Thanks Lane for moving this out of email.
Before we begin this project, I would like us to consider the collaborative structure that works for film production. With the model of producers and directors the most complex art projects in history manage to synthesize the collaborative efforts of hundreds of highly motivated and creative people.
Producer: a person whose job it is to secure the means of production, identify and define what deliverables are and specify the dates when those items are due.
Director: a person whose job it is to articulate the creative direction of the project and manage the sub-projects within the scope of the collective/unified creative goals of the big picture.
While I think the people who play roles sh/could change over time (the end of each term?), I think that we should seriously consider identifying them at the start, because of the project management structure they afford. I will even be so bold as to volunteer and propose something, altho solely for the sake of discussion:
1) If I'm going to build and host and manage a wiki-site , which I am happy to do, over Christmas break, that seems to place me in the role of producer, at least initially. That is to say I would be happy to volunteer if that is what people decide we want. In this role I would not only manage the site in terms of functionality and architecture, I would also meet with the director and the contributors (virtually) to determine commitment levels and "assignments" which could be pegged appropriately to participants interests and availability. I would in that role, working with the director, give you an assignment(s) and a due date(s) and track that it gets done, posted, etc.
2) Since Lane has articulated the initial vision for this, in this system I am proposing, it seems to make sense that he would fill the role of initial director, or director pro tem—again if that's what he wants to, and if that's what other people want. I'm not trying to grab roles or define relationships, I just think that these internet groups seriously lack focus and accountability, so I'm being pro-active. I'm happy with whatever we decide as a long as it includes some system of meta-organization other than total chaos and inertia.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
assignment structures
Folks,
With the desire to facilitate the beginnings of our discussion about wiki space and "Midwestern Water Wars", I have concatenated various emails onto the old class blog, Storypool (blogger sucks, btw!).
You all still have posting permissions, though Pete will need to respond to an invitation if he wishes to post. It is fine to still post to email, but if the information is useful for our archive, I will also place it on the blog.
Lane
ps... Trent and Craig, I do like the idea of Constraints, or using what we did in the seminar, with directed and customized "assignments". This could be an option: that anyone of the group generates an assignment to a writer. For instance, I could email Craig and suggest: "build the research archeology of the Muratorian Fragments", while Craig might suggest to Trent: "The Covert Lexical Movement was comprised of various guerilla cells devoted to undermining language. Find and report information about one of those cells..."
These assignments would of course grow additively, new formulations suggested by each contribution.
With the desire to facilitate the beginnings of our discussion about wiki space and "Midwestern Water Wars", I have concatenated various emails onto the old class blog, Storypool (blogger sucks, btw!).
You all still have posting permissions, though Pete will need to respond to an invitation if he wishes to post. It is fine to still post to email, but if the information is useful for our archive, I will also place it on the blog.
Lane
ps... Trent and Craig, I do like the idea of Constraints, or using what we did in the seminar, with directed and customized "assignments". This could be an option: that anyone of the group generates an assignment to a writer. For instance, I could email Craig and suggest: "build the research archeology of the Muratorian Fragments", while Craig might suggest to Trent: "The Covert Lexical Movement was comprised of various guerilla cells devoted to undermining language. Find and report information about one of those cells..."
These assignments would of course grow additively, new formulations suggested by each contribution.
From Lane
Trent,
Craig is with us, though will be mindful of his time, and Pete has also expressed interest. I am fine with lurkers, or different levels of engagement, and I am also fine with people outside of our UWM circle joining in. Though I think it is best, first, to decide on 1) rules of engagement, and 2) platform/environment.
My idea with "Flowage Rebellion" is to set up a quasi-historical scenario that is liberally seeded with citations, apocrypha, contested histories, and retellings of events, centered around an at this time non-specific ecological conflict, with (duh!) water. As water is more and more in our current news, and will certainly be a huge crisis point of global proportions (if it isn't already), I'd like this project to have "water conflict" as a pivotal center point. I look to fictions such as Museum of Jurassic Technology, Walid Raad's "Atlas Group" and a growing list of wonderful projects (nice site at
I like Trent's ideas stated below quite a bit, and would probably go with either the "Larry David" structure (writing towards some event, as yet unrevealed) or the email that Craig just sent, which seems an excellent beginning point. I'm not sure yet how character-driven this will be, as I am also interested in colloquial, vernacular, cross-genre forms that might not involve characters at all, or would involve them in the Borges sense, as the founder, secret society member, historian, recorder of such documents.. (but that is just me.. honestly, the excitement I have for this is that it can take its own form!)
Craig, would you want to set up the wiki, similar to your Prelim site, with the form you suggested, and give yourself, me and Trent edit level power, with all others included for gradual absorption?! (you *will* be assimilated!).
I am very comfortable with Blogs, and Lisa is a pro at customizing them in a robust way. We can go that route as well, but wikis seem more textual, and I think I would get less hung up on how it would *look*, and focus more on the writing. However, I could see Flowage Rebellion later drifting to blogspace or dedicated website, depending upon our results and interests.
Lane
Craig is with us, though will be mindful of his time, and Pete has also expressed interest. I am fine with lurkers, or different levels of engagement, and I am also fine with people outside of our UWM circle joining in. Though I think it is best, first, to decide on 1) rules of engagement, and 2) platform/environment.
My idea with "Flowage Rebellion" is to set up a quasi-historical scenario that is liberally seeded with citations, apocrypha, contested histories, and retellings of events, centered around an at this time non-specific ecological conflict, with (duh!) water. As water is more and more in our current news, and will certainly be a huge crisis point of global proportions (if it isn't already), I'd like this project to have "water conflict" as a pivotal center point. I look to fictions such as Museum of Jurassic Technology, Walid Raad's "Atlas Group" and a growing list of wonderful projects (nice site at
I like Trent's ideas stated below quite a bit, and would probably go with either the "Larry David" structure (writing towards some event, as yet unrevealed) or the email that Craig just sent, which seems an excellent beginning point. I'm not sure yet how character-driven this will be, as I am also interested in colloquial, vernacular, cross-genre forms that might not involve characters at all, or would involve them in the Borges sense, as the founder, secret society member, historian, recorder of such documents.. (but that is just me.. honestly, the excitement I have for this is that it can take its own form!)
Craig, would you want to set up the wiki, similar to your Prelim site, with the form you suggested, and give yourself, me and Trent edit level power, with all others included for gradual absorption?! (you *will* be assimilated!).
I am very comfortable with Blogs, and Lisa is a pro at customizing them in a robust way. We can go that route as well, but wikis seem more textual, and I think I would get less hung up on how it would *look*, and focus more on the writing. However, I could see Flowage Rebellion later drifting to blogspace or dedicated website, depending upon our results and interests.
Lane
Response from Craig
Apologies for not cc:ing all before.
I was thinking about Lane's structure question (below). If we organized the site around specific characters or plot lines I think that might be too constraining (as a site architecture). I think people ought to have the permission/flexibility to create their own new pages (as well as edit in existing pages) so that when they add a chapter in the ficto-history their responsibility is to create a new page (or a new thread in an existing page) and to link to it wherever (and as many times as) it makes sense. That way the site architecture begins with a single page introduction and the threads just spin out innocuously from there. The 'turks' are simply responsible for stitching their pieces into what is already there with links etc..
I also think that there should be a site manager/editor who is empowered to make editorial and structural edits to the site and its structure as we go. This could be a rotating position.
Craig
I was thinking about Lane's structure question (below). If we organized the site around specific characters or plot lines I think that might be too constraining (as a site architecture). I think people ought to have the permission/flexibility to create their own new pages (as well as edit in existing pages) so that when they add a chapter in the ficto-history their responsibility is to create a new page (or a new thread in an existing page) and to link to it wherever (and as many times as) it makes sense. That way the site architecture begins with a single page introduction and the threads just spin out innocuously from there. The 'turks' are simply responsible for stitching their pieces into what is already there with links etc..
I also think that there should be a site manager/editor who is empowered to make editorial and structural edits to the site and its structure as we go. This could be a rotating position.
Craig
Response from Trent
I don't know who else has committed yet so I'll keep everyone copied in.
I've got a couple of different ideas of how we could get the ball
rolling, many of which admittedly stem from my role-play-gaming past
fused with concepts from the restrictions/obstructions class:
-- Anyone remember the "Thieves' World" series?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieves%27_World) These was a fantasy
series co-authored by a number of the biggest names in f/sf back in
the late 70's early 80's. I haven't been able to find the original
rules the authors were bound to, but I believe they were allowed to
create a certain number of characters in the same setting. The authors
then wrote short stories where I believe the only thing they weren't
allowed to do was kill another author's character, but they fucked
with them mercilessly. To quote from one of the founding authors "You
write your first Thieves' World story for fun and the rest for
revenge."
-- Another idea: we start with Act 1, some seminal event in Lane's
World (something major on par with 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination)
and we all write a scene about characters who are impacted by this. In
Act 2, perhaps by random pairings, some of these groups must meet or
interact while others must *not* meet. In Act 3, by more random
selection, different groups must interact or not interact. We could
mix in other "events," such as a wild card that states someone in
Pairing B must be utterly humiliated, and a character in Pairing C
must have a stroke of unbelievable luck. And so on. The could easily
be expandable/adaptable for the number of users in a given round. For
instance, no new characters introduced until a new author introduces
them.
-- Another way would be to write towards some event, sort of like a
Larry David "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode. There's some wire frame
holding the thing together, but there's a whole lot of ad-libbing
going on. Yet everything somehow comes together, or perhaps weaves
back and forth.
Lane, do any of these sound appealing or am I off track? I think what
I'm envisioning is having authors grappling with some specific set
rules, but also being encouraged in pushing the narrative further,
even if "further" means just discovering new parts of this world, or
new rules about it--which are then "in play" for subsequent authors!
The ever-evolving rules and facts could be collected on a wiki that
later authors would need to reference before writing. I could also see
a story map evolving, where you could track developing plots amongst
more random entries.
Or is this more restrictive than what you had imagined? The way I'm
describing would almost be game-like, in that you'd need a referee
holding things together somewhat, but I think I'd be more intrigued by
clusters of cohesive storytelling rather than completely disparate
chunks.
I'll stop here. If you're not careful I'll try and usurp the whole
damn project! Also, I would be tempted to invite some non-UWM
colleagues at some point. Lots of talented writer folks I know are
very interested in alternate and ficto- histories, pseudoscience and
the like. This kind of stuff is very popular in science fiction and
fantasy.
Looking forward to more input!
--Trent
I've got a couple of different ideas of how we could get the ball
rolling, many of which admittedly stem from my role-play-gaming past
fused with concepts from the restrictions/obstructions class:
-- Anyone remember the "Thieves' World" series?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieves%27_World) These was a fantasy
series co-authored by a number of the biggest names in f/sf back in
the late 70's early 80's. I haven't been able to find the original
rules the authors were bound to, but I believe they were allowed to
create a certain number of characters in the same setting. The authors
then wrote short stories where I believe the only thing they weren't
allowed to do was kill another author's character, but they fucked
with them mercilessly. To quote from one of the founding authors "You
write your first Thieves' World story for fun and the rest for
revenge."
-- Another idea: we start with Act 1, some seminal event in Lane's
World (something major on par with 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination)
and we all write a scene about characters who are impacted by this. In
Act 2, perhaps by random pairings, some of these groups must meet or
interact while others must *not* meet. In Act 3, by more random
selection, different groups must interact or not interact. We could
mix in other "events," such as a wild card that states someone in
Pairing B must be utterly humiliated, and a character in Pairing C
must have a stroke of unbelievable luck. And so on. The could easily
be expandable/adaptable for the number of users in a given round. For
instance, no new characters introduced until a new author introduces
them.
-- Another way would be to write towards some event, sort of like a
Larry David "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode. There's some wire frame
holding the thing together, but there's a whole lot of ad-libbing
going on. Yet everything somehow comes together, or perhaps weaves
back and forth.
Lane, do any of these sound appealing or am I off track? I think what
I'm envisioning is having authors grappling with some specific set
rules, but also being encouraged in pushing the narrative further,
even if "further" means just discovering new parts of this world, or
new rules about it--which are then "in play" for subsequent authors!
The ever-evolving rules and facts could be collected on a wiki that
later authors would need to reference before writing. I could also see
a story map evolving, where you could track developing plots amongst
more random entries.
Or is this more restrictive than what you had imagined? The way I'm
describing would almost be game-like, in that you'd need a referee
holding things together somewhat, but I think I'd be more intrigued by
clusters of cohesive storytelling rather than completely disparate
chunks.
I'll stop here. If you're not careful I'll try and usurp the whole
damn project! Also, I would be tempted to invite some non-UWM
colleagues at some point. Lots of talented writer folks I know are
very interested in alternate and ficto- histories, pseudoscience and
the like. This kind of stuff is very popular in science fiction and
fantasy.
Looking forward to more input!
--Trent
Response from Pete Sands
I've been playing with mind-mapping software, such as Cmap Tools, Mind
Manager, and Mindmapper.
I like the visual richness. But they're not *exactly* wikis (see, e.g.,
http://www.activityowner.com/2007/04/09/map2wiki/ and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki).
Manager, and Mindmapper.
I like the visual richness. But they're not *exactly* wikis (see, e.g.,
http://www.activityowner.com/2007/04/09/map2wiki/ and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki).
Response from Craig
Hi
I am very interested and I could commit to uploading short pieces/new pages on a monthly if not bi-weekly schedule. Our sense of 'authorship' seems to disappear once we begin inviting others, so collective and/or ghost author don't really seem to capture the sense of boundlessness. If we have a sense that say, authors are limited to UWM, then maybe we could attribute the work to a place.
Craig
I am very interested and I could commit to uploading short pieces/new pages on a monthly if not bi-weekly schedule. Our sense of 'authorship' seems to disappear once we begin inviting others, so collective and/or ghost author don't really seem to capture the sense of boundlessness. If we have a sense that say, authors are limited to UWM, then maybe we could attribute the work to a place.
Craig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)