Blog

The Josephine Ulrick Literature and Poetry prizes offer an eye-popping $20,000 to the winner in each category. Now in its tenth year, this is the first time the twenty grand prize pool has been awa...  >

Elsewhere
Ultimate Guide to Writing Better Than You Normally Do >

Other

< Back to Blog
0 Comments

Meanland: Brave New World?

John Weldon September 09

Max Barry’s novels are set in a heightened now, or sometimes a very near but not-so-brave new world. One that we might soon find ourselves mired in if we’re not careful. He pits his protagonists against initially seductive, but ultimately morally skewed, edifices (corporations, governments) keen to radically exploit both them and their ideas for financial gain.

The drama, and the humour – there’s always much of that in Barry’s novels – is located in the ways these protagonists choose to combat their oppressors, often by beating the bad guys at their own game.

Barry’s latest novel Machine Man takes the process of writing such a work ever so slightly into the future too.

Plagued by a readership unwilling to wait the necessary year or two for him to write his next novel, Barry responded by offering readers the chance to both observe and participate in the writing of his latest work through his blog. In summary, the plan was that Barry would post a first-draft page of the novel each day, that he would only write a page a day, and that readers were welcome to comment, criticise and make suggestions based on their reading of that page.

At first sight, this plan appears to be a wonderful realisation of the notion that the digitisation of text opens up the possibility of a reintroduction of certain oral and communal storytelling techniques to novel writing; ideas which have been considered before on this very blog. This idea of communality in writing is a delicious concept, almost as seductive as the corporations Barry creates in his novels. It suggests a breaking down of the barriers between author and reader created by print-dominated publishing. It embraces the idea of the author and the reader both contributing to a text in a produser-style relationship. It suggests the introduction of a negotiated intention to the creation of a work through a plural rather than singular vision.

But does it work? Can it work? Do we even want it to work? I’m glad you asked. I’ve read many of the comments posted by those who participated in the Machine Man project and like the comments appended to many newspaper articles they are of varying quality. Many of the respondents seem simply to be enjoying the idea that they are writing something that Max Barry himself might actually read, rather than actively critiquing or contributing to the story. There is definitely a sense of conversation attached to the interractions, but not a round table conversation between equals, rather more like that between leader and followers.

This is not to suggest that Barry intended the process to be anything other than that. I asked him if any of the comments made caused him to substantially alter the plot, characters or events of the story, to which he replied no. Nor did he want that to be the case. Judging by many of the comments neither would his readers. The most useful comments were those of a technical nature which aided Barry in the writing of particular passages. John Birmingham speaks of interacting with his blog followers in a similar fashion, asking them for help with very arcane research matters.

Could it be the case that although we now have the technology to write stories communally, we do not have either the will or the ability to do so? Novels are predicated on the idea of the individual both in terms of the writer and the reader. To either write or read a novel by committee would be to introduce compromise and conflict at every juncture. 1

So, although it looks like digital technology has allowed both Barry and Birmingham to participate in a form of communal storytelling, in actual fact all it has done is allowed them to widen their research capabilities and in Barry’s case to run his first draft by several hundred rather than one or two readers. It has not allowed for any real restructuring of the reader/writer nexus.

Rather than opening up a new world of opportunity through digital technology could it be that we’ve simply compressed the old-world writing and reading processes such that it is now possible for writers to run drafts and ideas past more people than they might have in the past and for readers to respond more quickly and easily to these writings?

Words and phrases such as communal storytelling and produser imply that readers and writers are operating at a similar level of competency, efficacy and intent. They suggest an engaged and active readership willing to engage at a professional level with writers who are similarly keen for them to do so. This has not been the case in the media – we’re still reading stories by journalists not readers.

We’re still reading novels by novelists too. Brave new world? Not yet it would seem.





1 There are works such as the digital novel Inanimate Alice and the networked novel Flight Paths by Kate Pullinger et al which rely on reader input for their storytelling, but these are so far removed from the idea of the text-based novel that it could be argued that they are more multimedia collaborations than novels. Further, the structure for interaction and contribution is more developed and proscribed than a simple comment/feedback facility.


 

Our Friends


 

Only the comment field is required. Omitting the ID fields increases your risk of being mistaken for spam.