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.

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?

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.