collaborative writing

To start a page for your nanowrimo novel, short story, film script etc you just have to edit the page, write two words (or more) together with cap letters ex: NewPage would create the "seed" page for your project. To add content to the new page, you just have to click on the question mark next to it: it'll make it a hyperlink when you'll get back there later. You have to try it to see how sweet and simple it is :-)

If anyone got a question on this don't hesitate and ask, I'll do my best to answer when I'll get back from work.

for all that people scoff at the art by committee idea, pop music (and ROCK music, and indie music, etc.) and film are successful collaborative artforms, for all that critics try to impose a heroic-auteur model onto them. So why not writing as well?

anyway, ben and dom stud to thread

Well, you just count the number of times you've used the word "bootyflakes" and then you know.

Collaborative writing doesn't often result in lasting or 'great' literature, but it is certainly a bit of harmless fun and is far more stimulating than watching the television. Think of it as another drinking game.

There was also collaboration between poets and calligraphers and painters in Japan (though often two or all three of those roles might be played by one person), to produce scrolls. I think this (and the prominence of monochrome ink illustration at the top of Japan's artistic tree) is why comics are so comfortably accepted in Japan.

http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=CollaborativeWriting&wikiid=2315&wpid=

"Analysing society as a hypercomplex conglomerate of social subsystems, Luhmann insists that modern societies are so complex that his own theory of social complexity can offer only one possible formulation of the social among others. "
this collaborative writing project could add many other formulation,
a multiplicity depicting being @ multiplicity.

Which brings me to my second point: speed and search

If only ixlor were faster and the search was Google's. I estimated that less than 1000 pages are index by Google

Replace Pete by your name: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22pete%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Filx.wh3rd.net

But technically writing is a collaborative artform. You have your suthor, and your publisher, and your editor, and in some cases your illustrator, etc. But having more than one author proper sounds difficult to work. Not impossible, just difficult. Like having three drummers for a band.

2 comments that I liked there:

"I think this is a great idea as well. There are many collaborative short story boards on the web that work with one person writing the opening and each other writer following in sequence. Usually after a few entries they dry up or get rather silly. People tend to start with great sounding openings which somehow leave others no idea on how to follow up. An opening should lead to a plot, and thinking up an entire plot is almost as much work as writing a story yourself - and then if nobody else sees potential in your plot the collaborative project fizzles. Ideally someone who has a completed story which they still like but know is not usable as is would provide a seed - and hopefully a printable story with three or four co-authors would result. I would enjoy working on someone else's story - or have a couple of potential seeds if nobody else does. -- DavidWeisman "

"Well put, David. I used to run a seres of collaborative fiction games online (via InternetRelayChat), and I discovered that they worked best when we had established a few rules. Too many rules caused authors to seize up, while too few rules caused degeneration of the story into silliness or inanity. It might be worthwhile setting up a Wiki with a few established writing rules, perhaps including an intended direction for a few stories. -- BrentNewhall "

To optimize it's chances of success, I think each writing project should democratically establish a custom-made set of rules/recommendations/methodologies.

Q : What is "scrytch"?

A : scrytch grew out of a need to write. more specifically, scrytch grew out
of the need to try out collaborative prose in a networked forum. the idea was
that multiple authors could combine various approaches and ideas, and that the
finished work would be richer than the sum of its parts.

the problem was that the e.list environment [in which scrytch is now being
done] wasn't conducive to "finished" works, long works, or even necessarily
collaborative works. the first two problems were /almost/ limitations of the
medium, and the last had to do with a raging debate in lit circles about
authorial property and appropriation.

what we ended up doing to come up with scrytch was concede: "ok, let's say that
we treat this prose as a sort of compost-pile, memetic silage, idea-humus? and
more, what if we all agree that for the purposes of scrytch, words are fluid;
it's a writing exercise, so let's say we can all appropriate freely bits and
bytes from each others' scrytch? we can maybe publish 'anthologies' of scrytch
some day, but can't sell 'em, and can't claim it all as any one of ours? what
do we get out of this individually? well, we get to see if collaborative prose
can even WORK in the network environment. we get to try out those cut-up and
appropriation writing techniques that Burroughs warned us about. we get to
develop 100% net-rooted prose if we want. we get to try ANYTHING topic or
approach-wise, and we get to hone our respective styles in relation to the
other scrytchers, so that when we DO go out and write a larger piece for sale
or whatnot, we've had the hands-in-the-dirt practice with freedom of ideas and
style to do it well!"

so this is what we agreed on, and now a bunch of writers are scrytching.