Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

October 10 2013

Four short links: 10 October 2013

  1. ActiveLit — interactive fiction as literacy tool. (via Text Adventures blog)
  2. Your Car is About to go Open Source (ComputerWorld) — an open-source IVI operating system would create a reusable platform consisting of core services, middleware and open application layer interfaces that eliminate the redundant efforts to create separate proprietary systems. Leaving them to differentiate the traditional way: ad-retargeting and spyware.
  3. The Digital Networked Textbook: Is It Any Good? (Dan Meyer) — “if you were hundreds of feet below the surface of the Earth, in a concrete bunker without any kind of Internet access, is the curriculum any different?”
  4. Full Screen Mario — web reimplementation of original Mario Brothers, with random level generator and a level editor, source on github. (via Andy Baio)

August 21 2013

Shakespeare and the myth of publishing

Note: this post started as a Foo Camp 2013 session.

A few weeks ago, Tim O’Reilly sent around a link to Who Edited Shakespeare?, which discussed the editor for the First Folio edition of Shakespeare’s plays. It included a lot of evidence that someone had done a lot of work regularizing spelling and doing other tasks that we’d now assign to a copyeditor or a proofreader, presumably more work than the Folio’s nominal editors, Heminges and Condell, were inclined to do or capable of doing.

It’s an interesting argument that prompted some thoughts about the nature of publishing. The process of editing creates the impression, the mythology, that a carefully crafted, consistent, and stable text exists for these plays, that the plays are static literary objects. We like to think that there is a “good” Shakespeare text, if only we had it: what Shakespeare actually wrote, and what was actually performed on stage. We have a mess of good quarto editions, bad quartos, the First Folio, apocryphal works, and more. Some versions of the plays are significantly longer than others; some scholars believe that we’re missing significant parts of Macbeth (Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy, for which the First Folio is the only source). Perhaps the worst case is Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, which is known entirely through two early print editions, one roughly 50% longer than the other.

I’m skeptical about whether the search for a hypothetical authoritative version of Shakespeare’s text is meaningful. Shakespeare’s plays were, first and foremost, plays: they were performances staged before a live audience. If you’ve had any involvement with theater, you can imagine how that goes: “Act III, Scene iv dragged; let’s cut it next time. Act V, Scene i was great, but too short; let’s fill it out some.” The plays, as staged events, were infinitely flexible. In the years after Shakespeare, poor editors have certainly done a lot to mangle them, but I’m sure that Shakespeare himself, as a theater professional and partner in a theater company, was constantly messing around with the text.

The published versions of the plays were assembled without any involvement from Shakespeare — indeed, the First Folio was published seven years after his death. Scripts were the trade secrets of the theater companies, and no playwright before Ben Jonson wanted anything to do with publishers or publication. Most likely, the publishers paid off a bunch of actors to sit around a table and remember their lines. And it’s generally assumed that the bad quartos had to do with actors with poor memories, or who perhaps were paid in too much beer. It’s sometimes claimed that very good quartos might have had actual scripts behind them (as far as I know, without any hard evidence, since no original scripts exist).

It’s more likely that the difference between good and bad early editions has less to do with the actors or their inebriation, and more to do with which performances they took part in. Plays aren’t static, fixed literary objects; they change, according to the demands of the situation. And the differences between Quarto and Folio editions are just as likely to have to do with different performances than with the quality of the actors’ memories. The notion that there’s a canonical text for any Shakespeare play is a myth imposed by the institution of publishing (in which Shakespeare didn’t take part), and the mechanics of printing. A printing press, whether a 17th century press or a modern offset press, is a device that can’t react to change. It’s a device that needs a stable, settled text. We create that text, and the myth behind that text, as part of the publishing enterprise.

Now fast forward roughly 400 years to the present. The publishing industry is undergoing rapid change, and players who don’t adapt to the change won’t survive. One important (and undervalued) aspect of this change is that we no longer need the publishing myth of the static text. At O’Reilly, we publish print books and ebooks. For some time, we’ve been regularly updating our ebooks in the field: a day after a book has been “published,” the author can come back and say, “Hey, I need to improve that description in Chapter 3,” add a couple of pages, and push that out to the customers. The text is no longer static and canonical: it’s living and changing. We still have print customers, but increasingly, our printing is done via print-on-demand (POD). When the author updates his book, we automatically send new files to the POD printer, and customers who order a print book tomorrow will receive tomorrow’s book.

We’re in the process of re-inventing publishing around active, dynamic texts, not static, one-way texts that impart wisdom from an author to a reader. We believe that re-invention is crucial to our survival: our own survival as well as our competitors’. But let’s not stop here. What else can we do?

While we believe that Shakespeare wrote most of his great plays in their entirety, it’s well known that the process of writing in Shakespeare’s time was collaborative. A master author would sketch out the plot, write the key scenes, and let apprentices or other members of the theater company staff fill in the rest. There’s certainly stylistic evidence that Shakespeare’s early plays, in addition to several plays of doubtful authorship (the “Shakespeare Apocrypha”), were products of collaboration. Collaboration is equally critical to modern technical authorship. But it’s difficult with our older toolsets: emailing Word files back and forth is painful, and while SVN is pretty good at merging changes on line-oriented source code, prose isn’t really line-oriented. In our new approach to publishing, we’ve tackled the collaboration problem; we believe that we have the first publishing toolchain in which collaboration is native, in which it’s the default, rather than the exception.

I’ve argued for a few years now that the book isn’t really what’s important, it’s the conversation about the book. That applies as much to Shakespeare or to Faulkner as it does to technical books: if there were no conversation around King Lear or The Sound and the Fury, would they be important? So: can we build that discussion into the book? Can the book be something more than one-way communication (with updates)? For a technical book, that discussion would contain questions, answers, and clarifications. It might contain changes that the author makes in response to this discussion. (For a literary work, I grant that the author needs to butt out after he’s done his job.) Do we need the distinction between a draft or “early access” book and the first edition, or is a book something that evolves from the first few chapters, and is never finished? What happens when the notion of collaboration is extended from the authors and co-authors to the readers? Can we write and publish with an “open process,” similar to the way we develop open source software?

This reinvention raises many questions for the publishing enterprise: it requires new kinds of ebooks, new models for compensation, new models for intellectual property. These problems are all solvable (and indeed, we’re working on solving them). The big question is: what can we do now that we’re no longer tied to the myth of stable literary objects? What might the future hold, and how can we build it?

February 15 2013

Four short links: 15 February 2013

  1. Ed Startups in a Nutshell (Dan Meyer) — I couldn’t agree with Dan more: The Internet is like a round pipe. Lecture videos and machine-scored exercises are like round pegs. They pass easily from one end of the pipe to the other. But there are square and triangular pegs: student-student and teacher-student relationships, arguments, open problems, performance tasks, projects, modeling, and rich assessments. These pegs, right now, do not flow through that round pipe well at all.
  2. 3D Printed Portraiture: Past, Present, and Future — impressive collection of 3D scans of museum collections of portraiture. Check out his downloadable design files. (via Bruce Sterling)
  3. Versu — interactive storytelling, with AI and conversation modeling.
  4. Weird Things Found on Taobao — this is what I never ow my head. (via Beta Knowledge)

January 22 2013

Four short links: 22 January 2013

  1. Design Like Nobody’s Patenting Anything (Wired) — profile of Maker favourites Sparkfun. Instead of relying on patents for protection, the team prefers to outrace other entrants in the field. “The open source model just forces us to innovate,” says Boudreaux. “When we release something, we’ve got to be thinking about the next rev. We’re doing engineering and innovating and it’s what we wanna be doing and what we do well.”
  2. Agree to Agree — why I respect my friend David Wheeler: his Design Scene app, which features daily design inspiration, obtains prior written permission to feature the sites because doing so is not only making things legally crystal clear, but also makes his intentions clear to the sites he’s linking to. He’s shared the simple license they request.
  3. The Coming Fight Between Druids and Engineers (The Edge) — We live in a time when the loneliest place in any debate is the middle, and the argument over technology’s role in our future is no exception. The relentless onslaught of novelties technological and otherwise is tilting individuals and institutions alike towards becoming Engineers or Druids. It is a pressure we must resist, for to be either a Druid or an Engineer is to be a fool. Druids can’t revive the past, and Engineers cannot build technologies that do not carry hidden trouble. (via Beta Knowledge)
  4. Reimagining Math Textbooks (Dan Meyer) — love this outline of how a textbook could meaningfully interact with students, rather than being recorded lectures or PDF versions of cyclostyled notes and multichoice tests. Rather than using a generic example to illustrate a mathematical concept, we use the example you created. We talk about its perimeter. We talk about its area. The diagrams in the margins change. The text in the textbook changes. Check it out — they actually built it!

July 31 2012

Publishing times, they are a-changin’

The NYC Publishing Innovators Meetup group held its inaugural roundtable in its quarterly speaker series in July. Panelists, led by Kat Meyer as moderator, included: Ned Lomigora, co-founder of Zeeen.com; Diane Gedymin, executive editor at Turner Publishing; Peter Balis, director of online sales, John Wiley & Sons; Linda Holliday, CEO of Semi-Linear; Jesse Potash, founder, PubSlush, and; Michelle Toth, founder, 617Books. The thesis was: “What role can publishers play in supporting a direct relationship between readers and authors?” The discussion was energetic, but everyone agreed on one thing: the times, they are a-changin’.

Key points from the full discussion include:

  • Where there’s a will, there’s a way — Utilizing technology, authors with the time and will to publish and market their books can bypass traditional publishers. Technology “is the great enabler and democratizer.” [Begins at the 13:20 mark.]
  • Is it good? — Quality content matters; curation is a valuable role for professionals, from freelancers to traditional publishers, but a panelist postulates that an alternate path can be found in the tools available to authors who self-publish, including community. [Begins at 24:05.]
  • Should publishers worry about losing big authors to self-publishing? — If traditional publishers are going to continue to add marketing value, they need to master the new technology toolset and grow it. Publishers lag behind other industry leaders as to what they do online. [Begins at 34:19.]
  • The distance between readers and writers is shrinking — Whoever owns the sale owns the relationship with readers, and effective marketing is key to establishing that relationship. [Begins at 38:05.]
  • What is distribution in today’s world? — A spirited discussion begins with the declaration that you can’t distribute a book “with the push of a button.” Publishers create books in multiple formats sent to multiple vendors for sale via multiple channels, with metadata included for discovery purposes. [Begins at 47:02.]
  • Transparency in e-publishing — Peter Balis talks about the complex process of publishing in various formats, information that should be shared with aspiring authors who want to self-publish and self-distribute. [Begins at 56:00 with insightful follow-up comments starting at 1:05:40.]
  • Our understanding of what a publisher is is changing — Jesse Potash addresses changing roles and perceptions, and how experts can potentially replace certain roles publishers currently fill. [Begins at 1:00:25.]
  • Branding — A great discussion about the role branding is playing in today’s world starts with a question from the audience. [Begins at 1:25:21.]

You can view the entire roundtable in the following video:

Related:

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl