okay...it's been a little while since i promised to respond.
a question: is the 'unbook' still a viable concept, or, has it been supplanted by the 'next great idea'?
i'm being only a little facetious.
the 'net has, it sometimes seems to me, a turnover rate for ideas measured in days and hours.
so: it's completely possible the 'unbook' may already rest in some virtual graveyard.
*shrug*
assuming it does not...
as anyone following the multiple threads, on multiple sites, may know: i’m less than impressed with the idea behind the 'unbook'.
it's taken me till now to fully understand why.
previously: i referred to the 'committee' nature of the concept and that -- with fiction at least -- such an approach threatens the idiosyncratic expression of 'one' in favor of 'the many'.
my distaste gelled for me when, last night, i had a sudden realization.
the 'unbook', it seems to me, is very much about castration, the elimination of vision, and the reduction of 'one' to mere part in a looming, overarching, process (never mind the 'one' is the creator without who there would be no process).
in short: the 'unbook' is about 'feminizing', emasculating, and 'it takes a village-ism'.
the unbook -- at heart -- is an exercise in *collectivism which the sensible understand is the ruination of any real endeavor.
any real progress in any field occurs because 'one' exercises him 'self' alone, or as undisputed leader.
to rely on the 'collective' as anything other than proxy (a tool) is foolishness and -- forgive me -- **'female' (let's pass 'round the talking stick and cluck about the 'bun in the oven').
now: mr gray insists in other 'unbook' entries here in this site, the creator retains control of all aspects of the 'unbook', and that the 'unbook' is distinctly different from an 'open book' because of that control.
i would argue, at least as it pertains to fiction, every voice, each pair of eyes, every mind, outside of the creator's is a potential adulterant to the work…for example: fiction is a dicey enough process (one wherein the writer can stumble over himself constantly) without others throwing their 'good ideas' and interpretations into the mix.
certainly: these extra voices, eyes, minds can serve as tools for the creator…but then: that option already exists for the creator…what good purpose is there is codifying a natural, loose, unstructured, event ('mind taking a look a this for me?') into an on-going act of management?
----------
so: have i contributed anything of value to the conversation?
i'm sure i haven't.
in essence: i use my personal preference (i use 'myself') to justify a distaste for what may be a perfectly legitimate method for compiling textbooks, non-fictions, etc.
since, of course, i don't write textbooks, non-fictions, etc. such a method seems alien and 'wrong' to me, so, i'm certain my little protestations fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
that i disparage the great idols 'collective' and 'female', i’m sure, has, or will have, no bearing on anyone's responses.
as i am tolerant of a great many inanities and insanities (while never participating in them), i feel secure a 'agree to disagree' policy is best when it comes to the 'unbook'.
all the best… --henry quirk
*from
http://www.asiansofmixedrace.com/def.htm collectivism: giving priority to the goals of one's group (often one's extended family or work group) and defining one's identity accordingly...to my mind: collectivism is synonymous with cog-ism, that is, the view of the individual as 'a subordinate who performs an important but routine function'.
**women are very nice...i like them very much...but: i don't wanna be one.