Opening Up Your Entire Writing Process Isn't Such A Ridiculous Idea
from the not-that-everyone-has-to-do-it... dept
Last week, when we wrote about how author Stephenie Meyer seemed to be overreacting to the leak of her latest manuscript, one of our regular critical commenters (an IP lawyer, who fully supports the IP system) posted a mocking comment pretending to mimic us by saying that maybe she should have opened up her whole writing process and put it up as a wiki. Of course, we never suggested any such thing, we merely pointed out that once the reality of the leak had happened, there were good and bad ways to react to it, and she chose a bad way, that punished her biggest fans.However, it's worth noting that the more wide open process of creativity isn't necessarily worth mocking either. In fact, Boing Boing points out that Wired Magazine has opened up its storyboarding process for a feature for the next issue, so that people can follow the process of building the story. The mocking commenter-type folks would insist that this would somehow hurt the magazine and the writer by somehow "revealing" the process too soon, but the reality is that it's likely to help build more interest in the story by better connecting with fans who will feel a bigger connection to the story by seeing the whole process, rather than just the finished product.
Of course, this isn't to say that everyone has to embrace such an open process, but that it's not such a ridiculous process, no matter how much it may offend the sensibilities (or billing ability) of an IP attorney.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: open, open process, storyboarding, writing
Companies: wired
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
IP issues are always going to be contenious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IP issues are always going to be contenious.
I somehow have a feeling of deja-vu coming on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The first is an author who had her work uploaded to the internet and distributed without her permission.
The second involves the uploading of a work with the permission of the author(s).
Perhaps I am being a bit simplistic, but I consider the presence or absence of permission a pretty big deal insofar as an author is concerned...and I am certainly not prepared to criticize an author who apparently places more importance on the preservation of his/her work until it is ready for "prime time" than on the economics of the situation some critics seem to believe is more important.
As a side note, at no time have I ever tipped my hand on my personal opinion of IP law other than to note on one occasion that copyright law in some measure has provisions that border on "draconian". I have, however, endeavored to provide information regarding what the law "is" to correct many obvious misperceptions and misstatements repeated here with with remarkable frequency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cool idea
I don't think the process is for everyone or every process. I think it probably applies more to film than to writing because of the collaborative nature of film-making as opposed to the more solitary process of writing a novel. I know I would not want to open up my process. I am generally quite embarrassed with my early drafts once I take a couple weeks to distance myself from them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cool idea
I don't think opening the process is for everyone...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There's a huge "FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION" (mildly unstated) right there...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IP and openness
I know Ken Kesey met with limited success from his group author collaboration experiment.
Or, there could be an order for a screen/tele/web/ play with certain elements or organizing ideas (themselves debatable) and people contribute, with the result that you have Intellectual Properties with a matrix of narrative modules. Fans create the most popular pathways or stories. A little like Web 2.0 user generated content.
Where are you Ted Nelson?!?! This where Xanadu fans raise a cup!
All we need is an accounting system that rewards the ideas that people like the most.
Hahahahahahahaha
The present movie industry is our best shot at it, maybe. Certainly, the bizz model for IP distribution of any kind is open for development.
Here's what's gonna win!
Ubiquitous learning game/s that incorporates all intellectual content in some kind of way. Learner/players choose which games they play by a categorical system for the kind of ability required to play that module and the level of the ability.
Then the module is evaluated for how quickly learners can moe through the levels of the game, or average time to level per minute or hour of game play.
IP becomes modules rewarded by game play.
The next step (both of these are starting now) is to structure work that way. Working and learning games would make sure that all human faculties would be as fully developed and employed as possible.
Thank you for your attention!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Indeed.
The first is an author who had her work uploaded to the internet and distributed without her permission.
Yes. And your response was to mock us and pretend we had said that she should give away her whole process, and then joked about how ridiculous a concept that was.
The second involves the uploading of a work with the permission of the author(s).
Yes, indeed. Showing that such a scenario could work quite well for the author and not be ridiculous as you had implied.
Do you not see that?
Perhaps I am being a bit simplistic, but I consider the presence or absence of permission a pretty big deal insofar as an author is concerned
Sure, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing that once it's out there, how do you react? And you posted a mocking and slightly insulting response. And we're showing that your mocking concept (of something that we hadn't actually said) wasn't wrong.
and I am certainly not prepared to criticize an author who apparently places more importance on the preservation of his/her work until it is ready for "prime time" than on the economics of the situation some critics seem to believe is more important.
Oh, but you have no problem insulting us and mocking us because it might impact your salary? Funny double standard.
But, to be clear, at no time did we insist she had to give away her work (as you falsely implied). We were stating that once it was out there, how should she deal with it.
Your response seems to be to pretend it's still possible to protect it. I sure hope people don't listen to you for business advice.
As a side note, at no time have I ever tipped my hand on my personal opinion of IP law other than to note on one occasion that copyright law in some measure has provisions that border on "draconian". I have, however, endeavored to provide information regarding what the law "is" to correct many obvious misperceptions and misstatements repeated here with with remarkable frequency.
That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Over the last few months, on a regular basis you have not just provided information, you have repeatedly accused folks here of being morally inept for their views, personally insulted well respected economists (before admitting that you'd never actually read their stuff), talked about how we are not qualified to comment on the patent system without your broad experience in patents, and personally insulted me, mocked me and made false statements about my views.
Your position, over and over again, has been to defend the patent system, and to mock anyone who criticizes it or accuse them of not having the experience necessary to discuss it.
You are also an admitted IP attorney who makes money from the current system -- though, when called on that fact, you also pretended that you did not make money from the system, which is a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One open model
http://www.brandonsanderson.com/book/Warbreaker/
It will be interesting to see how this experiment plays out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
evil Mike
--Glenn
8}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
At no point in my comment did I state, suggest, or imply that participatory writing was an unworkable means of crafting a work of authorship in all cases. My view is simply that this is a decision that should be left up to the sole discretion of each author. If he/she chooses to follow a path that may diverge from your views, his/her choice should be respected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And, in that post, I DID respond on that.
And in THIS post, I was responding to YOU mocking the idea of opening up the process.
Just because you happened to disagree with her reaction is hardly good reason to criticize her for what was otherwise one of a number of perfectly reasonable responses.
Yeah, how dare I have an opinion?
You know, the same could be said to you. Just because YOU happen to disagree with MY reaction is hardly a good reason for you to mock folks here for what was otherwise one of a number of perfectly reasonable responses.
You have this amazing double standard, MLS.
At no point in my comment did I state, suggest, or imply that participatory writing was an unworkable means of crafting a work of authorship in all cases. My view is simply that this is a decision that should be left up to the sole discretion of each author. If he/she chooses to follow a path that may diverge from your views, his/her choice should be respected.
And at no point did we suggest otherwise. But OUR point (which you still seem unable to grasp), was that once that info is out there, there are different ways to react, and she chose a poor one. How dare we have an opinion, I know, but it's an informed opinion. And your response was to mock the idea of openness.
This post was to show you that openness isn't such a mockable concept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It works
I flicked through it, quite enjoyed it -- took me back to my childhood a bit, but it's not exactly Umberto Eco.
However, as an appendix, the author had included an earlier draft of one section of the story -- fully drawn, essentially the same plot, just a few different scenes and some different emphasis in the dialogue. He had also included some commentary on why he had made the changes, what he was trying to do with the characters etc, and that suddenly opened up the whole thing for me. There's a lot that goes into it, and it made me realise that it's actually a serious art form with real value.
I'm still not a huge comic freak, but that insight into the process has definitely turned me from "graphic novel sceptic" to "would consider buying one".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you did respond to my comment, but if so your response in not in the thread. Your only comment is on a point of law you directed to an individual who was posting under the name "LostSailor". That person most certainly was not me.
"Yeah, how dare I have an opinion?"
The title of your article was pejorative by suggesting the author does not "get it", and your saying "...this is hardly something to be upset about" suggests to me did not attach much significance to her personal views. You say in this thread that the reaction she chose a "poor one". Maybe she did if all that was in play in her mind was the economics of the situation. It is not in my view, however, unreasonable to point out that many other things may have contributed to her reaction.
"Just because YOU happen to disagree with MY reaction is hardly a good reason for you to mock folks here for what was otherwise one of a number of perfectly reasonable responses."
It is a bit difficult, if not impossible, to understand how my only comment to your article (comment #2) can in any reasonable way be construed as denigrating in the slightest any of the subsequent 82 comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You wrote a mocking post, and then you continue to mock us for having an opinion, telling us we cannot.
Yes, the title of our post gave an opinion. And your response has been to tell us we have no right to have an opinion and then to mock the concept of openness.
Tellingly (again, this is your usual MO), you did not respond to why it's such an awful thing for us to criticize her response, but YOU are perfectly fine in mocking us?
Why is that? Your inability to admit you have a massive double standard is staggering.
Maybe she did if all that was in play in her mind was the economics of the situation. It is not in my view, however, unreasonable to point out that many other things may have contributed to her reaction.
That's not what you responded to, however. You mocked the concept of openness. If your concern was that we did not take into account those other issues, you could have said that. You did not. Instead, you mocked the concept of openness.
And, in the meantime, you continue to blatantly ignore the point:
We were talking about the best reaction GIVEN that the content was already out there. Your response? To sit and cry. Yeah, that's effective. Is that what you tell your clients? Or do you tell them to sue and you'll bill them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps commentary by other persons in the group would help dispel some of the confusion my comments present you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's been done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Funny how every time we actually call you out on something you run and hide by changing the subject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]