There are really only two kinds of story-by-committee that I'm aware of: the round robin and the shared world. Round robins always turn into an exercise in writing the next guy into a corner, which can be funny but rarely makes for good fiction. Shared worlds are usually more interesting, but they're also kaleidoscopic by nature, lacking a single unified storyline. In the absence of a firm editorial hand, it's also still possible for one writer to box the others in.
So, I'm trying something different.
A wiki interface has the potential to eliminate the problems of other mass collaborations by allowing everyone to edit what anyone else has done, including rolling the whole thing back to an earlier version. This may turn out to be a terrible idea, but there doesn't seem to be much to lose by experimenting with it.
Wil McCarthy <wmcca...@sff.net> wrote: > There are really only two kinds of story-by-committee that I'm aware of: > the round robin and the shared world. Round robins always turn into an > exercise in writing the next guy into a corner, which can be funny but > rarely makes for good fiction.
Not always; the only one I've participated in worked out just fine. The styles came out a bit hodgepodge, but that could have been editable if we'd cared to.
(Oh, wait, I participated in another one that never got finished, but that was due to Real Life interfering, not people being written into a corner. We managed the style issue in that one with each of us three authors taking a different point of view character.)
I presume you're restricting 'by committee' to 3+ writers; there are many more ways that 2 writers can manage it. One I've used with my sister is to sit down on the couch, get in a really silly mood, and... well, it involves someone tossing out sentences and someone rephrasing them and both agreeing and one typing, but it's a seamless enough process that if one may count verbal communication as telepathy that it's almost a hivemind approach.
Doing that with 3+ people would require some very compatible people, but it ought to be possible.
<snip>
> So, I'm trying something different.
> A wiki interface has the potential to eliminate the problems of other > mass collaborations by allowing everyone to edit what anyone else has > done, including rolling the whole thing back to an earlier version. This > may turn out to be a terrible idea, but there doesn't seem to be much to > lose by experimenting with it.
> The text is all publicly readable, but to edit you need to join the wiki > as a member. There is also a link from the front page of my website.
I'd consider participating if it were Creative Commons or similar, but if I'm giving up my work for free there'd have to be something really special about it for me to be willing to give my copyright over to someone in particular.
Also, "providing only your best work" is offputting to me. I wouldn't consider going in and writing "aslfjaskldf;" -- and I'm happy with registration in order to prevent people doing that sort of thing -- but just as in brainstorming groups are told "No idea is too stupid to put out there," so I think wikis work best with no restrictions: even if you're adding crap, it can be fixed later (by you or someone else), and even if the best way to fix it turns out to be to delete it, that crap might fertilise someone else's brilliant idea. --This is aside from the fact that the instant I've got "providing only my best work" in my mind I can't write a word of anything.
Good luck with it though; hopefully you'll find enough people suited to the way you want to run things to make it a worthwhile experiment.
(And if anyone on rasfc wants to try some kind of creative commons wiki or instant messaging thing, count me in. But IME such things have worked best -- experience and product both -- when it's utter whacktastic "I Had My Homicidal Ex-Girlfriend's Lovechild" fun.)
Zeborah wrote: > (And if anyone on rasfc wants to try some kind of creative commons wiki > or instant messaging thing, count me in. But IME such things have > worked best -- experience and product both -- when it's utter > whacktastic "I Had My Homicidal Ex-Girlfriend's Lovechild" fun.)
I'd gladly contribute Linda and Marty to have Continuing Adventures, but I first have to get them out of this zoo they're stuck in with a model called Bambi!
Zeborah wrote: > I'd consider participating if it were Creative Commons or similar, but > if I'm giving up my work for free there'd have to be something really > special about it for me to be willing to give my copyright over to > someone in particular.
The "for free" part is inaccurate; as I say in the introduction, in the unlikely event that any revenues are generated, they'll be shared among the participants.
I'm a big fan of Creative Commons, but traditional publishers won't touch it. Similarly, on a personal level I'd be very happy to split the copyright among everyone who participates at any level. But again, that kind of arrangement would send publishers screaming for the bomb shelter. Still, I'm curious: is it possible to crowdsource something that's actually publishable, in both artistic and licensing terms, while also rewarding the contributors in a rational way? Hence this experiment.
<shrug>
No harm done if it doesn't work, but it seems worth a try.
In article <13nl30u28aqt...@corp.supernews.com> wmcca...@sff.net "Wil McCarthy" writes:
> I'm a big fan of Creative Commons, but traditional publishers won't > touch it. Similarly, on a personal level I'd be very happy to split the > copyright among everyone who participates at any level. But again, that > kind of arrangement would send publishers screaming for the bomb > shelter. Still, I'm curious: is it possible to crowdsource something > that's actually publishable, in both artistic and licensing terms, while > also rewarding the contributors in a rational way? Hence this experiment.
My instinct says to organise it as a kind of anthology: it has an "editor" (it probably will anyhow) who is the publisher's contact point with the project; this legal entity (who could be more than one person, in fact) signs an agreement with the contributors who work through him/her/it/them, as with an anthology; and meanwhile the publisher can use its standard anthology mechanisms, although appropriate credits should be specified in its agreement with the editor -- I suspect there'd also be a preface which discussed the project's genesis and execution. -- Andrew Stephenson
