the unbook
 

http://theunbook.com/2009/02/18/what-is-an-unbook/

the unbook: in the old days we called that 'the first draft', 'the second draft', 'the third draft', and so on...

'the first draft', etc., are the working drafts...raw, undisciplined, and not for public consumption

*sigh*

seems nowadays: everything is fodder for committee and, to that end, a writer’s initial compositions (the beginning of an idiosyncrasy) are -- by way of this 'unbook' concept -- supposed to be accessible to (and readily accessed by) anyone with a mind to participate

how depressing...not everyone with a mind to participate actually has something 'to' contribute

as a model: i guess the 'unbook' might work well for nonfictions (manuals, teaching materials, etc.)...but: i predict the model would be disastrous for anything else

one more prediction: most of the 'unbooks' that pop up will never see a version 2.0...the 'authors' of such things -- having attention spans less impressive than a mayfly’s life -- will move on to the next awkward, flash-in-the-pan, internet/real life, hybrid as soon as such a thing rears its ugly head

unbooks -- as concept -- will end up as a cultural cul de sac: a curious artifact of a misguided desire to see 'the people' empowered beyond 'their' competence... -henry quirk

Sounds more like attention whoring than an attempt at literature.

yep: like so much of what passes for 'culture' these days, i'm afraid

'culture' (literature, for example) is a slow-cook event, and -- usually -- a one-man affair

yes: the production of the 'final product' is collaborative, but only in bringing the idiosyncrasy of one person to the market

this 'unbook' crap is like so much of what lingers out in the public sphere: shallow, surface, ephemeral, as both method and result

henry, I like you! :)

You really think that culture=literature="a one-man affair"? How?

if i write the book (my idiosyncrasy/worldview made tangible) then, indeed, it's a one-man affair (i'm talking, here, of original work...not formulaic or genre crap)

everything that comes after may be collaborative, but only in bringing my work to the marketplace

and that can be sidestepped by way of self-publishing and selling

at the very least: the self-publisher takes a great many collaborative hands and minds out of the mix

regardless: the work itself (the cultural artifact i crafted) is the 'reason' for the collaborative effort

hell: even in the transaction between writer and reader (the transaction/telepathy mediated by my book) it is -- at best -- a two-man event

sure: i hope thousands of individuals read what i've written, but it will be 'individuals' -- not an aggregate or collective -- who read my work

like a 'free market', 'culture' is the median of all these aligned, individual, transactions between writer and reader, sculptor and viewer, filmographer and film-watcher and so forth and so on

i can see how some might take a collectivist view on culture, but -- really -- it starts with 'one'

-----

"henry, I like you!"

;)

:)

Yes, but one is not culture in and of itself. I believe most do take a collective view that it is the contributions of many that make up culture, certainly not the one, or a single work of art, written or otherwise that the masses may or may not ever see in their lifetime. As you state it is the collective that really makes up culture, "'culture' is the median of all these aligned, individual, transactions between writer and reader, sculptor and viewer, filmographer and film-watcher and so forth and so on".

Thanks for sharing your thought process anyway.

Henry, are you Irish, by chance?

:p

Tell us everything, henry. Hey, did jim ever give you the quiz? :rolleyes:

Reminds me of: "How To Heal the Hurt by Hating".........Anita Liberty.

thought this was about the Kindle.

"As you state it is the collective that really makes up culture"

i said no such thing

again: if a 'free market' is the measurable median of the economic transactions between, among, and of, INDIVIDUALS, then so too is 'culture' the measurable median of the INDIVIDUAL, transactions between writer and reader, sculptor and viewer, filmographer and film-watcher and so on

there is no aggregate or collective mind

as you say, merc, "the contributions of many that make up culture"

many what?

many 'ones'

the measurable median of a cluster of singular events doesn't make singular events a single event...the median only measures the similar consequences or outcomes of these similar, but separate, events, it doesn't homogenize them (despite the desperate efforts of hegel and marx to do just that)

-----

and no: i'm not irish

i just don't care for the caps key ('cept for on MY terms)...or the period key (a period is nuthin' but a hobbled ellipses)...or the... ;)

-----

i don't even know who jim is...and: i don't take tests

You missed the caps key.

Bye.

Henry, in a hundred years time that shallow ephemera will be providing valuable evidence for cultural historians.

A rebel! welcome henry. Any realtioN to hEnry FooL?

(sorry my caps key is on drugs)

Shawnee, that is one of my random lines I forgot all about "This is a cola nut, This is an uncola nut, which do you prefer?"

Strange the things that have been popping into my head from other posts. The beauty of the internet is I thought "what was that uncola commercial with that guy?" and a google later there it was.

I had a similar moment in radar's hot dog thread (now that sounds funny) and posted a quick quiz but no answers yet. ;)

Seven! Do I win a prize?

Yeah...a knuckle sandwich!

[lucy] I can give you five good reasons. One, two, three, four, five...POW.[/vanpelt]

Makes me think of James Bond.

Culture = the sum
un-book = the average

Culture's highs and lows are much more stimulating.

Yup from Live and Let Die. Same dude.

We never had that advert. But to me he sounds British.
And it works BTW. He made me thirsty. Can't I sue for that these days?

Henry...Henry...

Henry Fussy? Henry Higgins? Henry Hill?

"in a hundred years time that shallow ephemera will be providing valuable evidence for cultural historians"

no doubt: and the academicians are welcome to it

but as a record of a singular viewpoint: pffftt!


"Any realtioN to hEnry FooL?"

other than being one myself: nope


"Culture's highs and lows are much more stimulating"

yep

the path to the highs and lows is interesting, sure, but i wanna see the end point...the unbook -- to me -- seems like just perpetual process...the unbook is fine for the uncertain and timid who will not stand and take a position; not so fine for some others...

henry, are you...are you an intellectual?

'cause if you are...

"henry, are you...are you an intellectual?"

HAHAHAHAHA!

no


"'cause if you are..."

...then i do a poor job of it?

No. It was an empty threat.

Sigh.

Quick henry, stick on some leather elbow pads and grab a thesis to mark...you're in ...


(@ Bri: only jokin :P)

Oi! Who emptied my threat? :eyebrow: - I'm sure the glass was full only a moment ago.

yeah, but it's only too true!

from my on-going, and halting, conversation the creator of the 'unbook'
 

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.

I strongly object to your equating the 'elimination of one' and the loss of sole vision (and therefore, I presume, a sense of authorial agency and direction) with the feminine. Frankly your argument would fit rather nicely in my current area of research: 18th and 19th century gender constructions.

I strongly object to your equating the 'elimination of one' and the loss of sole vision (and therefore, I presume, a sense of authorial agency and direction) with the feminine.

(((i'm sure you do...however: in my experience (purely anecdotal, of course) my view is sound)))

(((in other words: barring some startling event that flies in the face of my observations, 'that's my story and i'm sticking to it'... ;) )))


Frankly your argument would fit rather nicely in my current area of research: 18th and 19th century gender constructions.

(((and your view (the tiny bit i discern from your post) fits in nicely with my view that many women -- for a variety of self-serving reasons -- desperately want men and women to be interchangeable...this, of course, is an error...verifiably, demonstrably, men and women are NOT interchangeable)))

(((again, anecdotally: women 'cooperate'; men 'compete'...this is the heart of my distaste for the 'unbook'...a textbook compilation may be served well by 'cooperation' (or not...i don't write textbooks, so, i don't 'know' for sure)...i do 'know' a piece fiction can only be watered down into nothingness by the 'unbook' method...and i can think of no better example of 'cooperation' than the hen house)))

(((your objection, however, is noted... ;) )))

18th and 19th century gender constructions.

(((any that existed, or exist now, are merely reflective of the profound differences between 'man' and 'woman'...that is: the 'constructions' rest firmly on the soil of the only real, natural, dualism: the vagina and the penis)))

post edited because -- in its first version -- i was unduly, and unjustifiably, nasty and mean-spirited

my apologies for nearly visiting such horror on the good people of the cellar...

HA!

what may be the final word on the unbook
 

Dave Gray said,
April 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Hi Henry,

Since I am focused primarily on works that entail understanding and codifying a discipline or field of study, I don’t have much to say about the unbook as a vehicle for fiction. I suppose my aim with the unbook has been far more textbook-oriented.

Since collaboration and consensus (and divisiveness!) are part of the process by which any group defines and organizes itself, I think an unbook could form a useful and necessary hub or focusing device to help define and codify a new discipline or area of study.

I am a painter as well as an author, and I can’t imagine a collaborative, consensus-oriented approach to painting would do anything other than dilute my vision and water down the work.

I didn’t mean to suggest that the author retaining control of an unbook is a requirement — only that it is an option.

I tend to think that if I wrote fiction it would be similar to the way that I paint — a more solitary pursuit. So we might not disagree as much as you might think

I’m not sure whether the unbook has been supplanted by the next thing or not. Maybe so. I’m planning to stick around for awhile though and hope to continue exploring and prototyping the idea.

henry quirk said,
April 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I am a painter as well as an author, and I can’t imagine a collaborative, consensus-oriented approach to painting would do anything other than dilute my vision and water down the work.

(((my point exactly!)))

(((so: we meander ’round the two sides the mountain to arrive at the same camp in the hills…good on us both)))

I’m planning to stick around for awhile though and hope to continue exploring and prototyping the idea

(((i’ll check in from time to time…i have an interest too: a kind of ‘keep your enemies close’ thing… –henry)))

Women co-operate and men compete? Well...that's very context driven. I am not an ambitious person. Not even remotely driven by any desire for success, and not particularly competitive. Except in academia, where I am very competitive, individualistic, and ambitious.

You are generalising to a great degree. You are confusing what is innate with what is contextual. You are also confusing gender difference with gender construction. I do not believe men and women are interchangeable. What you are talking about has little to do with actual gender difference and much to do with gender constructions as it pertains to expected forms of female expression (much as the old academic view was that Autobiography was a primarily masculine form of expression (due to innate gender differences) and diurnal life-writing a primarily feminine one; likewise the earlier, perceived femininity of novels as a form).

What you are saying is not borne out in the real world.

dana:

my comments about men and women were in the context of my perceptions as applied to the notion of the 'unbook'

i said 'anecdotal' and 'anecdotally', not 'empirically'

so: if you're looking for a fight on the very boring subject of men and women, then you'd best look elsewhere...if you dislike my method of pissing on the 'unbook', fine, but you stay far a'field of the thread if you go elsewhere

if you're looking to example your erudition, there are probably better ways to do so...though, to be frank, i don't hold out high hopes for anyone who self-describes as 'armchair socialist'...to self-describe in such a way is, to my mind, the expression of a desire to be absorbed by a greater whole (to become 'cog'), the very notion being hellish to me, and damning, in my opinion, of you

and: if by way of this -- 'Except in academia, where I am very competitive, individualistic, and ambitious.' -- you intend to offer evidence of 'anything', then i must counter: 'academia' is a shelter, a cloister, a dodge away from, and a con on, 'the world'

in other words: 'academia' and 'hen house' (and socialism as far as that goes) have much in common...an obsessive interest in what comes out the nether regions of body or mind, and a fevered desire for 'the world' to see the 'egg' (or bit of shit) as something more impressive than 'egg' (or bit of shit)

*shrug*

as of now: i see no reason to amend myself... --henry

oh you're just a delight.

Well damning my self-description might be. Damning also are your words here. My respect for you just fell off a cliff.

Academia and socialism are a con on the world? A shelter from the world? Really? I would really like to know how you came to that conclusion.

I'm not sure Sugarpop, but he came awfully close to calling my an hysterical female.

I also am not quite sure why he decided to go off on an insulting and personal attack. but there we go. What can we do eh? He's only a bloke, he can't help himself :P

Well Dana, he insulted me while we were supposed to just be having a conversation in the philosophy forum. I beleive that you were in that thread, and no one could understand why I would "pick on" him. :) Oh I am so mean. lol

Is that you're casual way of singing 'told you so, told you so'? :P

It reminds me a lot of no one understanding why so many were sick of merc when he was being abusive. Those of us continually (and over years, not a couple posts) under his crazed fire were amazed at those who leapt to his defense with "but he's really a good guy underneath, he's just misunderstood."

Apropos of nothing (I no longer have any ill feelings towards merc) it doesn't feel as good on the other foot, or so it seems.

I am too high minded and lofty to say something like, "I told you so". I was just reminding everyone that the world revolves around me, and my experiences.

Besides,

I told you so!! ;)

:D

I know that feeling well, from another board. There were several MEN who were always attacking me and getting personal. Of course I fought back, but I eventually left that board. Oh, and now that I think about it, there was one woman as well. I least I think she was a woman. She kept changing her identity, and sometimes she claimed she was a man, so who knows.

I know Merc personally, so I can't really get mad at him or take him seriously on a forum, because I know what he's really like in person. He's pretty much a sweetheart. I have to remember that sometimes when he's on here though (or elsewhere) or it would drive me insane. I'm sure he feels the same way about me. :D

really: if all you folks get out of this is that i'm 'attacking' then i mourn for the state of literacy...

What then were you looking for henry?

i wasn't -- am not -- looking for anything

i expressed a distaste for the 'unbook' in a way dana found 'offensive'

i defended my means of dissecting the 'unbook' which 'offended' her further and ticked off a few others

i suggest the thread is the 'thing', not my supposed misogyny

i also suggest before anyone begin the tedious 'taking of sides' they read this thread in its entirety

it should be clear when 'personal attacks' rose up and from whom, and to whom, those 'attacks' were directed

i suggest the interested schlep over to the philosophy section and the 'freedom' thread...read the latter portion of the thread to see if cicero's assessment is accurate

mostly: i suggest that this forum -- like the whole of the net -- is angel farts and ghost whispers...just as substantial, just as 'real', and just a worthy of an investment of emotional energy, that is: not at all

'feeling' hurt because a ghost on a screen writes supposedly nasty things is absurd

stamping one's virtual feet and proclaiming to a poltergeist, 'My respect for you just fell off a cliff' is absurd

rallying 'round one ghost to protect her from another is absurd

ghost whispers...angel farts...silliness

as the sig line goes: "Hey, my views aren't popular, they're just mine."

;)

HEY! I charge for the use of that! :)

Actually henry, you have no idea how appropo post #53 is.

HEY! I charge for the use of that! :)

HEY! I charge for the use of that!

(((the check is in the *virtual* mail... ;) )))


Actually henry, you have no idea how appropo post #53 is.

(((actually: i have every idea of how appropriate my post is)))

(((i've been on-line for more than five minutes...the net, in places exactly like this, for years, has been a breeding ground for virtual reflections of what can be found in every highschool and in every statehouse...cliques, 'in-crowds', power plays, and flirtations masquerading as 'civility')))

(((i'll have none of it...i speak my mind...i dismiss the idiots and to hell with courting favors)))

(((if i am an 'offense' to eye and mind, then, the offended should move to have me booted, or, ignore me, or, defend themselves against my ugliness, but -- please -- with more originality than, 'you hurt my feelings'...)))

I think he said your posting style hurt his eyes - not his feelings.

I think he said your posting style hurt his eyes - not his feelings

((( ? )))

(((i'm talking about dana and her defenders...not someone expressing a dislike for my quoting methods...)))

(((or: am i taking you too literally, classicman?)))

(((the danger of wallowing is that one gets dirty...a sense of humor is a fragile thing, mine included... ;) )))

((((I think they're referring to this))))

and the excessive line gaps sans punctuation

(((not an attack - merely an observation/clarification)))

carry on