« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

feeling random   02.27.2007, 1:35 PM

Following HarperCollins' recent Web renovations, Random House today unveiled their publisher-driven alternative to Google: a new, full-text search engine of over 5,000 new and backlist books including browsable samples of select titles. The most interesting thing here is that book samples can be syndicated on other websites through a page-flipping browser widget (Flash 9 required) that you embed with a bit of cut-and-paste code (like a YouTube clip). It's a nice little tool, though it comes in two sizes only -- one that's too small to read, and one that embedded would take up most of a web page (plus it keeps crashing my browser). Compare below with HarperCollins' simpler embeddable book link:

Worth noting here is that both the search engine and the sampling widget were produced by Random House in-house. Too many digital forays by major publishers are accomplished by hiring an external Web shop, meaning of course that little ends up being learned within the institution. It's an old mantra of Bob's that publishers' digital budgets would be better spent by throwing 20 grand at a bright young editor or assistant editor a few years out of college and charging them with the task of doing something interesting than by pouring huge sums into elaborate revampings from the outside. Random House's recent home improvements were almost certainly more expensive, and more focused on infrastructure and marketing than on genuinely reinventing books, but they indicate a do it yourself approach that could, maybe, lead in new directions.

Posted by ben vershbow at 1:35 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

were the fears of big brother overstated?   02.27.2007, 11:44 AM

The NY Times published an article yesterday about Stewart Brand's embrace of nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods. Here is a quote:

He thinks the fears of genetically engineered bugs causing disaster are as overstated as the counterculture's fears of computers turning into Big Brother. "Starting in the 1960s, hackers turned computers from organizational control machines into individual freedom machines," he told Conservation magazine last year. "Where are the green biotech hackers?"

So what do you think. Were the fears of Big Brother overstated? Did hackers successfully turn computers into individual freedom machines?

Posted by bob stein at 11:44 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

who knew?   02.24.2007, 12:47 PM

The following exchange occurred this morning during a long IM session with a close friend and colleague:

Turns out there is an actual punctuation mark in French to indicate irony which you can read about in this wikipedia article.

I don't actually use emoticons because i find them so aesthetically uninteresting, so i love the idea of a new class of punctuation marks evolving to take the place of the smiley face in all its saccharine implementations.

Posted by bob stein at 12:47 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

gift economy or honeymoon?   02.23.2007, 6:22 AM

There was some discussion here last week about the ethics and economics of online publishing following the Belgian court's ruling against Google News in a copyright spat with the Copiepresse newspaper group. The crux of the debate: should creators of online media -- whether major newspapers or small-time blogs, TV networks or tiny web video impresarios -- be entitled to a slice of the pie on ad-supported sites in which their content is the main driver of traffic?

It seems to me that there's a difference between a search service like Google News, which shows only excerpts and links back to original pages, and a social media site like YouTube, where user-created media is the content. There's a general agreement in online culture about the validity of search engines: they index the Web for us and make it usable, and if they want to finance the operation through peripheral advertising then more power to them. The economics of social media sites, on the other hand, are still being worked out.

For now, the average YouTube-er is happy to generate the site's content pro bono. But this could just be the honeymoon period. As big media companies begin securing revenue-sharing deals with YouTube and its competitors (see the recent YouTube-Viacom negotiations and the entrance of Joost onto the web video scene), independent producers may begin to ask why they're getting the short end of the stick. An interesting thing to watch out for in the months and years ahead is whether (and if so, how) smaller producers start organizing into bargaining collectives. Imagine a labor union of top YouTube broadcasters threatening a freeze on new content unless moneys get redistributed. A similar thing could happen on community-filtered news sites like Digg, Reddit and Netscape in which unpaid users serve as editors and tastemakers for millions of readers. Already a few of the more talented linkers are getting signed up for paying gigs.

Justin Fox has a smart piece in Time looking at the explosion of unpaid peer production across the Net and at some of the high-profile predictions that have been made about how this will develop over time. On the one side, Fox presents Yochai Benkler, the Yale legal scholar who last year published a landmark study of the new online economy, The Wealth of Networks. Benkler argues that the radically decentralized modes of knowledge production that we're seeing emerge will thrive well into the future on volunteer labor and non-proprietary information cultures (think open source software or Wikipedia), forming a ground-level gift economy on which other profitable businesses can be built.

Less sure is Nicholas Carr, an influential skeptic of most new Web crazes who insists that it's only a matter of time (about a decade) before new markets are established for the compensation of network labor. Carr has frequently pointed to the proliferation of governance measures on Wikipedia as a creeping professionalization of that project and evidence that the hype of cyber-volunteerism is overblown. As creative online communities become more structured and the number of eyeballs on them increases, so this argument goes, new revenue structures will almost certainly be invented. Carr cites Internet entrepreneur Jason Calcanis, founder of the for-profit blog network Weblogs, Inc., who proposes the following model for the future of network publishing: "identify the top 5% of the audience and buy their time."

Taken together, these two positions have become known as the Carr-Benkler wager, an informal bet sparked by their critical exchange: that within two to five years we should be able to ascertain the direction of the trend, whether it's the gift economy that's driving things or some new distributed form of capitalism. Where do you place your bets?

Posted by ben vershbow at 6:22 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

mashups made easy   02.22.2007, 9:55 AM

Yahoo! recently announced a new service called pipes that hopes to bring the ability to "mash-up" to the common folk.

As always, Tim O'Reilly has a very good description:

Yahoo!'s new Pipes service is a milestone in the history of the internet. It's a service that generalizes the idea of the mash-up, providing a drag and drop editor that allows you to connect internet data sources, process them, and redirect the output. Yahoo! describes it as "an interactive feed aggregator and manipulator" that allows you to "create feeds that are more powerful, useful and relevant." While it's still a bit rough around the edges, it has enormous promise in turning the web into a programmable environment for everyone.

While undeniably exciting, this technology reminds me of a concern I had and wrote about just a few months ago: the ethics of software in the networked world.

The basic problem is that having data spread across large and unreliable networks can lead to a chain reaction of unintended consequences when a service is interrupted. For example, imagine Google Maps changed the way a fundamental part of its mapping tool worked: Since the changes are applied immediately to everyone using the network, serious problems can arise as the necessity for these tools increase.

Also, the responsibility for managing problems can become a lot harder to track down when the network of dependencies becomes complex, and creating a new layer of abstraction, like in Yahoo! pipes, can potentially exacerbate the problem if there is not an clear agreement of expectations between the parties involved.

I think that one of reasons that licenses, like the GPL and the Creative Commons licenses, are popular are because they clearly communicate to the parties involved what their rights are, without ever having to explain the complexities of copyright law. I think it would make sense to come up with similar agreements between nodes in a network on the issues I raised above as we move more of our crucial applications to the web. The problem is, who would ever want to take responsibility for problems that appear far removed? Would there be any interest in creating a network collective of small pieces, closely joined?

Posted by eddie a. tejeda at 9:55 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

monkeybook   02.21.2007, 6:54 PM

New York readers save the date!

Next Wednesday the 28th the Institute is hosting the first of what hopes to be a monthly series of new media evenings at Brooklyn's premier video salon and A/V sandbox, Monkeytown. We're kicking things off with a retrospective of work by our longtime artist in residence, Alex Itin. February 15th marked the second anniversary of Alex's site IT IN place, which we're preparing to relaunch with a spruced up design and a gorgeous new interface to the archives (design of this interface chronicled here and here). We'd love to see you there.

For those of you who don't know it, Monkeytown is unique among film venues in New York -- an intimate rear room with a gigantic screen on each of its four walls, low comfy sofas and fantastic food. A strange and special place. If you think you can come, be sure to make a reservation ASAP as seating will be tight.

More info about the event here.

Posted by ben vershbow at 6:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

an encyclopedia of arguments   02.21.2007, 6:41 AM

I just came across this though apparently it's been up and running since last summer. Debatepedia is a free, wiki-based encyclopedia where people can collaboratively research and write outlines of arguments on contentious subjects -- stem cell reseach, same-sex marriage, how and when to withdraw from Iraq (it appears to be focused in practice if not in policy on US issues) -- assembling what are essentially roadmaps to important debates of the moment. Articles are organized in "logic trees," a two-column layout in which pros and cons, fors and againsts, yeas and neas are placed side by side for each argument and its attendant sub-questions. A fairly strict citations policy ensures that each article also serves as a link repository on its given topic.

This is an intriguing adaptation of the Wikipedia model -- an inversion you could say, in that it effectively raises the "talk" pages (discussion areas behind an article) to the fore. Instead of "neutral point of view," with debates submerged, you have an emphasis on the many-sidedness of things. The problem of course is that Debatepedia's format suggests that all arguments are binary. The so-called "logic trees" are more like logic switches, flipped on or off, left or right -- a crude reduction of what an argument really is.

I imagine they used the two column format for simplicity's sake -- to create a consistent and accessible form throughout the site. It's true that representing the full complexity of a subject on a two-dimensional screen lies well beyond present human capabilities, but still there has to be some way to present a more shaded spectrum of thought -- to triangulate multiple perspectives and still make the thing readable and useful (David Weinberger has an inchoate thought along similar lines w/r/t to NPR stories and research projects for listeners -- taken up by Doc Searls).

I'm curious to hear what people think. Pros? Cons? Logic tree anyone?

Posted by ben vershbow at 6:41 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

try to take some time from your busy day   02.20.2007, 7:30 AM

to read the recent interview with humanist and computer scientist, Alan Kay. Here's a sample . . .

The things that are wrong with the Web today are due to this lack of curiosity in the computing profession. And it's very characteristic of a pop culture. Pop culture lives in the present; it doesn't really live in the future or want to know about great ideas from the past. I'm saying there's a lot of useful knowledge and wisdom out there for anybody who is curious, and who takes the time to do something other than just executing on some current plan. Cicero said, "Who knows only his own generation remains always a child." People who live in the present often wind up exploiting the present to an extent that it starts removing the possibility of having a future.

Posted by bob stein at 7:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

google library dominoes   02.20.2007, 2:00 AM

Princeton is the latest university to partner up with the Google library project, signing an agreement to have 1 million public domain books scanned over the next six years. Over at ALA Techsource Tom Peters voices the growing unease among librarians worried about the long-term implications of commercial enclosure of the world's leading research libraries.

Posted by ben vershbow at 2:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

atomisation, part two   02.18.2007, 8:41 AM

In the last few weeks a number of people have sent me a link to Michael Wesch's video meditation on the evolution of media and its likely impact on all aspects of human interaction. One of Wesch's main points is that the development of XML enables the separation of form from content which in turn is fueling the transition to new modes of communication.

Paradoxically Wesch's video works precisely because of the integration of form and content . . . possibly one of the best uses of animated text and moving images in the service of a new kind of expository essay. If you simply read the text in an RSS reader it wouldn't have anywhere near the impact it does. Although Wesch's essay depends on the unity of form and content, he is certainly right about the increasing trend on the web to decontextualize content by making it independent of form. If Mcluhan was right about the medium being a crucial part of the message, then, if we are looking at content in different forms are we getting the same message? If not, what does this mean for social discourse going forward?

Posted by bob stein at 8:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

the future of the times   02.16.2007, 8:10 AM

Here's a great item from last week that slipped through the cracks... A rare peek into the mind of New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, which grew out of a casual conversation with Haaretz's Eytan Avriel at the World Economic Forum in Davos. A couple of choice sections follow...

On moving beyond print:

Given the constant erosion of the printed press, do you see the New York Times still being printed in five years?

"I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don't care either," he says....."The Internet is a wonderful place to be, and we're leading there," he points out.

The Times, in fact, has doubled its online readership to 1.5 million a day to go along with its 1.1 million subscribers for the print edition.

Sulzberger says the New York Times is on a journey that will conclude the day the company decides to stop printing the paper. That will mark the end of the transition. It's a long journey, and there will be bumps on the road, says the man at the driving wheel, but he doesn't see a black void ahead.

On the persistent need for editors -- Sulzberger talks about newspapers reinventing themselves as "curators of news":

In the age of bloggers, what is the future of online newspapers and the profession in general? There are millions of bloggers out there, and if the Times forgets who and what they are, it will lose the war, and rightly so, according to Sulzberger. "We are curators, curators of news. People don't click onto the New York Times to read blogs. They want reliable news that they can trust," he says.

"We aren't ignoring what's happening. We understand that the newspaper is not the focal point of city life as it was 10 years ago.

"Once upon a time, people had to read the paper to find out what was going on in theater. Today there are hundreds of forums and sites with that information," he says. "But the paper can integrate material from bloggers and external writers. We need to be part of that community and to have dialogue with the online world."

Posted by ben vershbow at 8:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

belgian news sites don cloak of invisibility   02.15.2007, 6:36 AM

In an act of stunning shortsightedness, a consortium of 19 Belgian newspapers has sued and won a case against Google for copyright infringement in its News Search engine. Google must now remove all links, images and cached pages of these sites from its database or else face fines. Similar lawsuits from other European papers are likely to follow soon.

The main beef in the case (all explained in greater detail here) is Google's practice of deep linking to specific articles, which bypasses ads on the newspapers' home pages and reduces revenue. This and Google's caching of full articles for search purposes, copies that the newspapers contend could be monetized through a pay-for-retrieval service. Echoes of the Book Search lawsuits on this side of the Atlantic...

What the Belgians are in fact doing is rendering their papers invisible to a potentially global audience. Instead of lashing out against what is essentially a free advertising service, why not rethink your own ad structure to account for the fact that more and more readers today are coming through search engines and not your front page? While you're at it, rethink the whole idea of a front page. Or better yet, join forces with other newspapers, form your own federated search service and beat Google at its own game.

Posted by ben vershbow at 6:36 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

jonathan lethem: the ecstasy of influence   02.14.2007, 6:41 AM

If you haven't already, check out Jonathan Lethem's essay in the latest issue of Harper's on the trouble with copyright. Nothing particularly new to folks here, but worth reading all the same -- an elegant meditation by an elegant writer (and a fellow Brooklynite) on the way that all creativity is actually built on appropriation, reuse or all-out theft:

Any text is woven entirely with citations, references, echoes, cultural languages, which cut across it through and through in a vast stereophony. The citations that go to make up a text are anonymous, untraceable, and yet already read; they are quotations without inverted commas. The kernel, the soul--let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances--is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are secondhand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment. There is no thread that is not a twist of these two strands. By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote. Neurological study has lately shown that memory, imagination, and consciousness itself is stitched, quilted, pastiched. If we cut-and-paste our selves, might we not forgive it of our artworks?

Posted by ben vershbow at 6:41 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

incunabula of the week   02.13.2007, 8:07 AM

Last month, when I met the if:book crew for the first time, Ben described the net-native literary forms that have emerged to date as 'incunabula'. I didn't know what the word meant. He explained that, in the Middle Ages, when they first started printing books, there were all kinds of experiments which explored print technologies but hadn't yet settled into a form that made full use of them. Ben suggested that forms of Web writing today are at an equivalent stage.

The word 'incunabulum' stuck with me. There's something endearlingly fragile and tentative about it, as though Net-based forms of writing were a new species of winged things, freshly-hatched and still a bit soggy and crumpled. Since abandoning the notion of writing for print (paper) publication some time ago, though, I find myself reluctant to reinvent the wheel. So I'm very interested in what is emerging on the Net around the axis of technology and (used here in its classical sense, for want of a better word) poetry.

Top of my list at the moment as the Web's finest emerging art form is alternate reality gaming. I wrote about that here not long ago; since then, I've vanished into a currently-playing ARG and will write more on the experience when I can. Meanwhile, this week I've stumbled across an interesting cross-section of Web-based stuff and thought I'd do a roundup here.

Disclaimer time. Ben's already admirably dissected the problems with the Million Penguins project, so I won't go into that. I also know there is a whole tranche of early experiments with hypertext writing which I've ignored. My reason for doing so is that a) I can't be exhaustive - that's what your search engine is for. Also, in my experience, hypertext fiction tends to be somewhat sterile and frustrating, recalling the Choose Your Own Adventure novels I read as a child. That said, if anyone knows of any that buck this trend, please send them my way.

Anyway, incunabula. The first is some years old, and is actually an event rather than a single piece of writing: the delightfully geeky Perl Poetry Contest of 2000. In the words of the Perl Journal that reviewed it:

The Perl Poetry Contest is sort of a kinder, less migraine inducing sibling of the Obfuscation Contest. The Obfuscation Contest promotes the creation of vile looking scripts. The Perl Poetry Contest is the other end of the spectrum, promoting the generation of flowing verse, and Perl, to make something beautiful.

Here's the winner, by Angie Winterbottom:

if ((light eq dark) && (dark eq light)
&& ($blaze_of_night{moon} == black_hole)
&& ($ravens_wing{bright} == $tin{bright})){
my $love = $you = $sin{darkness} + 1;
};
It's derived from a verse from the Pandora's Box album 'Original Sin':

If light were dark and dark were light
The moon a black hole in the blaze of night
A raven's wing as bright as tin
Then you, my love, would be darker than sin.

This is only just within my personal geek:lit frame of reference, as I don't program Perl. But I include it in memory of the first time I heard a techie use the phrase 'elegant code', as I remember how struck I was then by the idea that there could be an aesthetics of machine code. I'd imagined that coding was purely functional and as such more about engineering than art; lately, I'm beginning to suspect that coders play an equivalent role in the online space to the one print authors play/ed in the literary canon. Poetry written in machine code sits elegantly across the literary/aesthetic and technical spaces in a way very suggestive of this accession of coding to the status of meta-literature.

My second incunabulum of the week comes from Everything2, a relatively open-access online writing space (see the Wikipedia entry for more info). The structures of this site merit further examination, particularly in contrast with the Million Penguins fiasco. But in the interests of brevity, for the time being here's an entry from user "allseeingeye": a poem about online gaming with the glorious title "im in ur base killin ur d00dz".

I won't go into the layers of memetic accretion around this phrase (try Encyclopedia Dramatica or urbandictionary if you really need to know). What enchanted me about the piece is that it uses a mixture of Everything2's hard links, geek and gaming slang, and relatively traditional free verse to create something in which form and function, tradition and new technologies, "high" and "low" cultures merge most intriguingly. The writer's genderless username addes extra ambiguity to the elision of gaming and eroticism in a way that's very evocative of how of heightened emotion plays out in disembodied online spaces.

There's also something thought-provoking about the fact that Everything2's hard links are, like Wikipedia, often unfinished. If you click on one and find it incomplete, the page invites you to create an account and then add the page. When you read a poem that's full of these sometimes-unfinished links, it's a bit like a reverse version of The Waste Land. The difference is that where Eliot's piece functions as an accretion of quotations that refer backwards through the history of the canon, this functions as a speculative accretion of things that may become quotations, and refers forwards to a canon not yet created.

Incunabulum number three is Batan City, a MediaWiki-based imaginary city. It was started by Paul Youlten, founder of the site formerly known as Yellowikis, a wiki-based business listings directory that sparked a legal challenge from the yellow pages industry, and now at SocialText. When Paul sent a story to a friend of his, she responded not with a commentary but with another story. The result is starting to accumulate online. There isn't much there yet, but the convention appears to be that the "city" accumulates individually-authored stories around a central fictional place. I'm very interested in what works and does not work in wiki-based fiction (providing no structure at all, for instance, really doesn't, as Ben pointed out a few days ago; here we have some basic structure and an invitation first to submit a story and then to spread the word to other writers. I look forward to seeing how it evolves.

Incunabulum number four is Troped, a blog-based ongoing narrative. I came across this when its author commented here in if:book, and have been dropping by there every few days to try and get a feel for what it's up to. The format is short, not always obviously interrelated stories, usually updated every day or so. I'll admit I haven't been following it for long or in depth, but so far what leaps out is not a strong story, but the sense of an experiment in time and form. Individual entries, each with the feel of a mini-short-story, read down the page; but because it's posted in blog software the chronology of the whole reads in the opposite direction. That is, the first entry in narrative terms is the last you come to in formal terms, but the direction of the entries themselves goes the other way. In addition, the author/s (perhaps unconsciously) echo/es this temporal paradox with a slightly odd use of tenses within the stories ("Jameson laughs. He preferred to just use the shop as a place to dicker around--someplace other than his house"), which adds a layer of temporal confusion. So to date I haven't got into this one. But as a piece testing the limits and possibilities and mute formal insinuations of net-native writing delivery mechanisms, it's certainly worth a look.

So, a mixed bag. Perl poetry experiments with the constraints of language, flirting with machine code in a way that subverts the usually functionalist preconceptions that lay non-coders such as myself tend to have about computer languages. The killin ur d00dz piece hard links within its writing community to foreground the dynamic and collaborative emergence of Web-specific jargons, even as it captures the intense experience of one individual. Batan City is a tentative (though, perhaps luckily for its creators, less populated than the Penguin effort) attempt to reconcile open editing with individual authorship of story elements, that uses the twin structures of a fictional place and an alphabetised list to structure the entries it invites. And Troped tests the interrelation between online self-publishing software and narrative temporality.

What all these pieces have in common is a concerted attempt to do more than upload the conventions of print text (boundedness, single authorship, linearity) into an environment that encourages in many ways the inverse of these traditions. They all have limitations, but all are pushing at the boundaries of what the new technologies make possible: multiple or anonymous authoring, new languages, strange temporalities and explicit acknowledgement of the intertext.

Posted by sebastian mary at 8:07 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

under the influence   02.13.2007, 7:11 AM

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting (and free) piece on a new class of individuals -- filters, recommenders, editors, curators, call them what you will -- that is becoming increasingly influential in directing attention traffic across the Web. The article focuses primarily on top link hounds at user-filtered news sites like Digg, Reddit and the newly reborn Netscape, sites whose aggregate tastemaking muscle has caught the attention of marketers and product placers, who have made various efforts to buy influence through elaborate vote-rigging schemes and good old-fashioned payola. The article also makes mention of some notable solo filtering acts including a regular stop of mine, ThrowAwayYourTV.com, a video archive operated by a young Canadian named Jeff Hoard. At the end of the piece there's a list with links of other important "influencers."

While I was reading this I kept thinking of Time Magazine's "The Person of the Year is You", which caused a minor stir last December with its cover containing a little mirror in a YouTube-like screen. On one level the piece was simple trend-spotting, a comment on the phenomenon (undoubtedly reaching new heights in '06) of social media production. But it could also be read as a thinly camouflaged corporate memo announcing big media's awakening to the potentially enormous profits of an ad-based media network in which the users do all the work of filtering. And it's precisely the sorts of "influencers" in this WSJ piece that are the "you" on which they are hoping to capitalize. The "you" that convinced Google that $1.8 billion was a price worth paying for YouTube, or Rupert Murdoch a half billion for MySpace (I would have liked to have heard more in the article about the way this phenomenon is playing out on these two sites through the video "channels" and friend networks).

It all adds up to a pretty astonishing redefinition of what "the media" is. The front page, the lead story, the primetime lineup -- all in constant renegotiation, constantly rearranged. Yet still in so many ways dependent on the established sources for the materials to be filtered (and probably in the future for personal income, as is already beginning). Feeders and filterers. The new media ecology doesn't destroy the old one, it absorbs it into a new relationship.

Posted by ben vershbow at 7:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

ecclesiastical proust archive: starting a community   02.09.2007, 7:46 AM

(Jeff Drouin is in the English Ph.D. Program at The Graduate Center of the City University of New York)

About three weeks ago I had lunch with Ben, Eddie, Dan, and Jesse to talk about starting a community with one of my projects, the Ecclesiastical Proust Archive. I heard of the Institute for the Future of the Book some time ago in a seminar meeting (I think) and began reading the blog regularly last Summer, when I noticed the archive was mentioned in a comment on Sarah Northmore's post regarding Hurricane Katrina and print publishing infrastructure. The Institute is on the forefront of textual theory and criticism (among many other things), and if:book is a great model for the kind of discourse I want to happen at the Proust archive. When I finally started thinking about how to make my project collaborative I decided to contact the Institute, since we're all in Brooklyn, to see if we could meet. I had an absolute blast and left their place swimming in ideas!

While my main interest was in starting a community, I had other ideas — about making the archive more editable by readers — that I thought would form a separate discussion. But once we started talking I was surprised by how intimately the two were bound together.

For those who might not know, The Ecclesiastical Proust Archive is an online tool for the analysis and discussion of à la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time). It's a searchable database pairing all 336 church-related passages in the (translated) novel with images depicting the original churches or related scenes. The search results also provide paratextual information about the pagination (it's tied to a specific print edition), the story context (since the passages are violently decontextualized), and a set of associations (concepts, themes, important details, like tags in a blog) for each passage. My purpose in making it was to perform a meditation on the church motif in the Recherche as well as a study on the nature of narrative.

I think the archive could be a fertile space for collaborative discourse on Proust, narratology, technology, the future of the humanities, and other topics related to its mission. A brief example of that kind of discussion can be seen in this forum exchange on the classification of associations. Also, the church motif — which some might think too narrow — actually forms the central metaphor for the construction of the Recherche itself and has an almost universal valence within it. (More on that topic in this recent post on the archive blog).

Following the if:book model, the archive could also be a spawning pool for other scholars' projects, where they can present and hone ideas in a concentrated, collaborative environment. Sort of like what the Institute did with Mitchell Stephens' Without Gods and Holy of Holies, a move away from the 'lone scholar in the archive' model that still persists in academic humanities today.

One of the recurring points in our conversation at the Institute was that the Ecclesiastical Proust Archive, as currently constructed around the church motif, is "my reading" of Proust. It might be difficult to get others on board if their readings — on gender, phenomenology, synaesthesia, or whatever else — would have little impact on the archive itself (as opposed to the discussion spaces). This complex topic and its practical ramifications were treated more fully in this recent post on the archive blog.

I'm really struck by the notion of a "reading" as not just a private experience or a public writing about a text, but also the building of a dynamic thing. This is certainly an advantage offered by social software and networked media, and I think the humanities should be exploring this kind of research practice in earnest. Most digital archives in my field provide material but go no further. That's a good thing, of course, because many of them are immensely useful and important, such as the Kolb-Proust Archive for Research at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Some archives — such as the NINES project — also allow readers to upload and tag content (subject to peer review). The Ecclesiastical Proust Archive differs from these in that it applies the archival model to perform criticism on a particular literary text, to document a single category of lexia for the experience and articulation of textuality.

If the Ecclesiastical Proust Archive widens to enable readers to add passages according to their own readings (let's pretend for the moment that copyright infringement doesn't exist), to tag passages, add images, add video or music, and so on, it would eventually become a sprawling, unwieldy, and probably unbalanced mess. That is the very nature of an Archive. Fine. But then the original purpose of the project — doing focused literary criticism and a study of narrative — might be lost.

If the archive continues to be built along the church motif, there might be enough work to interest collaborators. The enhancements I currently envision include a French version of the search engine, the translation of some of the site into French, rewriting the search engine in PHP/MySQL, creating a folksonomic functionality for passages and images, and creating commentary space within the search results (and making that searchable). That's some heavy work, and a grant would probably go a long way toward attracting collaborators.

So my sense is that the Proust archive could become one of two things, or two separate things. It could continue along its current ecclesiastical path as a focused and led project with more-or-less particular roles, which might be sufficient to allow collaborators a sense of ownership. Or it could become more encyclopedic (dare I say catholic?) like a wiki. Either way, the organizational and logistical practices would need to be carefully planned. Both ways offer different levels of open-endedness. And both ways dovetail with the very interesting discussion that has been happening around Ben's recent post on the million penguins collaborative wiki-novel.

Right now I'm trying to get feedback on the archive in order to develop the best plan possible. I'll be demonstrating it and raising similar questions at the Society for Textual Scholarship conference at NYU in mid-March. So please feel free to mention the archive to anyone who might be interested and encourage them to contact me at jdrouin@gc.cuny.edu. And please feel free to offer thoughts, comments, questions, criticism, etc. The discussion forum and blog are there to document the archive's development as well.

Thanks for reading this very long post. It's difficult to do anything small-scale with Proust!

Posted by jeff drouin at 7:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

commentpress update   02.08.2007, 7:50 AM

Since we launched Holy of Holies last year, we've made a lot of progress with the paragraph-level commenting system we've been building on top of Wordpress. We've taken to calling it "Commentpress," and until we get significant pushback (or a great alternative suggestion), we're sticking with it. This is a pre-announcement to say that we're pursuing plans to open it up as a plugin for Wordpress in March (middle to end of the month).

The original instantiation was put together very quickly over the course of a week and was the dictionary definition of a hack. Still, we knew we had something that was worthwhile from the feedback we received, and we were excited to figure out the next step for Commentpress. That was almost two months ago. In that time, we've launched three other sites in Commentpress (1 2 3). Each new installation has seen additions and refinements to the Commentpress functionality. But we haven't released it.

Why the delay? It's not because we are reluctant to let it go. No, it's just that we feel a responsibility to present a project that is ready for the community to act upon. And that means taking a good crack at it ourselves: we want to have a minimum level of ease of use in the installation, a little documentation, and a code package that looks like something constructed by humans rather than something that crawled out from the primordial ooze. That will take a little time due to all the other projects and launches we've got throughout the spring. We're also spending time trying to figure out how to manage an open-source project. Since we've never really done it before, suggestions, case studies, horror stories, and revealing of miracles are welcome.

Thanks for your patience, and we'll keep you informed.

Posted by jesse wilbur at 7:50 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

going, going, . . . .   02.07.2007, 10:15 PM

David Streitfield wrote a smart piece on the demise of the independent bookstore in todays' LA Times. It's not particularly nostalgic, just an intelligent analysis of why bookstores are disappearing.

Posted by bob stein at 10:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

video (in your own words)   02.07.2007, 10:28 AM

is the slogan of Mojiti, a company based in Beijing which has enabled commenting for video. Users can annotate any video on YouTube, Google, MySpace and about twenty other providers with text, shape and images. the annotations can be animated as well. The interface for making comments is unusually simple and straightforward. On first glance this is an important step forward in web 2.0 applications. [note: the demos all show text fields with solid backgrounds obscuring the video. in fact it's quite easy to make the text box transparent or to turn off the annotations at any point to see the unalloyed video]

Posted by bob stein at 10:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

a million penguins: a wiki-novelty   02.07.2007, 7:03 AM

You may by now have heard about A Million Penguins, the wiki-novel experiment currently underway at Penguin Books. They're trying to find out if a self-organizing collective of writers can produce a credible novel on a live website. A dubious idea if you believe a novel is almost by definition the product of a singular inspiration, but praiseworthy nonetheless for its experimental bravado.

Already, they've run into trouble. Knowing a thing or two about publicity, Penguin managed to get a huge amount of attention to the site -- probably too much -- almost immediately. Hundreds of contributors have signed up: mostly earnest, some benignly mischievous, others bent wholly on disruption. I was reminded naturally of the LA Times' ill-fated "wikitorial" experiment in June of '05 in which readers were invited to rewrite the paper's editorials. Within the first few hours, the LAT had its windshield wipers going at full speed and yet still they couldn't keep up with the shit storm of vandalism that was unleashed -- particularly one cyber-hooligan's repeated posting of the notorious "goatse" image that has haunted many a dream. They canceled the experiment just two days after launch.

All signs indicate that Penguin will not be so easily deterred, though they are making various adjustments to the system as they go. In response to general frustration at the relentless pace of edits, they're currently trying out a new policy of freezing the wiki for several hours each afternoon in order to create a stable "reading window" to help participants and the Penguin editors who are chronicling the process to get oriented. This seems like a good idea (flexibility is definitely the right editorial MO in a project like this). And unlike the LA Times they seem to have kept the spam and vandalism to within tolerable limits, in part with the help of students in the MA program in creative writing and new media at De Montfort University in Leicester, UK, who are official partners in the project.

When I heard the De Montfort folks would be helping to steer the project I was excited. It's hard to start a wiki project with no previously established community in the hot glare of a media spotlight . Having a group of experienced writers at the helm, or at least gently nudging the tiller -- writers like Kate Pullinger, author of the Inanimate Alice series, who are tapped into the new forms and rhythms of the Net -- seemed like a smart move that might lend the project some direction. But digging a bit through the talk pages and revision histories, I've found little discernible contribution from De Montfort other than spam cleanup and general housekeeping. A pity not to utilize them more. It would be great to hear their thoughts about all of this on the blog.

So anyway, the novel.

Not surprisingly it's incoherent. You might get something similar if you took a stack of supermarket checkout lane potboilers and some Mad Libs and threw them in a blender. Far more interesting is the discussion page behind the novel where one can read the valiant efforts of participants to communicate with one another and to instill some semblance of order. Here are the battle wounded from the wiki fray... characters staggering about in search of an author. Writers in search of an editor. One person, obviously dismayed at the narrative's dogged refusal to make sense, suggests building separate pages devoted exclusively to plotting out story arcs. Another exclaims: "THE STORY AS OF THIS MOMENT IS THE STORY - you are permitted to make slight changes in past, but concentrate on where we are now and move forward." Another proceeds to forcefully disagree. Others, even more exasperated, propose forking the project into alternative novels and leaving the chaotic front page to the buzzards. How ironic it would be if each user ended up just creating their own page and writing the novel they wanted to write -- alone.

Reading through these paratexts, I couldn't help thinking that this was in fact the real story being written. Might the discussion page contain the seeds of a Tristram Shandyesque tale about a collaborative novel-writing experiment gone horribly awry, in which the much vaunted "novel" exists only in its total inability to be written?

*     *     *     *     *

The problem with A Million Penguins in a nutshell is that the concept of a "wiki-novel" is an oxymoron. A novel is probably as un-collaborative a literary form as you can get, while a wiki is inherently collaborative. Wikipedia works because encyclopedias were always in a sense collective works -- distillations of collective knowledge -- so the wiki was the right tool for reinventing that form. Here that tool is misapplied. Or maybe it's the scale of participation that is the problem here. Too many penguins. I can see a wiki possibly working for a smaller narrative community.

All of this is not to imply that collaborative fiction is a pipe dream or that no viable new forms have yet been devised. Just read Sebastian Mary's fascinating survey, published here a couple of weeks back, of emergent net-native literary forms and you'll see that there's plenty going on in other channels. In addition to some interesting reflections on YouTube, Mary talks about ARGs, or alternative reality games, a new participatory form in which communities of readers write the story as they go, blending fact and fiction, pulling in multiple media, and employing a range of collaborative tools. Perhaps most pertinent to Penguin's novel experiment, Mary points out that the ARG typically is not a form in which stories are created out of whole cloth, rather they are patchworks, woven from the rich fragmentary litter of popular culture and the Web:

Participants know that someone is orchestrating a storyline, but that it will not unfold without the active contribution of the decoders, web-surfers, inveterate Googlers and avid readers tracking leads, clues, possible hints and unfolding events through the chaos of the Web. Rather than striving for that uber-modernist concept, 'originality', an ARG is predicated on the pre-existence of the rest of the Net, and works like a DJ with the content already present. In this, it has more in common with the magpie techniques of Montaigne (1533-92), or the copious 'authoritative' quotations of Chaucer than contemporary notions of the author-as-originator.

Penguin too had the whole wide Web to work with, not to mention the immense body of literature in its own publishing vault, which seems ripe for a remix or a collaborative cut-up session. But instead they chose the form that is probably most resistant to these new social forms of creativity. The result is a well intentioned but confused attempt at innovation. A novelty, yes. But a novel, not quite.

Posted by ben vershbow at 7:03 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

re-imagining the academic conference in the networked era   02.04.2007, 3:16 PM

Last spring i gave a talk at the Getty Research Institute organized by Bill Tronzo, an art historian at UC San Diego. Bill told me about a conference he's planning for 2008 on the subject of fame and said he was interested in exploring new ways of presenting the conference proceedings. i invited Bill to come to NY to discuss this with me, ben, dan, ray and jesse. In the course of the discussion we convinced Bill that it would be really interesting to re-think not just the form of the proceedings that get published after the conference, but the structure of the academic conference itself. For anyone whose been to a big academic meeting lately and sat through endless panels where anywhere from five to as many as ten people get a few minutes to read or summarize a paper it's clear that the form is need of an overhaul. Academic conferences, just like academic presses, have been perverted and turned away from their original purpose -- to encourage and enable intellectual discourse -- in order to become key vehicles in the tenure/review process.

The connection between re-thinking conferences and re-thinking books goes much deeper. As regular readers of if:book know a lot of our work involves expanding the boundaries of "a book" to include the process that leads up to its creation and the conversation that it engenders. Why not try to expand the notion of a conference to include various aspects of pre-meeting effort and the conversation that goes on during the conference and afterwards. From one perspective, we're not suggesting profoundly different action but rather attempting to capture a lot of what happens in a form that is likely to strengthen the impact of the effort.

We suggested to Bill that it would be interesting to co-sponsor a meeting of a small eclectic group to discuss how we might re-imagine a conference. Gail Feigenbaum and Tom Moritz, the two deputy directors of the GRI were enthusiastic and we held a one-day meeting last week with ten people. meeting planning blog and notes are here.

Following are some notes i wrote after the meeting:

. . . for me the most important outcome of the day was to loosen up long-standing preconceptions about conference formats; we've just touched the surface here and i hope we might find a way to continue the process and deepen our understanding of these issues in the coming months. following are a few thoughts i jotted down on the plane back to NY today. in rereading quickly i think i may have said the same thing six slightly different ways . . . . hopefully at least one will make sense.

is the principal purpose of a conference to provide an excuse/motivation for the writing of a paper or is it to enable face-to-face discussion about questions and themes within a particular discipline. i think it might be too easy to say that of course it's both. i'm wondering which is primary.

the traditional conference which is structured around the presentation of papers might be putting the emphasis on the wrong aspect; focusing on the presentation of the author/speaker while leaving the discussion for the hallways, dinner tables and cocktail lounges. conferences officially capture the one thing which you don't need a conference to capture - the written record of the formal paper. we can do better than this.

what would happen if we saw the principal purpose of a face-to-face conference getting people to look at discipline-specific problems in new ways; i.e. not mainly generating new knowledge in the form of papers, but encouraging a re-thinking and/or deeper analysis of the key issues in the field. from this perspective, the role/goal of the organizer is to ask good questions and create an environment for a vigorous discussion, sending people home with fresh perpectives for approaching their work.

what happens if the stars of a conference aren't the writers of papers but rather brilliant discussion moderators who know how to lead engaging discussions? what happens if the important yield of a conference isn't pre-prepared papers but a "record" of a complex discussion which deepens everyone's understanding of the questions.

what happens if we see papers not as what happens "at conferences" but what happens between conferences?

what happens if we begin to see the most important aspect of knowledge, not the content of papers but the discussion about the ideas in a paper?

i'm quite sure that many of these questions i'm raising are too simplistic, but am hoping that they might help continue the process of trying to understand the essential purpose of academic discourse and the forms it might take.

Posted by bob stein at 3:16 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

back to the backlist   02.02.2007, 8:22 AM

An article in last Sunday's NYT got me thinking about how book sales can be affected by media, in quite different ways than music, or even movies are, as illustrated in Chris Anderson's blog mentioned here by Sebastian Mary. While bands, and even cineasts, are increasingly using the Web to share and/or distribute their productions for free, they are doing it in order to create a following; their future live audience in a theater or club. Something a bit different happens with classical music, and here I include contemporary groups that don't fit the "band" label, where the concert experience usually precedes the purchase of the music. In the case of classical music, the public is usually people who can afford very high prices to see true luminaries at a great concert hall, and who probably don't even know how to download music. The human aspect of the live show is what I find fascinating. A great soprano might be having a bad night and may just not hit that high note for which one paid that high price, but nothing beats the magic of sound produced by humans in front of one's eyes and ears. Though I love listening to music alone, and the sounds of the digestion of the person sitting next to me in the theater mortify me, I wouldn't exchange the experience of the live show for its perfectly digitized counterpart.

This long preface to illustrate a similar, but rather odd, phenomenon. Russian Thinkers by Isaiah Berlin has disappeared from all bookshops in New York. Anne Cattaneo, the dramaturg of Tom Stoppard's "The Coast of Utopia" (reviewed here by Jesse Wilbur) which opened at Lincoln Center on Nov. 27, provided in the show's Playbill a list titled "For Audience Members Interested in Further Reading" with Russian Thinkers at the top. Since then, the demand for the book has been such, that Penguin has ordered two reprintings (3,500 copies) for the first time in the twelve years since the book has been printed, and which used to sell about 36 copies a month in the whole US. "A play hardly ever drives people to bookstores" says Paul Daly a book buyer, but Stoppard's trilogy has moved its audience to resort not only to the learned notes inserted into the Playbill, but to further erudition on the Internet in order to figure out the more than 70 characters depicting Russia's 19th century amalgam of intellectuals dreaming of revolution.

Penguin has asked Henry Hardy, one of the original editors of the book to prepare a new edition that could be reissued as a Penguin Classic. If all this is product of a play whose audience is evidently interested in extracting, and debating, the meaning of its characters, a networked edition would have made great sense. Printed matter seems to have proven insufficient here.

Posted by sol gaitan at 8:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack