Crowd-sourced Editing

[smasover]

Rafael Lima is an author, screenwriter, and lecturer at University of Miami in Ohio. He's been selling a draft of his novel-in-progress on Amazon for $0.99 (as an e-book for the Kindle) in order to "crowd-source" responses that he has been using to refine his manuscript.

I get terrific value from having friends, readers, and fellow-writers read my mss., whether in whole or in part. Leaving aside the usual difficulties ('but he didn't get what I'm trying to do!", "ow, that hurts!"), I find it's logistically non-trivial to juggle the converging and diverging opinions that different readers provide as I revise and revise and revise again.

So I'm kind of amazed that Lima claims "I have found no minuses in the experience at all."

I wonder how other authors feel about the prospect of dozens or hundreds of editorial suggesters streaming critique your way while you're editing a manuscript. Do you think it'd help? Distract? Confuse? Clarify?

I read about Lima in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and you can too if you'd like more detail: http://chronicle.com/blogs/pageview/fin ... rowd/27548 ... Lima's novel, Screenwriter, is for sale here: http://www.amazon.com/SCREENWRITER-ebook/dp/B003BLOMYA .

[polymath]

So I'm kind of amazed that Lima claims "I have found no minuses in the experience at all."

I wonder how other authors feel about the prospect of dozens or hundreds of editorial suggesters streaming critique your way while you're editing a manuscript. Do you think it'd help? Distract? Confuse? Clarify?

Lima obviously appreciates if he grouches about grouch-worthy commentary he'd poison responders. All it takes is one drop of vitriol to turn the whole world against him.

Crowd sourced critical path think tanking is a good way to crash-course toward an understanding of consumer (reader) expectations and comfort zones and cultural coding conventions. With a product specific exemplar to work from, he gets pointed responses rather than generic generalizations. Like, generally; Ideally, it's a best practice to establish reader rapport quickly in an opening. Or more on point; Maisy Daize's character traits are weighted a little heavily in author surrogacy. She's not as likeable from being so confident and well-adjusted and self-reliant. If she had some human foibles to pity, she'd be more likeable and empathy-worthy and therefore easier to find rapport with.

Whether it would distract or confuse depends on Lima's ability to filter and process and disciminate a large and diverse data set.

[Mira]

This is fascinating. For me - I think it would be dangerous. I need to follow my own muse until the work is done - I'm way too easily influenced. But I would imagine there are some people who would find this amazingly helpful - especially those looking for commercial appeal.

Obviously, a debut author would have to give it away for free - I would think - but what an interesting experiment. As long as it's optional, it could be a very good tool for some people.

[Truth and Fiction]

The thought of asking anyone to pay to read and critique my novel in progress (even if it's only 99 cents) cracks me up. Of course he views it as positive...he's attracting new readers, making some money, and even getting media attention and nibbles from publishers. According to the Chronicle, his book was downloaded 2,000 times. So I guess it's an interesting experiment...though I have to say I'm surprised it's as successful as it has been.

[bcomet]

This is so interesting. He sounds fearless.

I wonder how writers could help offset the costs of writing, research trips, professional services, etc.
by offering a work (or a part of a work) up for general mass editing and feedback.

Fascinating, brave new world. Hopefully, not also foolish.

[polymath]

I've had several new thoughts on Lima's process.

One; charging to read and therefore comment cuts down a significant portion of casual responses. A buck is a comparatively trivial amount of money. It's still money and inconvenience and effort to pay the money above and beyond just opening a file and reading and responding to it. Responders are invested investors not likely to take their responses lightly. It's an effective filter.

Two; groupthinking tends to create a homogenized consensus of compromising viewpoints. If a writer delivers what a groupthink wants, it's as likely to meet, not exceed, expectations as it is to fall short. There's no challenge to accommodate, no spark of originality, no new insights from appealing to groupthink. The net outcome is likely to be anticlimactic. If, however, the groupthink inspires new ideas from which to build upon, then it's all good.

Three; once and if the manuscript reaches a final condition, responders may well purchase it again at a higher cost to ascertain whether their recommendations were taken into consideration. On the plus side of the ledger, readers then have a prepositioned rapport and an interest in reading closely. They feel they're part of the novel's inception and delivery. On the debit side of the ledger, if readers feel they've been slighted, they're likely to be permanently alienated.

[bcomet]

The possibilities that emerge around a public (or even semi-public) work-in-progress kind of blow my mind.

I think of an evolving work. You could have the drafts, the 2010 version, the 2011 version...

I agree that 99cents makes the commenter invested.
I wonder how cool it might be to limit the number of (or time frames in which) that feedback is sold.

But I also think that any who participate in the group-editing ought to receive free copies of final or evolving editions, and maybe even a choice of being listed on an acknowledgment page at the back.

I think it has the potential to be sooooo edgy of a concept.

[Quill]

Writing as theater, as participatory theater at that. A different route to creative writing and platform building and sales. A hook in itself. Nothing wrong with that. Wouldn't be my way. Not envious that I didn't think of it. Good on him.

[smasover]

I ended up blogging about this and a friend responded with a link to a related, equally fascinating instance of crowd-sourced editing: Planned Obsolecence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy by Kathleen Fitzpatrick. This one is a sort of open-ended, on-line peer review for an academic monograph, and is hosted not on an e-book device but on a website that permits comments linked to individual paragraphs and includes the author's blog.