A Million Decisions
“Have you never made sense of something after the event?”
Jim was getting exasperated again.
George was peering too intently at the text.
“Just leave it!” Jim man barked at him. “I know what you are thinking. No need to say it. Is it only good if it makes linear sense? If I put it in the right order, would that make you comfortable? Never mind the kick’ you get when a connection dawns on you - out of sequence. Get it?”George indicated he didn’t.
“Well, then. I am not going to explain. Watch!”
So begins the twelfth subsection, entitled Les Reflections Dans L’Oeil d’un Chien: Or, How I learnt French to Please My Daddy (wtf?), of the second main section of the wiki-novel. For those of you who haven’t mastered its structure, the novel is broken down into seven discrete sections, plus one additional section that incorporates the more bizarre elements of this collaborative project (the ‘Banana version‘, the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure version‘, etc). Having said that, it seems unfair to single out one part of the book that’s weirder than the others. But you can see for yourself what I mean.
The quote with which I’ve begun seems apposite because it captures two aspects of the book that have really stood out: a) the question of linearity b) the way that the wiki-novel seems so often to be about the wiki-novel. You could justifiably call much of it a meta-narrative.
I know I said this in one of my earlier posts but the whole thing about us thinking it would be a linear book and everyone else telling us that it wouldn’t be, then us secretly getting all high and mighty about it, then realizing we were wrong, is actually pretty important. In fact, what was most successful about this project was its use of the wiki format as a space for a jointly authored text, though the writing isn’t half bad in places. When Jeremy first told me about what he had in mind, I was like, ‘OK, but I don’t understand what you’re talking about. You need to find someone smarter.’ And to be completely honest I don’t think I really understood what the project was about until about half way through, and even then - or now, for that matter - I may not completely get it.
The book, which is now fossilized, is unlike anything I’ve read before. The original first sentence - “There was no possibility of taking a walk that day” - is, as some of you will doubtless have recognized, the opening sentence of Jane Eyre. I suggested it (and got my way) because it was vague, un-prescriptive, and carried some serious cultural weight. I wonder whether this was at some level the reason for Carlo’s (remember him?) disability. I’m trying to remember off-hand if he was depressed and disabled or both, but in any case there was, for poor Carlo, no possibility of taking a walk that day.
There are countless examples in literature of books in which the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. The wiki-novel is one such case (though naturally I’m a bit nervous about making any claims for its being literature, at least in the whole mind of Europe sense of the word). There are classic themes here: love, death, sex, loneliness, friendship, animosity, creativity, social justice, violence and so on. I don’t think any of these are explored in much depth, but then that’s not exactly what you’d expect from a book like this. I’d like to say that I expected range without substance, but I’d be lying: I didn’t know and couldn’t guess what people would write. Now it seems obvious. When 1500 people set out to write a work of fiction, bringing 1500 people’s worth of experience, perspective, grievances and proclivities this project was never going to be anything if not multitudinous, international and epic.
I’d like to think that the wiki-novel in the end was self-referential rather than solipsistic. There are some great jokes (or ‘comic moments’ may be a better way of putting it) in it about the process itself, which again brings us back to that old chestnut: the triumph of form over content. And this, I guess, is what people will say in the end: that it was an interesting experiment, shame about the writing. They will be neither right nor wrong. No, a community probably can’t write a novel, but I don’t think the question (which we posed, I concede) is of much use to anyone, especially since the words ‘community’ and ‘novel’ don’t cut much ice in a situation like this (PS. See Steven Poole’s book Unspeak published last year if you want to see that annoying word, community,’ ripped to shreds.). Speaking of lessons not learned: the wiki-novel did not teach us either that a bunch of hacks with computers can all go write something on the same website. No, what’s been shown is that a bunch of strangers with both nothing to lose and nothing to gain worked toward a nebulous common goal. I guess its she sheer benevolence on display that amazed me most. Well done to all of you. Thanks for writing.
Jon Elek
Powered by FireStats
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your review. I like what you have to say. I think it captures many factes of the project and serves to sum things up as well as open up questions on the topic. Related to your comments, I think the big issue about coherence is if one wants a more linear and ‘uniform’ text with a clear plot progression there needs to be a clear (spelt-out?) plot summary and the members participating have to in some way ‘agree’ with that plot and its progression. (I have said this somewhere else but it is like the catch-twenty-one’ of ‘community’ writing: spell it out clearly or people can’t enter into the project; spell it out too obviously and it comes across as clumsy and self-conscious). Plus, as you say, with so many different perspectives and preferences and that it is amazing that the number of characters was not a million and one as opposed to a certain settling onto a handful. Thanks again for your insights, it certainly is a novel unlike any that i have read before and I have found that engaging me in ways that I don’t always engage with texts. cheers
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Thanks Jon for this thoughtful post. Even now, a couple of weeks after it has come to an end, I find it difficult to get any perspective on the wiki-novel experience. Definitely, as you say, something where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole - that goes for the entire experience, as far as I’m concerned. So interesting and challenging.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 am
Another thing that has constantly kept coming up for me as this project progressed is the fact that, in literature, as in art, and in any other human sciences there are certain rules and norms, and that is necessary, however, one will never experience a ground-breaking or norm-changing experience unless people are prepared to stretch the definition of a medium, to experiment, to risk, to dare to shock the critics or be lampooned.( I don’t mean that one should do this to provoke or to try to be different, but if it is in the honest pursuit of something). I am a great lover of literature, and so I fully understand the nervousness and panic that occured when this project did not seem to be following a logical or linear pattern and various outside commentators were appearing to make fun of the whole project.
Whilst not wanting to suggest that we necessarily have the brilliance of a genius in this body of work, I also am not quite prepared to write it off as something unexceptional. I keep thinking of how poorly picasso’s first exhibition was met. The critics of the day, many of them, if I undersatand correctly, were horrified at this new style of art. It broke rules, it did not resemble the subjects apparently portrayed. I have a theory that a good leader is also a good team member, but a good leader will never follow the rules, nor will a good leader ‘disdain the rules. Rather a good leader actually has absorbed the spirit and the significance of the rules and principles and knows how to keep them by staying within the lines when needed and when to keep them by appearing to stretch a principle or even ignoring it. I don’t know if any of this makes sense, but quite frankly, althouhg there are sections of the text which are more ‘mainstream and orthodox’ we have libraries full of dusty old texts that follow the norms and sit there crying out to be read. Literature needs to constantly evolve and be dynamic and this project is most certainly that! cheers again
March 27th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Edgar Allan Poe (in The Philosophy of Composition) remarked that no author would be brave enough to detail the actual steps involved in creating their stories. He felt that authors (and poets) would be decidedly uncomfortable to reveal the discarded ideas; the anxiety and indecision about word choice and imagery.
The wiki novel is a very rough diamond and I expect Mr Poe would disapprove of the denouement. He might, however, enjoy the history, discussion pages and the blog revealing the intricate detail of its construction.
I particularly like your statement, “a bunch of strangers with both nothing to lose and nothing to gain worked toward a nebulous common goal.” Thanks for the opportunity. Personally, I’ve gained something from the experience.
JohnH
March 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
The body found cold, is dissected, analysed.
A turbulent mess, who fractured, capsized.
A million minds who worked only as one.
can you now try, make sense, what was done?
Follow their wisdom, interpret the thoughts,
chase ideas unexpanded, re-expunged, barely caught?
Beauty in the rough; how does it shine?
All of those penguins, retire, bide their time.
To wonder if this is the first, or the last.
Hoping the moment hasn’t already past,
but rather will come to be something quite fine.
To bring us back together, another week, same time.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I interested in reviewing the overall progress of the wiki, having been involved along the way. If anyone is interested in sharing their own experiences, please let me know how I can contact them.
My reasons for this are that I’m fascinated by collaborative writing, I was totally absorbed in our process as it was happening, I am (unlike most others) sure that writing collaborative fiction successfully is possible using what we learned this time around. Maybe I can get something more substantial than a general impression by discussing this with other contributors one-to-one. (or here if that’s the only possibility)
My interest is in
* the overall group process and experience, as described in the last few posts
* what do we wish we’d done differently?
* what do you think about the possibilities of writing fiction collaboratively, what would it take, would it be worth the effort?
If you need to know more about me before deciding to, ask here.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hi Joanna,
I would be interested in reflecting on the process, cheers sentinel
March 31st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
After the work, and the pleasure, of writing now I am checking the various sections. The descriptions of the ambiences are accurate and intriguing. The psychological types are less evident and intelligible. The ambience dominates. The course of the story goes on and yes indeed. Modern fiction is very difficult and one can see it. But this is fiction. We are not more a community, but this community, ours. For example I am happy to have a sharp and serious co-author as Johanna Howard. I shall continue my check. Bye.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:30 am
[…] The story behind the story. No, what’s been shown is that a bunch of strangers with both nothing to lose and nothing to gain worked toward a nebulous common goal. I guess its the sheer benevolence on display that amazed me most. — Jon Elek […]
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
sentinel do you have a way I can contact you? or you could email me from my website www.joannahoward.net.
This goes for anyone else who’s interested
April 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hi Joanna, I tried putting my info on your website, got right to the end and it said “error not sent” and wouldn’t let me go back.
in any case if you like, please contact me at holyjoe@ozemail.com.au
cheers,
Paul
April 12th, 2007 at 12:22 am
hello jon, just a thought, may be interesting if the evolution of your ‘book’ was subject to some visual analysis, perhpas by way of ibm’s ‘history flow’ tool at http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/ for example; who knows, a picture may still be worth a million words, and would certainly better than one million penguins?
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Hi, I know the editing has now been closed, but if you editor guys at Penguin are still out there, can I suggest some minor corrections that have been bugging me. They don’t change anything substantial to the structure of the novel, they are just correcting two glaring errors.
namely….in the chapter on the main page called True story
(Main_Page#True_Story)
The statue of Mary Poppins is actually on the corner of Richmond and Kent Streets, Maryborough, Queensland. and not as printed here incorrectly as the corner of March and Kent. ( This is just a factual correction).
Also at the very end of the novel on the main pages…there is a slight logical error:
(the chapter is called Section_7# mobius_strip )
As he came closer, John asked Carlo Impatiently: “How does your book end?”
John stared at him for a long hard moment and replied: “Like this!”
The last lines should actually say the below (otherwise it is suggesting John is answering himself and makes no sense)…. ( so can I suggest a correction that is purely logical in the structure of the text to this….)
As he came closer, Carlo asked John impatiently: “How does your book end?”
John stared at him for a long hard moment and replied: “Like this!”