For me, the concept of authorship is indeed solitary by nature. The dictionary defines it as: 1 a: one that originates or creates: source b: God and 2: the writer of a literary work (as a book). If we take these definitions literally there is very little room for an "author" to be multiple people at once. I think the essence if authorship is accountability and ownership: you, the writer, the originator, the source are solely responsible for the product you create in the same way that Christians believe God-and God only-created man.
Because I believe so strongly in this interpretation, and perhaps because I am a true proponent of "American-style" competitiveness and individuality, a lot of this rhetoric on collaborative writing being the way of the future falls on deaf ears. Overall, I can honestly say I don't see the benefit of leaving the solitary garret. I think collaboration for most forms of writing is overrated. Now that is not to say that I don't see the value of feedback or peer reviews or editors, it's just that I believe one of the biggest problems in the world of online writing is the lack of accountability for individuals.
In Part 3, The Wisdom of Crowds, Meehan and Moxley do acknowledge the fact that mindless "group think" and vicious, illogical language does seem to proliferate in collaborative writing situations, but they still maintain that knowledge claims developed by groups "may be wiser" than those developed by individuals. I think there are very few examples given that persuade me that that is the case. Yes, Wikipedia's group authorship does allow for a multitude of viewpoints and a sampling from several knowledge bases that may be left out of Encyclopedia Britannica, but it also allows for inaccuracies and ill-formed opinions. Wikipedia may flag a post as needing footnotes or verification, but those flags don't prevent a questionable post from being published.
A perfect, yet funny example occurred a few years ago when the NBC sitcom 30 Rock aired an episode when one of the lead characters was chose to play Janis Joplin in a film biopic. The character decided she was going to go "method" and personify Janis 24-hours a day to prepare for the role, so she consulted Wikipedia. The writing crew wanted to play a trick on her, so they basically took over the Wiki entry on Joplin and updated it with outrageous, false behaviors and traits that they hoped would lead to the actress humiliating herself publicly in the name of method acting.
For a full 24-hours immediately following the airing of that episode, fans of 30 Rock flooded the Joplin Wiki with hilarious, but untrue facts, mimicking the TV storyline. Eventually, Wikipedia had to lock down the entry and disable the use comment function. It was a funny instance of life imitating art and no serious harm was done, but to me it crystallizes the pitfalls of Wiki and collaborative writing.
My other primary issue is that we live in a society that it supposed to be a meritocracy. Individuals are rewarded for their own hard work and efforts. If we shift to a collaborative model, it becomes less possible to discern who is doing what and more importantly, who is capable of what. We laughed in class when Camille said she didn't want other people's mediocracy to mingle and ultimately bring down her genius, but on many levels, it is a fair point. The truth is, not everyone is on the same level and collaboration does not allow individuals to shine. It may be helpful for teachers or professors to share ideas and share syllabi, but if one teacher is infinitely more creative and has unique ideas for motivating students, that is their unique "brand." The greater good is important and should be stressed, but individuals do also have the right to excel on their own.
It may be an unpopular and arguably un-PC point of view, but individualism is a trademark and point of pride in the U.S. and throughout the Western world and should be maintained. Collaboration is for team sports, not composition, and should be left on the playing field!
The issue here is the definition of collaboration. To me--and I think to some other people--essentially all writing is a form of collaboration. Even if you sit down and write an entire academic article, alone, in your study at home, you are in fact joining an intellectual conversation that is already in place. Collaboration.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with James. All writing is a form of collaboration. Eventually that academic article will need to be read by someone else. It will be judged and critiqued and feedback will be given. Even if it started off as an individual exercise, it reaches into a dimension where other people can help construct or deconstruct that peice of writing.
ReplyDeleteJoining the conversation, and I might add, agreeing with all three of you, I refer to the one truly collaborative writing project I was a part of, which was a book that three co-authors (myself included) eventually nursed to publication (only to watch it slowly pass away from lack of marketing attention, but that is another story, oh well).
ReplyDeleteWe did collaborate on the text, meeting once or twice a month to edit, change, discuss and pass on pieces that were already written. The point here is that we each wrote our pieces alone, at our computers, kitchen tables, attic garrets, whatever, and then came together. That we were, and still are friends, helped with the collaborative part. And although we came to the project with differing strengths and inspiration, we somehow managed to defer to the greater good. I think it a rare example of collaborative writing when it works.