The Ometon's Secret (Pt.2)

(This is a continuation of a rant you really should read first.)

I don't have a lot of time.

Who does? Well, besides all those detestable blokes who mindlessly chant "I'm bored" while sitting in a room and staring at fixed wall of text. They are wasting their life, however, thus their time cannot be wasted in any extra amount. Most of us, on the other hand, have precious few hours in the day, and the entire writing process can burn through lot of them: planning, plying, and proofreading. Under constraints such as a hour or twenty-four, a whole story arc can only be completed with incredibly short stories, which cannot make up the bulk of one's literary efforts. They require highly specialized and gimmicked motifs to work in so small a span of time, and repeating the process will drain that reserve of ideas in a hurry.

There is an alternative, fortunately enough for we who enjoy the art yet lack ample time. It is a method custom-fit for the internet: collaborative writing. The most popular example of this nowadays would be the Wiki software -- multiple authors contributing small amounts to a single effort. While Wikis are (mostly) non-fiction, there does exist, too, collaborative fiction, in which a single story is written by multiple authors. The major drawback to these, however, is that the contributions of an author can be entirely lost; any section of the multi-author work is subject to editing and thus subject to be cut or entirely stripped of any identity that tied it to the original author. This can defeat the collaborative approach -- not by numbers, but rather by a majority ruling an allegedly joint effort with a single, uncooperative mindset.

A proven way to ensure that a work remains a true group effort is by implementing progressive collaborative writing or fiction. Better yet is that this method can be implemented in software as simple as a message board or forum. Past writings are not subject to editing by other authors; more can only be added to whenever the story last left. Whatever is written cannot be changed -- only the course of the story can be. The world does not accommodate the authors; they must adjust to any unforeseen changes. This is much less about planning and more about thriving in the moment; being unable to control every aspect can open up paths never before thought possible, especially when a writer has no choice but to accept every other authors' whimsy.

This method is not without its drawbacks, however. In fact, its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: The past is immutable. While this serves to respect every author's vision, it could potentially lock in harmful changes or ingrain plot holes or simply poor ideas. Moderators can remove clearly inflammatory additions to a story, but what of poor writing? What of plot holes? Can a moderator remove those, too? Should some system be used to weigh whether or not additions survive, such as a voting or rating system? None of these solve all problems. Either a story is ruled by the moderator's vision, destroying the group effort the progressive system sought to instill, or other readers may not deem a piece of writing as poorly as others, thus ensuring its survival in a story. This can be truly aggravating to see in a work into which one has poured so much effort.

Thus comes the final method: multiple progressive collaborative writing or fiction, also known as splintered or branching collaborative writing. The unwieldiness of its name alone is possibly why it is not seen more, or only seen under a simpler and less true guise. As with the previous method, the past remains fixed; which past remains a choice. Authors may continue writing for a story at any point in time -- adding on to any previous post, not just the most recent.

There is never a need for anger, for no change need be permanent in any author's chosen storyline. Writing can be done in a short amount of time; reading can be done in just the same, and only along any or all of the paths they deem enjoyable. Instead of two writers adding simultaneously creating an inconsistency in the story, it simply creates two alternate lines of development. No writer's work is ever lost, but every author may simply decide to drive the plot around it instead. A writer need not feel neglected, however, as their storyline may be picked up at any time in the future. Although if their writings are skipped over often, it should be a hint.

Splintered writing creates a number of plot lines, branching out like a tree. That is really the only drawback to this method; it is not easy to demonstrate, especially in an online environment. Most web content follows a box model, preferring to display content in squares. More advanced technology can render the open-ended, free-flowing, and ever-expanding possibilities of multiple progressive writing. I choose to use SVG, which is a web standard. As far as I am concerned, any software which does not enumerate all of the possibilities to its audience is a waste; these are suitable only for Add-Ventures, or Choose-Your-Own-Adventure styles of writing, which are intended more for deliberate branching and unknown futures and -- more often than not -- are much less serious and less skillful efforts. Of course, they still bear the slightest semblance of a story, unlike the worst writing method of all.

Read the conclusion.