Text Remixing Ethics
Rather than cluttering up the Apparition of a Heart board with my ramblings on text REmixing, I thought I would just start a new Record for this largely unrelated discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------
Richie Millenium
Isn't it funny how we can feel hesitant about playing around with text RECords, when we aren't hesitant at all about playing around with other kinds of RECords? I guess something about the written word seems sacred. I had to get over that too when I was working on "And The Truth Is". Maybe that collab you were talking about would help too, right?
----------------------------------
Sara Nova
Richie, I know what you mean about how words seem sacred, yet we are allowed to mess with them too. If the Royal Shakespeare company can trim and alter Hamlet, then I say all bets are off!
The oriiginal form will always exist, so we should be allowed to recreate and remix them.
Even text considered as sacred as the bible has been altered continuously thoughout history simply by virtue of translating it into so many languages and even choosing which text to include and which to leave out.
-----------------------------------
ntheon
@RichieMillenium - yeah, now that you mention it... In theory, I lHeART the whole concept of remixing text. Yet, I do notice I have a greater hesitation to mess with other people's text, and when I think of my own being remixed, I get slightly squeamish. I never noticed that before.
The closest I have done is, I jumped into another story from someone who specifically said she didn't know where to go with it, and this has gone well. But I notice, we have kept the two stories mostly separate, but interleaving, and while we try to connect the two stories periodically, we have treaded very carefully around each other's characters and plotlines.
Other than that, the closest I have come to "REmixing" text was creating the Dictionary from Metaphorest's story - and that did not actually mess with the story i any way.
And I'm also in a shared universe collab, that isn't real remixing either, and definitely invited, so that's different.
So, I don't know. The rule is the rule, and it certainly applies to text. We writers will need to get used to it. I expect we will all get over the squeamishness, once some people start getting serious about it and we see fantastic end results.
I was *very* impressed with the poetry mashup I saw earlier today - definitely a serious REmixing of text. It didn't bother me. As more of that happens, we'll start to think nothing of it.
-----------------------------------
Ntheon
Oh, I forgot, I also "translated" Shakespeare into Metaphoresian. But, as Sara pointed out, we're used to that. And what it comes down to is, we're squeamish about remixing *living* writers. I suspect that is a legacy of decades of sympathy for struggling writers that is embedded in our culture, especially among fellow writers.
But now that I think of it, the REmix era, the New Deal, is actually a far better deal for writers. Not only do we get all this great text to REmix, but this sea change of the business model is the best chance in decades to correct entrenched, historic injustices in both recognition and compensation for writers.
Already it looks to me like Metaphorest is (entirely justifiably) getting far more recognition as the creator of MMM than the original writer would be likely to get in a studio or independent film. She would have been rewritten to death, and might have ended up with no credit at all.
(Fascinating article I ran across on the subject http://www.writersstore.com/article.php?articles_id=631)
And, if everybody got wind that our way is more fair... soon nobody will want to work outside of our system anymore. :)
-----------------------------------
Sara Nova
I suppose the best way to overcome some of this is for the writers themselves to encourage others to work on it. Like I mentioned earlier, the original versions will still exist, and as long as they're referenced, people should feel free to try to work their own magic on it.
At the same time, I would definitely have trouble remixing something like MMM myself, even though there's really no reason why I couldn't be allowed to, other than my own fear of messing up something so lovely.
I think one other aspect that we've overlooked is that in writing, perhaps more than in the other artforms here, a person's voice is so singular that it's difficult to create seamless remixes. It's possible for people to collaboratively write something and have it cohere to a singular voice, but I think that only really occurs with writers who know each other well and know how to work with each other's language.
So what am I saying?
Maybe we should have more writing collabs that actively encourage editing and refining, not just adding on to someone else's work.
It's late and I don't know how coherent all of this is, but I hope this contributes constructively to the discussion. I think it's a really interesting issue.
-----------------------------------
Ntheon
@Sara Nova Oh definitely, this is a great discussion and that was highly useful and insightful.
I have also actually now read and watched most of this wonderful collab - I was shooting from the hip on my previous comments. First of all, bravo to the entire collab.
My take on this is: mushr did not really REmix Sarah's script. Rather, she actually REmixed CrashAndBurn's script of Laura's response.
The first thing that happened, as far as I can tell, was CrashAndBurn wrote what might *technically* be called a REmix of Sarah, but I would call it an extension of Sarah's story, into a collaboration or shared universe, a new scene with a different (but previously referenced) character.
(I basically did exactly that myself when I jumped into AlexaAnn's story of Annabelle and created "When Ryan Met Annabelle". My coauthor on that hasn't been around for awhile so I will have to figure out what to do with that one.)
Mushr's equally lovely contribution could be looked at in either of two ways - my first gut response is to say that she created a true REmix of CrashAndBurn's version to change Laura's response to the exact opposite.
However, we could just as validly say that mushr too *extended* Sarah's original by adding Laura's response, but she did so in a totally incompatible way. Which is entirely fine and within the rules. There is no concept of "canon" on hitRECord no single "real" version as there is in some Science Fiction shared universes.
So, in that case we have a "fork in the universe" a sort of alternate universe (and alternate story-paths) scenario, which puts me in mind of the old film of Clue ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clue_movie ) which famously had three alternate endings, and the audience was not sure which one it would get.
Now I see that as the most flexible scenario of all. Assuming there were a whole bunch of those alternate scenes, any third author could create a "meta-mix" by picking and choosing a consistent path through the raw material scenes to tell the story their own way, (analogous to one particular cut of a film). But other authors can do completely different cuts. Alternatively, I could end scene one (Sarahs) with two links, allowing the *reader* to choose his/her path through the story - click here if you want Laura to reject John, at least for now, otherwise click here.
However, you also make a valid point about the single voice of the writer. If I were to build a script by stringing together several scenes from an amorphous pool of building block scenes by various authors, it would have to be understood that I also have every right and responsibility to go through a final edit or two and alter the pieces to fit a unifying vision.
(I would never REmix MMM for the same reason, I would not mess with perfection. But I would, happily *extend* the story to other characters or later events, extending the language as necessary. I and others doing just this was in the back of my mind as I did the Metaphoresian Dictionary.)
Unlike a lot of other authors, perhaps, I have *always* felt that extensions, translations and such should be freely allowed. There was a big legal mess over an unauthorized Gone With The Wind "sequel" called "The Wind Done Gone" . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_Done_Gone) This made me angry, because I instinctively felt the public had a right to be able to read that sequal. You can legally write a sequel to Last of the Mohicans but not to Gone With the Wind, all because of a calendar date. (I went on about this topic in "On The Shoulders of Giants (dramatization)")
One thing we might try is that an author creates a collab and, as part of that collab description, sets up voluntary guidelines for submissions *within that particular collab*. A sort of informal agreement among the writers - but by definition these guidelines are voluntary and unenforceable. Only the New Deal rules have any actual force. But voluntary sub-communities would grow up within the collabs. Some are set up as you suggest, actively encouraging editing of each other's work (sort of Wikipedia style) while others request that you not, or that only one person do a final edit. Whatever the collab author can dream up. Experiment. Go wild. See what works best for you. :)
I see MMM logically developing into such a shared universe as well, now that the first film is done. I'm hoping Sarah will set up a collab just for the Morganverse. (Yes, I could do that, but, I still prefer to defer to her on that. That seems polite.) But I will certainly put in the Metaphoresian Dictionary and the Sonnet translation, and would plan on writing more for that. (Mostly because the language is *fun*.)
I have also noticed that, in general, my collab efforts are considerably better received than my solo efforts. So... why fight it? Just dive into the REmix pool!
----------------------------------------------------------
Richie Millenium
Isn't it funny how we can feel hesitant about playing around with text RECords, when we aren't hesitant at all about playing around with other kinds of RECords? I guess something about the written word seems sacred. I had to get over that too when I was working on "And The Truth Is". Maybe that collab you were talking about would help too, right?
----------------------------------
Sara Nova
Richie, I know what you mean about how words seem sacred, yet we are allowed to mess with them too. If the Royal Shakespeare company can trim and alter Hamlet, then I say all bets are off!
The oriiginal form will always exist, so we should be allowed to recreate and remix them.
Even text considered as sacred as the bible has been altered continuously thoughout history simply by virtue of translating it into so many languages and even choosing which text to include and which to leave out.
-----------------------------------
ntheon
@RichieMillenium - yeah, now that you mention it... In theory, I lHeART the whole concept of remixing text. Yet, I do notice I have a greater hesitation to mess with other people's text, and when I think of my own being remixed, I get slightly squeamish. I never noticed that before.
The closest I have done is, I jumped into another story from someone who specifically said she didn't know where to go with it, and this has gone well. But I notice, we have kept the two stories mostly separate, but interleaving, and while we try to connect the two stories periodically, we have treaded very carefully around each other's characters and plotlines.
Other than that, the closest I have come to "REmixing" text was creating the Dictionary from Metaphorest's story - and that did not actually mess with the story i any way.
And I'm also in a shared universe collab, that isn't real remixing either, and definitely invited, so that's different.
So, I don't know. The rule is the rule, and it certainly applies to text. We writers will need to get used to it. I expect we will all get over the squeamishness, once some people start getting serious about it and we see fantastic end results.
I was *very* impressed with the poetry mashup I saw earlier today - definitely a serious REmixing of text. It didn't bother me. As more of that happens, we'll start to think nothing of it.
-----------------------------------
Ntheon
Oh, I forgot, I also "translated" Shakespeare into Metaphoresian. But, as Sara pointed out, we're used to that. And what it comes down to is, we're squeamish about remixing *living* writers. I suspect that is a legacy of decades of sympathy for struggling writers that is embedded in our culture, especially among fellow writers.
But now that I think of it, the REmix era, the New Deal, is actually a far better deal for writers. Not only do we get all this great text to REmix, but this sea change of the business model is the best chance in decades to correct entrenched, historic injustices in both recognition and compensation for writers.
Already it looks to me like Metaphorest is (entirely justifiably) getting far more recognition as the creator of MMM than the original writer would be likely to get in a studio or independent film. She would have been rewritten to death, and might have ended up with no credit at all.
(Fascinating article I ran across on the subject http://www.writersstore.com/article.php?articles_id=631)
And, if everybody got wind that our way is more fair... soon nobody will want to work outside of our system anymore. :)
-----------------------------------
Sara Nova
I suppose the best way to overcome some of this is for the writers themselves to encourage others to work on it. Like I mentioned earlier, the original versions will still exist, and as long as they're referenced, people should feel free to try to work their own magic on it.
At the same time, I would definitely have trouble remixing something like MMM myself, even though there's really no reason why I couldn't be allowed to, other than my own fear of messing up something so lovely.
I think one other aspect that we've overlooked is that in writing, perhaps more than in the other artforms here, a person's voice is so singular that it's difficult to create seamless remixes. It's possible for people to collaboratively write something and have it cohere to a singular voice, but I think that only really occurs with writers who know each other well and know how to work with each other's language.
So what am I saying?
Maybe we should have more writing collabs that actively encourage editing and refining, not just adding on to someone else's work.
It's late and I don't know how coherent all of this is, but I hope this contributes constructively to the discussion. I think it's a really interesting issue.
-----------------------------------
Ntheon
@Sara Nova Oh definitely, this is a great discussion and that was highly useful and insightful.
I have also actually now read and watched most of this wonderful collab - I was shooting from the hip on my previous comments. First of all, bravo to the entire collab.
My take on this is: mushr did not really REmix Sarah's script. Rather, she actually REmixed CrashAndBurn's script of Laura's response.
The first thing that happened, as far as I can tell, was CrashAndBurn wrote what might *technically* be called a REmix of Sarah, but I would call it an extension of Sarah's story, into a collaboration or shared universe, a new scene with a different (but previously referenced) character.
(I basically did exactly that myself when I jumped into AlexaAnn's story of Annabelle and created "When Ryan Met Annabelle". My coauthor on that hasn't been around for awhile so I will have to figure out what to do with that one.)
Mushr's equally lovely contribution could be looked at in either of two ways - my first gut response is to say that she created a true REmix of CrashAndBurn's version to change Laura's response to the exact opposite.
However, we could just as validly say that mushr too *extended* Sarah's original by adding Laura's response, but she did so in a totally incompatible way. Which is entirely fine and within the rules. There is no concept of "canon" on hitRECord no single "real" version as there is in some Science Fiction shared universes.
So, in that case we have a "fork in the universe" a sort of alternate universe (and alternate story-paths) scenario, which puts me in mind of the old film of Clue ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clue_movie ) which famously had three alternate endings, and the audience was not sure which one it would get.
Now I see that as the most flexible scenario of all. Assuming there were a whole bunch of those alternate scenes, any third author could create a "meta-mix" by picking and choosing a consistent path through the raw material scenes to tell the story their own way, (analogous to one particular cut of a film). But other authors can do completely different cuts. Alternatively, I could end scene one (Sarahs) with two links, allowing the *reader* to choose his/her path through the story - click here if you want Laura to reject John, at least for now, otherwise click here.
However, you also make a valid point about the single voice of the writer. If I were to build a script by stringing together several scenes from an amorphous pool of building block scenes by various authors, it would have to be understood that I also have every right and responsibility to go through a final edit or two and alter the pieces to fit a unifying vision.
(I would never REmix MMM for the same reason, I would not mess with perfection. But I would, happily *extend* the story to other characters or later events, extending the language as necessary. I and others doing just this was in the back of my mind as I did the Metaphoresian Dictionary.)
Unlike a lot of other authors, perhaps, I have *always* felt that extensions, translations and such should be freely allowed. There was a big legal mess over an unauthorized Gone With The Wind "sequel" called "The Wind Done Gone" . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_Done_Gone) This made me angry, because I instinctively felt the public had a right to be able to read that sequal. You can legally write a sequel to Last of the Mohicans but not to Gone With the Wind, all because of a calendar date. (I went on about this topic in "On The Shoulders of Giants (dramatization)")
One thing we might try is that an author creates a collab and, as part of that collab description, sets up voluntary guidelines for submissions *within that particular collab*. A sort of informal agreement among the writers - but by definition these guidelines are voluntary and unenforceable. Only the New Deal rules have any actual force. But voluntary sub-communities would grow up within the collabs. Some are set up as you suggest, actively encouraging editing of each other's work (sort of Wikipedia style) while others request that you not, or that only one person do a final edit. Whatever the collab author can dream up. Experiment. Go wild. See what works best for you. :)
I see MMM logically developing into such a shared universe as well, now that the first film is done. I'm hoping Sarah will set up a collab just for the Morganverse. (Yes, I could do that, but, I still prefer to defer to her on that. That seems polite.) But I will certainly put in the Metaphoresian Dictionary and the Sonnet translation, and would plan on writing more for that. (Mostly because the language is *fun*.)
I have also noticed that, in general, my collab efforts are considerably better received than my solo efforts. So... why fight it? Just dive into the REmix pool!
