Book Writing: Outdated?

I’m confused about exactly how using ‘assistants’ would stray terribly from the way many authors currently write novels. The only difference I can see is that these ‘assistants’ are on the writer’s payroll and frankly, why pay someone when you can get the same information for free. For instance, in Neil Gaiman’s book American Gods he acknowledges Dan Johnson, M.D., who gave him medical information whenever he needed it. This is just one of many. I have done a great deal of research for my novel, relying heavily upon the expertise of others. However, these experts don’t actually write any part of the novel, they just give the writer the information and the writer then uses that information as he or she sees fit.

If you’re talking about using a group or committee to write a novel, I just can’t see it working. And frankly I’m not sure why a novel written by a group of people would mean that novel would be superior to novels written in the traditional method. Quite the contrary. If you had one person who excels at plot, another at deep and engaging characters, and another at say dialogue, then that is a recipe for disaster. It is exceedingly difficult to find two people, let alone a committee of people, who can agree.

It’s easy to say that people aren’t great at all aspects of writing. But all of the aspects of writing are interwoven and interconnected. What a character says helps define who that character is, therefore, the dialogue impacts the character development. The same is true for all aspects of writing.

That’s not to say that collaborations haven’t worked in the past. However, according to authors who partook in successful collaborations, the responsibilities of each participant was clearly defined. And the successful collaboration is the exception and not the rule. I should also note that the vast majority of these authors are successful authors before they collaborate with each other.

In my opinion, using a team to write a novel sounds like a way to avoid the work necessary to developing the writing skills yourself.
 
Originally posted by KATS
If you’re talking about using a group or committee to write a novel, I just can’t see it working. And frankly I’m not sure why a novel written by a group of people would mean that novel would be superior to novels written in the traditional method. Quite the contrary. If you had one person who excels at plot, another at deep and engaging characters, and another at say dialogue, then that is a recipe for disaster. It is exceedingly difficult to find two people, let alone a committee of people, who can agree.

What this person says :)

It is tough enough, at least to me, to get a single person's thoughts down on paper into a coherent, readable piece of work. To expect several people to be of one mind, vision, and style, and have it translate into a single readable story... that's a huge undertaking IMHO. Like KATS said, it is hard to get people to agree on such an individual creative thing. And even if you do get to the point where there is agreement on exactly how and what to write, the actual stuff that's going to be written by two different people will still be two entirely different things. There is just too much personal involvement (in diction, movement, plot, etc) when it comes to writing for it not to have individual style. Just my two cents.
 
There seems to be a lot ot collaboration between script writers of movies? Is it similar enough for a comparison?
 
Originally posted by KATS
I’m confused about exactly how using ‘assistants’ would stray terribly from the way many authors currently write novels. The only difference I can see is that these ‘assistants’ are on the writer’s payroll and frankly, why pay someone when you can get the same information for free. For instance, in Neil Gaiman’s book American Gods he acknowledges Dan Johnson, M.D., who gave him medical information whenever he needed it. This is just one of many. I have done a great deal of research for my novel, relying heavily upon the expertise of others. However, these experts don’t actually write any part of the novel, they just give the writer the information and the writer then uses that information as he or she sees fit.


Resarch is actually generally easier then doing the writing. I love doing the research and learning things. That being said, a "research" assistant/organizer would be very useful to any author.

Ok, so I'm going to list a few possibly ways that multiple people could work on a book together.

1) You have each author write a different character's viewpoint (this has been mentioned). The different authors would collaborate together about plot and other factors but would write their specific chapters individualy. This could be interesting.

2) You work in a group to help form plot concepts, intrigue, setting, or whatever. However, one writer does the writing and has final say on all decisions.

3) You can use one or more of the following: (1) research assistant, (2) typist, secretary (some who does dictation for you, (3) file organizer (all research at on computer and easy to access, (4) easily accessed specialists (I recently read a book where an accomplished author said that she quit writing a book because she just couldn't understand the science), etc.

And I don't think books would necessarily be better (it could however increase the potential for good books because the process could be sped up). And it would certainly take a re-structuring of the writing business for anything like this to even have a chance. But I like thinking about junk like this.
 
Though I posted a negative response to this earlier (and I'm nto recinding that response) I do think there is a way this could work that would be interesting. I'm not sure if this has been tried before.

A world is created by a group of authors and common features agreed upon. Next, each author writes a short story about that world (very short) that brings in characters, perhaps plot elements, etc. An overall plot is conceived from these short stories (that may never see the light of day).

Each author contributes 2 chapters to the book. The chapters are the view point of the character(s) that author has created in realtionship to the overall plot. Stories can intertwine between groups and the overall book will move along following not one view point of a story, but multiple (8...9...more?) and if this is built into a series, the communication between authors will help strengthen the plot and build the world.

This would draw in readers for the simple fact there'd be so many different writing styles, you'd HOPE to appeal to many different readers. Those readers would struggle through a wordy chapter knowing that the next isn't the same style and has different characters.

Who's up for a community effort...WOO~HOO!
 
Originally posted by Pluvious
a "research" assistant/organizer would be very useful to any author.

I know myself well enough to know that I could never use an assistant/organizer. 1) I’m way too much of a control freak, probably bordering on neurotic, & 2) I know that I’d end up reviewing all the “research” so that it would make the work the assistant did repetitive and a general waste of the assistant’s time. And in my heart I hate inefficiency. And this for me this would be the height of inefficiency.

Originally posted by Pluvious
1) You have each author write a different character's viewpoint (this has been mentioned). The different authors would collaborate together about plot and other factors but would write their specific chapters individualy. This could be interesting.

I believe this method is actually a lot more complicated than it sounds. As I’ve said before, the responsibilities of each collaborator would have to be clearly defined. As I understand it, these collaborations have torn best friends apart and the best way to avoid hurt feelings is to specify in as much detail as possible the conditions of the collaboration before it is begun.

This option would of course also include each author taking a character (POV). And the chapters, POV or whatever would have to be blended together at some point; there would have to be some overlapping. You can’t just stick the author’s sections together and expect the novel to flow and be readable.

Originally posted by Pluvious
2) You work in a group to help form plot concepts, intrigue, setting, or whatever. However, one writer does the writing and has final say on all decisions.

I just don’t see the benefit of this option. Brainstorming with friends is a lot of fun. I’ve been involved with a few ‘just for fun’ collaborative stories and I greatly enjoyed the experience. However, a novel is so much more than the original idea. To work in a group for the entirety of a novel is a large undertaking and then to turn around and turn the reins over to someone else. I couldn’t do it. And frankly, it rings of hiring ghost writers, which is fine if you are Pamela Anderson (who, by the way, is doing this and/or option 3). For the average person this doesn’t seem like a viable option.

Originally posted by Pluvious
3) You can use one or more of the following: (1) research assistant, (2) typist, secretary (some who does dictation for you, (3) file organizer (all research at on computer and easy to access, (4) easily accessed specialists (I recently read a book where an accomplished author said that she quit writing a book because she just couldn't understand the science), etc.

Speaking as a full time secretary, I can’t see this working either, unless you are perhaps independently wealthy. It might be nice to have someone to do all the menial work, but I can’t imagine anyone doing this for free. Unless you are willing to spend some $20,000.00 - $40,000.00 or more a year, this isn’t a viable option. And as a secretary I can say there is only so much an assistant can do. If you become too reliant on them, their aid is more harmful than helpful.

A quick note: if the writer couldn’t understand the science, then she was right to shelve it. I doubt having access to specialists would have helped her. If she was an accomplished author, she probably did have or could have had access to specialists. Sometimes things are just beyond our grasp regardless of the specialists or teachers or books available to us.

Originally posted by Pluvious
And I don't think books would necessarily be better (it could however increase the potential for good books because the process could be sped up). And it would certainly take a re-structuring of the writing business for anything like this to even have a chance. But I like thinking about junk like this.

I don’t think any of these options would significantly sped up the process of writing a book, at least not a good book. You could certainly crank out several prefab novels, but there are many programs you can buy that do that. Writing a worthwhile novel is a long process and there are no short cuts.

At least that’s my opinion.
 
Originally posted by maus99

This would draw in readers for the simple fact there'd be so many different writing styles, you'd HOPE to appeal to many different readers. Those readers would struggle through a wordy chapter knowing that the next isn't the same style and has different characters.

If you want to read something like this, try Yeats Is Dead by various Irish authors. Everyone contributed one chapter. (I don't know how much discussion went on, though.) It's a charity project (for Amnesty International I think). It's fun to read; characters get introduced, and the spotlight shifts at a rate you're not used to in novels. :D
 
Originally posted by KATS


I don’t think any of these options would significantly sped up the process of writing a book, at least not a good book. You could certainly crank out several prefab novels, but there are many programs you can buy that do that. Writing a worthwhile novel is a long process and there are no short cuts.

At least that’s my opinion.


I see where you're coming from and you're right. Of course. In a limited social context, and from a specific point of view-it might not be worthwhile. But I for one can see how it might just work. And that's why I simply can't fathom how someone would argue entirely in one direction or another. It strikes of close mindedness. I wish more people would come up with ideas (right or wrong, as long as it is different), then maybe I'd feel more inclined to post here and read more in general. Too much similarity out there for me.
 
A difference of opinion does not equal a closed mind. I simply don't agree with you. And I will admit that I could be completely wrong. But until I have some evidence to the contrary, my opinions will not change.

Please don't feel like you can't post here because your opinions differ from others. This has been a good post and has opened up some dialogue, which is always good for the mind.

Kimberly
KATS
 
I agree that open sharing of ideas is the only way to every 'invent' anything new. However, by putting it out there, folks are going to agree, and disagree. It is only closed minded when emotional and personal attacks are made against the person that initiated the idea. Part of the process of this type of communication is the directed challenging of the idea, for, and against. I am against the idea of teams writing books as I believe that the quality of the works would decline. Right? Wrong? I don't know, its just an opinion. I think it a good topic though, and have enjoyed the sharing of opinions on both sides.
 
Back
Top