nicola's stories

[Horia Ursu]

nicola is spot-on, as always.
here's my two cents: can't we count nicola's collection of short stories
as an (almost) finished project and have that ready for publication?
after all, it had one of the top 3 spots and it's the nearest to
completion of all the top 3 projects. and, while that is being readied
for publication, we can worry about what to do next and, when it's
rolling, move on to the next project, no matter which we'll end up
picking. assuming (probably hazardously) that anyone will accept my take
on things, can you, nicola, please tell us how accurate is my
supposition? how much time it would take you to assemble the stories, so
we can start working on making a book out of them?
thanks,
horia

[nicola griffith]

It depends on how many new stories the coop feels would be necessary to make the book attractive.  And, giving that I'm writing a novel (my #1 priority--well, my #1 non-Kelley priority), writing a story/stories/novella/whatever would leave no time, zero, for coop herding.  So someone would have to shoulder that.

But I've already written an introduction, and notes on the existing stories (several of which, including "Yaguara," have never been available online, for just this one-day-I-want-people-to-buy-a-book reason).  Possible new pieces: a novella based on my ideas for the sword-swangin' fantasy, a couple of creepy almost mainstream horror stories, a disturbing technology-and-what-is-sexuality thing that I've been meaning to write for years but never had time for, a kind of magic-realism-and-illness story (ditto), maybe a short story based on Jeep (the world of Ammonite).  Naturally, I could only do one long one or perhaps two short ones in a timely manner.

If someone/s took the coop from me, I could have something (this is total guess--as is the list in the para. above) by spring.

But is that what people want?

N

--
www.nicolagriffith.com
http://asknicola.blogspot.com

[Adam Lowe]

Maybe a dual author collection is a better idea, then? I can't see that if leadership changes hands this will continue. But if another writer steps up, and we can somehow assemble a themed collection with two writers, that might work. Of course, it'd be harder to pull together because we'd need stories that fit cohesively despite coming from two writers.

2009/1/15 nicola griffith <gema...@gmail.com>

--
Regards

Adam Lowe

Features Editor
Bent [http://mag.bent.com]
Editor-in-Chief
Polluto [http://www.polluto.com]
Publisher/Editor
Dog Horn Publishing [http://www.doghornpublishing.com]

Mobile: +44 (0) 7906 242 232
Office: +44 (0) 113 279 3573


If you would like to stop receiving these emails, please reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject.

[JenniferD]

I was already thinking about the 'coop herding' and getting someone
else to take it over. I almost made a new thread about it earlier,
but thought I might be jumping the gun. I'm thinking that
administrative stuff is not the best usage of your time and talents.
There are people who have expressed an interest in being a part of
this but don't know what they might do. What about asking for
volunteers to take over most or all of those kinds of duties.

I think that you Nicola, could/would still be best as the Chairperson/
Queen of the coop, but that there are things that someone else could
do.

What say you to that?

Jennifer

On Jan 14, 4:20 pm, "nicola griffith" <gemae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It depends on how many new stories the coop feels would be necessary to make
> the book attractive.  And, giving that I'm writing a novel (my #1
> priority--well, my #1 non-Kelley priority), writing a
> story/stories/novella/whatever would leave no time, zero, for coop herding.
> So someone would have to shoulder that.
>
> But I've already written an introduction, and notes on the existing stories
> (several of which, including "Yaguara," have never been available online,
> for just this one-day-I-want-people-to-buy-a-book reason).  Possible new
> pieces: a novella based on my ideas for the sword-swangin' fantasy, a couple
> of creepy almost mainstream horror stories, a disturbing
> technology-and-what-is-sexuality thing that I've been meaning to write for
> years but never had time for, a kind of magic-realism-and-illness story

> (ditto), maybe a short story based on Jeep (the world of *Ammonite*).

[malinda]

After reading Nicola's response to this thread I thought: Well, I
totally agree that we should think big, but what's wrong with starting
out a bit more modestly so that we can grow from little mistakes? I
mean, if we're going to be publishing/producing work online and in
various non-paper mediums (in addition to paper), couldn't we start
off with, say, a story a month? It would give us something to work on,
we could get to know each other through the work, and as time passes,
hopefully additional stories will be added. Eventually there will be
enough stories to put into one big book.

Also, I was thinking about the word collective. I think it would be
nice if everyone who is "creative" around here and who decided to
"join the collective" had the opportunity to produce something in one
of those months. Like, say we launch in March. March could be a Nicola
story month, and we all gather round and talk about it, and multimedia
could happen too. Then in April someone else creates something that we
talk about, and in May, etc. If we could find, say, 8 people to take
one month each, with a couple of people doing more than one month,
we'd have a year of content (sorry "content" sounds so cold) and a
year to play with the collective idea and see what happens to it. I do
think it needs time to grow, rather than just suddenly sprout up all
huge and giant. (Although that would be nice, I think that really
requires a lot of effort on our parts, and might not be fun anymore.)

I'd love to know what people think about this.

[malinda]

OK, I've already written this once and it got eaten by the internet,
so I'm trying again.

I was reading Nicola's comment and it struck me that yes, I'd love to
think big, but is there anything wrong with starting off a bit more
modestly so that we have time to make mistakes and learn from them? I
mean, it would be great to sprout up all huge and giant right from the
beginning, but that would take a lot of work on our parts, and I think
it would cease to be fun.

I think it would be really great if the "creative" (e.g. writers,
artists, etc.) members of the collective each had a chance to produce
something that we all support and develop. For example, instead of
forcing Nicola to go off on her own for three months to write an
entire book of short stories, at the beginning we could do one story a
month. She could be March, for example, and during March we publish
her story in various mediums (audio, downloadable onto your iPod,
ebook, etc.) and hopefully find a way to make people pay for it (or
donate, if you want, the first couple of months). In April, someone
else creates something that we produce and make available. Meanwhile,
the rest of us go out there into the world and talk about this thing
we've produced and explain how fabulous it is.

If we got, say, 8 people who were interested in producing something
one month (and a few of them wanted to do it twice), we'd have 12
months of content. I think that we'd have to go out there and recruit
some other members, though, either through application or just
twisting their arms.

Anyway, after 8-12 months of doing this, I bet we'd have a lot of the
kinks worked out, and besides, there might be enough stuff to create
one big thing by then.

What do you guys think?

[Karina Melendez]

The discussion seems to keep branching in two main directions: there's the creatives (authors, visual artists, etc.) who want to create, and the publishers/marketers (who are also creative, but let's just call ourselves P/Ms for now) who want a product they can take out into the world.

I don't see any reason why we couldn't work on both branches simultaneously. The P/Ms could start planning on a paperback publication of Nicola's memoir or collection of short stories, and start testing their new marketing ideas. In the meantime, the creatives work on the 12-month chain of short stories plus media. The P/Ms will need to use the Crs' skills at some point to create advertising material, so then there'll be collaboration between the two main teams. Also vice versa, when the Crs have a marketable product, the P/Ms will be called in.

While I agree that this collective should support works by new authors, I don't think it should be its main aim. Quality is quality, new or established. Quality is what we want to do, and do it with a twist and a spark that will be our own. I don't think established authors will really benefit from the collective at this point, if they were just looking to reap some financial advantage, they'd be better off sticking with the current publishing system while it lasts than playing with us kids. I honestly believe they are doing us a humongous favour by offering their work so generously to help us get started with plus points rather than minus.

karina

[Realmcovet]

I agree with you Karina. I like this idea very much!!!

[Bear aka HNU]

Karina has rounded it up very well. I think the old "division of work"
that the marxists preached is exactly what needs to be done. The
Creatives (Shapers*) should play on to make a new product, while we,
the P/Ms (or Mechanists) should stick to what we do best, and try to
create the perfect marketable products from what we already have at
hand and know that is market viable. So far, what we have is Nicola's
memoir and, in due time, we'll have her stories. OK, when do we start?
And what is the deadline?

*Couldn't stop myself from plagiarizing Bruce Sterling's Shapers/
Mechanists dichotomy, it really sounds appropriate.