the unbook

[DanaC]

Quick henry, stick on some leather elbow pads and grab a thesis to mark...you're in ...


(@ Bri: only jokin :P)

[Scriveyn]

Originally Posted by Brianna

No. It was an empty threat.
Sigh.

Oi! Who emptied my threat? - I'm sure the glass was full only a moment ago.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Quick henry, stick on some leather elbow pads and grab a thesis to mark...you're in ...


(@ Bri: only jokin :P)

yeah, but it's only too true!

[henry quirk]

okay...it's been a little while since i promised to respond.

a question: is the 'unbook' still a viable concept, or, has it been supplanted by the 'next great idea'?

i'm being only a little facetious.

the 'net has, it sometimes seems to me, a turnover rate for ideas measured in days and hours.

so: it's completely possible the 'unbook' may already rest in some virtual graveyard.

*shrug*

assuming it does not...

as anyone following the multiple threads, on multiple sites, may know: i’m less than impressed with the idea behind the 'unbook'.

it's taken me till now to fully understand why.

previously: i referred to the 'committee' nature of the concept and that -- with fiction at least -- such an approach threatens the idiosyncratic expression of 'one' in favor of 'the many'.

my distaste gelled for me when, last night, i had a sudden realization.

the 'unbook', it seems to me, is very much about castration, the elimination of vision, and the reduction of 'one' to mere part in a looming, overarching, process (never mind the 'one' is the creator without who there would be no process).

in short: the 'unbook' is about 'feminizing', emasculating, and 'it takes a village-ism'.

the unbook -- at heart -- is an exercise in *collectivism which the sensible understand is the ruination of any real endeavor.

any real progress in any field occurs because 'one' exercises him 'self' alone, or as undisputed leader.

to rely on the 'collective' as anything other than proxy (a tool) is foolishness and -- forgive me -- **'female' (let's pass 'round the talking stick and cluck about the 'bun in the oven').

now: mr gray insists in other 'unbook' entries here in this site, the creator retains control of all aspects of the 'unbook', and that the 'unbook' is distinctly different from an 'open book' because of that control.

i would argue, at least as it pertains to fiction, every voice, each pair of eyes, every mind, outside of the creator's is a potential adulterant to the work…for example: fiction is a dicey enough process (one wherein the writer can stumble over himself constantly) without others throwing their 'good ideas' and interpretations into the mix.

certainly: these extra voices, eyes, minds can serve as tools for the creator…but then: that option already exists for the creator…what good purpose is there is codifying a natural, loose, unstructured, event ('mind taking a look a this for me?') into an on-going act of management?

----------

so: have i contributed anything of value to the conversation?

i'm sure i haven't.

in essence: i use my personal preference (i use 'myself') to justify a distaste for what may be a perfectly legitimate method for compiling textbooks, non-fictions, etc.

since, of course, i don't write textbooks, non-fictions, etc. such a method seems alien and 'wrong' to me, so, i'm certain my little protestations fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

that i disparage the great idols 'collective' and 'female', i’m sure, has, or will have, no bearing on anyone's responses.

as i am tolerant of a great many inanities and insanities (while never participating in them), i feel secure a 'agree to disagree' policy is best when it comes to the 'unbook'.

all the best… --henry quirk


*from http://www.asiansofmixedrace.com/def.htm collectivism: giving priority to the goals of one's group (often one's extended family or work group) and defining one's identity accordingly...to my mind: collectivism is synonymous with cog-ism, that is, the view of the individual as 'a subordinate who performs an important but routine function'.

**women are very nice...i like them very much...but: i don't wanna be one.

[DanaC]

I strongly object to your equating the 'elimination of one' and the loss of sole vision (and therefore, I presume, a sense of authorial agency and direction) with the feminine. Frankly your argument would fit rather nicely in my current area of research: 18th and 19th century gender constructions.

[henry quirk]

I strongly object to your equating the 'elimination of one' and the loss of sole vision (and therefore, I presume, a sense of authorial agency and direction) with the feminine.

(((i'm sure you do...however: in my experience (purely anecdotal, of course) my view is sound)))

(((in other words: barring some startling event that flies in the face of my observations, 'that's my story and i'm sticking to it'... )))


Frankly your argument would fit rather nicely in my current area of research: 18th and 19th century gender constructions.

(((and your view (the tiny bit i discern from your post) fits in nicely with my view that many women -- for a variety of self-serving reasons -- desperately want men and women to be interchangeable...this, of course, is an error...verifiably, demonstrably, men and women are NOT interchangeable)))

(((again, anecdotally: women 'cooperate'; men 'compete'...this is the heart of my distaste for the 'unbook'...a textbook compilation may be served well by 'cooperation' (or not...i don't write textbooks, so, i don't 'know' for sure)...i do 'know' a piece fiction can only be watered down into nothingness by the 'unbook' method...and i can think of no better example of 'cooperation' than the hen house)))

(((your objection, however, is noted... )))

[henry quirk]

18th and 19th century gender constructions.

(((any that existed, or exist now, are merely reflective of the profound differences between 'man' and 'woman'...that is: the 'constructions' rest firmly on the soil of the only real, natural, dualism: the vagina and the penis)))

[henry quirk]

post edited because -- in its first version -- i was unduly, and unjustifiably, nasty and mean-spirited

my apologies for nearly visiting such horror on the good people of the cellar...

HA!

[henry quirk]

Dave Gray said,
April 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Hi Henry,

Since I am focused primarily on works that entail understanding and codifying a discipline or field of study, I don’t have much to say about the unbook as a vehicle for fiction. I suppose my aim with the unbook has been far more textbook-oriented.

Since collaboration and consensus (and divisiveness!) are part of the process by which any group defines and organizes itself, I think an unbook could form a useful and necessary hub or focusing device to help define and codify a new discipline or area of study.

I am a painter as well as an author, and I can’t imagine a collaborative, consensus-oriented approach to painting would do anything other than dilute my vision and water down the work.

I didn’t mean to suggest that the author retaining control of an unbook is a requirement — only that it is an option.

I tend to think that if I wrote fiction it would be similar to the way that I paint — a more solitary pursuit. So we might not disagree as much as you might think

I’m not sure whether the unbook has been supplanted by the next thing or not. Maybe so. I’m planning to stick around for awhile though and hope to continue exploring and prototyping the idea.

henry quirk said,
April 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I am a painter as well as an author, and I can’t imagine a collaborative, consensus-oriented approach to painting would do anything other than dilute my vision and water down the work.

(((my point exactly!)))

(((so: we meander ’round the two sides the mountain to arrive at the same camp in the hills…good on us both)))

I’m planning to stick around for awhile though and hope to continue exploring and prototyping the idea

(((i’ll check in from time to time…i have an interest too: a kind of ‘keep your enemies close’ thing… –henry)))

[DanaC]

Women co-operate and men compete? Well...that's very context driven. I am not an ambitious person. Not even remotely driven by any desire for success, and not particularly competitive. Except in academia, where I am very competitive, individualistic, and ambitious.

You are generalising to a great degree. You are confusing what is innate with what is contextual. You are also confusing gender difference with gender construction. I do not believe men and women are interchangeable. What you are talking about has little to do with actual gender difference and much to do with gender constructions as it pertains to expected forms of female expression (much as the old academic view was that Autobiography was a primarily masculine form of expression (due to innate gender differences) and diurnal life-writing a primarily feminine one; likewise the earlier, perceived femininity of novels as a form).

What you are saying is not borne out in the real world.

[henry quirk]

dana:

my comments about men and women were in the context of my perceptions as applied to the notion of the 'unbook'

i said 'anecdotal' and 'anecdotally', not 'empirically'

so: if you're looking for a fight on the very boring subject of men and women, then you'd best look elsewhere...if you dislike my method of pissing on the 'unbook', fine, but you stay far a'field of the thread if you go elsewhere

if you're looking to example your erudition, there are probably better ways to do so...though, to be frank, i don't hold out high hopes for anyone who self-describes as 'armchair socialist'...to self-describe in such a way is, to my mind, the expression of a desire to be absorbed by a greater whole (to become 'cog'), the very notion being hellish to me, and damning, in my opinion, of you

and: if by way of this -- 'Except in academia, where I am very competitive, individualistic, and ambitious.' -- you intend to offer evidence of 'anything', then i must counter: 'academia' is a shelter, a cloister, a dodge away from, and a con on, 'the world'

in other words: 'academia' and 'hen house' (and socialism as far as that goes) have much in common...an obsessive interest in what comes out the nether regions of body or mind, and a fevered desire for 'the world' to see the 'egg' (or bit of shit) as something more impressive than 'egg' (or bit of shit)

*shrug*

as of now: i see no reason to amend myself... --henry

[DanaC]

oh you're just a delight.

Well damning my self-description might be. Damning also are your words here. My respect for you just fell off a cliff.

[sugarpop]

Academia and socialism are a con on the world? A shelter from the world? Really? I would really like to know how you came to that conclusion.

[DanaC]

I'm not sure Sugarpop, but he came awfully close to calling my an hysterical female.

I also am not quite sure why he decided to go off on an insulting and personal attack. but there we go. What can we do eh? He's only a bloke, he can't help himself :P

[Cicero]

Well Dana, he insulted me while we were supposed to just be having a conversation in the philosophy forum. I beleive that you were in that thread, and no one could understand why I would "pick on" him. Oh I am so mean. lol