(A)GPL as a license for fiction?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

What ever you do, keep writing, your grasp of a good story is an inspiration. Problem would be that, if I want to source your work, there's an awful lot of anonymouses out there - even from BC......

Thanks for the compliment I'll put secret codes in the covers like some of the old masters. Now, I'll need to think up some secret codes...

[omk3]

Please use a name. Any name.
Stories are told by someone. Of course they are free once they are told, but I like to be able to imagine this someone who tells them. I would also like to hear more stories from certain someones that appeal to me. Having, as a reader, to search through a sea of anonymous stories for the ones that will appeal to me, is overwhelming.
Please sign your work, so that it can be found and read. And then if you so wish, explicitly set it free.

(edit) By the way, are you familiar with the Luther Blisset project?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by omk3

Please use a name. Any name.
Stories are told by someone. Of course they are free once they are told, but I like to be able to imagine this someone who tells them. I would also like to hear more stories from certain someones that appeal to me. Having, as a reader, to search through a sea of anonymous stories for the ones that will appeal to me, is overwhelming.
Please sign your work, so that it can be found and read. And then if you so wish, explicitly set it free.

(edit) By the way, are you familiar with the Luther Blisset project?

Excellent stuff. I'd never heard of that project before, but it does sound exciting and right up my street. Damn, it's exciting to be alive and writing, and also I'll tell you the secret code when I've thought of it...or I could sell secret decoder rings to people so they can access my work

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Excellent stuff. I'd never heard of that project before, but it does sound exciting and right up my street. Damn, it's exciting to be alive and writing, and also I'll tell you the secret code when I've thought of it...or I could sell secret decoder rings to people so they can access my work

don't jest ... you don't want to lose your adoring public - do you !!!!

[omk3]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Excellent stuff. I'd never heard of that project before, but it does sound exciting and right up my street. Damn, it's exciting to be alive and writing, and also I'll tell you the secret code when I've thought of it...or I could sell secret decoder rings to people so they can access my work

this sounds an awful lot like drm!

Seriously though. Knowing your love for a certain Mr. Brown, what if he wrote anonymously too? How could you avoid wasting your time on his stories, if you couldn't know they were his before you read at least a few pages? And don't answer that he would never write if he could not take credit in the first place

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

don't jest ... you don't want to lose your adoring public - do you !!!!

What is interesting, and I think you might appreciate this as a poet, is that (and no offence meant to the very kind people who've read what I've written) audience doesn't really matter. My own process, the evolution of my interaction with writing has gone from wanting to be published then onto wanting to be read and now I'm at the point where there is nothing truly beyond the writing. That is of the utmost concern to me, beyond that I'd like it if the words rather than the writer were appreciated.

Imagine then if all writing was without author. Where you would have to make your decision based upon the words rather than any affiliations with or knowledge of the writer. I think it's an exciting possibility that's now fully explorable with the technology at hand. What excites me even more is the idea that other people could actually benefit from what I've done. That's astounding to me, and beyond my wildest dreams. In my romantic notion I see some kid in a third world country with only limited access to the web grabbing up a copy of something I've put out there without any restrictions and the kid, being a little savvy, slaps on a cover and starts selling the work online. Okay, so maybe he doesn't make a ton of cash, but he makes something. This kid I don't know makes money of what I've done. Without even trying I've helped someone, how cool would that be? (Yes, I'm overly romantic. And yes this won't happen. But just on the off chance...)

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by omk3

this sounds an awful lot like drm!

Seriously though. Knowing your love for a certain Mr. Brown, what if he wrote anonymously too? How could you avoid wasting your time on his stories, if you couldn't know they were his before you read at least a few pages? And don't answer that he would never write if he could not take credit in the first place

I wouldn't ever support DRM in any form, but I would like a secret decoder ring.. and I hope I haven't given any traditional publishers any ideas about using hardware to decode software.

As to the authorial claim I'm finding that what attracts me to writers is their style and what they have to say and I have to wonder does the name, the person attached really change anything of my interest (apart from being attracted to them through their exposure). Would our decisions on what we read be better informed if it was directly because of what we'd read instead of a name attached, a face, a marketing campaign? Aren't we, when we read an unknown author, doing this to a certain extent?

I like the idea of creating without expectation. Of releasing works without any foreshadowing of their content. This then leads to another question, one that I'm most interested in discovering. Without name, without any indication on first introduction, can we know an author by what they write alone? Would this approach be the most honest to take?

I know a lot of writers see digital freedom as an opportunity to make money, but I do not. I see it as an opportunity to gain freedom from money and the traditional roles of publishing. That might come of as a bit artsy-fartsy, but it really isn't. Writing is something I love, a passion if you will, and I take it seriously on that level, so my decisions must also follow in line with this passion. Besides all that, I can always dash off some pulp stuff if I really want to make money and release it under the name Dick Dickinson.

[omk3]

Writers have written under (multiple) pseudonyms for centuries. Some have done so to see if their success was because of their writing or their fame. Some have done so to reach a fresh audience, despite of their fame. And for a multitude of other reasons too, I would think. This is barely new, or a characteristic of the digital age.

Writing is all that it is about for you, and that's how it should be. But then the story belongs to the public, you say so yourself. However you have repeatedly taken your work off the internet, I'm guessing because you don't identify with it any more, even though it's under multiple names, probably all false. I wonder if it's not for the sake of freedom, but for the sake of distancing yourself from what is no longer yours, that you want to be truly anonymous? Excuse my rambling, just thinking aloud.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by omk3

Writers have written under (multiple) pseudonyms for centuries. Some have done so to see if their success was because of their writing or their fame. Some have done so to reach a fresh audience, despite of their fame. And for a multitude of other reasons too, I would think. This is barely new, or a characteristic of the digital age.

Writing is all that it is about for you, and that's how it should be. But then the story belongs to the public, you say so yourself. However you have repeatedly taken your work off the internet, I'm guessing because you don't identify with it any more, even though it's under multiple names, probably all false. I wonder if it's not for the sake of freedom, but for the sake of distancing yourself from what is no longer yours, that you want to be truly anonymous? Excuse my rambling, just thinking aloud.

Partly I take stuff down and destroy it because that's the only control I have over that writing, and it isn't much of a control, once something is on the internet it is there for good. Someone, somewhere has a copy. Also at least one of those take downs was because my gmail got infested or hacked or soemthing horrible and I didn't want it spreading outwards.

I think you're right, though, about the distance thing, but I also believe it ties into the not wanting it to be about the 'me' of it all. I'll use Stephen King as an example. Stephen King hasn't written anything worthwhile in over ten years. He has consistently written bad material, over and over again, with little to no interruption in that flow. Stephen King stopped being a writer a long time ago and instead became Stephen King. Now his son, Joe Hill is published. Hardback horror published in markets that haven't seen a push on hardback horror in a decade. Joe Hill is published because Stephen King is his father.

These are corruptions of a system that is already corrupted. Stephen King once wrote under the pseudonym Richard Bachman and everybody but the public knew it was Stephen King. Richard Bachman got good marketing because it was truly Stephen King.

The cult of personality behind writing, the ego of the attached name, I'm not truly comfortable with and I probably never will be. That's at least partially what I'm trying to address with all this. It also begs this question: In the age of the digital is there any such thing as an author any longer? Aren't we, as writers merely the first domino that's toppled in the row?

[J. Strnad]

I understand what you're saying about the cult of personality, but I'd still like to see your name on the work, even if you give it to the public domain. I value that human connection with an author. It's an interesting idea to issue "authorless" work, but the novelty of that might be more distracting than having an author's name appended.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I understand what you're saying about the cult of personality, but I'd still like to see your name on the work, even if you give it to the public domain. I value that human connection with an author. It's an interesting idea to issue "authorless" work, but the novelty of that might be more distracting than having an author's name appended.

Are we not moving towards that very situation though, as a culture, as participants with in that culture? The value proposition might change soon, from our old notions of the individual, the sole author, to the work and many authors (credited or not).

It's all exciting whichever angle you might approach the digital world from as a creator. Best time to be a creator than any other time in history, I would guess.

[omk3]

Stephen King, though, is part of a commercial system designed to make money. Indie writers, offering their work for free, or even for some small amount, have no marketing backing. They only have their words themselves. Their signature doesn't have the power of a famous name, it can't mislead you into liking something (if that even makes sense).

I've discovered many indie writers I like. Part of it (the discovery, not the liking) is word of mouth, part of it is meeting them personally (digitally), part of it is I just stumbled on an interesting title or cover and decided to give it a go. Nothing was part of a commercial machine. Those writers that I like, I want to read more of them. Maybe I will like their next book, maybe I won't. I'll look at their books favourably though, because I have already some kind of rapport with them through the first book I've read.

There is a relationship between reader and writer, and it has nothing to do with marketing. It's like hearing the news of old friends. Maybe you don't want that relationship, but it is one of the things I like about reading. Both writer and reader evolve and change through time, maybe they grow apart or maybe closer together, and the dialog may grow interesting or stale. Like any relationship. Writing without signature may not be entirely impersonal, because part of the writer will always be in the story, but it takes this relationship away from me.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by omk3

Stephen King, though, is part of a commercial system designed to make money. Indie writers, offering their work for free, or even for some small amount, have no marketing backing. They only have their words themselves. Their signature doesn't have the power of a famous name, it can't mislead you into liking something (if that even makes sense).

I've discovered many indie writers I like. Part of it (the discovery, not the liking) is word of mouth, part of it is meeting them personally (digitally), part of it is I just stumbled on an interesting title or cover and decided to give it a go. Nothing was part of a commercial machine. Those writers that I like, I want to read more of them. Maybe I will like their next book, maybe I won't. I'll look at their books favourably though, because I have already some kind of rapport with them through the first book I've read.

There is a relationship between reader and writer, and it has nothing to do with marketing. It's like hearing the news of old friends. Maybe you don't want that relationship, but it is one of the things I like about reading. Both writer and reader evolve and change through time, maybe they grow apart or maybe closer together, and the dialog may grow interesting or stale. Like any relationship. Writing without signature may not be entirely impersonal, because part of the writer will always be in the story, but it takes this relationship away from me.

You know I've never seen it in those terms, about taking something away, which now leads me into other paths of thought on this subject. Man, if only I was Stephen King

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You know I've never seen it in those terms, about taking something away, which now leads me into other paths of thought on this subject. Man, if only I was Stephen King

You won't be if you are anonymous ...



But if you don't post your writings with an identifier, those of us who enjoy said writing, will not be able to find it in amongst all the other stuff. But I agree with you that the writing is a significant part of a process. I still, though, want to have the association between the the author<>writing<>reader.....

[DawnFalcon]

Just to point out - if a work is by anonymous, then there is no way to check it's actually in the PD. If there's a name it's far easier.