Open source book development?

[Richard]

If I were to try this model, I'd write a book intended to act as the 'bible' for the story Universe, and then put up a website with details of each location. Then it would be up to individual writers to follow the canon or not. That way, I'd not need to take on a editor role, for which I'm ... temperamentally unsuited.

[Micah]

@Owen: First off, I agree that the open source aspect would be a bust for creating fiction. Too many chefs.

But the game development model, I think, is still valid. And my arguments about that model, not the open source, wild west model.

"It would most likely manifest itself in voice and style, which are what I primarily read for. These things get watered down in a committee project, and things get homogenized.

Only in poorly done projects. Search youtube and watch someone like Rythian from the Yogscast play Dishonored. That game is (or can be if the player so desires) steeped in compelling narrative, and absolutely weeps style and voice. It's an astounding example of excellent game and story design.

"In terms of my original assertion it comes to this: does one believe in the concept of artistic genius or not?"

Interesting assertion, but I don't think it does (and I don't really believe in the common notion of artistic--or any other--genius). Open source would fail not because there is no artistic genius, but because there is simply too much contrary input. Assuming artistic genius is a thing, if you put 12 artistic geniuses on a joint project it would likely still blow up in their faces. So it's not a matter of artistic genius.

I don't believe in artistic genius per se. That is, I don't believe any person is "a" genius. Genius is not a permanent attribute of a person like having brown eyes or curly black hair. Some people certainly are born with more natural apptitude in certain skills than the average person, but even that does not manifest itself as greatness for certain. Most child prodigies are born, blossom, and fade away. Life experience, practice, reading, and training all count for so much more than raw talent.

The etymology of "genius" is interesting. It was originally considered a spirit that would inhabit or inspire a person. One was said to have had a genius, not be a genius. I think that more aptly fits most of the artistic geniuses of the world.

William Gibson had a genius when he wrote Neuromancer. But honestly, that spirit left him immediately afterward (IMHO)

Philip Glass had a genius from about 1967 till about 1987...then he got stuck in the same record groove.

Einstein had several geniuses (genii?) then he kind of didn't.

Kasimir Malevich had a major one from 1915 till about 1927, then Stalinist Russia's heavy boot fell and the spirit fled him in terror.

Very few artistic geniuses produced remarkable works throughout their careers.

And, yes, I think a well managed (non-open source) project can have a genius. In fact I think a well orchestrated and managed project has a better ability to mitigate weakness than an individual writer. If a writer is weak on dialog, a good editor can help, but the writer still has to write the dialog. Whereas a well managed project will by its very design have people on staff who excel at dialog (and have a well enough tempered ego to allow them to see and correct their weaknesses).

Again, I'd never expect the game development model to be working on a Pulizer worthy literary work, but for genre fiction I don't see why it couldn't happen (except for the $ part).

[Owen]

Micah,

I agree with 90% (at least) of that. I especially agree that artistic genius is an actionable quality, not a characteristic. (And yes, it was viewed in Classical times as being akin to "possession".) Talent (a characteristic) may erupt in a work of genius, and some artists are more successful at doing this than others.

So what matters, is the (largely indefinable) circumstances that encourage the expression of a particular genius, and as you say, put a bunch of people who are capable of works of genius together most often results in a mess.

Now, I do agree that a well-managed team of people can do good and interesting things, and I can see some ideas (expressed above) that have potential merit (and indeed are being implemented, as in the various “universes” people are writing in, in more structured ways that the “fanfic” thing).

I’d be interested to see someone tackle a genre-fiction series using the game model. I doubt that it would be my cup of tea -- for while your comment on style and voice is well taken, there are ineffable qualities I particularly value that I think it would hard to capture (read my review of “Nightwood” to get a better inkling of what I’m talking about). But that’s me. The question of which approach is more amenable and likely to succeed -- a managed group effort that offers mutual support for a team of people with particular gifts vs individual gifted authors -- is an academic one, although interesting. My experience suggests that assembling a team and managing it well enough would be really hard, especially to sustain for more than a one-off.

Now, I’ve never worked with game designers (although I have a few friends in the industry), so the dynamics are unfamiliar to me. Maybe they tend to have a greater unity of purpose than other teams (using that term broadly). You may be correct that well-managed project has a better ability to mitigate weakness than an individual writer, but I’ll reserve further judgment on that point, because it presupposes some rare qualities on both sides of the argument.

To me, the crux is this: in any collaboration (however constituted) one of two things happens: either the output is more than the sum of the parts, or it devolves to the lowest common denominator. If the latter, I can’t see any advantage to an artistic endeavor. If the former, that’s great but I’m not aware of a methodology that makes that happen (only ways to see that it doesn’t).

It all comes down to what you want to accomplish and what you have to work with. Our series, whatever its perceived flaws, would not benefit from additional collaboration, because it is too personal. (That is not to say we don’t admit feedback and advice, although that is on the “mechanical” aspects, not the essence of the thing.) Another type of story is a different kettle of fish.

[Owen]

Rob,

That could be a fun project. I don’t know what the chances are it would gain commercial traction, if that was a consideration. As mentioned above, popular universes are sometimes opened to other writers (even Weber seems be encouraging the “Honorverse” things these days, while he’s off noodling with other projects), and this would be the opposite approach. So it all depends on what you success criteria are.