Blook of "Faith Commons"

In February this year Bill over at Faith Commons wrote a post "Introducing The Blook." He called what he was envisioning "an adventure":

"It's an online adventure and it will be the writing of a blook together. No, that's not a typo. Blook is a book that is written online, the mashup of blog and book. But this won't be just any book. This blook won't have editions like bound books, but will have releases like software. As we learn something new, or understand something better, we will update part of the blook. It will be an open source blook as well. There will be multiple authors and even perhaps, multiple websites or communities. It may even have multiple tables of contents to give a different sequence for a different purpose."

I took a bit of an exception to his definition of the product as a blook. [It was six weeks ago -- when I was young and foolish and full of myself.] So I left Bill a comment:

Definition of blook
I hesitate to say this because I think the idea of a collaborative blook is such a good one. The definition of blook is generally understood to be something that ends up in a dead tree version. What you are envisioning is perhaps more of an ebook?

A few days later Bill commented back:

Originally, the idea that a completed package that could be printed out and read somewhere else, perhaps on the toilet :), and updated as our understanding grew, seemed the perfect idea. But killing trees for each new release is not only wasteful, it seems tiresome and out of tune with the project.

This is reminiscent of Carbondale After Blog, which the author describes as:

"A multi-media publication in print and electronic formats. Only the first page of each chapter will be printed in the paper edition, but a compact disc containing the complete text (thousands of words) of every chapter, plus hundreds of color images, audio and video files in addition to links to web-based content."

Bill continued by saying, "I'm thinking that online, shared redaction is perhaps the greater step in global communication and shared writing."

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I took a peek at The Germaine Truth project. Although it's fiction writing, it is collaborative.

"The Germaine Truth is made up of a dozen different websites representing different aspects of the fictional town of Germaine, Oregon. We realize that this might seem daunting at first. Just realize that most of the pages are auxilary to the story and you don’t have to read them all, or any of them, to enjoy the main story, which is contained in Susie Applegate’s blog."

Something I read there suggested that the group felt that Germaine Truth was a "new form of literature" but really wouldn't make for a book. [Duane Poncy has agreed to one of the writers doing a guest post here to talk about that.]

I'm taking a stab in the dark here but I don't think Germaine Truth is or will be concerned with redaction. It sounds more like [I only took a peek remember] that the writers are working independently but with an eye on each other's work. It would seem to me that the Faith Commons blook could be done along those lines. Each author's work standing by itself but next-to or aligned-with the others.

So when Bill says, "I would love to hear your thoughts on group editing," my response is, "I don't see the need for it."

What do you think?