Happy new year!
Dirk van den Boom
at least one bestseller each and an award for everyone.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> I wish everyone a happy new year, lots of sold manuscripts, at least one
> bestseller each and an award for everyone.
I can second those wishes! And a million-dollar movie deal for those
willing to risk it. :)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Suzanne Blom
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hhl0sm$ea8$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dirk van den Boom wrote:
>> I wish everyone a happy new year, lots of sold manuscripts, at least one
>> bestseller each and an award for everyone.
>
> I can second those wishes! And a million-dollar movie deal for those
> willing to risk it. :)
>
survive that unscathed.)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Rowling and King seem to still be alive.
Michelle Bottorff
> Suzanne Blom wrote:
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:hhl0sm$ea8$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Dirk van den Boom wrote:
> >>> I wish everyone a happy new year, lots of sold manuscripts, at least one
> >>> bestseller each and an award for everyone.
> >> I can second those wishes! And a million-dollar movie deal for those
> >> willing to risk it. :)
> >>
> > Thirded!
Fourthed.
...Quartered?
>;)
> >(But no more than one movie deal. I don't think anyone could
> > survive that unscathed.)
> >
> >
>
> Rowling and King seem to still be alive.
Ah, but are they *unscathed*? :)
I don't want to have someone else make movies of my stuff half so much
as I want a chance for *me* to be involved in making movies of my stuff.
What are the odds of that one happening?
But I've always been really fascinated by that medium.
The weird thing is how little interested in writing scripts... it's the
production department I want to get my grubby little hands on.
Costumes, props, sets, minatures... :drooooool:
And I'd like to learn a whole lot more about cameras and lights too.
Ah well.
--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Suzanne Blom wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hhl0sm$ea8$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Dirk van den Boom wrote:
>>>>> I wish everyone a happy new year, lots of sold manuscripts, at least one
>>>>> bestseller each and an award for everyone.
>>>> I can second those wishes! And a million-dollar movie deal for those
>>>> willing to risk it. :)
>>>>
>>> Thirded!
>
> Fourthed.
>
> ...Quartered?
>> ;)
>
>>> (But no more than one movie deal. I don't think anyone could
>>> survive that unscathed.)
>>>
>>>
>> Rowling and King seem to still be alive.
>
> Ah, but are they *unscathed*? :)
>
>
> I don't want to have someone else make movies of my stuff half so much
> as I want a chance for *me* to be involved in making movies of my stuff.
>
With me, it's purely a matter of money. If you're the right person and
you'll give me some creative control, I'll demand no money up front,
just a percentage of the gross.
If you want to take, say, Digital Knight and cast Arnold Schwarzenegger
as Jason and end with him beating each monster to death by hand without
resorting to any thought whatsoever, fine, as long as the amount of
money you offer is large. I can always just say "Hey, they paid me
*pinky in mouth* ten... MILLION... dollars for it."
Ric Locke
The problem is that movies require a collective effort. Producers,
directors, stars, writers, down to grips and drivers, everybody in the
system has to contribute -- and contribute /creatively/. The writer of
the book starts it. Then there's the screenplay writer, who's as much of
an egotist as any writer, perhaps more so, and has to add his or her
creative vision. Then there's the producer, who wants to make a
particular kind of movie or one with a particular point, and regards the
script (and even more so the book) as a jumping off point to reach that
goal. The director has day-to-day control of what actually gets on film,
and has his own creative input plus a valid need to adjust the details
of the story so they fit the medium and available resources (that last
often being tragic; New Zealand is beautiful but is /not/ the Shire).
Actors often have their own input, unfortunately often an attempt to
adjust the story to fit a characterization they're comfortable with
instead of the one in the original story.
It's not exactly a committee, but it is a group effort. It's actually a
wonder that any decent movies have ever been made.
Bill Swears
The director has day-to-day control of what actually gets on film,
> and has his own creative input plus a valid need to adjust the details
> of the story so they fit the medium and available resources (that last
> often being tragic; New Zealand is beautiful but is /not/ the Shire).
Responses vary. The opening scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring had me
tearing up because Jackson had captured the Shire of my imagination so
very well. I'm gonna go watch it again.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
David Friedman
Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net> wrote:
> Ric Locke wrote:
> The director has day-to-day control of what actually gets on film,
> > and has his own creative input plus a valid need to adjust the details
> > of the story so they fit the medium and available resources (that last
> > often being tragic; New Zealand is beautiful but is /not/ the Shire).
>
> Responses vary. The opening scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring had me
> tearing up because Jackson had captured the Shire of my imagination so
> very well. I'm gonna go watch it again.
On the other hand, the scene with Arwen showing off by sneaking up on
Aragorn, and the wizard's duel between Gandalf and Saruman, got the feel
entirely wrong--and were among the reasons that I never saw the second
and third movies.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <-bydnWYr2pycMqPW...@posted.mtasolutions>,
> Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net> wrote:
>
>> Ric Locke wrote:
>> The director has day-to-day control of what actually gets on film,
>>> and has his own creative input plus a valid need to adjust the details
>>> of the story so they fit the medium and available resources (that last
>>> often being tragic; New Zealand is beautiful but is /not/ the Shire).
>> Responses vary. The opening scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring had me
>> tearing up because Jackson had captured the Shire of my imagination so
>> very well. I'm gonna go watch it again.
>
> On the other hand, the scene with Arwen showing off by sneaking up on
> Aragorn, and the wizard's duel between Gandalf and Saruman, got the feel
> entirely wrong--and were among the reasons that I never saw the second
> and third movies.
>
I don't necessarily agree, but it doesn't matter; if I got paid a
hundredth of what those movies made, or even half that, it wouldn't
matter to ME how close or far they got to the books; the movies wouldn't
change the books, they WOULD sell about a billion copies of the books
(making me a ton more money), and the only people who'd really suffer by
it would be over-fanatical fanboys/fangirls.
Bill Swears
>>
>> On the other hand, the scene with Arwen showing off by sneaking up on
>> Aragorn, and the wizard's duel between Gandalf and Saruman, got the
>> feel entirely wrong--and were among the reasons that I never saw the
>> second and third movies.
I somewhat agree about Arwen, but I really enjoyed the old-guy dust up.
>
> I don't necessarily agree, but it doesn't matter; if I got paid a
> hundredth of what those movies made, or even half that, it wouldn't
> matter to ME how close or far they got to the books; the movies wouldn't
> change the books, they WOULD sell about a billion copies of the books
> (making me a ton more money), and the only people who'd really suffer by
> it would be over-fanatical fanboys/fangirls.
>
Jackson really courted the fan boys and girls. The first movie had
great buzz from the start, and it was book fans who generated it. The
characters that didn't work so well for me were both women. Arwen stole
Glorfindl's thunder, and even Frodo came off less well in the movie
because they gave the good bits to Liv Tyler following the attack on
weathertop. And Liv Tyler, even though I thought she looked the part
pretty well, just isn't an action hero. She'd have done better playing
the role more traditionally, IMO. Then Cate Blanchett's Galadrial was
so over the top she pulled me out of the movie.
Eric Ammadon
>With me, it's purely a matter of money.
Sad, sad, unfortunate, but it may be true, and I'll miss your writing
after you've gone off to work as a fry-cook to make the big bucks.
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
Eric Ammadon
I suspect it has something to do with starlets, casting couches, and
money.
[Damn, I'm getting more cynical by the second!]
Dirk van den Boom
> With me, it's purely a matter of money. If you're the right person
> and you'll give me some creative control, I'll demand no money up front,
> just a percentage of the gross.
Damn it, I would even accept Asylum making a movie out of
one of my books. Just for the fun of it.
Ric Locke
So you do concede the existence of OVER-fanatical fanboys/fangirls?
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
My dear boy, everything has to do with sex and money.
It's just that some people have discovered that if they take their minds
off the main goals for a while, when they return to it they get more.
This is the foundation principle of Western civilization.
Regards,
Ric
Eric Ammadon
I disagree that everything _must_ be about sex and money, though I'll
concede that that seems to be the way modern society is set up.
There is no such thing as "Western civilization" imo, that's a phrase
people use when they don't want to admit to how ridiculous a society
based on sex and money is.
I gotta work on that cynicism thing. Later, yeah, that's it, I'll do
that later...
Here's the view from this lunatic's bin. Sex is fine if the lady of
the house chooses to make her desires clear, otherwise I have better
things to do than chase after it. Money I avoid as much as possible
because I once had a chunk of it and the damned stuff is far more
trouble than it's worth, it's like having a bunch of minions who
require constant care and feeding, and again I have better things to
do.
And now I must submit to the receipt of my morning meds prior to
resuming my occupation of pounding my head against the padding...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> With me, it's purely a matter of money.
>
> Sad, sad, unfortunate, but it may be true, and I'll miss your writing
> after you've gone off to work as a fry-cook to make the big bucks.
>
I mean, it's a matter of money as to whether I give a damn about what
they with the story on screen. More money, less worry.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sure. Any who froth over details I don't care about are overfanatical.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With me, it's purely a matter of money.
>>
>> Sad, sad, unfortunate, but it may be true, and I'll miss your writing
>> after you've gone off to work as a fry-cook to make the big bucks.
>>
>
> I mean, it's a matter of money as to whether I give a damn about
> what they with the story on screen. More money, less worry.
>
"about what they *DO* with the story", I mean. Early-morning posting is
always fraught with peril.
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With me, it's purely a matter of money.
>>
>> Sad, sad, unfortunate, but it may be true, and I'll miss your writing
>> after you've gone off to work as a fry-cook to make the big bucks.
>>
>
> I mean, it's a matter of money as to whether I give a damn about what
>they with the story on screen. More money, less worry.
If you start out with zero worry then anything is a bonus. <g>
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> There is no such thing as "Western civilization" imo, that's a phrase
> people use when they don't want to admit to how ridiculous a society
> based on sex and money is.
>
That makes it sound as though you think that what gets called western
civilization is based more on sex and money than other human cultures.
Do you?
Eric Ammadon
>In article <fiiuj55tui25ivrgr...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "Western civilization" imo, that's a phrase
>> people use when they don't want to admit to how ridiculous a society
>> based on sex and money is.
>>
>
>That makes it sound as though you think that what gets called western
>civilization is based more on sex and money than other human cultures.
>Do you?
No opinion of "other human cultures" based on no experience with same.
Any culture based even partly on fear is going to be pretty well hosed
up, and money is a demonstration of societal fear.
Michelle Bottorff
If I'm rich enough I can make my own movies.
Selling movie rights to one property in order to get enough of the
wherewithal to work on another one wouldn't be a big deal to me, I don't
think. It's not like I've got any shortage of ideas.
Michelle Bottorff
> The problem is that movies require a collective effort. Producers,
> directors, stars, writers, down to grips and drivers, everybody in the
> system has to contribute -- and contribute /creatively/.
That may be the problem, but it's also one of the things that fascinates
me about the medium.
I used to be really good, as a kid, at 'directing' free form
role-playing (ie. lets pretend) games -- taking everyone's contribution
and tying it into the main activity and keeping things going smoothly.
I am the fourth child in my family, but in spite being far from eldest,
I was largely the "ring-leader" amoung us kids, and it was that ability,
the ability to accept other people's creative contributions and make
them work together, that won me that place.
But nowadays I never seem to do any form of collaborative creativity.
Maybe I've become more egotistical?
Maybe I've learned humilty?
Maybe, somehow, both at once?
At any rate, I have no interest in joining in any "lets all tell a story
together" games, and I can't seem to find the oomph to DM roleplaying
games anymore either. I have so many stories of my own that I want to
tell, and I find working on those so exhausting, there's just nothing
left over for group projects.
And I just can't seem to convince myself that looking for people to work
with me on my stories would be anything other than a waste of energy.
Why would anyone who was any good want to work on *my* story, when they
could be working on their own?
But most of my dreams involving "being rich" are about hiring creative
people to work on projects with me. That and a house that I actually
like, somewhere where I don't have to worry about my neighbors making me
ill.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <fiiuj55tui25ivrgr...@4ax.com>,
> > Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> >
> >> There is no such thing as "Western civilization" imo, that's a phrase
> >> people use when they don't want to admit to how ridiculous a society
> >> based on sex and money is.
> >>
> >
> >That makes it sound as though you think that what gets called western
> >civilization is based more on sex and money than other human cultures.
> >Do you?
>
> No opinion of "other human cultures" based on no experience with same.
Which makes it hard for me to understand why you think "Western
civilization" is used in the way you describe.
> Any culture based even partly on fear is going to be pretty well hosed
> up, and money is a demonstration of societal fear.
I can make very little sense of either half of that. Any functional
culture will include ways of dealing with things that people fear--for
instance institutions to produce and distribute food, since people don't
want to starve to death. Does that count on "based even partly on fear?"
Eric Ammadon
>In article <dpsuj55etlod0qj6u...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <fiiuj55tui25ivrgr...@4ax.com>,
>> > Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is no such thing as "Western civilization" imo, that's a phrase
>> >> people use when they don't want to admit to how ridiculous a society
>> >> based on sex and money is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That makes it sound as though you think that what gets called western
>> >civilization is based more on sex and money than other human cultures.
>> >Do you?
>>
>> No opinion of "other human cultures" based on no experience with same.
>
>Which makes it hard for me to understand
Some things are easier to understand than others.
> why you think "Western
>civilization" is used in the way you describe.
People prefer to think themselves civilized and superior beings
nevermind that the vast majority of their lives comprises scraping and
bowing to materiality.
>> Any culture based even partly on fear is going to be pretty well hosed
>> up, and money is a demonstration of societal fear.
>
>I can make very little sense of either half of that.
Yes, well, as an economics professor you're handicapped in that
respect, it isn't your fault.
> Any functional culture will include
That's quite a pontification, please do read it carefully and consider
all that it implies, sir.
>ways of dealing with things that people fear-
If people are foolish enough to indulge fear, then indulge it they
must.
>-for
>instance institutions to produce and distribute food, since people don't
>want to starve to death.
I apologize, for I cannot comprehend this. Do people believe that if
they avoid starvation they will live forever? I find that foolish
since all the evidence is to the contrary. Do they believe that
starvation is a more vile form of death than for example dying of
cancer? I have not died from either but reports seem to indicate that
starvation is more peaceful and less painful than death by cancer.
What then is the benefit of avoiding starvation, precisely? I will
tell you what I think, I think that death by starvation is considered
dishonorable while death in an automobile accident when your Rolls
Royce slams into a bridge abutment is considered honorable though
unfortunate.
Do you have any concept of how difficult it is to actually die of
starvation in a country where weight-loss constitutes a billion-dollar
industry, where enough food to feed a family of three is left behind
on the average restaurant table when the customer leaves, where table
scraps are thrown uncerimoniously into garbage cans behind
restaurants?
Starvation is a matter of survival, not a matter of maintaining one's
position within society. In Africa where starvation seems at its
highest, is the populace surrounded by fences that separates it from
what is left of the local wilderness? Are there no edible
domesticated animals? Nothing whatsoever that can be eaten to sustain
life?
People starve because they are incapable of violating society's value
systems, they are afraid of death the unavoidable, they are afraid of
being ostracized, and frankly those who starve for societal reasons
instead of purely physical reasons are probably no great loss to
society and they are also probably better off dead than living as
slaves to the kind of society that places status above life.
> Does that count on "based even partly on fear?"
Yes. Death is said to be unavoidable. Fear-based societies (and all
that I know of on this planet are fear-based) are rackets that extort
obeisance from the fearful.
Now consider it from another perspective. What if you have survived
the fits and starts of society and achieved that state known as
"retirement".
When your needs are met, what will you do? Sit before the TV and
collect various fungi on your rotting carcass? Or will you actually
do what you wish to do, the things that you find fulfilling for
whatever reasons?
Each human has a need to _do_ something. Write a book, paint a
picture, tinker with mechanisms, we all have "our own work" so to
speak. For some their work of fulfillment is gardening.
Farmers grow crops. That is what they do because they are farmers.
It is their nature. If you leave those people alone they will till
fields because it is what makes them feel fulfilled. They like it.
Inventors invent. Writers write. Painters paint.
Retire the whole lot at once. The need to regulate scarce resources
is no more than the need of one particularly fearful group to have
power over others. The only resource that is truly scarce is human
cooperation.
Now imagine yourself faced by an honest to gosh real live alien. An
alien from a world that is free of fear, where there are no submission
rituals, no forms of obeisance that must be paid.
How then will you explain to that confused being the lamentable state
of affairs on planet Earth? Will you attempt to confuse it with
theories about credit buying and free markets? It would laugh in your
face.
Eric Ammadon
One of these days I hope to make available a website where writers can
work on cooperative writing projects. Much like a role-playing game,
much like a chat session, much like a usenet group, where each player
writes for a given character, where there is a narrator to keep the
story moving in some direction. Kind of like "discussion for fun and
profit". I think it could be a blast.
Michelle Bottorff
> One of these days I hope to make available a website where writers can
> work on cooperative writing projects. Much like a role-playing game,
> much like a chat session, much like a usenet group, where each player
> writes for a given character, where there is a narrator to keep the
> story moving in some direction. Kind of like "discussion for fun and
> profit". I think it could be a blast.
This is done all the time. It's precisely the sort of thing I was
referring to when I said I didn't seem to have the energy/desire to join
any "lets all tell a story together" games.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> One of these days I hope to make available a website where writers can
> work on cooperative writing projects. Much like a role-playing game,
> much like a chat session, much like a usenet group, where each player
> writes for a given character, where there is a narrator to keep the
> story moving in some direction.
That's not "much like" a roleplaying game, that *IS* a roleplaying
game, specifically exactly like the many community-based RPGs that you
can find on LJ and similar areas. I belong to one, based around the
Torchwood/Doctor Who universe, and of course I've been running PBEM RPGs
for longer than, I think, anyone else in the world (I ran my first PBEM
RPG in 1977-1978).
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> One of these days I hope to make available a website where writers can
>> work on cooperative writing projects. Much like a role-playing game,
>> much like a chat session, much like a usenet group, where each player
>> writes for a given character, where there is a narrator to keep the
>> story moving in some direction. Kind of like "discussion for fun and
>> profit". I think it could be a blast.
>
>This is done all the time. It's precisely the sort of thing I was
>referring to when I said I didn't seem to have the energy/desire to join
>any "lets all tell a story together" games.
I'm not exactly talking about games. I'm talking about a fun
interface to a thing that would produce a publishable book. In an
environment where exposing the book beyond the authoring crew would be
optional. If it's done all the time, I haven't seen it (but I'm a
late bloomer in many ways).
Eric Ammadon
So where are the published books that result from people playing with
those toys?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Well, pieces of several my published works were gamed out; The Balanced
Sword, currently in submission at Baen, is very much derived from a
couple of campaigns I ran/played in.
The kind of thing you describe doesn't result, by itself, in
publishable work. Even if all of the participants were experienced
authors, and the contributions were all appropriate and you needed no
changes to the basic plot (and with the kind of thing you're describing,
that's terribly unlikely, if for no other reason than that things tend
to develop during writing that can for many authors necessitate "going
back" to add or remove material), you'd still need a fair amount of work
to smooth over the joins, bring the writing styles into a coherent
alignment, and so on. While using more than one writer has the advantage
of keeping different narrative "voices" for the characters (something my
wife and I found very useful in writing our Saint Seiya material), the
overall writing style has to be unified or it becomes extremely jarring.
This is true even with regular collaborative works; Eric Flint is
working on his parts of _Threshold_ now, but when he's done, that won't
mean the BOOK is done; it'll mean that I have to go through both his
pieces and mine to make sure it all feels like one book, not like
something cobbled together out of dissimilar pieces.
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of these days I hope to make available a website where writers can
>>>> work on cooperative writing projects. Much like a role-playing game,
>>>> much like a chat session, much like a usenet group, where each player
>>>> writes for a given character, where there is a narrator to keep the
>>>> story moving in some direction.
>>>
>>> That's not "much like" a roleplaying game, that *IS* a roleplaying
>>> game, specifically exactly like the many community-based RPGs that you
>>> can find on LJ and similar areas. I belong to one, based around the
>>> Torchwood/Doctor Who universe, and of course I've been running PBEM RPGs
>>> for longer than, I think, anyone else in the world (I ran my first PBEM
>>> RPG in 1977-1978).
>>
>> So where are the published books that result from people playing with
>> those toys?
>>
>
> Well, pieces of several my published works were gamed out; The Balanced
>Sword, currently in submission at Baen, is very much derived from a
>couple of campaigns I ran/played in.
>
> The kind of thing you describe doesn't result, by itself, in
>publishable work.
If we're talking about a clutter of illiterates I'd agree.
> Even if all of the participants were experienced
>authors, and the contributions were all appropriate and you needed no
>changes to the basic plot (and with the kind of thing you're describing,
>that's terribly unlikely, if for no other reason than that things tend
>to develop during writing that can for many authors necessitate "going
>back" to add or remove material), you'd still need a fair amount of work
>to smooth over the joins, bring the writing styles into a coherent
>alignment, and so on.
That's probably true and I'd see it as part of the ongoing work of the
narrator.
>While using more than one writer has the advantage
>of keeping different narrative "voices" for the characters (something my
>wife and I found very useful in writing our Saint Seiya material), the
>overall writing style has to be unified or it becomes extremely jarring.
I'd not expect two or more writers with jarringly different styles to
be willing to work together. Styles are an embodiment of something
and I'd expect that only fairly compatible groupings would choose to
play together.
> This is true even with regular collaborative works; Eric Flint is
>working on his parts of _Threshold_ now, but when he's done, that won't
>mean the BOOK is done; it'll mean that I have to go through both his
>pieces and mine to make sure it all feels like one book, not like
>something cobbled together out of dissimilar pieces.
I'm not talking about something that would enable any arbitrary
collection of clowns to gab up a publishable novel. I'm mostly
talking about creating a tool to make the grunt-work as trivial as it
should be so the writers involved in group authorship don't waste a
lot of unnecessary time and effort. I suspect that one of the reasons
there aren't more collaborative novels is that the mechanics of
putting it together are almost overwhelming.
Take _Threshold_ which you and Eric Flint are working on together as
an example. If you could both log on, at either the same or different
times, each of your changes was immediately visible to the other,
there was a separate chatter-channel for discussion, and you could
revert to any desired version, wouldn't that make it a lot easier?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Take _Threshold_ which you and Eric Flint are working on together as
> an example. If you could both log on, at either the same or different
> times, each of your changes was immediately visible to the other,
> there was a separate chatter-channel for discussion, and you could
> revert to any desired version, wouldn't that make it a lot easier?
>
No. All those tools exist already, really, but that's not the way
either of us would work in any sense EFFICIENTLY. We hash out the basic
outline in such a manner, using that cutting-edge thing called a
telephone (and sometimes verifying with email), but the main writing is
done by having one of us write the first draft, the other insert his
stuff and tweak the first draft, and then the first one go over and
smooth out the joins.
Without that, the story doesn't get written as a continuous narrative;
it's getting broken up by each back-and-forth. You can do a process such
as you describe with something like, say, a computer program that has a
clear final state and set of inputs/outputs, but that's not really the
case with a novel.
I've written stuff with my wife and even there it's still best to go
back-and-forth with fairly large chunks each time, and she's often
literally sitting next to me.
Bill Swears
> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>
>> Take _Threshold_ which you and Eric Flint are working on together as
>> an example. If you could both log on, at either the same or different
>> times, each of your changes was immediately visible to the other,
>> there was a separate chatter-channel for discussion, and you could
>> revert to any desired version, wouldn't that make it a lot easier?
>>
>
> No. All those tools exist already, really, but that's not the way
> either of us would work in any sense EFFICIENTLY. We hash out the basic
> outline in such a manner, using that cutting-edge thing called a
> telephone (and sometimes verifying with email), but the main writing is
> done by having one of us write the first draft, the other insert his
> stuff and tweak the first draft, and then the first one go over and
> smooth out the joins.
>
to do what Eric suggests, and might like it. I've even worked with a
friend to produce an important power point in that way. I was the one
running the power point program, and the search engine. She stood over
my shoulder, and we both contributed intellectually, including her
suggesting search terms. It was effective, and quick, and I would
absolutely hate trying to produce a novel that way.
Dramatis Personae:
(Harlan)
[Bill]
Jack went down the hall. (he loped down the hall, he's in a hurry). [No,
he scurried down the hall, if he's caught the whole plan goes to hell]
(yabbut, scurrying seems sneaky in a bad way. Maybe he should slide
rapidly. Also, they call them passageways in that particular service,
because they have a strong nautical tradition.) [OK already]
Jack scurried nobly along the passageway, head high, buoyed along by the
fires of righteousness. (try loped silently, and you don't have to be
such a wiseass) [You know, it's January. At this pace we'll finish the
first five pages sometime in June.]
Bill
Michelle Bottorff
> Jack went down the hall. (he loped down the hall, he's in a hurry). [No,
> he scurried down the hall, if he's caught the whole plan goes to hell]
> (yabbut, scurrying seems sneaky in a bad way. Maybe he should slide
> rapidly. Also, they call them passageways in that particular service,
> because they have a strong nautical tradition.) [OK already]
>
> Jack scurried nobly along the passageway, head high, buoyed along by the
> fires of righteousness. (try loped silently, and you don't have to be
> such a wiseass) [You know, it's January. At this pace we'll finish the
> first five pages sometime in June.]
Lol!
Eric Ammadon
Either (a) you're not getting it and I'm too lazy to put forth the
effort to clarify sufficiently, or (b) you're disagreeing for the sake
of disagreeing and I'm too apathetic to get worked up over it; by all
means carry on as you always have, the ox is fully capable of pulling
the plow and it does not require gasoline.
David Goldfarb
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>If you could both log on, at either the same or different
>times, each of your changes was immediately visible to the other,
>there was a separate chatter-channel for discussion, and you could
>revert to any desired version, wouldn't that make it a lot easier?
Sounds rather like Google Wave.
--
David Goldfarb | "Oh, death from on high. Neat."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Tom Servo, Mystery Science Theater 3000
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Gamera"
Bill Swears
It's a nine and sixty ways thing. There are people who'd almost
definitely like the process you've outlined. But for most of us,
writing is very internal, and more or less solitary. Even when we
collaborate, it's easier to do it with the buffer of submitting more or
less completed sections to each other. For me, it's because I
occasionally play with ideas that aren't consistent with the body of the
story, and that I don't want to share. I want to go through that
process alone, whenever possible.
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> I've written stuff with my wife and even there it's still best to go
>>> back-and-forth with fairly large chunks each time, and she's often
>>> literally sitting next to me.
>>
>> Either (a) you're not getting it and I'm too lazy to put forth the
>> effort to clarify sufficiently, or (b) you're disagreeing for the sake
>> of disagreeing and I'm too apathetic to get worked up over it; by all
>> means carry on as you always have, the ox is fully capable of pulling
>> the plow and it does not require gasoline.
>>
>Eric,
>
> It's a nine and sixty ways thing. There are people who'd almost
>definitely like the process you've outlined. But for most of us,
>writing is very internal, and more or less solitary. Even when we
>collaborate, it's easier to do it with the buffer of submitting more or
>less completed sections to each other. For me, it's because I
>occasionally play with ideas that aren't consistent with the body of the
>story, and that I don't want to share. I want to go through that
>process alone, whenever possible.
>
>Bill
I too write best in the deepest solitude of night.
I have not made the concept the least bit clear, and I think the
easiest way to do that is to simply continue implementing it and let
beta users figure it out once it's ready (which will not be
overnight). But I'll offer some more words about it, for whatever
that is worth.
First, I personally find every text editor ever written to be
inadequate when it comes to writing anything beyond chapter-length.
What I personally need, in order to keep it straight once I've been
unable to resist the urge to tweak it a little here and there, is
something that lets me work with the thing as sections and layers. I
want to move a chunk of text here or there, and whatever amount of
text that is, I'm thinking of it as a "section". I want to flip
between the actual text and the formal plot, and when I shift text I
want it reflected in both places. I may work on the text for quite a
while before I begin to determine the plot, or vice versa. I want
some mechanical assists with characters, for example if I choose to
rename a character that should be quick and easy, not some protracted
edit/overtype affair, and I don't want to dig around for my notes on
each character. I want the output to be available as a .doc file or
as html. That's to begin with, and it's certainly well within the
envelope of technical feasibility.
Secondly, the fact that I envision chat-channels as being either
realtime or delayed (as usenet groups are delayed) is almost
irrelevant unless one wishes to make use of it instead of a telephone,
though being able to go back and see precisely what was said can be a
definite advantage.
Third, the fact that multiple users can access the same document does
not mean that you can't work on it in the deepest quiet of night as a
purely solitary activity and without interference. It does mean that
your partner(s) in crime can see your work and what parts you've
changed without waiting for a large document to make its way through
email, spam filters, etc.
Ryk, or whoever else, is free to consider it no more than a goofy
idea, that's up to them. Personally I think that having that kind of
system available, along with memberships that give access to various
categories of people like editors who are shopping manuscripts, beta
readers, or the reading public, could make a big difference. Those
who don't see the potential, or who think the potential nonexistent,
are certainly free to keep hitching the same old ox to the same old
plow.
For now it's a hobbyhorse, I'm not selling anything, it's just talk as
far as anyone but me knows.
Eric Ammadon
>In article <an93k599b5t8rkpch...@4ax.com>,
>Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>>If you could both log on, at either the same or different
>>times, each of your changes was immediately visible to the other,
>>there was a separate chatter-channel for discussion, and you could
>>revert to any desired version, wouldn't that make it a lot easier?
>
>Sounds rather like Google Wave.
I know nothing about "Google Wave" and I'm not the least bit
interested in anything that crew may have on the horizon, blogger has
been quite enough to satisfy my curiousity in that area.