I can tell that Andrew has worked collaboratively before! He accurately
depicts the pitfalls of collaborative work, and I think it's smart to
take a look at the downside of a collaborative OM guide project, as well
as the upside. So, to follow Andrew's comments:
>if you
>want a nice glossy, book with pretty pictures you may need to follow a
>definite track . . .
Agreed. Organization is everything, and there will have to be a hierarchy
involved. Hierarchies mean that authors will be constrained, and authors
don't like (voice of experience here) constraint! It's painful, but
necessary.
>
> A commissioning editor . . . Find funding -
Agreed. We need to start with the 1) funding (for printing) and 2)
distribution (getting it in the marketplace) and work backwards. We have
the option of either going to a publisher or self-publishing. I strongly
recommend finding a publisher; self-publishing is risky and
time-intensive, and especially bad (IMO) for a collaborative project.
OTOH, the downside to a publisher is, as Andrew says:
>no-one is going to make a cent except the publisher.
Well, we'll make a few cents, but it will be cents, literally. The
publisher takes the lion's share for the risk of printing (an expensive
proposition) and for distribution (being able to get the book on the
shelves, in amazon, etc.). Andrew's right - NOBODY should get involved in
this project to make money! It will have to be a labor of love,
especially for the first edition. The other payoff is reputation. The
majority of authors out there write their first book "for free," more or
less, just to get name recognition and be in a better place to negotiate
the price of their second book. That is, however, a strength of the
collaborative approach - nobody's taking on TOO much unpaid work (but it
will still seem like a lot!)
>3. Appoint the most qualified people to contribute each section (whether
>they are list members or not,
Another good point. Like asking the well-known author Covington to write
the OM Astrophoto section, even though he's no longer a list member (I
think?). We want to invite the top experts to contribute. Sadly, this
process often causes the bruising of egos; looking for "the top expert"
among a group of experts (like this list) is like throwing the golden
apple of discord labeled "to the fairest" into the feast of the gods.
(Obscure reference to Greek mythology there, couldn't resist.) But let's
face it: some of us will feel slighted if we do (or do not do) this
project. We have to ask: is a project of this scope worth the social
discomfort it will inevitably entail? All big projects involve negative
emotions on the part of the contributors (and some of the
noncontributors).
It might be a good idea to hold off on public nominations for sections
and do the nominating through a process of private balloting -- ie, once
we determine the contents, sending suggestions for authors to approach in
a private email directly to the editor (or someone on the editorial
staff).
> a text editor to rewrite
>the contributions as required to ensure a consistency of approach and style
>and a designer to layout a consistent 'look.'
So true! Necessary, but I can't tell you how painful it is to have an
"ignorant, heartless, cruel" editor chop and hack your beautiful writing,
but it happens, and it's for the good, and it's just part of the game.
This is why, if we do this, we must commit to following the rules laid
down by the editor in terms of the constraints imposed. No "cowboy"
authoring allowed.
>Almost everyone will hate both editors and the
>designer because thay will find flaws with the way their vision is
>presented/adjusted.
Welllll . . . that's a bit strong . . . I've done a lot of writing and I
haven't hated any of the editors that have published me yet. In fact,
most have become friends. But Andrew's right about the fact that everyone
will have a better idea of how to proceed than the editor and the
designer does. That's why we have to commit, up front, to allowing those
in charge to do what they do best.
>No-one will complete their contributions on time for a
>myriad of very legitimate reasons. The commissioning editor will go slowly
>mad.
Oh, that part's true. We'll all commit and then some of us will slip our
deadlines for the bet of all possible reasons. It's shameful. It's human.
It oughtta not be that way. That's one reason I think Reese should edit.
He's already gone mad, having edited collaborative projects before, so he
can efficiently skip that whole "going insane" part of the project since
he's already nuts.
>Start by getting tacit approval from a publishing house and then give
>them a few chapters to chew on.
Yep, that's how it's done. Good advice, Andrew, thanks.
> T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Whoever is keeping track of things - Kelton
was that you? -
> sign up this gentleman ;)
Done. I'm keeping track of suggested topics, mainly, since I suspect we
will revert to a private ballot for authorship recommendations. I'll keep
track of topic suggestions until we figure out whose job it is to do
this, and then I'll hand the topic list over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelton Rhoads, PhD
Annenberg School of Communication
University of Southern California
kelton@xxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|