Collaborative Writing
I have an idea for an innovative method of writing a science fiction novel. What if two authors, with radically different views of society, write the part of the factions that represent them in the novel? With some maturity and mutual respect, it would not have to devolve into something like this example. As They Might Be Giants would say, this could lead to excellence or serious injury.
This weekend I enjoyed reading Marshall Brain's online book explaining why he does not believe in God, "Why Does God Hate Amputees?" So I surfed to his online science fiction novella, "Manna." The first several chapters have some very interesting ideas, but the purpose of the book is to make you think instead of actually being satisfying literature. The driving conflict drains out completely about halfway through, and the rest was a difficult trudge. The character "Eric Renson," who is obviously Marshall Brain, has founded the perfect utopian civilization in the Australian outback and is hailed as a genius. Although it's not a shrill polemic, I think the reason it is not a shrill polemic is that Brain seriously gives no thought whatsoever to any enemies whom he would like the book to refute. The author seems to have given no thought whatsoever to why someone might seriously disagree with him. As a result, it reads like an evangelical tract in the sense that the characters have absolutely no disagreement or suspicion of each other or of Renson. It's like the characters are saying "you mean all I have to do is believe in Jeeeezus? Where do I sign up?" Except instead of Jesus they must pledge their gullibility to nine principles:
1 Everyone is equal
2 Everything is reused
3 Nothing is anonymous
4 Nothing is owned
5 Tell the truth
6 Do no harm
7 Obey the rules
8 Live your life
9 Better and better
Those who do not believe in the nine principles are, in the author's own words of smiling approval, "re-educated." I am not making this up. Totalitarians have always hinged the success of their plans on the idea that everyone will come around to their point of view once their society is in place. The most chilling thing about Brain's vision of a panopticon police state is that he himself can't even seem to conceive of story characters who don't immediately love it. He doesn't even consider what the robots think about it, on whose labor the society is built and who are apparently smarter than humans.
Here's the good news. As I read it I immediately started thinking of characters and plot events as the seams in the society start to crack apart. The experience suddenly became enthralling. If only it were published under a Creative Commons license, I would love to write a sequel to the book, full of tension, paranoia, murder, suspense, betrayal, secrets, and a world-shaking climax.
Comments
Anonymous on Nov. 3, 2005 4:50 PM
This is fantastic! It must be done!
matt-arnold on Nov. 3, 2005 4:51 PM
Great, thank you Anonymous! Now tell me your name is Marshall Brain and I can begin!
rachelann1977 on Nov. 3, 2005 11:34 PM
oops, forgot I was downtown, and hadn't logged in. Sorry to dissapoint, though :-( I'm obviously not Marshall Brain.
treebones on Nov. 3, 2005 5:57 PM
It *does* sound like a good idea. Might end up with vaguely schizophrenic fiction...but maybe not.
ericthemage on Nov. 3, 2005 9:59 PM
This sort of reminds me of the Thieves' World series of books, where a world was created, and a set of characters were used, and each author could do whatever they wanted with the world or characters as long as no one was killed off. There were a variety of different authors involved, so there were quite a few different viewpoints.
Leave a Comment