Book Writing: Outdated?

[Pluvious]

Does anybody think the whole idea of one person (or two) writing an entire book to be an outdated concept? Wouldn't books be better if you had a team to help you out?

Movies and video games used to be made by a handful of people but now they are put together by huge teams. As an author wouldn't it be nice to have a designated research team, a note-taker, a writer specializing in description, a linguist, various specialists in different fields, or whatever? Right now its basically just the author with a little help from the editor.

Could books be better? Or would they be made worse? You could still have a single person (head writer) in charge creatively, he would just have a team there to get him what he wants. This is the trend in all things. Businesses don't rely on a single person to do everything. It doesn't work unless things are very simple.

Could the book industry produce a whole market of "super" books? Kind of like the big movies that come out every summer. Books that people would really look forward to getting on a mass scale. Kind of like Harry Potter or King or something but in a different way.

Just a thought...

 

[Ouroboros]

Books written by groups of people sitting around a table brain-storming?

No thanks, best left to sitcoms and popular music.

 

[milamber_reborn]

I think your idea will be become more the norm as people seek new ways to produce highly-profitable material.

However, I'd say no. After a story/novel/screenplay is written, every author needs a team or network to help them, but the actual writing is usually best left ot one person alone. Only the person with the idea knows exactly how to put their vision into words.

On the other hand, Feist has proved time and time again that collaborations work.

 

[Dawnstorm]

Hey, that would be a cool job: doing the research for a Science Fiction writer.

Actually, I've always wondered how collaborations work (not why, just how). Anyone think of any collaborations that aren't genre. I can't at the moment.

Also, a lot of people "contribute" to novels (read the acknowledgements). And let's not forget editors.

I'm not sure how you would organize the writing process of a multi-author-corporation-book. (Doesn't sound appealing though; sounds like the difference between a home-cooked meal and McDonald's .)

 

[Pluvious]

Originally posted by Ouroboros
Books written by groups of people sitting around a table brain-storming?

No thanks, best left to sitcoms and popular music.

No, I was thinking more that someone has an idea and uses human resources to help produce a work more efficiently. People to do the legwork as opposed to the creative process itself. Although a couple people or a small group could potentially do that as well. Its definately worth examing and certainly not comparable to a group of writers working on a sitcom. Sitcom's are made weekly, a book is written only once.

 

[kahnovitch]

Originally posted by Pluvious
I was thinking more that someone has an idea and uses human resources to help produce a work more efficiently.

Sounds like we're talking about the "division of labour" principle applied to writing, i.e. each person ina group effort specialised in a specific task.
The publishing industry basically does after the submission had been accepted by an agent/publisher.
But if you mean in the actual creation process I don't think it would work too well if too many people wanted to throw in any "creative" input, i.e. the old saying of "Too many chefs, spoil the broth" etc.

Colloborative stories can obviously work well when there is a group vision for the story and all parties consider and think over all ideas carefully.

At the end of the day though, books are a far simplier form of media to deal with than films and games as those involve far more specialised groups (i.e. coders, graphic designers, play testers, etc) and obviously the production teams for movies are huge.
Writing by it's nature is a solitary and very personal process of trying to create an individual vision held by one person.

 

[summergirl]

Personally, I don't think that a team writing a book is a very good idea. Then again, this might be because I am not much of a team player. It's true that only the person with the idea will truly be able to put it into words, so I think that it would be better if one person, or at maximum, three or four, wrote a book.

Besides, wouldn't you feel more satisfied if you were the one who did most of the research or whatever, and then wrote the book? You'd feel as if it was truly you own work, and something to be proud of.

Too many thoughts from too many people might spoil what could be a good story. As they say, too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

[juzzza]

The only thing I would like to explore from a collaboration pov, is pov itself. Imagine if something like ASoIaF, with its switching POVs was actually written by different authors but with an overall vision for the plot... That would be awesome.

Holbrook and Hereford Eye will have an interesting take on this thread as published collaborators.

 

[Pluvious]

Originally posted by summergirl


Besides, wouldn't you feel more satisfied if you were the one who did most of the research or whatever, and then wrote the book? You'd feel as if it was truly you own work, and something to be proud of.

Too many thoughts from too many people might spoil what could be a good story. As they say, too many cooks spoil the broth.

That's a good point as far as satisfaction goes. But I'm sure Peter Jackson was pretty satisfied with his directing of Lord of the Rings also.

I myself wouldn't want any help with my book but I can see the benefit in the overall picture. I would also prefer making my own video game but I doubt it would be "commercial" enough for sale. Just as there are many small films done by a small group of people. I'm not saying all books would have to be done in groups but maybe it should be considered as a more common practice or even general practice for certain groups of writers.

Good points though. I was just thinking out loud. I wonder how many people Stephen King has working for him on his books???

 

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by Pluvious
No, I was thinking more that someone has an idea and uses human resources to help produce a work more efficiently. People to do the legwork as opposed to the creative process itself. Although a couple people or a small group could potentially do that as well.

I know what you meant, but frankly bland sitcoms and samey pop-music are the best examples of what lies at the end of that road you bring up.

For every Simpsons (a work of genius created by committee) there are a thousand empty headed derivative by-the-numbers shows which try to capitalise on trends and make all the right sounds.

I remain distinctly underwhelmed by the notion of collaborative teams turning out books, sorry Pluvonius.

Its definately worth examing and certainly not comparable to a group of writers working on a sitcom. Sitcom's are made weekly, a book is written only once.

Some books are ten volume series. Each is written only once (or completed only once, rather...). Some sitcoms or TV shows never make it past ten episodes. Each episode is made only once. Semantics. If we're discussing the nature of the creative process itself then these things are largely irrelevant anyway.

 

[Bardos]

Well, I have to disagree. I like writing my story all by myself and no s**t-head spoiling my vision.

But, I certainly like to experiment, as Juzza suggested with the POV stuff. (Great idea there, man. )

Now, as far as commerciality (is there such a word?) goes... I don't want fantasy books to be commercial. Heck, most commercial stuff suck really bad! See what happens when the LotR becomes a movie. Ditto, there where some pretty good stuff there, but there were, also, some pretty BAD, anti-LotR stuff, especialy in the second movie.

All in all, I prefer one guy writing the book. No special need to raise the production cost, anyway. All these other people working on the novel would have to be paid, also. Would the profit out-balance the cost? Most of the time, not, I think. A book can never make movie-money.

 

[juzzza]

Your risk/reward point is well made Bardos, it is unlikely that a book would make back all the money it cost to produce it in one weekend (Rowling is the exception) if it had the kind of entourage movies have. These movies that cost a few hundred million to develop and break-even on opening week-end, wow, no wonder studios are prepared to throw the bucks at the blockbusters.

 

[Richardb]

Imagine art done by a team. Perhaps painting... then imagine the choppy nature of the final piece.
The magic of writing is in what it evokes in our imagination, and in its ability to suspend disbelief. If a team worked a piece, it is more likely that 'breaks' in tone and characterization would be notable in the works. Certainly some teams have avoided this fate, but in general, consistency is far more assured if a single visionary follows through on their vision and puts the work to print. If the goal is to bring commercial works to market effeciently, then this sounds great. But I still believe that writing is an art form, and at times, some of the pieces are able to become commercialized for us all to enjoy. You just can't wrap a standard process around anything that is, by its nature, creative. Process creates boundaries for creativity.

 

[JRMurdock]

Reading, as well as writing, is a personal thing for me. When I write a story, I'm talking to one reader and not the masses. I want my story to develop a personal relationship with the reader. As well as when I read, I want that writer to make a personal connection with me through their words.

With a team of writers (or just a team)(and more than two) working on a book, you run the risk of a cliche book with a sterile environment, predictable characters, and a re-hashed plotline.

When an individual writes a book, it's personal and 100% that author. Is spontaneous at some points and wildly unpredictable at others. If I saw a book published by a team, I'd steer clear of it. But that's just me.

 

[Richardb]

I guess the one upside would be that when you get a rejection letter from a publisher, you could always blame it on the 'other guys' on the team. My stuff is great... but they keep screwing everying up...
That would save a lot of hurt feelings and nicely de-personalize the entire thing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by Richardb
Imagine art done by a team. Perhaps painting... then imagine the choppy nature of the final piece.

Ironically, many of history's greatest painters did not work alone. Painters like Sir Joshua Reynolds who had very productive studios doing large scale works required the assistance of a small army of helpers to stay on track. Going further back to the very early renaissance : even figures such as Giotto reputedly got their start doing small elements in the works of their masters.

Crucially, however, the painter who the work would be attributed to (the master) retained sole creative control and withheld the most important elements of the work for himself. Traditionally, these were the hands and the eyes.

Not so much collaborative or by committee, but .... with assistance.

 

[Richardb]

Originally posted by Ouroboros


Ironically, many of history's greatest painters did not work alone. Painters like Sir Joshua Reynolds who had very productive studios doing large scale works required the assistance of a small army of helpers to stay on track. Going further back to the very early renaissance : even figures such as Giotto reputedly got their start doing small elements in the works of their masters.

Crucially, however, the painter who the work would be attributed to (the master) retained sole creative control and withheld the most important elements of the work for himself. Traditionally, these were the hands and the eyes.

Not so much collaborative or by committee, but .... with assistance.

Well then, that sounds like one artist, with assistants. Different than "this is your piece of canvas, and this is mine". That is how writing happens with most published authors, isn't it. The author owns the writing, but the editor cuts it, changes it, and even modifies bits and pieces to ensure commercial success. The key is that there is a single point of continuity in the work. Having someone work on supporting structures (perhaps my paint analogy is not working here, but it seemed good at the time). However, the principle to me is sound. Never liked a lot of the Renaissance artists... now I know why.
Anyhow, my basic message is "I don't think teams of authors are the answer to the future of writing. I like to form a relationship with the author, and am very sensitive to changes in style and characterization".

 

[ironchef texmex]

This would never work for me. I have to do my own research.

Most of my plots generally comes to me while doing the research. Learning something interesting about a given subject will usually suggest a turning point for the story.

If I didn't have the extra time and 'brain fuel' to bulk up my stories I'm afraid they be nothing more than, well, sitcoms.

 

[Pluvious]

Originally posted by Ouroboros


Ironically, many of history's greatest painters did not work alone. Painters like Sir Joshua Reynolds who had very productive studios doing large scale works required the assistance of a small army of helpers to stay on track. Going further back to the very early renaissance : even figures such as Giotto reputedly got their start doing small elements in the works of their masters.

Crucially, however, the painter who the work would be attributed to (the master) retained sole creative control and withheld the most important elements of the work for himself. Traditionally, these were the hands and the eyes.

Not so much collaborative or by committee, but .... with assistance.

\

Lol! You guys make me laugh. A little vision people. The only reason books aren't made in groups (in general) is because there isn't enough money in it for everyone. Yes of course the creative control should still be in the hands of a single individual, but additional help is beneficial in many circumstances. Most people aren't great in all aspects of writing a book. Anyway, I like the way it is now but just the fact that everyone is so against this concept compels me to argue it.

 

[Eventine]

Lol! You guys make me laugh. A little vision people. The only reason books aren't made in groups (in general) is because there isn't enough money in it for everyone. Yes of course the creative control should still be in the hands of a single individual, but additional help is beneficial in many circumstances. Most people aren't great in all aspects of writing a book. Anyway, I like the way it is now but just the fact that everyone is so against this concept compels me to argue it.

I agree about the money comment.
I see your scheme working if there was enough money in it, and what we currently see as the author takes a role similar to a director in a movie - ie having most of the creative control and being responsible for the output of the whole production.