A Million Ophelias
It’s widely held that one of the hallmarks of great writing is the ability to bring together things that don’t usually belong together. And, moreover, to do so in a way that invites contemplation or, ideally, some kind of wider understanding of life, language, society, politics, humanity, relationships, religion etc - a eureka moment, if you like. This is less true of fiction than poetry, but the dexterity and inventiveness with which a writer moves from sentence to sentence or idea to idea is often a measure of his or her talent. As with everything, great risks can bring great rewards; but while the pay off can huge (Finnegans Wake; Midnight’s Children; One Hundred Years of Solitude), the chance of failure is high (discretion forbids exemplifying).
I see that you, the 6 billion writers of amillionpenguins, have decided to gamble. I, your miserable and long suffering editor, admit to feeling completely at odds with the novel as it stands. In Stalinist Russia they would have considered this a good thing: that the familiar had somehow become very strange indeed. But in this, our stupider age, I find I just can’t get very far. (Note: “stupider age” is platitudinous; I’d much rather be here, despite the snow, than in Stalin’s Russia, which I gather was also rather snowy).
The main problem I have is that every time I go back to the website it’s changed, a bit like my girlfriend’s mind. And perhaps like that it resists rational enquiry. I’ve found the best way to approach amillionpenguins is to sample it basically at random. I don’t think that this is the place or the time to start handing out medals but I’ve been very impressed by some of the individual contributions. It’s like a whole lot of white noise and then you get something really fantastic - these moments of real clarity or insightfulness or depth. I’ve also noticed that some contributors are exploring the technological possibilities of the wiki format, possibly for my enjoyment (there’s one entry where each word in the paragraph is hyperlinked to its definition, and another where each letter takes you to a quote from a well known martial text (small “m”, not the Roman epigramist, which come to think of it would be wonderful)). So well done you, amillionnabokovs, for getting so gamey on us!
We’re a week in and the jury is still very much out; in fact, I think they’re off drinking white wine at the Groucho. But keep up the good work, my milliontorturedsouls, and let’s see if we can’t get something resembling a plot up there soon.
Yours
Jon
Powered by FireStats
February 9th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Sometimes ‘plot’ isn’t all its cracked up to be!! At the moment I feel strongly that the wiki-novel is as a whole is larger and greater than its parts. It’s such a… such a… thing! It bears no relation to the single-authored novel as we know it… but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, is it? But, perhaps Jon, I think this because of my capricious, ever-changing, female mind. Who knows?!
February 9th, 2007 at 11:50 am
eh. its confusing, yes. but an interesting experiment.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Hi Jon,
This is an amazing experiment. And, as difficult at times as it is to follow, and as complex and “multi-pathed” as it is, it still appears to be a lot easier to read and more engaging than (dare I say it) On The Road, by Jack Kerouac, Dirt Music by Australian author Tim Winton, who drived me insane with his self-conscious poetic rambling, and (blasphemy of all blesphemies) the structure and flow of The Lord o the Rings, which (although I enjoyed the movies, I do find the books tedious and unreadable and not following the usual flow of plot progression etc). So, at times, this experiment here both engages and also appears to have flashes of brilliance. Maybe writing that carries the reader along with them not fully able to grasp the threads, is one that does something extraordinary?? I continue to follow it all with great interest.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:33 am
After the time is up I suggest that some reputable editor (or group of editors) go through and tidy up the finished product. Said person should be sensitive to the established aesthetic. I would certainly be able to do this.
Edits would include but are not limited to 1) deciding on a much smaller cast of characters to replace the multitudinous ones we have now, 2) deciding on a much smaller list of settings and again replacing, and 3) adding transitory material to better unify the whole.
The transitory material should be used as sparingly as possible, of course. Just enough not to destroy the schizophrenic aesthetic that has been established.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Come to think of it, you could take the finished product and give everyone that has contributed to it a certain amount of time to submit an edited version of it within certain guidelines (For example no more than X words can be deleted and no more than X words can be added to it). An award could be given to the best submission. What do you think?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Or… you could leave the finished product as it is, frozen and in situ, and invite readers to extract stories from it at their leisure, like collecting pebbles from a beach to lay out designs in the sand. With this method, essentially one of silent reading, there would be no record of which stories were taken, or why or how, but the readers themselves might go away satisfied after a pleasurable hour or so.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi again, I agree with Sue and with respect i completely disagree with nostrum. I don’t quite know what nostrum means by offering to be the editor, i feel that would be an imposition on the whole concept. Also, i fear that reducing cast and reducing or combining ‘transitory’ material is really based on a value judgement. I personally think that it is arguable that none of it is transitory. I also would completely disagree if one were to suggest, for example that the true kernel of the novel as it stands now is the ’serious traditional elements of some kind of spy thing’ and that the transitory and excisable bits are the little gems of interlude, observation, etc, etc. It would be a sad, sad day if some right-brained ‘well nrespected editor’ went through and killed the patient in order to make it more palatable (sorry for the mixed metaphor)
cheerio
February 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I’ve just read a fascinating analysis of the story by my colleague Bruce Mason here http://www.hum.dmu.ac.uk/blogs/wdl/2007/02/a_dream_of_penguins.html
Highly recommended!
February 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hi,
just a bit of feedback. I think one drawback in this system is that the ‘discussion section’ (to me at least) appears to be a mares nest of confusion. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the discussion section just like a blog like this so we can see the most up-to-date entries and follow them through and progress discussions or arguments or points of view,
great project though,
cheerio
February 12th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Sentinel68 - hi there! I think that the discussion section, and how it is used depends on the people and so on; I think there is a learning process for those of us who haven’t contributed to wikipedia (or other wiki’s that use the same engine), it is a lot when all we want to do is write “this is my idea” or “this is where I think we should be going” - that all said, I think it is something people get used to. In some parts of the wiki, discussions are hit as much as the primary starting chapters of the novel; on other parts, smaller groups move at their own pace and discussions (and the novel) progress in a reasonable fashion; without undue confusion etc. Although maybe this in part is due to the number of people using it.
Maybe we have a limited life here in the wiki-novel world; maybe it’ll keep on going ad infinitum. Time will tell.
M.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Hi M, thanks, I agree with your thoughts, and I am certainly not suggeting that everyone ought to use the sections such as ‘discussion section’ in the same way, different strokes for … as they say…
but I was really just making a point about the fact that the discussion section seems confusing for me so that I can’t readily see where the progressive, newest entries are coming up, in the same way I can see what the linear discussion is like on this blog here… if the discussion section was like this site we are talking on now, it may be less confusing… anyways thats just a thought
cheers,
February 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Jon, may I call you Jon?
More than an experiment, A Million Penguins serves to
differentiate Penguin (Pearson) as a thought leader in traditional and online
publishing realms. Your embrace of online social networking cultures and
mediums is to be applauded.
Nice.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:52 am
[…] One is the “wiki novel” started by established, conventional book publisher Penguin. Amillionpenguins is fascinating, chaotic and often perplexing for the editor appointed to oversee it. Here’s a recent extract from the editors blog: […]