
But if we retain the idea of a final product that comes in the form of a book, one that is actually purchased from a bookstore or borrowed from a library, then I think the idea of Writing 2.0 poses a specific challenge to more traditional fiction writers.
My question, I guess, is whether fiction writers who strive to succeed in the traditional medium of the book have anything to gain from nontraditional media when it comes to the writing process (outside of information and inspiration gathering).
Non-fiction writers seem to have the advantage because they tend to deal in the value of “truth,” and the more eyes on their truths, the more true the truths become.
But in the fiction realm, where the value of truth is more slippery — where the presence of falsity is even considered a prerequisite –, what need is there for transparency? Isn’t its lack of transparency a characterizing feature for what we consider art — shouldn’t we have to “get” art, or at least be compelled (by the art itself) to try to “get” art despite its lack of transparency?
All of this is up for debate, of course, but I think that the debate may be most fruitful when put in terms of how fiction writing can engage the systematic values of Web 2.0.
sure, i agree. i wouldn’t argue for transparency in the final fictional product either (the pleasure of fiction is the escape), but possibly in the process that led to the final publishing, which could be managed/unmanaged in a thousand different and creative ways.
if you think about the marketing of fiction and adding another element to the product, the remnants of a collaborative process (say, in the form of a blog over time), could be both a very interesting addendum to writing process and the final product for those who don’t want to participate in the development or be privy to the secrets of the story. kind of like the behind the scenes outakes, or particpant narratives from a film on dvd? maybe?
I read an awesome book called “Journal to A Novel: The East of Eden Letters,” by John Steinbeck. It seems that every day, before writing, Steinbeck would use the left hand page of his manuscript book to compose a letter to his friend and editor. He used this time as a kind of “warm up” before setting off on that day’s work on the novel that became East of Eden.
I suspect a blog could be used in such a way. It would seem more genuine, I think (and genuineness being the hallmark of good blog writing), than posting the various drafts of the novel.
The writer might be able to use the blog as a sort of confessional, where the thoughts that accompany the writing process can be hashed out.
A question would come in as to the status and use of the commenting aspect of the blog. Should the writer confess a particular problem and a commenter provide a novel solution, would there be a sense of artistic intregity lost if the writer chose to utilize that solution?
Could such integrity be retained if the novel were authored by “Writer Smith and the blogosphere?”
This is not purely a theoretical question. With the power of the blogosphere to “out” those who are being less than genuine, it becomes a practical question. If a writer were to utilize the thoughts of a commenter without credit, the blogosphere would find out, and it would not only harm the potential sales of the book, but also destroy the writer’s reputation forever.
Would it suffice if the writer “thanked” the blogosphere in the acknowledgement section of the book? This would probably be more fair. After all, writers thank their friends, family, and colleagues for all their gracious help in the creation of the book, why should the blogosphere deserve more credit than them?
As you can tell, these are more than abstract thoughts for me. As an aspiring fiction writer, I honestly want to figure out a place for the blogosphere in my writing life.
well, it looks like you’re on your way. great talking to you.